------
HomePage|979586833
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!
------
HomePage|979588226
1a2,63
> 
> Foundational Disciplines
> PhilosophyAndLogic
> MathematicsAndStatistics
> 
> Natural Sciences
> PhysicS
> ChemistrY
> AstronomY
> EarthSciences
> BiologY
> 	BotanY
> 	ZoologY
> 
> SOCIAL SCIENCES 
> PSYCHOLOGY 
> LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGES 
> ANTHROPOLOGY 
> ARCHAEOLOGY 
> SOCIOLOGY 
> POLITICAL SCIENCE 
> GEOGRAPHY 
> ECONOMICS 
> HISTORY 
> HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
> ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA 
> 
> APPLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 
> HEALTH SCIENCES 
> THE LAW 
> PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
> EDUCATION 
> ENGINEERING 
> ARCHITECTURE 
>       URBAN PLANNING 
> TRANSPORTATION 
>       AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY 
> COMPUTERS 
> BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 
> AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE 
> COMMUNICATION 
> LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 
> FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES 
> 
> CULTURE 
> CLASSICS 
> CRITICAL THEORY 
> LITERATURE 
> VISUAL ARTS AND DESIGN 
>       PAINTING 
>       SCULPTURE 
> PERFORMING ARTS 
>       THEATER AND DRAMA 
>       DANCE 
>       MUSIC 
>       FILM 
> RELIGION 
> RECREATION 
>       SPORTS 
>       GAMES 
>       HOBBIES 
>       TOURISM 
------
HomePage|979588279
3a4
> 
4a6
> 
6a9
> 
7a11
> 
8a13
> 
9a15
> 
10a17
> 
11a19
> 
63c71
<       TOURISM 
---
>       TOURISM 
------
WikiPedia|979588352
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> WikiPedia is a wide-open encyclopedia project.  Who knows where it will go?
> 
> We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
> 
------
PhilosophyAndLogic|979602227
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Let's work on articles on (at least) these famous philosophers:
> 
> AristotlE
> PlatO
> EpicuruS
> ReneDescartes
> ImmanuelKant
> AynRand
> 
> 
------
PhilosophyAndLogic|979602244
3a4
> 
4a6
> 
5a8
> 
6a10
> 
7a12
> 
------
HomePage|979602301
24,71c24
< SOCIAL SCIENCES 
< PSYCHOLOGY 
< LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGES 
< ANTHROPOLOGY 
< ARCHAEOLOGY 
< SOCIOLOGY 
< POLITICAL SCIENCE 
< GEOGRAPHY 
< ECONOMICS 
< HISTORY 
< HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
< ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA 
< 
< APPLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 
< HEALTH SCIENCES 
< THE LAW 
< PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
< EDUCATION 
< ENGINEERING 
< ARCHITECTURE 
<       URBAN PLANNING 
< TRANSPORTATION 
<       AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY 
< COMPUTERS 
< BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 
< AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE 
< COMMUNICATION 
< LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 
< FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES 
< 
< CULTURE 
< CLASSICS 
< CRITICAL THEORY 
< LITERATURE 
< VISUAL ARTS AND DESIGN 
<       PAINTING 
<       SCULPTURE 
< PERFORMING ARTS 
<       THEATER AND DRAMA 
<       DANCE 
<       MUSIC 
<       FILM 
< RELIGION 
< RECREATION 
<       SPORTS 
<       GAMES 
<       HOBBIES 
<       TOURISM 
---
> UnitedStates
------
UnitedStates|979602451
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> AlabamA
> AlaskA
> ArizonA
> ArkansaS
> CaliforniA
> ColoradO
> ConnecticuT
> DelawarE
> FloridA
> IdahO
> IllinoiS
> IndianA
> 
------
UnitedStates|979670875
1d0
< 
2a2
> 
3a4
> 
4a6
> 
5a8
> 
6a10
> 
7a12
> 
8a14
> 
9a16
> 
10a18,20
> 
> HawaiI
> 
11a22
> 
12a24
> 
13a26,97
> 
> IowA
> 
> KansaS
> 
> KentuckY
> 
> LouisianA
> 
> MainE
> 
> MarylanD
> 
> MassachusettS
> 
> MichigaN
> 
> MinnesotA
> 
> MississippI
> 
> MissourI
> 
> MontanA
> 
> NebraskA
> 
> NevadA
> 
> NewHampshire
> 
> NewJersey
> 
> NewMexico
> 
> NewYork
> 
> NorthCarolina
> 
> NorthDakota
> 
> OhiO
> 
> OklahomA
> 
> OregoN
> 
> PennsylvaniA
> 
> RhodeIsland
> 
> SouthCarolina
> 
> SouthDakota
> 
> TennesseE
> 
> TexaS
> 
> UtaH
> 
> VermonT
> 
> VirginiA
> 
> WashingtoN
> 
> WestVirginia
> 
> WisconsiN
> 
> WyominG
------
HomePage|979670922
24c24,26
< UnitedStates
---
> UnitedStates
> 
> PopularMusic
------
PopularMusic|979671084
1c1,28
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> PaulaAbdul
> AllSaints
> ToriAmos
> FionaApple
> TinaArena
> SherrieAustin
> 
> BackstreetBoys
> AnaBelen
> BjorK
> TracyBonham
> ToniBraxton
> DanielleBrisbois
> GarthBrooks
> MeredithBrooks
> 
> MariahCarey
> BelindaCarlisle
> RobynCarlsson
> MaryChapinCarpenter
> JohnnyCash
> CheR
> EricClapton
> KurtCobain
> AndreaCorr
> SherylCrow
> NirvanA
------
HomePage|979671099
3c3
< Foundational Disciplines
---
> 
26c26
< PopularMusic
---
> PopularMusic
------
HomePage|979671112
10,22d9
< Natural Sciences
< 
< PhysicS
< 
< ChemistrY
< 
< AstronomY
< 
< EarthSciences
< 
< BiologY
< 	BotanY
< 	ZoologY
------
HomePage|979671155
13a14,15
> 
> SportS
------
SportS|979671275
1c1,22
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ArcherY
> ArmWrestling
> AustralianRulesFootball
> AutoRacing
> 
> BadmintoN
> BaseBall
> BasketBall
> BassFishing
> BiathloN
> BiCycling
> BilliardS
> BodyBuilding
> BowlinG
> BoxinG
> 
> CheerLeading
> CrickeT
> CroqueT
> 
> FieldHockey
> FootBall
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979671295
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> PythagoreanTheorem
------
HomePage|979671627
1c1,2
< This is the new WikiPedia!
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, without peer review process, etc.  Some people think that this may be a hopeless endeavor, that the result will necessarily suck.  We aren't so sure.  So, let's get
> to work!
15c16
< SportS
---
> SportS
------
HomePage|979671756
10c10
< 
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979671766
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A
> B
> C
> 
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979671788
1,3c1,2
< A
< B
< C
---
> AaA
> BbB
------
AaA|979671803
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Afghanistan 
>      Albania 
>      Algeria 
>      American Samoa 
>      Andorra 
>      Angola 
>      Anguilla 
>      Antarctica 
>      Antigua and Barbuda 
>      Arctic Ocean 
>      Argentina 
>      Armenia 
>      Aruba 
>      Ashmore and Cartier Islands 
>      Atlantic Ocean 
>      Australia 
>      Austria 
>      Azerbaijan 
------
AaA|979671851
0a1,25
> AfghanistaN
>      
> Albania 
>      
> Algeria 
>      
> American Samoa 
>      
> Andorra 
>      
> Angola 
>      
> Anguilla 
>      
> Antarctica 
>      
> Antigua and Barbuda 
>      
> Arctic Ocean 
>      
> Argentina 
>      
> Armenia 
>      
> ArubA
2,19c27,35
< Afghanistan 
<      Albania 
<      Algeria 
<      American Samoa 
<      Andorra 
<      Angola 
<      Anguilla 
<      Antarctica 
<      Antigua and Barbuda 
<      Arctic Ocean 
<      Argentina 
<      Armenia 
<      Aruba 
<      Ashmore and Cartier Islands 
<      Atlantic Ocean 
<      Australia 
<      Austria 
<      Azerbaijan 
---
> Ashmore and Cartier Islands 
>      
> Atlantic Ocean 
>      
> Australia 
>      
> Austria 
>      
> Azerbaijan 
------
AfghanistaN|979671880
1c1,381
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Afghanistan
> 
>                                                    Introduction
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Background: Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces
> supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic
> Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country. In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure,
> and widespread live mines. 
> 
>                                                    Geography
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Location: Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 33 00 N, 65 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Asia 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 652,000 sq km 
> land: 652,000 sq km 
> water: 0 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Texas 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 5,529 km 
> border countries: China 76 km, Iran 936 km, Pakistan 2,430 km, Tajikistan 1,206 km, Turkmenistan 744 km, Uzbekistan 137 km 
> 
> Coastline: 0 km (landlocked) 
> 
> Maritime claims: none (landlocked) 
> 
> Climate: arid to semiarid; cold winters and hot summers 
> 
> Terrain: mostly rugged mountains; plains in north and southwest 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Amu Darya 258 m 
> highest point: Nowshak 7,485 m 
> 
> Natural resources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 12% 
> permanent crops: 0% 
> permanent pastures: 46% 
> forests and woodland: 3% 
> other: 39% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: 30,000 sq km (1993 est.) 
> 
> Natural hazards: damaging earthquakes occur in Hindu Kush mountains; flooding 
> 
> Environment - current issues: soil degradation; overgrazing; deforestation (much of the remaining forests are being cut down for fuel and building materials);
> desertification 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban 
> signed, but not ratified: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Life Conservation 
> 
> Geography - note: landlocked 
> 
>                                                      People
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Population: 25,838,797 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 42.37% (male 5,598,403; female 5,371,054) 
> 15-64 years: 54.86% (male 7,362,961; female 6,839,914) 
> 65 years and over: 2.77% (male 378,741; female 337,724) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 3.54% (2000 est.) 
> note: this rate reflects the continued return of refugees from Iran 
> 
> Birth rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 18.01 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: 11.54 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 1.08 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 1.12 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 149.28 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 45.88 years 
> male: 46.62 years 
> female: 45.1 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 5.87 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Afghan(s) 
> adjective: Afghan 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 
> 
> Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1% 
> 
> Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much
> bilingualism 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
> total population: 31.5% 
> male: 47.2% 
> female: 15% (1999 est.) 
> 
>                                                    Government
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Islamic State of Afghanistan; note - the self-proclaimed Taliban government refers to the country as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 
> conventional short form: Afghanistan 
> local long form: Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan 
> local short form: Afghanestan 
> former: Republic of Afghanistan 
> 
> Data code: AF 
> 
> Government type: no functioning central government, administered by factions 
> 
> Capital: Kabul 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 30 provinces (velayat, singular - velayat); Badakhshan, Badghis, Baghlan, Balkh, Bamian, Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghowr, Helmand, Herat,
> Jowzjan, Kabol, Kandahar, Kapisa, Konar, Kondoz, Laghman, Lowgar, Nangarhar, Nimruz, Oruzgan, Paktia, Paktika, Parvan, Samangan, Sar-e Pol, Takhar, Vardak, Zabol 
> note: there may be two new provinces of Nurestan (Nuristan) and Khowst 
> 
> Independence: 19 August 1919 (from UK control over Afghan foreign affairs) 
> 
> National holiday: Victory of the Muslim Nation, 28 April; Remembrance Day for Martyrs and Disabled, 4 May; Independence Day, 19 August 
> 
> Constitution: none 
> 
> Legal system: a new legal system has not been adopted but all factions tacitly agree they will follow Shari'a (Islamic law) 
> 
> Suffrage: NA; previously males 15-50 years of age 
> 
> Executive branch: on 27 September 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement; the Islamic State
> of Afghanistan has no functioning government at this time, and the country remains divided among fighting factions 
> note: the Taliban have declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin RABBANI; the
> Organization of the Islamic Conference has left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy can be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions; the
> country is essentially divided along ethnic lines; the Taliban controls the capital of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of the country including the predominately ethnic
> Pashtun areas in southern Afghanistan; opposing factions have their stronghold in the ethnically diverse north 
> 
> Legislative branch: non-functioning as of June 1993 
> 
> Judicial branch: non-functioning as of March 1995, although there are local Shari'a (Islamic law) courts throughout the country 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Harakat-i-Islami (Islamic Movement) [Mohammed Asif MOHSENI]; Harakat-Inqilab-i-Islami (Islamic Revolutionary Movement)
> [Mohammad Nabi MOHAMMADI]; Hizbi Islami-Gulbuddin (Islamic Party) [Gulbuddin HIKMATYAR faction]; Hizbi Islami-Khalis (Islamic Party) [Yunis KHALIS
> faction]; Hizbi Wahdat-Akbari faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Mohammad Akbar AKBARI]; Ittihad-i-Islami Barai Azadi Afghanistan (Islamic Union for the Liberation of
> Afghanistan) [Abdul Rasul SAYYAF]; Jabha-i-Najat-i-Milli Afghanistan (Afghanistan National Liberation Front) [Sibghatullah MOJADDEDI]; Mahaz-i-Milli-Islami
> (National Islamic Front) [Sayed Ahamad GAILANI]; Taliban (Religious Students Movement) [Mohammad OMAR]; United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
> comprised of Jumbesh-i-Melli Islami (National Islamic Movement) [Abdul Rashid DOSTAM]; Jamiat-i-Islami (Islamic Society) [Burhanuddin RABBANI and Ahmad
> Shah MASOOD]; and Hizbi Wahdat-Khalili faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Abdul Karim KHALILI] 
> 
> Political pressure groups and leaders: Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Australia, US, and elsewhere have organized politically; Mellat (Social Democratic Party) [leader
> NA]; Peshawar, Pakistan-based groups such as the Coordination Council for National Unity and Understanding in Afghanistan or CUNUA [Ishaq GAILANI]; tribal elders
> represent traditional Pashtun leadership; Writers Union of Free Afghanistan or WUFA [A. Rasul AMIN] 
> 
> International organization participation: AsDB, CP, ECO, ESCAP, FAO, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, Intelsat, IOC,
> IOM (observer), ITU, NAM, OIC, OPCW, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WMO, WToO 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> note: embassy operations suspended 21 August 1997 
> chief of mission: Ambassador (vacant) 
> chancery: 2341 Wyoming Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 
> telephone: [1] (202) 234-3770 
> FAX: [1] (202) 328-3516 
> consulate(s) general: New York 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: the US embassy in Kabul has been closed since January 1989 due to security concerns 
> 
> Flag description: three equal horizontal bands of green (top), white, and black with a gold emblem centered on the three bands; the emblem features a temple-like
> structure with Islamic inscriptions above and below, encircled by a wreath on the left and right and by a bolder Islamic inscription above, all of which are encircled by two
> crossed scimitars 
> note: the Taliban uses a plain white flag 
> 
>                                                     Economy
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Economy - overview: Afghanistan is an extremely poor, landlocked country, highly dependent on farming and livestock raising (sheep and goats). Economic considerations
> have played second fiddle to political and military upheavals during two decades of war, including the nearly 10-year Soviet military occupation (which ended 15 February
> 1989). During that conflict one-third of the population fled the country, with Pakistan and Iran sheltering a combined peak of more than 6 million refugees. In early 1999, 1.2
> million Afghan refugees remained in Pakistan and about 1.4 million in Iran. Gross domestic product has fallen substantially over the past 20 years because of the loss of labor
> and capital and the disruption of trade and transport. The majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Inflation
> remains a serious problem throughout the country. International aid can deal with only a fraction of the humanitarian problem, let alone promote economic development. The
> economic situation did not improve in 1998-99, as internal civil strife continued, hampering both domestic economic policies and international aid efforts. Numerical data are
> likely to be either unavailable or unreliable. Afghanistan was by far the largest producer of opium poppies in 1999, and narcotics trafficking is a major source of revenue. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $21 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: NA% 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $800 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: 53% 
> industry: 28.5% 
> services: 18.5% (1990) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: NA% 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: NA% 
> highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): NA% 
> 
> Labor force: 8 million (1997 est.) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 68%, industry 16%, services 16% (1980 est.) 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 8% (1995 est.) 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $NA 
> expenditures: $NA, including capital expenditures of $NA 
> 
> Industries: small-scale production of textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, and cement; handwoven carpets; natural gas, oil, coal, copper 
> 
> Electricity - production: 430 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 41.86% 
> hydro: 58.14% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 510 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 110 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: opium poppies, wheat, fruits, nuts, karakul pelts; wool, mutton 
> 
> Exports: $80 million (does not include opium) (1996 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems 
> 
> Exports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Germany, India, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic 
> 
> Imports: $150 million (1996 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: capital goods, food and petroleum products; most consumer goods 
> 
> Imports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, Singapore, India, South Korea, Germany 
> 
> Debt - external: $5.5 billion (1996 est.) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: US provided about $70 million in humanitarian assistance in 1997; US continues to contribute to multilateral assistance through the UN
> programs of food aid, immunization, land mine removal, and a wide range of aid to refugees and displaced persons 
> 
> Currency: 1 afghani (AF) = 100 puls 
> 
> Exchange rates: afghanis (Af) per US$1 - 4,700 (January 2000), 4,750 (February 1999), 17,000 (December 1996), 7,000 (January 1995), 1,900 (January 1994), 1,019
> (March 1993), 850 (1991); note - these rates reflect the free market exchange rates rather than the official exchange rate, which was fixed at 50.600 afghanis to the dollar
> until 1996, when it rose to 2,262.65 per dollar, and finally became fixed again at 3,000.00 per dollar in April 1996 
> 
> Fiscal year: 21 March - 20 March 
> 
>                                                  Communications
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Telephones - main lines in use: 31,200 (1983); note - there were 21,000 main lines in use in Kabul in 1998 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: NA 
> 
> Telephone system: 
> domestic: very limited telephone and telegraph service; in 1997, telecommunications links were established between Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad, and Kabul
> through satellite and microwave systems 
> international: satellite earth stations - 1 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) linked only to Iran and 1 Intersputnik (Atlantic Ocean region); commercial satellite telephone center in
> Ghazni 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 7 (6 are inactive; the active station is in Kabul), FM 1, shortwave 1 (broadcasts in Pushtu, Dari, Urdu, and English) (1999) 
> 
> Radios: 167,000 (1999) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: at least 10 (one government run central television station in Kabul and regional stations in nine of the 30 provinces; the regional stations
> operate on a reduced schedule; also, in 1997, there was a station in Mazar-e Sharif reaching four northern Afghanistan provinces) (1998) 
> 
> Televisions: 100,000 (1999) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA 
> 
>                                                   Transportation
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Railways: 
> total: 24.6 km 
> broad gauge: 9.6 km 1.524-m gauge from Gushgy (Turkmenistan) to Towraghondi; 15 km 1.524-m gauge from Termiz (Uzbekistan) to Kheyrabad transshipment point on
> south bank of Amu Darya 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 21,000 km 
> paved: 2,793 km 
> unpaved: 18,207 km (1998 est.) 
> 
> Waterways: 1,200 km; chiefly Amu Darya, which handles vessels up to about 500 DWT 
> 
> Pipelines: petroleum products - Uzbekistan to Bagram and Turkmenistan to Shindand; natural gas 180 km 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Kheyrabad, Shir Khan 
> 
> Airports: 46 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 14 
> over 3,047 m: 3 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 4 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 4 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 1 
> under 914 m: 2 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 32 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 5 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 13 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 3 
> under 914 m: 11 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Heliports: 3 (1999 est.) 
> 
>                                                     Military
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Military branches: NA; note - the military does not exist on a national basis; some elements of the former Army, Air and Air Defense Forces, National Guard, Border
> Guard Forces, National Police Force (Sarandoi), and tribal militias still exist but are factionalized among the various groups 
> 
> Military manpower - military age: 22 years of age 
> 
> Military manpower - availability: 
> males age 15-49: 6,401,980 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - fit for military service: 
> males age 15-49: 3,432,236 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - reaching military age annually: 
> males: 244,958 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA 
> 
> Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA% 
> 
>                                                 Transnational Issues
> 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Disputes - international: support to Islamic militants worldwide by some factions; question over which group should hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN 
> 
> Illicit drugs: world's largest illicit opium producer, surpassing Burma (potential production in 1999 - 1,670 metric tons; cultivation in 1999 - 51,500 hectares, a 23%
> increase over 1998); a major source of hashish; increasing number of heroin-processing laboratories being set up in the country; major political factions in the country profit
> from drug trade 
------
AfghanistaN|979671951
1d0
< 
7d5
< [Top of Page] 
17d14
< [Top of Page] 
73d69
< [Top of Page] 
127d122
< [Top of Page] 
200d194
< [Top of Page] 
285,286c279
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>  
312d304
< [Top of Page] 
374,375c366
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>  
381c372
< from drug trade 
---
> from drug trade 
------
AaA|979672078
3c3
< Albania 
---
> AlbaniA 
5c5
< Algeria 
---
> AlgeriA
7c7
< American Samoa 
---
> AmericanSamoa 
9c9
< Andorra 
---
> AndorrA
11c11
< Angola 
---
> AngolA 
13c13
< Anguilla 
---
> AnguillA 
15c15
< Antarctica 
---
> AntarcticA 
17c17
< Antigua and Barbuda 
---
> AntiguaAndBarbuda 
19c19
< Arctic Ocean 
---
> ArcticOcean 
21c21
< Argentina 
---
> ArgentinA
23c23
< Armenia 
---
> ArmeniA 
27c27
< Ashmore and Cartier Islands 
---
> AshmoreAndCartierIslands 
29c29
< Atlantic Ocean 
---
> AtlanticOcean 
31c31
< Australia 
---
> AustraliA
33c33
< Austria 
---
> AustriA 
35c35
< Azerbaijan 
---
> AzerbaijaN
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979672155
1a2
> 
3a5,51
> CcC
> 
> DdD
> 
> EeE
> 
> FfF
> 
> GgG
> 
> HhH
> 
> IiI
> 
> JjJ
> 
> KkK
> 
> LlL
> 
> MmM
> 
> NnN
> 
> OoO
> 
> PpP
> 
> QqQ
> 
> RrR
> 
> SsS
> 
> TtT
> 
> UuU
> 
> VvV
> 
> WwW
> 
> XxX
> 
> YyY
> 
> ZzZ
------
SportS|979675238
1,4c1,4
< ArcherY
< ArmWrestling
< AustralianRulesFootball
< AutoRacing
---
> * ArcherY
> * ArmWrestling
> * AustralianRulesFootball
> * AutoRacing
6,15c6,16
< BadmintoN
< BaseBall
< BasketBall
< BassFishing
< BiathloN
< BiCycling
< BilliardS
< BodyBuilding
< BowlinG
< BoxinG
---
> * BadmintoN
> * BaseBall
> * BasketBall
> * BassFishing
> * BiathloN
> * BiCycling
> * BilliardS
> * BodyBuilding
> * BowlinG
> * BoxinG
> * Bushwalking
17,19c18,20
< CheerLeading
< CrickeT
< CroqueT
---
> * CheerLeading
> * CrickeT
> * CroqueT
21,22c22,25
< FieldHockey
< FootBall
---
> * FieldHockey
> * FootBall
> 
> * Orienteering
------
WikiPedia|979675429
4a5,12
> ----
> 
> A question: Where should we discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia. On this page?
> 
> ----
> 
> A comment: For an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
> 
------
WikiPedia|979675480
11c11,16
< A comment: For an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
---
> A comment: For an internet encyclopedia, that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow doesn't seem right for the logo.
> 
> ----
> 
> A request: For an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
> 
------
PopularMusic|979675549
0a1,6
> * PaulaAbdul
> * AllSaints
> * ToriAmos
> * FionaApple
> * TinaArena
> * SherrieAustin
2,7c8,15
< PaulaAbdul
< AllSaints
< ToriAmos
< FionaApple
< TinaArena
< SherrieAustin
---
> * BackstreetBoys
> * AnaBelen
> * BjorK
> * TracyBonham
> * ToniBraxton
> * DanielleBrisbois
> * GarthBrooks
> * MeredithBrooks
9,28c17,28
< BackstreetBoys
< AnaBelen
< BjorK
< TracyBonham
< ToniBraxton
< DanielleBrisbois
< GarthBrooks
< MeredithBrooks
< 
< MariahCarey
< BelindaCarlisle
< RobynCarlsson
< MaryChapinCarpenter
< JohnnyCash
< CheR
< EricClapton
< KurtCobain
< AndreaCorr
< SherylCrow
< NirvanA
---
> * MariahCarey
> * BelindaCarlisle
> * RobynCarlsson
> * MaryChapinCarpenter
> * JohnnyCash
> * CheR
> * EricClapton
> * KurtCobain
> * AndreaCorr
> * CreedenceClearwaterRevival
> * SherylCrow
> * NirvanA
------
HomePage|979675638
6c6,7
< PhilosophyAndLogic
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld
> **  UnitedStates
10,12c11
< CountriesOfTheWorld
< 
< UnitedStates
---
> PhilosophyAndLogic
16a16,17
> 
> TechnologY
------
HomePage|979675668
7c7
< **  UnitedStates
---
> * UnitedStates
------
UuU|979675713
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * UnitedKingdom
> * UnitedStates
> * Uruguay
------
HomePage|979675735
7d6
< * UnitedStates
------
TechnologY|979675769
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Computing
> * Machinery
> * Transport
------
TechnologY|979675791
1,3c1,3
< * Computing
< * Machinery
< * Transport
---
> * ComputinG
> * MachinerY
> * TransporT
------
ComputinG|979675862
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Algorithms
> * ComputerHardware
> * ComputerSoftware
> * SoftwareDevelopmentProcess
------
ComputerSoftware|979675896
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ProgrammingLanguages
> SoftwarePackages
------
ComputerSoftware|979675908
1,2c1,2
< ProgrammingLanguages
< SoftwarePackages
---
> * ProgrammingLanguages
> * SoftwarePackages
------
TransporT|979675952
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AirTransport
> RailTransport
> RoadTransport
> SeaTransport
> 
------
TransporT|979675971
1,4c1,4
< AirTransport
< RailTransport
< RoadTransport
< SeaTransport
---
> * AirTransport
> * RailTransport
> * RoadTransport
> * SeaTransport
------
NamingConventions|979679586
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Recommend doing things like AfghanistanCountry rather than the eminently ugly AfghanistaN.''
------
RecentChanges|979679677
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.
> 
------
ScottMoonen|979679771
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Editor of AndStuffWiki [http://andstuff.org/] and author of the WikkiTikkiTavi wiki engine [http://andstuff.org/tavi].
> 
> See also AndStuff:ScottMoonen and MeatBall:ScottMoonen.
> 
> ----
> 
> Nifty site you have here!  It may be hard to get momentum going, but I like the general idea.  I've bookmarked it for some time later when I have more free time. :-)
------
ScottMoonen|979679823
7a8,9
> 
> PS: I'd recommend you change the American flag logo.  Exremely ethno-centric ''et. al.''  I think a globe logo would be much more fitting, if you want to keep with that metaphor.  Or perhaps a book.
------
NamingConventions|979679919
1a2,3
> 
> ''In this same manner, every noun can have Person, Place, Idea, Invention, etc. tacked on to its end to identify its type.  You might even want to hold this convention for words that already meet the wiki naming conventions, like ThomasEdisonPerson.  -- ScottMoonen''
------
HomePage|979689918
4c4
< 
---
> Here is the old NupediaWiki.
------
NupediaWiki|979689926
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Welcome to Nupedia's wiki!'''  This might become the "WikiPedia" since some Nupedia members have reservations about associating a wiki with the Nupedia name.
> 
> You might have some questions; explore the links to find answers:
> * WhatIsaWiki?
> * WhatsaWikiFor?
> * WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
> * WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?
> * CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?
> And of course,
> * HowCanIExploreNupediasWiki?
> And
> * What are your NewTopics?
> 
> If you have other questions, just ask on the NupediaWikiFaq.
> 
> This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
------
WhatIsaWiki|979689952
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
> 
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
------
WhatsaWikiFor|979689979
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In principle, a wiki is for whatever its users want it to be for.  But the format lends itself to collaboration--but collaboration that involves ''anyone'' at all, who can do ''anything'' they want to the pages.  You might think that this leads to DisRuption.
------
WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki|979690006
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There are lots of good reasons why NuPedia might want to have a wiki:
> 
> 1. Write articles.  We can develop encyclopedia articles, perhaps.  Some people probably will do better in an unstructured environment than the very structured NupediaEditorialProcess.  We might then incorporate wiki articles into the main encyclopedia (via the normal editorial channels, of course).
> 
> 2. Fun.  It's a social forum for Nupedians.  It's fun, or we hope it will be!
> 
> 3. Speed.  We can, perhaps, develop content fast.  There's no one who has to approve a topic, no deadlines, etc.  You come and add a bit here and there as you wish!
> 
> 4. Increase feedback and interaction.  Feedback is potentially easier than on the NuPedia main site, and interaction on wikis can be very interesting.  Some people might be more attracted to this sort of interaction than the sort that occurs on the main part of the website.
> 
> None of this is to say that the Nupedia wiki will ''replace'' the main encyclopedia; of course it won't.  But it will be an interesting ancillary endeavor!
> 
> --LarrySanger
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979690033
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Because it's fun, educational, and social all in one!  Besides, you can correct other people on the spot without asking their permission!
> 
> Possibly what you really want to know is WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|979690059
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.
> 
> "Fine," you say, "but how can I possibly...
> 
> * MakeaNewPage?"
> * LinkToAnExistingPage?"
> * StartaNewParagraph?"
> * PutWordsInItalicsAndBold?"
> * LinkToExternalPages?"
> * PartakeInDiscussion?"
> * SummarizeDiscussion?"
> * BeBoldInUpdatingPages?"
> 
> More tips are to be found at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki .
------
LarrySanger|979690096
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and instigator of Nupedia's wiki.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
> 
> Yes, I agree, He is He, nobody would argue! :-P
> 
> He is he, but this is twee, we'd all agree.
> 
> Larry's favorite philosopher is ThomasReid, isn't he?  Maybe so!
> 
> ----
> 
> I'm not envious because I live here, in RusSia!
> 
> ----
> 
> Requesting a SiberianHusky...that's all! RoseParks
------
NuPedia|979690123
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Nupedia (http://www.nupedia.com/) is soon to become the greatest EncycloPedia in HisTory, because of its essential features, viz., it is: OpenContent, free, freely-distributable, rigorously PeerReviewed, international, unbiased, and in the fullness of time, comprehensive.
------
PhiloSophy|979690143
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> From the Greek word "philosophia," meaning "love of wisdom." 
------
RusSia|979690179
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Russia is large, cold, poor (currently), but full of a wealth of natural, cultural and human resources.
> 
> ----
> 
> Quoth a Russian:
> 
> The weather isn't cold today, everything's melting. If you were here you'd see yourself!----And, believe me, summers can be very hot!
------
ThomasReid|979690208
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Thomas Reid (1710-1796), Scottish philosopher, was the founder of the so-called ScottishSchoolofCommonSense.  He believed that CommonSense--this terms is used in a special philosophical sense--is or should be at the foundation of all philosophical inquiry.  He advocated DirectRealism, or CommonSenseRealism, and inveighed strongly against TheTheoryOfIdeas advocated by JohnLocke, ReneDescartes, and (in varying forms) nearly all EarlyModernPhilosophers who came after them.  He wrote a number of important philosophical works, including ''Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense,'' the ''Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man,'' and the ''Essays on the Active Powers of Man.''  He played an integral role in the Scottish Enlightenment.  In his day and for some years into the 19th century, he was regarded as more important than DavidHume.  His reputation waned after attacks on the ScottishSchoolofCommonSense by ImmanuelKant and JohnStuartMill.  His reputation has arisen again in the wake of the influence of GeorgeEMoore, particularly due to attention given Reid by the likes of WilliamAlston and AlvinPlantinga.
> 
> ----
> 
> Meta-observation: the above took me less than ten minutes to write and required no research on my part.  I could continue on and write twenty articles like this in a day with no trouble.  I think this is an excellent way to generate draft articles for Nupedia.
------
CommonSense|979690258
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In PhiloSophy, 'common sense' (or 'commonsense') describes BeLiefs or ProPositions that seem, to most people, to be as obviously true as any beliefs can be.  This, however, cannot be considered a DeFinition of 'common sense'; the issue of what common sense ''is'' is vexed, and its vexedness is one reason why many philosophers eschew the word altogether.  Whatever it does mean, it does not mean homespun (and sometimes dubious) truths such as "Chicken soup is good for colds."  Nonetheless, common sense is a perennial topic in EpistemOlogy and widely used or referred to, in one form or another, by very many philosophers.  Some related concepts include InTuitions, OrdinaryLanguage, FoundationalBeliefs, ''EnDoxa,'' and AxIoms.
> 
> Two philosophers are most famous for advocating the view (to state it imprecisely) that common sense beliefs are true and form a foundation for philosophical inquiry: ThomasReid and GeorgeEMoore.
> 
> The great Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, a contemporary of Hume and the founder of the so-called ScottishSchoolofCommonSense, devotes considerable space in his ''Inquiry'' and the ''Intellectual Powers'' developing a theory of common sense.  While he never gives a definition, ''per se,'' he does offer a number of so-called "earmarks" of common sense (which he sometimes calls "principles of common sense"), such as:
> 
> * Principles of common sense are believed universally (with the apparent exceptions of some philosophers and the insane).
> * It is appropriate to ridicule the denial of common sense.
> * The denial of principles of common sense leads to contradictions.
> 
> Of course, each of these is stated and explained by Reid much more carefully that is done here.
> 
> The British philosopher G. E. Moore, who did important work in EpistemOlogy, EthIcs, and other fields near the beginning of the twentieth century, is famous for a programmatic essay, "A Defence of Common Sense."  This essay had a profound effect on the methodology of much twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy.  In this essay, Moore lists several seemingly very obvious truths, such as "There exists at this time a living human body which is my body," "My body has existed continuously on or near the earth, at various distances from or in contact with other existing things, including other living human beings," and many other such platitudes.  He argues (as Reid did before him) that these propositions are much more obviously true than the premises of many philosophical claims which entail their falsehood (such as the claim that time does not exist, a claim Moore ascribes to Whitehead).
> 
> Both Reid and Moore, individually, are famous for appealing to common sense to refute SkepticIsm.
> 
> Appeal to common sense is characteristic of a general epistemological orientation called epistemological particularism (the appelation comes from Roderick Chisholm), which orientation is contrasted with epistemological methodism. The particularist gathers a list of propositions that seem obvious and unassailable and then requires consistency with this set of propositions as a condition of adequacy for any abstract philosophical theory. (An entry on the list, however, may be eventually rejected for inconsistency with other, seemingly more secure, entries.) Methodists, on the other hand, begin with a theory of cognition or justification and then apply it to see which of our pre-theoretical beliefs survive. Reid and Moore are paradigmatic particularists, while Descartes and Hume are paradigmatic mehodists. Methodist methodology tends to toward skepticism, as the rules for acceptable or rational belief tend to be very restrictive (for instance, being incapable of doubt for Descartes, or being constructible entirely from impressions and ideas for Hume). Particularist methodology, on the other hand, tends toward a kind of conservatism, granting perhaps an undue privilege to beliefs we happen to be confident about. 
> 
> An interesting question is whether the methodologies can be mixed. For instance, it seems impossible to do logic, metaphysics and epistemology without beginning with some assumptions of common sense. However, particularism applied to ethics and politics often seems simply to entrench prejudice and other contingent products of social inculcation. Is there a way to provide a principled distinction between areas of inquiry where reliance on the dictates of common sense is legitimate (because necessary) and areas where it is illegitimate because it is an obstruction to intellectual and practical progress?
> 
> The topic of common sense raises interesting and important questions in a field closely related to EpistemOlogy and PhilosophyOfLanguage called "MetaPhilosophy."  What is common sense?  Supposing that a precise characterization of it cannot be given, does that mean appeal to common sense is off-limits in philosophy?  Why should we care whether a belief is a matter of common sense or not?  Under what circumstances, if any, is it permissible to advocate a view that seems to run contrary to common sense?  Should considerations of common sense play ''any'' decisive role in philosophy?  If not common sense, then should any other similar concept such as that of 'InTuitions' play such a role?  In general, are there "PhilosophicalStartingPoints," and if so, how might we characterize them?  Supposing that there are no beliefs we are willing to HoldComeWhatMay, are there some we ought to HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast?
------
MetaPhilosophy|979690283
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The study of the methods and aims of PhiloSophy, consisting of a lot of questions that presuppose deeper questions in EpistemOlogy, PhilosophyOfLanguage, and other philosophical subdisciplines.  Paradoxically, better done after one has explored a lot of philosophy, rather than before.----Some might say this involves moving to a higher philosophical level, transcending ordinary thought, but others might hesitate to embrace the speculative nature of such efforts.
------
HoldComeWhatMay|979690325
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A phrase popularized by that ancient HarVard philosophy professor, WillardVQuine.  Beliefs that are "held come what may" are beliefs one is unwilling to give up, regardless of any evidence with which one might be presented.  Quine held (on a perhaps simplistic construal) that there are no beliefs that one ought to hold come what may--in other words, all beliefs are rationally revisable.  Many philosophers are to the contrary, believing that, for example, TheLawsOfThought cannot be revised and may be held come what may.
------
WilliamAlston|979690393
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Syracuse University philosophy professor, arguably the greatest epistemologist of the twentieth century, whose views on FoundationalIsm and InternalismVsExternalism, among many other topics, have been very influential.  Alston has also done important work in PhilosophyOfReligion, HistoryOfPhilosophy, and other fields.
------
SiberianHusky|979690434
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which pulls one's sled or possibly you...
------
RoseParks|979690459
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Am I fooling anyone?
> ----------------------
> Well at least you could *spell* it right, if you mean the woman.----
> I am not Rosa Parks...RoseParks is my e-mail name. I am a Nupedia member. I
> 
> 1) Authored the Prounciation Guides- AME and BRE
>   
> 2) Copy edited a number of articles 
>  
> 3) Researched and drafted our Accessibility statement
>   
> 4) Am a moderator for Nupedia-L  
> 
> and so much more. Surely you know who I am....
------
RoseParks|979690471
4c4
< I am not Rosa Parks...RoseParks is my e-mail name. I am a Nupedia member. I
---
> I am not RosaParks...RoseParks is my e-mail name. I am a Nupedia member. I
------
SubLime|979690543
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which is below a lime.----To use as an adjective, do we say subliminal?  And a verb would be sublimate?----Or subliminalize? Or subliminimalize? Or sublimaximize? 
------
MakeaNewPage|979690573
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Very easy.  Simply go to any existing wiki page, such as the NewTopics page, click "Edit text of this page," and type in the name of the new page in the text box.  Then save your edit, and you'll see your page name followed by "?".  Click on the question mark to edit the new page.
> 
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis.  For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside the word, like PhiloSophy.
------
NewTopics|979690597
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> You can find new wiki pages by going to "Recent Changes," which is at the top and bottom of every wiki page. 
> 
> Here are a few more new topics, or at least, they were new when whoever it was typed them in: 
> 
> NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall --
> TheBible? -- TheKoran? -- TheTorah? -- PlatosRepublic? -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff --
> ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP
------
EncycloPedia|979690627
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In this particular case, ''NuPedia''!
------
DisRuption|979690653
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Anybody can edit a wiki page.  Doesn't that mean wikis will be disrupted by assorted spammers, idiots, nuts, etc.?  Not necessarily.  In the original wiki, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki, this hasn't really happened.  We don't expect it to happen on NuPedia.  I guess we'll see!
------
MuSic|979690695
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which soothes the savage beast... 
------
FootBall|979690711
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which one buys a large screen television for... 
------
IrishTraditionalMusic|979690743
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The traditional or folk MuSic of the Irish people as well as of the Irish diaspora, that is, descendants of Irish emigrants in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.  Irish traditional music as it is known today is the result of a centuries-old tradition of melodically-rich dance music and song.  It was formerly played without harmonic accompaniment such as guitar and usually learned "by ear" rather than from written music.  Irish dance music is typically lively, and Irish songs are often highly ornamented and complex.  This music is usefully contrasted with the Irish pub ballad tradition (which has made, for example, the song "Whiskey in the Jar" famous) and the modern "folk" tradition, as well as what goes under the name "CelticMusic."
> 
> While once mostly home-made ("kitchen music") by non-professionals for their own entertainment and that of their neighbors and friends, now Irish music can be heard at sessions (informal gatherings of musicians, often in pubs) and in concert halls, not only in Ireland and countries with large Irish immigrant populations, but indeed in many countries around the globe.  It also can be heard on recordings of bands such as The Bothy Band, Altan, and The Chieftains, instrumentalists such as Michael Coleman (fiddle), Joe Cooley (button accordion), Paddy Keenan (pipes), Matt Molloy (flute), and Mary Bergin (tin whistle), and singers such as Joe Heaney, Tríona Ní Dhomnhaill, and Paddy Tunney.  In recent years, Irish music has enjoyed increasing popularity worldwide, largely as a result of the wildly successful, internationally performed dance-and-music stage extravaganza, Riverdance, as well as the "steerage scene" from the movie Titanic.  Those interested in pursuing the art, if they take it seriously, are warmly welcomed by more experienced traditional musicians.
> 
> The music traditionally employs a delightful variety of melody instruments: voice; Uilleann pipes (bellows-blown Irish bagpipes); fiddle; wooden flute; tin whistle (a simple recorder-like instrument); button accordion and two accordion-like instruments, melodeon and concertina; tenor (four-string) banjo; mandolin; harmonica (also called "mouth organ"); harp; and sometimes others.  The harp, in fact, is the national symbol of Ireland.  Dance tunes are sometimes "lilted" as well, that is, sung with nonsense syllables.  While not always regarded as traditional, chordal and rhythmic accompaniment is often provided by, variously, guitar; three lute-like instruments, including cittern, bouzouki (a Greek instrument adopted and now widely played in Irish circles), and mandola (a larger variety of mandolin); piano; bodhrán (a shallow Irish goatskin drum); bones (animal rib-bones or similarly-shaped pieces of wood held between the fingers); and "Jew's harp" or jaw harp.
> 
> Irish dance music is typically quite lively and is used indeed for dancing as well as for listening.  This music can be sorted into a wide variety of dance tune types, such as reels, jigs of various kinds, hornpipes, set dances, polkas, slides, highlands (also called "flings" and "schottisches"), barndances, waltzes, and mazurkas.  There are also types of tunes not used for dancing, including marches, harp compositions such as those by blind harper Turlough O'Carolan (1670-1738), and slow airs.  Slow airs are often the instrumental rendition of the melodies, or "airs," of songs, usually sean nós songs (see below).  Most of these types of tunes were borrowed in various centuries past from other traditions.  The differences between them are too subtle to allow easy, brief explanation.
> 
> The Irish song tradition is diverse and rich.  It enjoys a prominent place among the interrelated song traditions of Scotland, England, and North America.  Irish songs, with plaintive or sprightly melodies to suit their themes, cover many subjects: love and betrayal, everyday country life and occupations, and historical or newsworthy events.  The sean nós (Irish for "old style") tradition is the relatively unknown, but beautiful Gaelic language tradition still thriving in the Irish-speaking western counties of Ireland.  Sean nós songs are usually sung with very loose time signatures, although not quite in "free time," that is, with no identifiable time signature at all.  Most sean nós songs do indeed have an identifiable rhythm but are interrupted as a singer takes a breath, usually in an unhurried fashion.  Consequently, slow airs, played in imitation of sean nós songs, are played with very loose time signatures as well.  There are more or less distinct regional styles of sean nós song, just as there are more or less distinct regional styles of Irish dance music.  One style of dance music is the DonegalFiddleTradition.
------
CelticMusic|979690765
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The term "Celtic music" usually combines Irish traditional music with various other traditional musics, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
------
DonegalFiddleTradition|979690795
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A tradition, or set of coexisting traditions, at least 200 years old, of playing the fiddle in County Donegal, Ireland.  Donegal is a remote, partly Irish-speaking county in northwestern Ireland and one of the three counties of the northern Irish province of Ulster that are part of the Republic of Ireland.  Donegal's tradition of fiddle playing has completely eclipsed other instrumental traditions in the county.
> 
> There is a so-called Donegal style of fiddling, though one also might plausibly identify several different, but related, styles within the county.  To the extent to which there is one common style in the county, it is characterized by a rapid pace; a tendency to be more straight-ahead (unswung) in the playing of the fast dance tune types (reels and jigs); short (one-note-per-bowstroke), aggressive bowing; relatively sparse ornamentation; the use of bowed triplets more than rolls (an ornament like a turn) as ornaments; and the use of double stops and droning (playing on more than one string at once).  None of these characteristics is universal, and there is some disagreement as to the extent to which there is a common style at all.  But in general, aggressive and lively fiddling is very often heard in Donegal, which many listeners find exciting.  Donegal styles have been influenced to a great extent by southern Irish styles as well as Scottish and Shetland Island styles and repertoire, and by the sounds, ornaments, and repertoire of the Highland bagpipes (the so-called Scottish warpipes).  Another feature of Donegal fiddling that makes it distinctive among Irish musical traditions is the variety of rare tune types that are played.  Highlands, a 4/4 type of tune based on Scottish strathspeys, which are also played in Donegal, are one of the most commonly played types of tune in the county.  Other tune types common in the county, but relatively uncommon elsewhere, include barndances, also called "germans," and mazurkas.
> 
> There are, of course, a number of different strands to the history of fiddle playing in County Donegal.  Perhaps the best-known and, in the last half of the twentieth century, the most influential has been that of the Doherty family.  Hugh Doherty is the first known musician of this family.  Born in 1790, he headed an unbroken tradition of fiddlers and pipers in the Doherty family until the death, in 1980, of perhaps the best-known Donegal fiddler, John Doherty.  John, a travelling tinsmith, was known for his extremely precise and fast finger- and bow-work and vast repertoire, and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Irish fiddlers ever recorded.  John's older brother, Mickey, was also recorded and, though Mickey was another of the great Irish fiddlers, his reputation has been overshadowed by John's.  Other representatives, now dead, of older Donegal styles include Neillidh ("Neilly") Boyle, Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, and Frank Cassidy.  A great fiddler from Donegal who bears mention, but who did not play in a traditional Donegal style, was Hugh Gillespie.  Some great Donegal fiddlers are still alive, including James Byrne, Vincent Campbell, John Gallagher, Paddy Glackin, Danny O'Donnell, and Tommy Peoples.  Among the many younger players, the three fiddlers of the Donegal "supergroup" Altan, Maireád Ní Mhaonaigh, Paul O'Shaughnessy, and Ciarán Tourish, are commonly regarded as brilliant, as are Mick Brown, Martin Mcginley, Dermot Mclaughlin, and others too numerous to mention by name.  Finally, although he is not known as a fiddle player, Dermot Byrne, the button accordion player currently with Altan, has a style and repertoire that is firmly within the Donegal instrumental tradition; he is widely regarded as one of the finest button accordion players in Ireland.  
------
MouthOff|979690835
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This page is provided to avoid DisRuption. If you '''have''' to ventilate, complain, express annoyance etc., do it '''here'''!
> ----
> Just please do it ''without'' being personally offensive.----
> The voice of a  Nupedia moderator and a good one.
------
NupediaWikiFaq|979690891
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Questions not answered in HowDoesOneEditaPage, LinkToExternalPages, LinkToAnExistingPage, 
> and CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can we link to Nupedia Pages that are not articles, say the Pronunciation Guides or part of the Guidelines, for example?'''
> 
> A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can you delete a page from the wiki?  Especially your own?'''
> 
> A. Yes, in fact you can.  Consideration for others demands that you exercise extreme caution in doing so, if the page in question ''isn't'' one that you started, or is one to which many others have contributed something of interest.  But strictly speaking there's nothing stopping you: all you have to do is remove the text from the page.  You can also click on the name of the page (at the top of the page) to see what other pages link to the deleted page, and delete links to it.  Again, extreme caution is advised...
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. If you delete all the text from a Page does it become a PaGe? again?'''
> 
> A. If you delete all the text on a Page, the page remains as a PaGe.  It does not go back to PaGe?.
------
PaGe|979690923
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This PaGe is a test of whether if you delete all the text, this will return to PaGe?
> 
> 
> No it won't. Try it!!!
------
WikiWatcher|979690944
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An intelligent person who surfs the "WikiPedia" and finds valuable information. 
------
WikiPedians|979690955
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
------
WikiPedians|979690974
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A wikipedia is an encyclopedia-like project built using wiki software.  [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] is not built using wiki software (it is carefully peer-reviewed), and therefore it is not a wikipedia.  The principals of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia], however, are interested in exploring the wiki idea as a ''supplement'' to Nupedia, not as part of Nupedia's editorial process.----
> Query: And who would the '''principals''' of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] be?----I think this calls for a "WikiWatcher" to conduct an assessment.----
> Are we then, WikiPedians ? I'll have to think about that one...
------
WikiPedians|979691049
1,3c1
< A wikipedia is an encyclopedia-like project built using wiki software.  [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] is not built using wiki software (it is carefully peer-reviewed), and therefore it is not a wikipedia.  The principals of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia], however, are interested in exploring the wiki idea as a ''supplement'' to Nupedia, not as part of Nupedia's editorial process.----
< Query: And who would the '''principals''' of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] be?----I think this calls for a "WikiWatcher" to conduct an assessment.----
< Are we then, WikiPedians ? I'll have to think about that one...
---
> Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher...
------
WikiPedia|979691110
16a17,22
> ----
> 
> A wikipedia is an encyclopedia-like project built using wiki software.  [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] is not built using wiki software (it is carefully peer-reviewed), and therefore it is not a wikipedia.  The principals of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia], however, are interested in exploring the wiki idea as a ''supplement'' to Nupedia, not as part of Nupedia's editorial process.----
> Query: And who would the '''principals''' of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] be?----I think this calls for a "WikiWatcher" to conduct an assessment.----
> Are we then, WikiPedians ? I'll have to think about that one...
> 
------
MathematicalGrouP|979691158
1c1,93
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MathematicalGrouP
> 
> The concept of a GrouP is one of the foundations of ModernAlgebra.
> 
> 
> The definition of a GrouP is brief.
> 
>  
> A GrouP is a non-empty set, say G and a binary operation, say, "*" denoted (G,*) such that:
> 
> 
> 1)	G has closure, that is, if a and b belong to G, then a*b belongs to G.
> 
> 
> 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and b belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*
> 
> 
>         (b*c).
> 3)	G contains an identity element, say i, that is, if a belongs to G then i*a =a.
> 
> 
> 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an
> 
> 
>         element b in G such that a*b=i.
> 
> ----
>  
> A GrouP that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let I be the set of
> 
>  
> integers={…-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4…} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
> 
> 
> Proof:
> 
> 
> 1)	If a and b are integers then a+b is an integer: Closure.
> 
> 
> 2)	If a, b, and b are integers, then (a+b)+c=a+(b+c). Associativity.
> 
> 
> 3)	0 is an integer and for any integer a, a+0=a.
> 
> 
>        (I,+) has an identity element.
> 
> 
> 4)	If a is an integer, then there is an integer b= (-a), such that a+b=0.
> 
> 
>         Every element of (I,+) has an inverse.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> Question: Given the set of integers, I, as above, and the operation multiplication,
> denoted by "x" is (I,x) a GrouP?
> 
> 
> 1)	If a and b are integers then axb is an integer. Closure.
> 
> 
> 2)	If a and b are integers, then (axb)xc=ax(bxc). Associativity.
> 
> 
> 3)	1 is an integer and for any integer a, ax1=a.
> 
> 
>        (I,x) has an identity element.
> 
> 
> 4)	'''BUT''', if a is an integer, there is not necessarily an integer b =1/a such that
> 
>         (a)x(1/a)=1.
> 
> 
> Then, every element of (I,x) does not have an inverse.
> 
> 
> For example, given the integer 4, there is no integer b such that 4xb=1.
> 
> 
> Therefore, (I,x) is '''not''' a GrouP.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> '''Question''': Given the set of rational numbers Z, that is the set of number a/b such that
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, 
> 
> and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
------
LikeThis|979691216
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is not LikeThis.----
> And like this is not LikeThis.
------
LinkToAnExistingPage|979691255
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Simply type the name of the page where you want the link to be.  For example, if I type "NuPedia" I create a link to the NuPedia page.
> 
> You don't have to use any special markup.
------
StartaNewParagraph|979691293
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is kind of a funny page, and it comes with instructions, as follows: first click on the "Edit text of this page" below.  Read the text.  Then hit the "back" button and re-read the text.  Then this page will make sense.
> 
> Start a new paragraph by skipping down two lines.  If you skip down one line,
> like this,
> you won't start a new paragraph.  But if you skip down two lines,
> 
> like this,
> 
> then you'll start a new paragraph.
> 
> ''So is there any way to produce the more traditional sort of paragraph that uses indentation?''  [Followed by attempts which didn't work.]
> 
> No, there isn't a way to add "traditional" indented paragraphs.  This is partially a limitation of HTML and web browsers, which do not have any simple way to create such paragraphs.  (Many sites create the indentation effect using special invisible graphics as spacers.  Other sites use special HTML tricks which are not available on the wiki.)
> 
> The common wiki convention is to use leading spaces at the beginning of a line to mark preformatted fixed-width text.  This is useful for things like ASCII diagrams or simple tables.  Unfortunately this means that if you try to manually indent paragraphs, the first line will be shown as preformatted fixed-width text like:
> 
>     This is an attempt to "manually indent" a paragraph.
> This is the second line of the attempted paragraph, but it will be treated as a new paragraph.  Click on the edit link to see the entered text.
------
PutWordsInItalicsAndBold|979691313
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> To put text in ''italics,'' surround it by two consecutive single quote marks (').
> 
> To put text in '''bold,''' surround it by three consecutive single quote marks.
> 
> If you're still confused, click "edit text of this page" below and look at how I put the above text in ''italics'' and '''bold'''.
------
LinkToExternalPages|979691332
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Simply type in the URL.  For example, http://www.nupedia.com/about.shtml
> 
> Don't bother trying to use <a href= etc.  That markup will be displayed, not parsed.
> 
> To avoid seeing the URL--if you just want to see a link--then type the link in this format:
> 
>   [URL nameofpage]
> 
> This results in a link that looks like this: [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia.com]
> 
> Click on the "edit page" link below to see how the latter example was coded.  It's not hard!
------
PartakeInDiscussion|979691358
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> If you want to comment on something on a page, but you don't want simply to change the page (which, of course, you can do!), then put a line, indicated with four hyphens in a row, like this: ----
> and add your remarks below the line, at the bottom of the page.  This, anyway, is a nice convention to follow.  In principle, there's nothing stopping you from adding your remarks anywhere.----
> Click the "Edit this Page" below to see how this was done...the four hyphens will be revealed.
------
SummarizeDiscussion|979691375
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> After a discussion on a page has died down for several weeks, you (if you can be smart and respectful at the same time) might replace the discussion with a summary of arguments, as though you were (!) writing an encyclopedia article stating the arguments from an unbiased point of view. If anyone believes his argument has been misrepresented, he can always go back and look at the "Recent Changes" and see the old version.
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|979691400
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, precisify that language, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
> ----
> Would I be too '''bold''', if I said ''precisify'' is not a word?
> ----
> "Precisify" is philosopher-talk for "make precise"...
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979691435
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Yes.
> 
> ----
> 
> How?  For example, I'd like to add a new entry to the list on the MuSic page (this was formerly an unbuilt page), for MusicNotation.  However, the MuSic page doesn't have a "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom (when this question was written, the MuSic page was unbuilt).
> 
> ----
> 
> Sounds like you want to know how to MakeaNewPage!
> 
> Once you add any text to the MuSic page, you can then edit it using the "Edit text of this page" link.  In fact, I did this for you.  No thanks necessary.  Now go to the MuSic page and you can add text.
> 
> More to the point, whenever you see what looks like a topic, followed by a question mark, just click on the question mark.  You did this when you first clicked on the question mark after MuSic.  After you clicked on that question mark, you saw a big text box with the words, "Describe the new page here."  You probably didn't realize that you could just erase those words and type in whatever you wanted!
------
NupediaWiki|979691476
11c11
< * HowCanIExploreNupediasWiki?
---
> * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
------
HowCanIExploreWikiPedia|979691491
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There are five main ways to explore our wiki:
> 
> * Follow the links.
> * Use the search form (at the bottom of every page).
> * Click on "Recent Changes" (at the top and bottom of every page).
> * Go to NewTopics.
> * On the top of a page, click on the name of the article.  (This searches for all wiki pages that link to the page.  Can be useful and interesting, especially in a larger wiki.)
------
HisTory|979691574
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which happened.
------
RidiCulous|979691635
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A misspelling, based on a mispronunciation, of "really clueless."----Or is it "really queueless" as in the model Registry of Motor Vehicles office?
------
HowCanIExploreWikiPedia|979691699
7c7
< * On the top of a page, click on the name of the article.  (This searches for all wiki pages that link to the page.  Can be useful and interesting, especially in a larger wiki.)
---
> * On the top of a page, click on the name of the article.  (This searches for all wiki pages that link to the page.  Can be useful and interesting, especially in a larger wiki.)
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979692157
2d1
< 
4d2
< 
6d3
< 
8d4
< 
13a10,11
> ----
> But to add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979692216
11c11
< But to add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).
---
> But to add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979692311
1c1
< Yes.
---
> Yes.  To add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.  For example, have a look at IrishTraditionalMusic.
3c3
< How?  For example, I'd like to add a new entry to the list on the MuSic page (this was formerly an unbuilt page), for MusicNotation.  However, the MuSic page doesn't have a "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom (when this question was written, the MuSic page was unbuilt).
---
> Question: I'd like to add a new entry to the list on the MuSic page (this was formerly an unbuilt page), for MusicNotation.  However, the MuSic page doesn't have a "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom (when this question was written, the MuSic page was unbuilt).
9,11c9
< More to the point, whenever you see what looks like a topic, followed by a question mark, just click on the question mark.  You did this when you first clicked on the question mark after MuSic.  After you clicked on that question mark, you saw a big text box with the words, "Describe the new page here."  You probably didn't realize that you could just erase those words and type in whatever you wanted!
< ----
< But to add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.
---
> More to the point, whenever you see what looks like a topic, followed by a question mark, just click on the question mark.  You did this when you first clicked on the question mark after MuSic.  After you clicked on that question mark, you saw a big text box with the words, "Describe the new page here."  You probably didn't realize that you could just erase those words and type in whatever you wanted!
------
IrishTraditionalMusic|979692373
9c9,11
< The Irish song tradition is diverse and rich.  It enjoys a prominent place among the interrelated song traditions of Scotland, England, and North America.  Irish songs, with plaintive or sprightly melodies to suit their themes, cover many subjects: love and betrayal, everyday country life and occupations, and historical or newsworthy events.  The sean nós (Irish for "old style") tradition is the relatively unknown, but beautiful Gaelic language tradition still thriving in the Irish-speaking western counties of Ireland.  Sean nós songs are usually sung with very loose time signatures, although not quite in "free time," that is, with no identifiable time signature at all.  Most sean nós songs do indeed have an identifiable rhythm but are interrupted as a singer takes a breath, usually in an unhurried fashion.  Consequently, slow airs, played in imitation of sean nós songs, are played with very loose time signatures as well.  There are more or less distinct regional styles of sean nós song, just as there are more or less distinct regional styles of Irish dance music.  One style of dance music is the DonegalFiddleTradition.
---
> The Irish song tradition is diverse and rich.  It enjoys a prominent place among the interrelated song traditions of Scotland, England, and North America.  Irish songs, with plaintive or sprightly melodies to suit their themes, cover many subjects: love and betrayal, everyday country life and occupations, and historical or newsworthy events.  The sean nós (Irish for "old style") tradition is the relatively unknown, but beautiful Gaelic language tradition still thriving in the Irish-speaking western counties of Ireland.  Sean nós songs are usually sung with very loose time signatures, although not quite in "free time," that is, with no identifiable time signature at all.  Most sean nós songs do indeed have an identifiable rhythm but are interrupted as a singer takes a breath, usually in an unhurried fashion.  Consequently, slow airs, played in imitation of sean nós songs, are played with very loose time signatures as well.  There are more or less distinct regional styles of sean nós song, just as there are more or less distinct regional styles of Irish dance music.  One style of dance music is the DonegalFiddleTradition.
> 
> NOTICE, DON'T REMOVE: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].
------
IrishTraditionalMusic|979692396
11c11
< NOTICE, DON'T REMOVE: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].
---
> NOTICE, DON'T REMOVE: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent.
------
IrishTraditionalMusic|979692425
11c11
< NOTICE, DON'T REMOVE: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent.
------
CelticMusic|979692448
1c1,3
< The term "Celtic music" usually combines Irish traditional music with various other traditional musics, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
---
> The term "Celtic music" usually combines Irish traditional music with various other traditional musics, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
> 
> Notice, don't remove: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
------
CelticMusic|979692460
3c3
< Notice, don't remove: An earlier version of the above article was posted on [Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
------
DonegalFiddleTradition|979692511
5c5,7
< There are, of course, a number of different strands to the history of fiddle playing in County Donegal.  Perhaps the best-known and, in the last half of the twentieth century, the most influential has been that of the Doherty family.  Hugh Doherty is the first known musician of this family.  Born in 1790, he headed an unbroken tradition of fiddlers and pipers in the Doherty family until the death, in 1980, of perhaps the best-known Donegal fiddler, John Doherty.  John, a travelling tinsmith, was known for his extremely precise and fast finger- and bow-work and vast repertoire, and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Irish fiddlers ever recorded.  John's older brother, Mickey, was also recorded and, though Mickey was another of the great Irish fiddlers, his reputation has been overshadowed by John's.  Other representatives, now dead, of older Donegal styles include Neillidh ("Neilly") Boyle, Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, and Frank Cassidy.  A great fiddler from Donegal who bears mention, but who did not play in a traditional Donegal style, was Hugh Gillespie.  Some great Donegal fiddlers are still alive, including James Byrne, Vincent Campbell, John Gallagher, Paddy Glackin, Danny O'Donnell, and Tommy Peoples.  Among the many younger players, the three fiddlers of the Donegal "supergroup" Altan, Maireád Ní Mhaonaigh, Paul O'Shaughnessy, and Ciarán Tourish, are commonly regarded as brilliant, as are Mick Brown, Martin Mcginley, Dermot Mclaughlin, and others too numerous to mention by name.  Finally, although he is not known as a fiddle player, Dermot Byrne, the button accordion player currently with Altan, has a style and repertoire that is firmly within the Donegal instrumental tradition; he is widely regarded as one of the finest button accordion players in Ireland.  
---
> There are, of course, a number of different strands to the history of fiddle playing in County Donegal.  Perhaps the best-known and, in the last half of the twentieth century, the most influential has been that of the Doherty family.  Hugh Doherty is the first known musician of this family.  Born in 1790, he headed an unbroken tradition of fiddlers and pipers in the Doherty family until the death, in 1980, of perhaps the best-known Donegal fiddler, John Doherty.  John, a travelling tinsmith, was known for his extremely precise and fast finger- and bow-work and vast repertoire, and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Irish fiddlers ever recorded.  John's older brother, Mickey, was also recorded and, though Mickey was another of the great Irish fiddlers, his reputation has been overshadowed by John's.  Other representatives, now dead, of older Donegal styles include Neillidh ("Neilly") Boyle, Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, and Frank Cassidy.  A great fiddler from Donegal who bears mention, but who did not play in a traditional Donegal style, was Hugh Gillespie.  Some great Donegal fiddlers are still alive, including James Byrne, Vincent Campbell, John Gallagher, Paddy Glackin, Danny O'Donnell, and Tommy Peoples.  Among the many younger players, the three fiddlers of the Donegal "supergroup" Altan, Maireád Ní Mhaonaigh, Paul O'Shaughnessy, and Ciarán Tourish, are commonly regarded as brilliant, as are Mick Brown, Martin Mcginley, Dermot Mclaughlin, and others too numerous to mention by name.  Finally, although he is not known as a fiddle player, Dermot Byrne, the button accordion player currently with Altan, has a style and repertoire that is firmly within the Donegal instrumental tradition; he is widely regarded as one of the finest button accordion players in Ireland.  
> 
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/the+Donegal+fiddle+tradition/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
------
CelticMusic|979692545
3c3
< '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979692580
4,5c4,5
< ----
< Sounds like you want to know how to MakeaNewPage!
---
> 
> Answer: Sounds like you want to know how to MakeaNewPage!
------
DisRuption|979692616
1c1
< Anybody can edit a wiki page.  Doesn't that mean wikis will be disrupted by assorted spammers, idiots, nuts, etc.?  Not necessarily.  In the original wiki, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki, this hasn't really happened.  We don't expect it to happen on NuPedia.  I guess we'll see!
---
> Anybody can edit a wiki page.  Doesn't that mean wikis will be disrupted by assorted spammers, idiots, nuts, etc.?  Not necessarily.  In the original wiki, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki, this hasn't really happened.  We don't expect it to happen on WikiPedia.  I guess we'll see!
------
EncycloPedia|979692733
1c1
< In this particular case, ''NuPedia''!
---
> [http://www.wikipedia.com/ Wikipedia] -- [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] -- [http://www.britannica.com Britannica] -- [http://www.encarta.com Encarta] -- [http://www.encyclopedia.com Columbia Concise]
------
EncycloPedia|979692763
1c1
< [http://www.wikipedia.com/ Wikipedia] -- [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] -- [http://www.britannica.com Britannica] -- [http://www.encarta.com Encarta] -- [http://www.encyclopedia.com Columbia Concise]
---
> [http://www.wikipedia.com/ Wikipedia] -- [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] -- [http://www.britannica.com Britannica] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/ Encarta] -- [http://www.encyclopedia.com Columbia Concise]
------
HomePage|979692991
1,2c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, without peer review process, etc.  Some people think that this may be a hopeless endeavor, that the result will necessarily suck.  We aren't so sure.  So, let's get
< to work!
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  Add a page, come back tomorrow, look what others have added, and then add some more.  We think this might be fun.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
4c3
< Here is the old NupediaWiki.
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
6c5,15
< CountriesOfTheWorld
---
> You might have some questions; explore the links to find answers:
> * WhatIsaWiki?
> * WhatsaWikiFor?
> * WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
> * WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?
> * CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?
> And of course,
> * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
> And
> * What are your NewTopics?
8c17
< MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the NupediaWikiFaq.
10,16c19
< PhilosophyAndLogic
< 
< PopularMusic
< 
< SportS
< 
< TechnologY
---
> This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979693060
0a1,2
> Write a bit of information about your favorite countries.  Doesn't have to be a complete encyclopedia entry at this stage!
> 
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979693129
1c1
< PythagoreanTheorem
---
> PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979693180
1a2,3
> 
> Add your topic above and display your mathematical acumen.
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979693205
3c3
< Add your topic above and display your mathematical acumen.
---
> Add your topic above and go write a few paragraphs displaying your mathematical acumen.
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979693220
3c3
< Add your topic above and go write a few paragraphs displaying your mathematical acumen.
---
> Add your topic above and go write a few paragraphs displaying your mathematical acumen.  Or edit someone else's article.
------
UnitedStates|979693319
1,98c1
< AlabamA
< 
< AlaskA
< 
< ArizonA
< 
< ArkansaS
< 
< CaliforniA
< 
< ColoradO
< 
< ConnecticuT
< 
< DelawarE
< 
< FloridA
< 
< HawaiI
< 
< IdahO
< 
< IllinoiS
< 
< IndianA
< 
< IowA
< 
< KansaS
< 
< KentuckY
< 
< LouisianA
< 
< MainE
< 
< MarylanD
< 
< MassachusettS
< 
< MichigaN
< 
< MinnesotA
< 
< MississippI
< 
< MissourI
< 
< MontanA
< 
< NebraskA
< 
< NevadA
< 
< NewHampshire
< 
< NewJersey
< 
< NewMexico
< 
< NewYork
< 
< NorthCarolina
< 
< NorthDakota
< 
< OhiO
< 
< OklahomA
< 
< OregoN
< 
< PennsylvaniA
< 
< RhodeIsland
< 
< SouthCarolina
< 
< SouthDakota
< 
< TennesseE
< 
< TexaS
< 
< UtaH
< 
< VermonT
< 
< VirginiA
< 
< WashingtoN
< 
< WestVirginia
< 
< WisconsiN
< 
< WyominG
< 
---
> TheStates
------
TheStates|979693327
1c1,97
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AlabamA
> 
> AlaskA
> 
> ArizonA
> 
> ArkansaS
> 
> CaliforniA
> 
> ColoradO
> 
> ConnecticuT
> 
> DelawarE
> 
> FloridA
> 
> HawaiI
> 
> IdahO
> 
> IllinoiS
> 
> IndianA
> 
> IowA
> 
> KansaS
> 
> KentuckY
> 
> LouisianA
> 
> MainE
> 
> MarylanD
> 
> MassachusettS
> 
> MichigaN
> 
> MinnesotA
> 
> MississippI
> 
> MissourI
> 
> MontanA
> 
> NebraskA
> 
> NevadA
> 
> NewHampshire
> 
> NewJersey
> 
> NewMexico
> 
> NewYork
> 
> NorthCarolina
> 
> NorthDakota
> 
> OhiO
> 
> OklahomA
> 
> OregoN
> 
> PennsylvaniA
> 
> RhodeIsland
> 
> SouthCarolina
> 
> SouthDakota
> 
> TennesseE
> 
> TexaS
> 
> UtaH
> 
> VermonT
> 
> VirginiA
> 
> WashingtoN
> 
> WestVirginia
> 
> WisconsiN
> 
> WyominG
------
PhiloSophy|979693424
1c1
< From the Greek word "philosophia," meaning "love of wisdom." 
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid 
------
PhiloSophy|979693561
1c1,3
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid 
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid
> 
> Are you a philosopher or do you know a thing or two about philosophy?  Then add a topic to those listed and give us what you know about the concepts, theories, people, movements, etc., of philosophy.  It's no big deal: dash off a paragraph or two and watch others contribute and expand what you've done.
------
PhiloSophy|979693584
3c3
< Are you a philosopher or do you know a thing or two about philosophy?  Then add a topic to those listed and give us what you know about the concepts, theories, people, movements, etc., of philosophy.  It's no big deal: dash off a paragraph or two and watch others contribute and expand what you've done.
---
> Are you a philosopher or do you know a thing or two about philosophy?  Then add a topic to those listed and give us what you know about the concepts, theories, people, movements, etc., of philosophy.  It's no big deal: dash off a paragraph or two and watch others contribute and expand what you've done.  You can edit the above articles, too.
------
PopularMusic|979693627
0a1,2
> Do you know the basic facts about these performers?  Write them down!
> 
------
SportS|979693664
0a1,2
> Jump in and tell us what you know about these sports.
> 
------
SportS|979693720
27c27,29
< * Orienteering
---
> * OrienteerinG
> 
> * RunninG
------
SportS|979693766
25c25,26
< * FootBall
---
> * AmericanFootball
> * EuropeanFootball
------
HomePage|979693881
17c17
< If you have other questions, just ask on the NupediaWikiFaq.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
19c19
< This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
---
> This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
------
WikiPediaFaq|979693944
1c1,25
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Questions not answered in HowDoesOneEditaPage, LinkToExternalPages, LinkToAnExistingPage.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can we link to Nupedia Pages that are not articles, say the Pronunciation Guides or part of the Guidelines, for example?'''
> 
> A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can you delete a page from the wiki?  Especially your own?'''
> 
> A. Yes, in fact you can.  Consideration for others demands that you exercise extreme caution in doing so, if the page in question ''isn't'' one that you started, or is one to which many others have contributed something of interest.  But strictly speaking there's nothing stopping you: all you have to do is remove the text from the page.  You can also click on the name of the page (at the top of the page) to see what other pages link to the deleted page, and delete links to it.  Again, extreme caution is advised...
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. If you delete all the text from a Page does it become a PaGe? again?'''
> 
> A. If you delete all the text on a Page, the page remains as a PaGe.  It does not go back to PaGe?.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can you add Nupedia articles to Wikipedia?'''
> 
> A. CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?  Sure.
------
WikiPediaFaq|979693975
5,10d4
< '''Q. Can we link to Nupedia Pages that are not articles, say the Pronunciation Guides or part of the Guidelines, for example?'''
< 
< A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
< 
< ----
< 
25c19,25
< A. CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?  Sure.
---
> A. CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?  Sure.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Q. Can we link to Nupedia Pages that are not articles, say the Pronunciation Guides or part of the Guidelines, for example?'''
> 
> A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
------
WikiPediaFaq|979694003
2d1
< 
4d2
< 
6d3
< 
8d4
< 
10d5
< 
12d6
< 
14d7
< 
16d8
< 
18d9
< 
20d10
< 
22d11
< 
------
WikiPediaFaq|979694041
3a4
> 
6a8
> 
9a12
> 
------
HomePage|979694610
11c11
< * CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?
---
> * WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia?
------
WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia|979694938
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com] is an open content, international, peer reviewed project run by LarrySanger, who got the idea of supplementing NuPedia with a less formal "wiki" encyclopedia project.  So there is a historical connection between the projects.  Both NuPedia and WikiPedia are originated (though not solely controlled) by BoMis, a WebPortal company.  So there is a management connection.
> 
> There is no ''editorial'' connection between the projects, however.  The participants in NuPedia do not necessarily condone the contents or methods of WikiPedia--and vice-versa!
> 
> We hope the projects will be complementary.
------
BoMis|979695043
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We're not sure what a [http://www.bomis.com/ Bomis] is, but it seems to have a distasteful desire to "steal your pants."  It also features many slogans.
------
RecentChanges|979695889
1,2c1
< Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.
< 
---
> Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.
------
RecentChanges|979695900
1c1
< Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.
---
> '''Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.'''
------
WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki|979695982
1,13c1
< There are lots of good reasons why NuPedia might want to have a wiki:
< 
< 1. Write articles.  We can develop encyclopedia articles, perhaps.  Some people probably will do better in an unstructured environment than the very structured NupediaEditorialProcess.  We might then incorporate wiki articles into the main encyclopedia (via the normal editorial channels, of course).
< 
< 2. Fun.  It's a social forum for Nupedians.  It's fun, or we hope it will be!
< 
< 3. Speed.  We can, perhaps, develop content fast.  There's no one who has to approve a topic, no deadlines, etc.  You come and add a bit here and there as you wish!
< 
< 4. Increase feedback and interaction.  Feedback is potentially easier than on the NuPedia main site, and interaction on wikis can be very interesting.  Some people might be more attracted to this sort of interaction than the sort that occurs on the main part of the website.
< 
< None of this is to say that the Nupedia wiki will ''replace'' the main encyclopedia; of course it won't.  But it will be an interesting ancillary endeavor!
< 
< --LarrySanger
---
> Strictly speaking, NuPedia doesn't have a wiki.  It is loosely associated with WikiPedia, though.
------
HomePage|979695998
8d7
< * WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
------
HomePage|979696038
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  Add a page, come back tomorrow, look what others have added, and then add some more.  We think this might be fun.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
------
HomePage|979696075
16,18c16
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
< 
< This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
------
HomePage|979696228
5c5
< You might have some questions; explore the links to find answers:
---
> You're wondering
16c16
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
------
HomePage|979696430
3c3
< CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
------
WikiPedia|979696735
1c1
< WikiPedia is a wide-open encyclopedia project.  Who knows where it will go?
---
> WikiPedia is an encyclopedia project built using wiki software.  Who knows where it will go?
3c3
< We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
---
> We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  Doesn't have to be long; a little bit in the early stages will help a lot.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
7c7
< A question: Where should we discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia. On this page?
---
> Let's discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia on WikiPediaProcess.
11,22c11
< A comment: For an internet encyclopedia, that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow doesn't seem right for the logo.
< 
< ----
< 
< A request: For an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
< 
< ----
< 
< A wikipedia is an encyclopedia-like project built using wiki software.  [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] is not built using wiki software (it is carefully peer-reviewed), and therefore it is not a wikipedia.  The principals of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia], however, are interested in exploring the wiki idea as a ''supplement'' to Nupedia, not as part of Nupedia's editorial process.----
< Query: And who would the '''principals''' of [http://www.nupedia.com/ Nupedia] be?----I think this calls for a "WikiWatcher" to conduct an assessment.----
< Are we then, WikiPedians ? I'll have to think about that one...
< 
---
> A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
23a13
> I second this request.
------
WikiPediaProcess|979696760
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Comment on the Wiki'''''Pedia process here.  
------
WikiPediaProcess|979696767
1c1
< Comment on the Wiki'''''Pedia process here.  
---
> Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  
------
WikiPediaProcess|979696805
1c1
< Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  
---
> Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.
------
WikiPediaProcess|979696819
1c1
< Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.
---
> Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.  Or, if you simply want to ask a question, ask it here.
------
WikiPedia|979696839
5,6d4
< ----
< 
------
LarrySanger|979696874
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and instigator of Nupedia's wiki.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of wikipedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
15c15
< Requesting a SiberianHusky...that's all! RoseParks
---
> Requesting a SiberianHusky...that's all! RoseParks
------
LarrySanger|979696888
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of wikipedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of Wiki''''Pedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
------
LarrySanger|979696897
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of Wiki''''Pedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
------
LarrySanger|979697013
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Soon to move to LasVegas for a few months to save some money (living with family), and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
3c3
< Yes, I agree, He is He, nobody would argue! :-P
---
> Yes, I agree, he is he, nobody would argue with me! :-P
7,8c7
< Larry's favorite philosopher is ThomasReid, isn't he?  Maybe so!
< 
---
> Larry's favorite philosopher is ThomasReid, isn't he?  Maybe!
10d8
< 
12d9
< 
14d10
< 
15a12,13
> ----
> Plenty of SiberianHusky''''s in AlaskA, Larry's home state.
------
AlaskA|979697119
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Capital, Juneau.  Largest city, Anchorage (over 250,000 last time I checked).  There are places in Alaska that are just BLM land or National Forest land but they're more spectacular than many national parks in the the lower 48.  Every Alaska state park would be a national park in the lower 48.
> 
> On the other hand, it's cold, like RusSia.
------
LarrySanger|979697186
13c13
< Plenty of SiberianHusky''''s in AlaskA, Larry's home state.
---
> Plenty of SiberianHusky''''s in AlaskA, Larry's home state.  Larry's family used to have a SiberianHusky named Sheba, but Sheba disappeared when Larry was small.
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|979697287
1a2,3
> 
> It wouldn't be a bad idea to find this out: WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia?
9c11
< More to the point, whenever you see what looks like a topic, followed by a question mark, just click on the question mark.  You did this when you first clicked on the question mark after MuSic.  After you clicked on that question mark, you saw a big text box with the words, "Describe the new page here."  You probably didn't realize that you could just erase those words and type in whatever you wanted!
---
> More to the point, whenever you see what looks like a topic, followed by a question mark, just click on the question mark.  You did this when you first clicked on the question mark after MuSic.  After you clicked on that question mark, you saw a big text box with the words, "Describe the new page here."  You probably didn't realize that you could just erase those words and type in whatever you wanted!
------
NupediaWiki|979697377
1,17c1
< '''Welcome to Nupedia's wiki!'''  This might become the "WikiPedia" since some Nupedia members have reservations about associating a wiki with the Nupedia name.
< 
< You might have some questions; explore the links to find answers:
< * WhatIsaWiki?
< * WhatsaWikiFor?
< * WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
< * WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?
< * CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki?
< And of course,
< * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
< And
< * What are your NewTopics?
< 
< If you have other questions, just ask on the NupediaWikiFaq.
< 
< This wiki is an experiment.  But, for those who might be confused about this point, it is '''not Nupedia'''.  Nupedia is a serious encyclopedia project found at http://www.nupedia.com .  This wiki is a proposed "fun" supplement to Nupedia!
---
> Nupedia doesn't actually have a wiki.  WikiPedia is where NuPedians go to have their wiki needs satisfied.
------
NupediaWikiFaq|979697447
1,20c1
< Questions not answered in HowDoesOneEditaPage, LinkToExternalPages, LinkToAnExistingPage, 
< and CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki.
< 
< ----
< 
< '''Q. Can we link to Nupedia Pages that are not articles, say the Pronunciation Guides or part of the Guidelines, for example?'''
< 
< A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
< 
< ----
< 
< '''Q. Can you delete a page from the wiki?  Especially your own?'''
< 
< A. Yes, in fact you can.  Consideration for others demands that you exercise extreme caution in doing so, if the page in question ''isn't'' one that you started, or is one to which many others have contributed something of interest.  But strictly speaking there's nothing stopping you: all you have to do is remove the text from the page.  You can also click on the name of the page (at the top of the page) to see what other pages link to the deleted page, and delete links to it.  Again, extreme caution is advised...
< 
< ----
< 
< '''Q. If you delete all the text from a Page does it become a PaGe? again?'''
< 
< A. If you delete all the text on a Page, the page remains as a PaGe.  It does not go back to PaGe?.
---
> Nupedia doesn't actually have a wiki. WikiPedia is where NuPedians go to have their wiki needs satisfied.  Probably what you're looking for is the WikiPediaFaq.
------
ThomasReid|979697479
2d1
< 
4,5c3
< 
< Meta-observation: the above took me less than ten minutes to write and required no research on my part.  I could continue on and write twenty articles like this in a day with no trouble.  I think this is an excellent way to generate draft articles for Nupedia.
---
> Meta-observation: the above took me less than ten minutes to write and required no research on my part.  I could continue on and write twenty articles like this in a day with no trouble.  Go thou and do likewise.
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979697517
1,3c1
< Because it's fun, educational, and social all in one!  Besides, you can correct other people on the spot without asking their permission!
< 
< Possibly what you really want to know is WhyDoesNupediaHaveaWiki?
---
> Because it's fun, educational, and social all in one!  Besides, you can correct other people on the spot without asking their permission!
------
SunirShah|979714585
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I am the Editor of MeatballWiki.
> 
> * mailto:sunir@sunir.org
> * http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SunirShah
> * http://sunir.org
------
SunirShah|979714599
1c1
< I am the Editor of MeatballWiki.
---
> I am the Editor of [http://usedmod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl MeatballWiki].
------
SunirShah|979714611
1c1
< I am the Editor of [http://usedmod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl MeatballWiki].
---
> I am the Editor of [http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl MeatballWiki].
5c5
< * http://sunir.org
---
> * http://sunir.org
------
ScottMoonen|979714661
9a10,11
> 
> ''Or a quill and inkwell. -- SunirShah''
------
NuPedia|979714759
1c1
< Nupedia (http://www.nupedia.com/) is soon to become the greatest EncycloPedia in HisTory, because of its essential features, viz., it is: OpenContent, free, freely-distributable, rigorously PeerReviewed, international, unbiased, and in the fullness of time, comprehensive.
---
> Nupedia (http://www.nupedia.com/) is soon to become the greatest EncycloPedia in HisTory, because of its essential features, viz., it is: OpenContent, free, freely-distributable, rigorously PeerReview""ed, international, unbiased, and in the fullness of time, comprehensive.
------
ScottMoonen|979724207
11c11,13
< ''Or a quill and inkwell. -- SunirShah''
---
> ''Or a quill and inkwell. -- SunirShah''
> 
> ''It's a very temporary thing, the nearest thing Jimbo had to hand.  Definitely won't be the WikiPedia logo--not that I agree with you that the U.S. flag is "ethnocentric" (which seems very strange to say to me, given that the U.S. is, after all, the biggest ethnic melting pot in the world).'' -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaProcess|979741302
1c1,3
< Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.  Or, if you simply want to ask a question, ask it here.
---
> Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.  Or, if you simply want to ask a question, ask it here.
> 
> ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
------
WikiPediaProcess|979765108
3a4,8
> 
> ----
> 
> A comment: For an internet encyclopedia, that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow
> doesn't seem right for the logo. 
------
WikiPediaProcess|979765127
7c7
< A comment: For an internet encyclopedia, that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow
---
> A comment: For an internet encyclopedia that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow
------
RhodeIsland|979768090
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The best little state in the USA!
------
RhodeIsland|979768261
1c1
< The best little state in the USA!
---
> The best little state in the USA! Miles of white ocean beaches, great ethnic food, friendly natives, and home of Rhode Island Reds!
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979768360
1c1
< Because it's fun, educational, and social all in one!  Besides, you can correct other people on the spot without asking their permission!
---
> StandardPoodle
------
StandardPoodle|979768389
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A dog by which all others are measured.
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979768559
1c1,2
< StandardPoodle
---
> Because it's fun, educational, and social all in one! Besides, you can correct other people on the spot without asking their
> permission! 
------
NewTopics|979768655
7c7
< ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP
---
> ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle
------
ScottMoonen|979769926
13c13,15
< ''It's a very temporary thing, the nearest thing Jimbo had to hand.  Definitely won't be the WikiPedia logo--not that I agree with you that the U.S. flag is "ethnocentric" (which seems very strange to say to me, given that the U.S. is, after all, the biggest ethnic melting pot in the world).'' -- LarrySanger
---
> ''It's a very temporary thing, the nearest thing Jimbo had to hand.  Definitely won't be the WikiPedia logo--not that I agree with you that the U.S. flag is "ethnocentric" (which seems very strange to say to me, given that the U.S. is, after all, the biggest ethnic melting pot in the world).'' -- LarrySanger
> 
> A truly ethnically aware person would be anathema to an ethnic melting pot. The more cultures involved, the stronger your organization because there is more information available to bring to the table. Any country that has a policy or culture of assimilating immigrants will have a difficult time adapting to the future, especially given free trade, globalization and the Internet. -- SunirShah
------
ScottMoonen|979773071
15a16,17
> 
> I suppose it would be better to be like Yugoslavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their gastarbeitern?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnical melting pot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays Irish fiddle music though he's not Irish
------
ScottMoonen|979773214
17c17
< I suppose it would be better to be like Yugoslavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their gastarbeitern?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnical melting pot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays Irish fiddle music though he's not Irish
---
> I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeitern?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle music though he's not Irish
------
ScottMoonen|979773345
17c17
< I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeitern?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle music though he's not Irish
---
> I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeiteren?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle music though he's not Irish
------
ScottMoonen|979773702
9,17c9
< PS: I'd recommend you change the American flag logo.  Exremely ethno-centric ''et. al.''  I think a globe logo would be much more fitting, if you want to keep with that metaphor.  Or perhaps a book.
< 
< ''Or a quill and inkwell. -- SunirShah''
< 
< ''It's a very temporary thing, the nearest thing Jimbo had to hand.  Definitely won't be the WikiPedia logo--not that I agree with you that the U.S. flag is "ethnocentric" (which seems very strange to say to me, given that the U.S. is, after all, the biggest ethnic melting pot in the world).'' -- LarrySanger
< 
< A truly ethnically aware person would be anathema to an ethnic melting pot. The more cultures involved, the stronger your organization because there is more information available to bring to the table. Any country that has a policy or culture of assimilating immigrants will have a difficult time adapting to the future, especially given free trade, globalization and the Internet. -- SunirShah
< 
< I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeiteren?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle music though he's not Irish
---
> There used to be a discussion of the OldWikiPediaLogo on this page.
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979773872
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In its first day of existences, because the nearest thing to hand for JimmyWales that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
> 
> ScottMoonen sensibly suggested:
> 
> I'd recommend you change the American flag logo.  Exremely ethno-centric ''et. al.''  I think a globe logo would be much more fitting, if you want to keep with that metaphor.  Or perhaps a book.
> 
> Then others responded...
> 
> Or a quill and inkwell. -- SunirShah
> 
> It's a very temporary thing, the nearest thing Jimbo had to hand.  Definitely won't be the WikiPedia logo--not that I agree with you that the U.S. flag is "ethnocentric" (which seems very strange to say to me, given that the U.S. is, after all, the biggest ethnic melting pot in the world). -- LarrySanger
> 
> A truly ethnically aware person would be anathema to an ethnic melting pot. The more cultures involved, the stronger your organization because there is more information available to bring to the table. Any country that has a policy or culture of assimilating immigrants will have a difficult time adapting to the future, especially given free trade, globalization and the Internet. -- SunirShah
> 
> I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeiteren?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle even though he's not Irish
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979773915
1c1
< In its first day of existences, because the nearest thing to hand for JimmyWales that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
---
> In its first day of existences, because the nearest thing to hand for JimmyWales that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, indeed WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979773944
1c1
< In its first day of existences, because the nearest thing to hand for JimmyWales that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, indeed WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
---
> In its first day of existence, because the nearest thing to hand (for JimmyWales) that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, indeed WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
------
MakeaNewPage|979775212
1,3c1
< Very easy.  Simply go to any existing wiki page, such as the NewTopics page, click "Edit text of this page," and type in the name of the new page in the text box.  Then save your edit, and you'll see your page name followed by "?".  Click on the question mark to edit the new page.
< 
< To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis.  For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside the word, like PhiloSophy.
---
> Short Articles
------
MakeaNewPage|979775444
1c1,3
< Short Articles
---
> ShortArticles
> 
> The shortest article I know is "a".
------
MuSic|979777976
1c1,15
< That which soothes the savage beast... 
---
> That which soothes the savage beast... 
> 
> is not what soothes an intelligent being ;-)
> 
> Music can soothe but also get the adrenaline in your blood ...
> 
> and Vivaldi's Credo (RV591 and Gloria (Rv589) are superb ...
> 
> so a little nonsical ? contribution to what end ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
MuSic|979778095
7c7
< and Vivaldi's Credo (RV591 and Gloria (Rv589) are superb ...
---
> and Vivaldi's Credo (RV591) and Gloria (Rv589) are superb and what to think of the Beatus Vir and Lauda Jerusalem ...
9c9
< so a little nonsical ? contribution to what end ???
---
> so a little nonsens-ical ? contribution to what end ???
------
StartaNewParagraph|979778188
1c1,2
< This is kind of a funny page, and it comes with instructions, as follows: first click on the "Edit text of this page" below.  Read the text.  Then hit the "back" button and re-read the text.  Then this page will make sense.
---
> This is kind of a funny page, and it comes with instructions, as follows: first click on the "Edit text of this page" below.  Read the text.  Then hit the "back" button and re-read the text.  
> Then this page will make sense.
18c19
< This is the second line of the attempted paragraph, but it will be treated as a new paragraph.  Click on the edit link to see the entered text.
---
> This is the second line of the attempted paragraph, but it will be treated as a new paragraph.  Click on the edit link to see the entered text.
------
MuSic|979779983
10a11
> ----
12c13
< 
---
> By the way, feel free to replace the above with something that accurately and interestingly describes music.
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast|979784017
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> On Quine's conception of a person's set of beliefs as a "seamless web," there is no proposition one could not in principle give up (if there were, there would be a "seam" in the web, protecting the principle from revision or rejection)or HoldComeWhatMay. However, some beliefs may be more useful than others, or may be implicated by a large number of beliefs. Examples might be laws of logic, or the belief in an external world of physical objects. Altering such portions of the web would have immense, ramifying consequences. It is better to alter auxilliary beliefs around the edges of the web in the face of new evidence unfriendly to one's central principles. Thus, while one might agree that there is no belief one can hold come what may, there are some for which there is ample practical ground to hold more stubbornly at least.
------
HoldComeWhatMay|979784141
1c1
< A phrase popularized by that ancient HarVard philosophy professor, WillardVQuine.  Beliefs that are "held come what may" are beliefs one is unwilling to give up, regardless of any evidence with which one might be presented.  Quine held (on a perhaps simplistic construal) that there are no beliefs that one ought to hold come what may--in other words, all beliefs are rationally revisable.  Many philosophers are to the contrary, believing that, for example, TheLawsOfThought cannot be revised and may be held come what may.
---
> A phrase popularized by the late HarVard philosophy professor, WillardVQuine.  Beliefs that are "held come what may" are beliefs one is unwilling to give up, regardless of any evidence with which one might be presented.  Quine held (on a perhaps simplistic construal) that there are no beliefs that one ought to hold come what may--in other words, all beliefs are rationally revisable.  Many philosophers are to the contrary, believing that, for example, TheLawsOfThought cannot be revised and may be held come what may.
------
PhilosophyAndLogic|979787590
12a13,14
> Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
13a16,17
> 
> 
------
TheKoran|979791584
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of God for Muslims.  It is the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet over a period of 22 years.
------
TheKoran|979792308
1c1
< The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of God for Muslims.  It is the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet over a period of 22 years.
---
> The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of God for Muslims.  It is, for Muslims, the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet, according to Muslims, over a period of 22 years.
------
NewTopics|979792493
5,7c5
< NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall --
< TheBible? -- TheKoran? -- TheTorah? -- PlatosRepublic? -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff --
< ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle
---
> NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle
------
HomePage|979792602
3c3
< CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
------
ReLigion|979792747
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah
> 
> You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "religion" here.
------
ReLigion|979792774
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing
------
PythagoreanTheorem|979797168
1c1,62
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The PythagoreanTheorem is attributed to the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras who lived in the 6th century B.C. The theorem states a relationship between the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. It says:
> 
> 
> The sum of the squares of the length the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square 
> of the length of the hypotenuse.
> 
> 
> Visually, the theorem can be illustrated as follows:
> 
> 
> Given a right triangle, with sides a and b and hypotenuse c, (Figure 1)
> 
> 
>                                                      / l
> 
> 
>                                                    /   l
> 
> 
>                                       c         /      l 
> 
>     
>                                               /        l 
> 
>    
>                                            /           l         b
> 
>           
>                                         /              l
> 
> 
>                                      /________________ l
> 
> 
>                                               a
> 
> 
>                                       Figure 1
> 
> 
> the hypotenuse is the side opposite the right (90 degree) angle in a right triangle.
> 
> 
> Then c^2 = a^2 + b^2, or c + sqrt(a^2 + b^2).
> 
> 
> Certain sets of 3 integers are useful to remember as being Pythagorean triples, that is,
> they are possible lengths of the sides of a right triangle. For example:
> 
> 
>                      a                     b                       c
> 
> 
>                      3                     4                       5
> 
> 
>                      9                    12                      15
> 
> 
> 
> The PythagoreanTheorem is an important tool in the study of TrigonometricFunctions. 
> 
------
PythagoreanTheorem|979797629
20c20
<                                       c         /      l 
---
>                                       '''c'''         /      l 
26c26
<                                            /           l         b
---
>                                            /           l  '''b'''
35c35
<                                               a
---
>                                            '''a'''
44c44
< Then c^2 = a^2 + b^2, or c + sqrt(a^2 + b^2).
---
> Then, '''c'''^'''2''' = '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''', or '''c''' = sqrt('''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''').
------
PythagoreanTheorem|979797836
51c51
<                      a                     b                       c
---
>                      '''a'''                     '''b'''                       '''c'''
------
RoseParks|979798057
14c14
< and so much more. Surely you know who I am....
---
> and so much more. Surely you know who I am....
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979798270
1c1
< PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP
---
> PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
3c3
< Add your topic above and go write a few paragraphs displaying your mathematical acumen.  Or edit someone else's article.
---
> Add your topic above and go write a few paragraphs displaying your mathematical acumen.  Or edit someone else's article.
------
ComputinG|979799777
1c1
< * Algorithms
---
> * AlgorithmS
------
MouthOff|979801106
4c4,5
< The voice of a  Nupedia moderator and a good one.
---
> The voice of a  Nupedia moderator and a good one.----
> Thank you.  :-))
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979802068
15c15,25
< I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeiteren?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle even though he's not Irish
---
> I suppose it would be better to be like YugoSlavia, then?  Or to treat foreign workers the way some Germans treat their GastArbeiteren?  Perhaps you do not understand the concept of an ethnic MeltingPot; have you been to the UnitedStates?  Have you met the sons and granddaughters of immigrants here, and how they both preserve their ethnic heritage while freely intermingling with those who have a quite distinct ethnic heritage?  For generations, Americans have been saying that one of the things that makes the country great is precisely '''that''' we have mixed together so many different cultures.  I think some of us in the United States understand rather better what you're trying to say than you do yourself. -- LarrySanger, who plays IrishFiddle even though he's not Irish
> 
> I grew up in Deep River, Ontario, Canada. Deep River has the largest number of PhD's per capita in Canada, so it's diverse (as its population comes from far and wide); but the surrounding Renfrew County is frighteningly homogeneous. Now I live in Ottawa, Ontario and I work in the high tech sector. I would guess that the high tech sector is over one quarter recently landed immigrants.
> 
> I think the phrase that sums up my best experiences so far: "We don't melt, we mingle." Melting and mixing has that unfortunate connotation of becoming homogeneous, like two metals melting and mixing together to form an alloy--a homogeneous (in every sense of the word) mixture/solution. Homogeneity is ''bad'' (or so I posit.) And don't forget the melting pot is the metaphor used by immigration theorists who believed in assimilation policies.
> 
> I haven't travelled extensively in the States. But I don't think it's all that different from Canada. Canada has until quite recently not done very well to accept foreigners into its society. Even now, it has problems. One needs only to wander into Renfrew County to see what I mean. I find my current high tech environment to be better at adapting; partly out of necessity, partly out of education. 
> 
> Taking an extreme example like Yugoslavia is a fallacy for two reasons. One: extreme boundary cases aren't interesting compared to the average case in social phenomena; two: it isn't a paradigm case. Yugoslavia has been "mixed" as such for hundreds of years. The conflict there is centuries old, involving particular details not part of the general case. In that case, a religious conflict that is really a resource (geographic) conflict of ''two'' nations combatting. Not the same as a single nation building from diverse individuals. -- SunirShah
> 
> P.S. I like the new logo.
------
ReLigion|979804219
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD
3c3
< You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "religion" here.
---
> You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "religion" here.
------
NewTopics|979804250
5c5
< NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle
---
> NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD
------
GoD|979804454
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There is a large number of different conceptions of the divine, and this is even reflected in the NamesGivenToTheDivine.
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|979804804
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There are many names given to the divine.  Some of the names are used in approximately the same sense (e.g., when a Catholic uses to "God" and "the Holy Trinity"), but for the most part, the names mark important differences in meaning.  Among the names used, or ways to refer to the divine, include the following:
> 
> Generic names for the divine being(s): God (capitalized), god (uncapitalized), goddess, gods, deity, deities
> 
> Names for specific conceptions of god: Yahweh, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Godhead, Allah, Krishna
> 
> Please add to this list, and if you feel ambitious, give a brief gloss on each.
> 
> The name of God is very important in Judaism; some Jewish believers hold that the name of God is not to be used except in certain special circumstances.  (Anyone know more about this?  Do tell.)
------
GoD|979805332
1c1,7
< There is a large number of different conceptions of the divine, and this is even reflected in the NamesGivenToTheDivine.
---
> Feel free to edit this page, as the topic is dear to many people and I might not have gotten it right.
> 
> There is a large number of different conceptions of the divine, and this is even reflected in the many NamesGivenToTheDivine.
> 
> The view that the divine exists is called ''TheIsm.''  There are four varieties of theism, or four differing theories, or conceptions, about God: MonoTheism, PanTheism, PolyTheism, and AnimIsm (which latter might be regarded as a special variety of either PolyTheism or PanTheism).
> 
> There is an ancient tradition that began with AbraHam (or AdAm, for believers) according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|979805870
1c1
< There are many names given to the divine.  Some of the names are used in approximately the same sense (e.g., when a Catholic uses to "God" and "the Holy Trinity"), but for the most part, the names mark important differences in meaning.  Among the names used, or ways to refer to the divine, include the following:
---
> There are many names given to the divine.  Some of the names are used in approximately the same sense (e.g., when a Catholic uses both "God" and "the Holy Trinity"), but for the most part, the names mark important differences in meaning.  Positivists (e.g., advocates of LogicalEmpiricism) should take note that a robust theory of meaning of religious language ought to be able to account, in ''some'' fashion, for these differences in meaning.  Among the names used, or ways to refer to the divine, are the following; there are both generic words given for the divine being(s), as well as specific names (used by analogy to names for particular individuals or things) for the divine used in particular religions.
3c3
< Generic names for the divine being(s): God (capitalized), god (uncapitalized), goddess, gods, deity, deities
---
> Generic names for the divine being(s): GoD (capitalized), god (uncapitalized), GodDess, GodS, DeIty, deities
5c5
< Names for specific conceptions of god: Yahweh, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Godhead, Allah, Krishna
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa.
7c7
< Please add to this list, and if you feel ambitious, give a brief gloss on each.
---
> [Please add to this list, and if you feel ambitious, give a brief gloss on each.]
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|979805997
1c1
< There are many names given to the divine.  Some of the names are used in approximately the same sense (e.g., when a Catholic uses both "God" and "the Holy Trinity"), but for the most part, the names mark important differences in meaning.  Positivists (e.g., advocates of LogicalEmpiricism) should take note that a robust theory of meaning of religious language ought to be able to account, in ''some'' fashion, for these differences in meaning.  Among the names used, or ways to refer to the divine, are the following; there are both generic words given for the divine being(s), as well as specific names (used by analogy to names for particular individuals or things) for the divine used in particular religions.
---
> There are many names given to the divine.  Some of the names are used in approximately the same sense (e.g., when a Catholic uses both "God" and "the Holy Trinity"), but for the most part, the names mark important differences in meaning.  Positivists (e.g., advocates of LogicalEmpiricism) should take note that a robust theory of the meaning of ReligiousLanguage, however dismissive, ought to be able to account, in ''some'' fashion, for these differences in meaning.  Among the names used, or ways to refer to the divine, are the following; there are both generic words given for the divine being(s), as well as specific names (used by analogy to names for particular individuals or things) for the divine used in particular religions.
3c3
< Generic names for the divine being(s): GoD (capitalized), god (uncapitalized), GodDess, GodS, DeIty, deities
---
> Generic names for the divine being(s): GoD (GodCapitalized), god (i.e., GodUncapitalized), GodDess, GodS, DeIty, deities
5c5
< Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa.
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa
9c9
< The name of God is very important in Judaism; some Jewish believers hold that the name of God is not to be used except in certain special circumstances.  (Anyone know more about this?  Do tell.)
---
> The name of God is very important in Judaism; some Jewish believers hold that the name of God is not to be used except in certain special circumstances.  (Anyone know more about this?  Do tell.)
------
NewTopics|979806086
5c5
< NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD
---
> NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
------
WikiPedia|979806279
11c11
< I second this request.
---
> I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
------
GoD|979806482
7c7
< There is an ancient tradition that began with AbraHam (or AdAm, for believers) according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).
---
> There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
------
TheKoran|979806532
1c1
< The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of God for Muslims.  It is, for Muslims, the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet, according to Muslims, over a period of 22 years.
---
> The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of GoD for Muslims.  It is, for Muslims, the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet, according to Muslims, over a period of 22 years.
------
GoD|979806557
5c5
< The view that the divine exists is called ''TheIsm.''  There are four varieties of theism, or four differing theories, or conceptions, about God: MonoTheism, PanTheism, PolyTheism, and AnimIsm (which latter might be regarded as a special variety of either PolyTheism or PanTheism).
---
> The view that the divine exists is called ''TheIsm.''  There are four varieties of theism, or four differing theories, or conceptions, about God: MonoTheism, PanTheism, PolyTheism, and AnimIsm (the latter might be regarded as a special variety of either PolyTheism or PanTheism).
7c7
< There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
---
> There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
------
GoD|979806640
7c7
< There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld, OmniPotent (all-powerful), OmniScient (all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolent (all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
---
> There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
------
WikiPediaProcess|979806756
3,8c3
< ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
< 
< ----
< 
< A comment: For an internet encyclopedia that will have contributors from around the world, a USA flag somehow
< doesn't seem right for the logo. 
---
> ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
------
HomePage|979807660
3c3
< CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- TechnologY
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY
------
ReLigion|979807683
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD -- ConceptionsOfTheDivine
------
ReLigion|979807703
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD -- ConceptionsOfTheDivine
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
------
TheBible|979825126
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> I Definition of Terms
>   (what is 'the Bible' [Hebrew vs Greek, Jewish vs Christian, Orthodox vs. Western, Catholic vs Protestant]; canon; apochrypha, pseudepigrapha)
> 
> II Description
>    (Hebrew Bible divided into 3 sections, Law, Prophets, Writings; Christian Bible divided into 2 parts (Old and New) with some subdivision not so clearly defined/recognised; what is in each part and section; summary of contents of each section, part, book)
> 
> III History
>     (modern reconstruction of composition of Hebrew Bible; of Christian Bible; don't try to explicate development of biblical criticism that underlies this here but cross-reference to article(s) to be written; try fairly to represent main stands of liberal vs conservative thought; outline history of transmission and translation after close of canons)
> 
> IV Interpretation
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979825252
2a3,6
> 
> -----
> 
> Agreed - Wiki's are wayyyyy cool.  They even allow for some basic formatting  -- Ravi Desai
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979825348
1a2
> TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979825372
1,2c1,2
< PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
< TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
---
>     PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
>     TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979825490
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> At least according to Richard Feynman, the most remarkable formula in the world is:
> 
> e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
> 
> where e is the base of the natural logarithms, i is the square-root of -1 (imaginary numbers) and pi is the ratio of the circumferance of a circle with its diameter.
> 
> -- Ravi Desai.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979825506
5c5
< where e is the base of the natural logarithms, i is the square-root of -1 (imaginary numbers) and pi is the ratio of the circumferance of a circle with its diameter.
---
> where e is the base of the natural logarithms, i is the square-root of -1 (imaginary numbers), and pi is the ratio of the circumferance of a circle with its diameter.
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979826308
6c6
< Agreed - Wiki's are wayyyyy cool.  They even allow for some basic formatting  -- Ravi Desai
---
> Agreed - Wiki's are wayyyyy cool.  They even allow for some <b>basic formatting</b>  -- Ravi Desai
------
PopularMusic|979826504
30a31,34
> 
> * JarsOfClay
> * MichaelWSmith
> 
------
JarsOfClay|979827044
1c1,46
< Describe the new page here.
---
> They have three main albums released to date:
> 
> Jars of Clay (self titled)
>     Liquid
>     Sinking
>     Love Song for a Savior
>     Like a Child
>     Art In Me
>     He
>     Boy on a String
>     Flood
>     Worlds Apart
>     Blind
>     Four Seven
> 
> Much Afraid
>     Overjoyed
>     Fade to Grey
>     Tea and Sympathy
>     Crazy Times
>     Frail
>     Five Candles (You were there)
>     Weighed Down
>     Portrait of an Apology
>     Truce
>     Much Afraid
>     Hymn
> 
> If I Left the Zoo
>     Goodbye, Goodnight
>     Unforgetful You
>     Collide
>     No One Loves Me Like You
>     Famous Last Words
>     Sad Clown
>     Hand
>     I'm Alright
>     Grace
>     Can't Erase It
>     River Constantine
> 
> Official Web Site: http://www.jarsofclay.com/
> 
> Genre: Christian Pop/Rock
> 
> Notes: They are often known as the "fab four" of Christian music.
------
NnN|979832170
1c1,47
< Describe the new page here.
---
> New Zealand (Aotearoa in Maori) is a temperate country located in the
> South West Pacific. It is composed of two main Islands and a number of
> smaller islands. The South Island is the largest land mass, and is
> divided along its length by the Southern Alps, the highest peak of
> which is Mount Cook, at 3754 m. There are eighteen peaks of more than
> three kilometres in the South Island. The North Island is less
> mountainous than the South, but is marked by volcanism. The tallest
> North Island Mountain, Ruapehu (2 797m) is an active cone volcano. The
> total land area of New Zealand, 270 500km<sup>2</sup> is somewhat
> smaller than that of Japan and the British Isles, and slightly larger
> than Colorado in the USA.  The country extends more than 1600 km along
> its main, North-North East axis.
> 
> The climate througout the country is mild, rarely falling below 0C or
> rising above 30C. Daily average temperature in Wellington, the centrally 
> located capital, is 5.9C in mid winter and 20.3C in mid summer. 
> 
> New Zealand is an independent Parliamentary Democracy governed by a
> 120 member parliament, from which a 20 member executive cabinet is
> selected. This cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently (Jan 2001)
> Helen
> Clarke of the centre-left Labour party. Currently six parties are
> represented in the New Zealand parliament. New Zealand's head of state
> is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General, The
> Right Honourable Sir Michael Hardie Boys.
> 
> New Zealand was one of the most recently settled major land
> masses. Polynesian settlers arrived, probably some time between 500
> and 1300AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture. The first
> European explorers to reach New Zealand were Abel Tasman, who arrived
> from the Netherlands in 1642, and James Cook, whose extensive surveys
> starting in 1769 lead to significant European colonisation from the
> 1790s on. Although the majority of the New Zealand population is now
> of European origin, Maori and Pacific islanders are the second and
> third largest ethnic groups, and Maori culture is a significant
> feature of New Zealand's public life.
> 
> New Zealand is a modern, industrialised country. It's primary export
> industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry. There
> are also substantial manufacturing, tourism and service industries.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
>  Statistics New Zealand, "The New Zealand Official Yearbook, 1998", GP Publications, Wellington, 1998
> 
>  Rice, Geoffrey W (Ed), "The Oxford History of New Zealand, Second Edition", Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1992.
> 
------
NnN|979832259
0a1,2
> NewZealand
> 
------
NnN|979832287
3,49d2
< New Zealand (Aotearoa in Maori) is a temperate country located in the
< South West Pacific. It is composed of two main Islands and a number of
< smaller islands. The South Island is the largest land mass, and is
< divided along its length by the Southern Alps, the highest peak of
< which is Mount Cook, at 3754 m. There are eighteen peaks of more than
< three kilometres in the South Island. The North Island is less
< mountainous than the South, but is marked by volcanism. The tallest
< North Island Mountain, Ruapehu (2 797m) is an active cone volcano. The
< total land area of New Zealand, 270 500km<sup>2</sup> is somewhat
< smaller than that of Japan and the British Isles, and slightly larger
< than Colorado in the USA.  The country extends more than 1600 km along
< its main, North-North East axis.
< 
< The climate througout the country is mild, rarely falling below 0C or
< rising above 30C. Daily average temperature in Wellington, the centrally 
< located capital, is 5.9C in mid winter and 20.3C in mid summer. 
< 
< New Zealand is an independent Parliamentary Democracy governed by a
< 120 member parliament, from which a 20 member executive cabinet is
< selected. This cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently (Jan 2001)
< Helen
< Clarke of the centre-left Labour party. Currently six parties are
< represented in the New Zealand parliament. New Zealand's head of state
< is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General, The
< Right Honourable Sir Michael Hardie Boys.
< 
< New Zealand was one of the most recently settled major land
< masses. Polynesian settlers arrived, probably some time between 500
< and 1300AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture. The first
< European explorers to reach New Zealand were Abel Tasman, who arrived
< from the Netherlands in 1642, and James Cook, whose extensive surveys
< starting in 1769 lead to significant European colonisation from the
< 1790s on. Although the majority of the New Zealand population is now
< of European origin, Maori and Pacific islanders are the second and
< third largest ethnic groups, and Maori culture is a significant
< feature of New Zealand's public life.
< 
< New Zealand is a modern, industrialised country. It's primary export
< industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry. There
< are also substantial manufacturing, tourism and service industries.
< 
< 
< Further Reading:
<  Statistics New Zealand, "The New Zealand Official Yearbook, 1998", GP Publications, Wellington, 1998
< 
<  Rice, Geoffrey W (Ed), "The Oxford History of New Zealand, Second Edition", Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1992.
< 
------
NamingConventions|979832322
1c1
< ''Recommend doing things like AfghanistanCountry rather than the eminently ugly AfghanistaN.''
---
> Recommend naming one-word pages like AfghanistanCountry rather than the eminently ugly AfghanistaN.
3c3,7
< ''In this same manner, every noun can have Person, Place, Idea, Invention, etc. tacked on to its end to identify its type.  You might even want to hold this convention for words that already meet the wiki naming conventions, like ThomasEdisonPerson.  -- ScottMoonen''
---
> In this same manner, every noun can have Person, Place, Idea, Invention, etc. tacked on to its end to identify its type.  You might even want to hold this convention for words that already meet the wiki naming conventions, like ThomasEdisonPerson.
> 
> For example, say I want to link to a page from my site.  I have an [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?InterWiki InterWiki] prefix set up for WikiPedia on my own wiki.  Without going through the rigamarole of actually looking up something on WikiPedia, I have no ''a priori'' way of knowing whether to link to <tt><nowiki>WikiPedia:AlAska</nowiki></tt>, <tt><nowiki>WikiPedia:AlaSka</nowiki></tt>, <tt><nowiki>WikiPedia:AlasKa</nowiki></tt>, or <tt><nowiki>WikiPedia:AlaskA</nowiki></tt>.  Lather, rinse, and repeat for longer names like AfghanistaN.  If I knew there was an AlaskaState naming convention, then I wouldn't have to give it a second thought.
> 
> The arbitrary naming convention used so far is very inconvenient and doesn't contribute at all to [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AccidentalLinking AccidentalLinking].  At very minimum, you might investigate other wiki engines that support arbitrary link patterns like <nowiki>[Alaska]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[Ward Cunningham]</nowiki>.  -- ScottMoonen
------
NamingConventions|979832401
3c3
< In this same manner, every noun can have Person, Place, Idea, Invention, etc. tacked on to its end to identify its type.  You might even want to hold this convention for words that already meet the wiki naming conventions, like ThomasEdisonPerson.
---
> In this same manner, every noun can have Person, Place, Idea, Invention, etc. tacked on to its end to identify its type.  You might even want to hold this convention for words that already meet the wiki naming conventions, like ThomasEdisonPerson.  You might name the "letter" pages things like IndexA, which might link to IndexAaAl and IndexAmAz (once you get big enough :-).
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979832469
1,2c1,2
<     PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
<     TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
---
> :PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
> :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
------
WikiPediaFaq|979832517
2a3,5
> 
> '''Q. This is a wiki, anyone with a browser can edit any page. This is not true of either print or on-line encycolpediae. With a non-editable encyclopedia I can be reasonably sure who wrote what I'm reading, can check their credentials, and form an opinion regarding their reliability. I can't do any of those things with WikiPedia. Why then would I give any credence to anything I read here?
> 
17c20
< A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
---
> A. Yes, why not?  You can link to anything you want.  You can either type the URL in directly, or else in this format: [URL nameofpage].  This results in a link like this: [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com].
------
WikiPediaFaq|979832534
4c4
< '''Q. This is a wiki, anyone with a browser can edit any page. This is not true of either print or on-line encycolpediae. With a non-editable encyclopedia I can be reasonably sure who wrote what I'm reading, can check their credentials, and form an opinion regarding their reliability. I can't do any of those things with WikiPedia. Why then would I give any credence to anything I read here?
---
> '''Q. This is a wiki, anyone with a browser can edit any page. This is not true of either print or on-line encycolpediae. With a non-editable encyclopedia I can be reasonably sure who wrote what I'm reading, can check their credentials, and form an opinion regarding their reliability. I can't do any of those things with WikiPedia. Why then would I give any credence to anything I read here?'''
------
NewZealand|979832564
1c1,51
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> New Zealand (Aotearoa in Maori [MaoriLanguage]) is a temperate country located in the
> South West Pacific [SouthWestPacific]. It is composed of two main Islands and a number of
> smaller islands. The South Island [TheSouthIslandOfNewZealand]
>  is the largest land mass, and is
> divided along its length by the Southern Alps [NewZealandSouthernAlps], the highest peak of
> which is Mount Cook [AorangiMountainNewZealand]
> , at 3754 m. There are eighteen peaks of more than
> three kilometres in the South Island. The North Island [TheNorthIslandOfNewZealand]
>  is less
> mountainous than the South, but is marked by volcanism [VolcanismDefinition]. The tallest
> North Island Mountain, Ruapehu [RuapehuMountainNewZealand]
>  (2 797m) is an active cone volcano. The
> total land area of New Zealand, 270 500km<sup>2</sup> is somewhat
> smaller than that of Japan and the British Isles, and slightly larger
> than Colorado in the USA.  The country extends more than 1600 km along
> its main, North-North East axis.
> 
> The climate througout the country is mild, rarely falling below 0C or
> rising above 30C. Daily average temperature in Wellington, the centrally 
> located capital, is 5.9C in mid winter and 20.3C in mid summer. 
> 
> New Zealand is an independent Parliamentary Democracy governed by a
> 120 member parliament, from which a 20 member executive cabinet is
> selected. This cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently (Jan 2001)
> Helen
> Clarke [PrimeMinisterHelenClarke] of the centre-left Labour party [NewZealandLabourParty]. Currently six parties are
> represented in the New Zealand parliament. New Zealand's head of state
> is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General, The
> Right Honourable Sir Michael Hardie Boys.
> 
> New Zealand was one of the most recently settled major land
> masses. Polynesian settlers arrived, probably some time between 500
> and 1300AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture. The first
> European explorers to reach New Zealand were Abel Tasman [AbelJanzoonTasmanExplorer], who arrived
> from the Netherlands in 1642, and James Cook [JamesCookExplorer], whose extensive surveys
> starting in 1769 lead to significant European colonisation from the
> 1790s on. Although the majority of the New Zealand population is now
> of European origin, Maori and Pacific islanders are the second and
> third largest ethnic groups, and Maori culture is a significant
> feature of New Zealand's public life.
> 
> New Zealand is a modern, industrialised country. It's primary export
> industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry. There
> are also substantial manufacturing, tourism and service industries.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> Statistics New Zealand, "The New Zealand Official Yearbook, 1998", GP Publications, Wellington, 1998
> 
> Rice, Geoffrey W (Ed), "The Oxford History of New Zealand, Second Edition", Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1992.
------
ReLigion|979841296
3c3
< You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "religion" here.
---
> You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "%Religion%" here.
------
ReLigion|979841310
3c3
< You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "%Religion%" here.
---
> You're very welcome to contribute all manner of information about the above and other religious topics; you may also edit the above topics.  Or you could add some general remarks about religion to this page.  For example, you could discuss definitions of the word "religion" here.
------
TheBible|979843213
0a1
> I DefinitionofBibleTerms
2,3c3
< I Definition of Terms
<   (what is 'the Bible' [Hebrew vs Greek, Jewish vs Christian, Orthodox vs. Western, Catholic vs Protestant]; canon; apochrypha, pseudepigrapha)
---
> (what is 'the Bible' [Hebrew vs Greek, Jewish vs Christian, Orthodox vs. Western, Catholic vs Protestant]; canon; apochrypha, pseudepigrapha)
5,6c5
< II Description
<    (Hebrew Bible divided into 3 sections, Law, Prophets, Writings; Christian Bible divided into 2 parts (Old and New) with some subdivision not so clearly defined/recognised; what is in each part and section; summary of contents of each section, part, book)
---
> ----
8c7,13
< III History
---
> II DescriptionOfTheBible
> 
> (Hebrew Bible divided into 3 sections, Law, Prophets, Writings; Christian Bible divided into 2 parts (Old and New) with some subdivision not so clearly defined/recognised; what is in each part and section; summary of contents of each section, part, book)
> 
> ----
> 
> III BibleHistory
11c16,18
< IV Interpretation
---
> ----
> 
> IV BiblicalInterpretation
------
TheBible|979843234
14c14,15
<     (modern reconstruction of composition of Hebrew Bible; of Christian Bible; don't try to explicate development of biblical criticism that underlies this here but cross-reference to article(s) to be written; try fairly to represent main stands of liberal vs conservative thought; outline history of transmission and translation after close of canons)
---
> 
> (modern reconstruction of composition of Hebrew Bible; of Christian Bible; don't try to explicate development of biblical criticism that underlies this here but cross-reference to article(s) to be written; try fairly to represent main stands of liberal vs conservative thought; outline history of transmission and translation after close of canons)
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979843388
7a8,11
> 
> Is there a name for the formula?
> 
> What does it mean--what does it show--why is it remarkable?  (Not sure what I'm asking here, but you probably do.)
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979843397
8a9,10
> ----
> 
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979843414
7,8c7
< -- Ravi Desai.
< 
---
> -- RaviDesai.
10d8
< 
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|979843461
3d2
< 
5,6c4
< 
< Agreed - Wiki's are wayyyyy cool.  They even allow for some <b>basic formatting</b>  -- Ravi Desai
---
> Agreed - wikis are wayyyyy cool.  They even allow for some '''basic formatting'''  -- RaviDesai
------
NewZealand|979843712
0a1,2
> New Zealand (Aotearoa in Maori [MaoriLanguage]) is a temperate country located in the South West Pacific [SouthWestPacific].  It is composed of two main Islands and a number of
> smaller islands.  The South Island [TheSouthIslandOfNewZealand] is the largest land mass, and is divided along its length by the Southern Alps [NewZealandSouthernAlps], the highest peak of which is Mount Cook [AorangiMountainNewZealand], at 3754 m. There are eighteen peaks of more than three kilometres in the South Island.  The North Island [TheNorthIslandOfNewZealand] is less mountainous than the South, but is marked by volcanism [VolcanismDefinition].  The tallest North Island Mountain, Ruapehu [RuapehuMountainNewZealand] (2 797m) is an active cone volcano.  The total land area of New Zealand, 270 500km<sup>2</sup> is somewhat smaller than that of Japan and the British Isles, and slightly larger than Colorado in the USA.  The country extends more than 1600 km along its main, North-North East axis.
2,45c4,11
< New Zealand (Aotearoa in Maori [MaoriLanguage]) is a temperate country located in the
< South West Pacific [SouthWestPacific]. It is composed of two main Islands and a number of
< smaller islands. The South Island [TheSouthIslandOfNewZealand]
<  is the largest land mass, and is
< divided along its length by the Southern Alps [NewZealandSouthernAlps], the highest peak of
< which is Mount Cook [AorangiMountainNewZealand]
< , at 3754 m. There are eighteen peaks of more than
< three kilometres in the South Island. The North Island [TheNorthIslandOfNewZealand]
<  is less
< mountainous than the South, but is marked by volcanism [VolcanismDefinition]. The tallest
< North Island Mountain, Ruapehu [RuapehuMountainNewZealand]
<  (2 797m) is an active cone volcano. The
< total land area of New Zealand, 270 500km<sup>2</sup> is somewhat
< smaller than that of Japan and the British Isles, and slightly larger
< than Colorado in the USA.  The country extends more than 1600 km along
< its main, North-North East axis.
< 
< The climate througout the country is mild, rarely falling below 0C or
< rising above 30C. Daily average temperature in Wellington, the centrally 
< located capital, is 5.9C in mid winter and 20.3C in mid summer. 
< 
< New Zealand is an independent Parliamentary Democracy governed by a
< 120 member parliament, from which a 20 member executive cabinet is
< selected. This cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently (Jan 2001)
< Helen
< Clarke [PrimeMinisterHelenClarke] of the centre-left Labour party [NewZealandLabourParty]. Currently six parties are
< represented in the New Zealand parliament. New Zealand's head of state
< is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General, The
< Right Honourable Sir Michael Hardie Boys.
< 
< New Zealand was one of the most recently settled major land
< masses. Polynesian settlers arrived, probably some time between 500
< and 1300AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture. The first
< European explorers to reach New Zealand were Abel Tasman [AbelJanzoonTasmanExplorer], who arrived
< from the Netherlands in 1642, and James Cook [JamesCookExplorer], whose extensive surveys
< starting in 1769 lead to significant European colonisation from the
< 1790s on. Although the majority of the New Zealand population is now
< of European origin, Maori and Pacific islanders are the second and
< third largest ethnic groups, and Maori culture is a significant
< feature of New Zealand's public life.
< 
< New Zealand is a modern, industrialised country. It's primary export
< industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry. There
< are also substantial manufacturing, tourism and service industries.
---
> The climate througout the country is mild, rarely falling below 0C or rising above 30C. Daily average temperature in Wellington, the centrally located capital, is 5.9C in midwinter and 20.3C in mid summer. 
> 
> New Zealand is an independent Parliamentary Democracy governed by a 120 member parliament, from which a 20 member executive cabinet is selected.  This cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently (Jan 2001) Helen Clarke [PrimeMinisterHelenClarke] of the centre-left Labour party [NewZealandLabourParty].  Currently six parties are represented in the New Zealand parliament.  New Zealand's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General, The Right Honourable Sir Michael Hardie Boys (not to be confused with the fictional HardyBoys).
> 
> New Zealand was one of the most recently settled major land masses.  Polynesian settlers arrived, probably some time between 500 and 1300AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture. The first European explorers to reach New Zealand were Abel Tasman [AbelJanzoonTasmanExplorer], who arrived from the Netherlands in 1642, and James Cook [JamesCookExplorer], whose extensive surveys starting in 1769 lead to significant European colonisation from the 1790s on.  Although the majority of the New Zealand population is now
> of European origin, Maori and Pacific islanders are the second and third largest ethnic groups, and Maori culture is a significant feature of New Zealand's public life.
> 
> New Zealand is a modern, industrialised country.  It's primary export industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry.  There are also substantial manufacturing, tourism and service industries.
48a15
> 
------
WikiPediaFaq|979844333
4c4
< '''Q. This is a wiki, anyone with a browser can edit any page. This is not true of either print or on-line encycolpediae. With a non-editable encyclopedia I can be reasonably sure who wrote what I'm reading, can check their credentials, and form an opinion regarding their reliability. I can't do any of those things with WikiPedia. Why then would I give any credence to anything I read here?'''
---
> '''Q. This is a wiki, anyone with a browser can edit any page.  This is not true of either print or on-line encyclopediae.  With a non-editable encyclopedia I can be reasonably sure who wrote what I'm reading, can check their credentials, and form an opinion regarding their reliability.  I can't do any of those things with WikiPedia.  Why then would I give any credence to anything I read here?'''
5a6,9
> A. You should not give credence to anything you read here.
> 
> Less flippantly, you should realize that this is, quite self-consciously, an experiment in public collaboration quite unlike any print or online encyclopedias, and therefore it will be difficult to project the results, in terms of their credibility, until the project is farther along.  But even then, you'll have to judge the results based on what the articles themselves, rather than the credentials of their writers (which is itself often an unreliable way to determine credibility, as you know).
> ----
------
WikiPediaFaq|979844356
8c8
< Less flippantly, you should realize that this is, quite self-consciously, an experiment in public collaboration quite unlike any print or online encyclopedias, and therefore it will be difficult to project the results, in terms of their credibility, until the project is farther along.  But even then, you'll have to judge the results based on what the articles themselves, rather than the credentials of their writers (which is itself often an unreliable way to determine credibility, as you know).
---
> Less flippantly, you should realize that this is, quite self-consciously, an experiment in public collaboration quite unlike any print or online encyclopedia, and therefore it will be difficult to project the results, in terms of their credibility, until the project is farther along.  But even then, you'll have to judge the results based on what the articles themselves, rather than the credentials of their writers (which is itself often an unreliable way to determine credibility, as you know).
------
WikiPediaFaq|979844380
8c8
< Less flippantly, you should realize that this is, quite self-consciously, an experiment in public collaboration quite unlike any print or online encyclopedia, and therefore it will be difficult to project the results, in terms of their credibility, until the project is farther along.  But even then, you'll have to judge the results based on what the articles themselves, rather than the credentials of their writers (which is itself often an unreliable way to determine credibility, as you know).
---
> Less flippantly, you should realize that this is, quite self-consciously, an experiment in public collaboration quite unlike any print or online encyclopedia, and therefore it will be difficult to project the results, in terms of their credibility, until the project is farther along.  But even then, you'll have to judge the results based on the articles themselves, rather than the credentials of their writers (which is itself often an unreliable way to determine credibility, as you know).
------
NamingConventions|979844582
7a8,9
> ----
> There is, however, a search form at the bottom of every page.  Isn't it both more convenient and more liberating in the end to let people do whatever they want, and just search for a string of characters whenever you think there might be related page already in existence, to which you might link?
------
ComputerSoftware|979845690
2a3
> ** CollaborativeSoftware
------
ComputerSoftware|979845733
3a4,5
> *** WikiCollaborativeSoftware
> 
------
ComputerSoftware|979845770
4c4
< *** WikiCollaborativeSoftware
---
> *** WikiWiki
------
WikiWiki|979846003
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''WikiWiki''' - a collaborative software application, enabling web documents to be authored collectively using a simple markup scheme and without the content being reviewed prior to its acceptance. Often called ''Wiki'' for short.
> 
> A WikiWikiWeb is a collaborative hypertext document produced by a community of users by means of a WikiWiki tool.
> 
> The original WikiWikiWeb was established by WardCunningham, who invented and named the Wiki concept, and produced the first implementation of a WikiWiki server.
> 
> Ward's Wiki remains one of the most popular Wiki sites:
> 
> 	http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979846288
25c25,27
< P.S. I like the new logo.
---
> P.S. I like the new logo.
> 
> ''Me too, it's great!''
------
InvestigatorAsPholosopher|979846542
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sherlock Holmes is represented as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally acute observer.  What hidden advantages did he possess over his peers?
------
PhiloSophy|979846587
1c1
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
3c3
< Are you a philosopher or do you know a thing or two about philosophy?  Then add a topic to those listed and give us what you know about the concepts, theories, people, movements, etc., of philosophy.  It's no big deal: dash off a paragraph or two and watch others contribute and expand what you've done.  You can edit the above articles, too.
---
> Are you a philosopher or do you know a thing or two about philosophy?  Then add a topic to those listed and give us what you know about the concepts, theories, people, movements, etc., of philosophy.  It's no big deal: dash off a paragraph or two and watch others contribute and expand what you've done.  You can edit the above articles, too.
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979846859
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sherlock Holmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979847175
1a2,3
> 
> Consider:  Holmes observed the world around him in a manner which took into account the most minor details.  Those around him seldom detected the same "clues" and when they did, the evidence in front of their eyes was empty to them.  Conan Doyle may or may not have consciously given Holmes an unfair leg up over his compatriots - but regardless of intent, that advantage existed.
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979847485
3a4,5
> 
> It is unlikely that persons who have not undertaken one form or another of professional investigation will detect how the "Holmes" world view differed from others.  It is equally unlikely that it would reveal itself to professional investigators (be they involved in science, law enforcement or private investigation) who have not also made a targeted study of the science of logic and its associated processes.
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979849958
5a6,27
> 
> Logic is commonly seen as a study involving datasets, relationships between them, belonging and not-belonging.  This view will serve as well as any other to illustrate the synergy which exists between the three most basic elements of successful investigative technique:
> 
> A)  Perception
> 
> B)  Knowledge Base
> 
> C)  Logic
> 
> One must needs be able to see the world in front of one's nose in order to succeed at an investigative endeavor.  And by that, it is meant only to perceive - not to perceive and imbue with meaning and nuance, but merely perceive - to be accurate and complete in perception, to record accurately what is perceived, and to add or subtract nothing.
> 
> The oft-overlooked fact is that things perceived do not have meaning inherent in them.  That which is perceived must be compared to a knowledge base to determine what relationships exist between elements observed and other known data.  The relationships that are available serve to establish what meaning or sets of meanings may be attributed to observed items, facts or circumstances.  Take this example:  A suspect leaves his house at 8:00 am and arrives in a neighboring town at 10:00 AM.  What are we to make of this?  In a vacuum of information, nothing.  Now consider that the towns are 26 miles apart.  Suddenly, the two hours seems excessive.  But the highway between the towns was blocked by a toxic spill cleanup operation for a time.  Time explained.  But the suspect had foreknowledge of the spill and a helicopter at his disposal... and on and on until all data which would lend meaning to the evidence is gathered.
> 
> Has the reader guessed by this time what important special advantage Holmes possessed?  It was no more nor less than this:  His knowledge base encompassed everything that was known about anything anywhere in the world in the Victorian Era.  He knew how paralytic poison manufactured from the sap of a tree which grew only in the Amazon Basin smelled.  Every single clue in every case he ever worked bore upon some knowledge which he possessed, no matter how remote the source of that knowledge might seem.  'Nuff said?  The further, and less important advantage with which he was blessed by his creator was that each clue, on the whole, was subject to only a single interpetation.  Multiple datasets with regard to a single clue generally did not exist.
> 
> The above brings us to the subject of Holmes' logical facility, or "deductive powers."  These were generally assumed to be a feature of unmatched native intelligence (Never mind that Watson was made to appear downright febble-minded from time to time, in order to show Holmes as brilliant by comparison).  In fact, anyone of average intelligence or better can be trained to utilize "deduction" on a par with Holmes'.
> 
> Here's how:
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979850232
21c21
< The above brings us to the subject of Holmes' logical facility, or "deductive powers."  These were generally assumed to be a feature of unmatched native intelligence (Never mind that Watson was made to appear downright febble-minded from time to time, in order to show Holmes as brilliant by comparison).  In fact, anyone of average intelligence or better can be trained to utilize "deduction" on a par with Holmes'.
---
> The above brings us to the subject of Holmes' logical facility, or "deductive powers."  These were generally assumed to be a feature of unmatched native intelligence (Never mind that Watson was made to appear downright feeble-minded from time to time, in order to show Holmes as brilliant by comparison).  In fact, anyone of average intelligence or better can be trained to utilize "deduction" on a par with Holmes'.
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979851750
24a25,29
> First, the prospective investigator should be encouraged to continually expand his or her knowledge base.  There should be no off-limits learning.  If one is to investigate in the field of medications, reactions and drug development, then the first and most important datasets to acquire would obviously deal with such things as chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and the like.  Other areas of investigative specialty would likewise benefit most greatly from studies of their related datasets.
> 
> Second, in one fashion or another, the prospect should be educated in the logical concept of "belonging."  Taken grossly, this concept could relate to things as obvious as a cooking stove in a living room or, conversely, a kitchen with no stove.  Things which ought to belong to a scenario and which are present in the expected condition, receive the lowest importance in investigative observation, and things which are present when they do not belong or absent when they do belong receive first attention.  First, of course, one observes the scene and makes no evaluation.  Then one evaluates observed elements relative to each other.  Lastly, one evaluates observed elements relative to datasets which are not implicit in the scene, but are rather contained in the investigator's head or his reference sources.
> 
> Such labeling of logical process as "syllogism" are unnecessary to this educational process.  Classification of types of "belonging" or "not-belonging" are helpful but not essential.  In an investigation where an unknown subject's movements repeatedly seem to take more time than expected, for instance, the classification of this repeated fact as multiple instances of "too much time" might lead the investigator to examine the available facts for things which might explain that one repeating theme.  Why does our guy move so slowly?  A concomitant observation at various scenes of parallel, narrow tracks occurring 30" apart might indicate the possibility of a suspect who is wheelchair-bound.
------
NamingConventions|979853527
9c9,16
< There is, however, a search form at the bottom of every page.  Isn't it both more convenient and more liberating in the end to let people do whatever they want, and just search for a string of characters whenever you think there might be related page already in existence, to which you might link?
---
> There is, however, a search form at the bottom of every page.  Isn't it both more convenient and more liberating in the end to let people do whatever they want, and just search for a string of characters whenever you think there might be related page already in existence, to which you might link?
> 
> :I respectfully disagree:
> *AfghanistanCountry matches every search AfghanistaN matches.
> *AfghanistanCountry additionally matches every search for "country".
> *[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AccidentalLinking AccidentalLinking] is vital.  When I'm typing an article on the SovietUnion and want to link someplace I don't want to waste the time to go off and search whether it's AfGhanistan, AfgHanistan, AfghAnistan, . . ., AfghanistaN.  I want to know right off the bat what it is.
> 
> :I submit that there is nothing in the way of convenience or liberation that AfghanistaN can do for you and which AfghanistanCountry can't.  And it seems to me there are serious usability deficiencies in AfghanistaN.  Consider especially those persons who haven't experienced a wiki before.  OTOH, as I suggested above, you might research wikis that allow you to create one-word links that arent UgLy. -- ScottMoonen
------
InvestigatorAsPholosopher|979862394
1c1,3
< Sherlock Holmes is represented as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally acute observer.  What hidden advantages did he possess over his peers?
---
> Sherlock Holmes is represented as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally acute observer.  What hidden advantages did he possess over his peers? ----
> 
> A. Cocaine addiction?
------
InvestigatorAsPholosopher|979863265
1,3c1
< Sherlock Holmes is represented as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally acute observer.  What hidden advantages did he possess over his peers? ----
< 
< A. Cocaine addiction?
---
> See InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979863269
15c15
< One must needs be able to see the world in front of one's nose in order to succeed at an investigative endeavor.  And by that, it is meant only to perceive - not to perceive and imbue with meaning and nuance, but merely perceive - to be accurate and complete in perception, to record accurately what is perceived, and to add or subtract nothing.
---
> One must needs be able to see the world in front of one's nose in order to succeed at an investigative endeavor.  And by that, it is meant only to perceive - not to perceive and imbue with meaning and nuance, but merely perceive - to be accurate and complete in perception, to record accurately what is perceived, and to add or subtract nothing.  Factually, this may be one of the most rarely developed investigative skills.  Although preconception impedes observation, too many investigators of all kinds approach a scene with definite ideas as to what they are looking for, what they expect to see, and what they expect it to mean.  Even having viewed a scene initially without preconception, many are incapable of rehabilitating former observations to neutral value once they have assigned a given meaning or interpretation to them.  Thus, when new or unexpected knowledge is available to inform old observations, these individuals are handicapped.  They cannot look and make new, unbiased observations, nor remove the coloration previously applied to former observations so as to view them in light of newly available knowledge.
17c17
< The oft-overlooked fact is that things perceived do not have meaning inherent in them.  That which is perceived must be compared to a knowledge base to determine what relationships exist between elements observed and other known data.  The relationships that are available serve to establish what meaning or sets of meanings may be attributed to observed items, facts or circumstances.  Take this example:  A suspect leaves his house at 8:00 am and arrives in a neighboring town at 10:00 AM.  What are we to make of this?  In a vacuum of information, nothing.  Now consider that the towns are 26 miles apart.  Suddenly, the two hours seems excessive.  But the highway between the towns was blocked by a toxic spill cleanup operation for a time.  Time explained.  But the suspect had foreknowledge of the spill and a helicopter at his disposal... and on and on until all data which would lend meaning to the evidence is gathered.
---
> The oft-overlooked fact is that things perceived do not have meaning inherent in them.  That which is perceived must be compared to a knowledge base to determine what relationships exist between elements observed and other known data.  The relationships that are available serve to establish what meaning or sets of meanings may be attributed to observed items, facts or circumstances.  Take this example:  A suspect leaves his house at 8:00 AM and arrives in a neighboring town at 10:00 AM.  What are we to make of this?  In a vacuum of information, nothing.  Now consider that the towns are 26 miles apart.  Suddenly, the two hours seems excessive.  But the highway between the towns was blocked by a toxic spill cleanup operation for a time.  Time explained.  But the suspect had foreknowledge of the spill and a helicopter at his disposal... and on and on until all data which would lend meaning to the evidence is gathered.
19c19
< Has the reader guessed by this time what important special advantage Holmes possessed?  It was no more nor less than this:  His knowledge base encompassed everything that was known about anything anywhere in the world in the Victorian Era.  He knew how paralytic poison manufactured from the sap of a tree which grew only in the Amazon Basin smelled.  Every single clue in every case he ever worked bore upon some knowledge which he possessed, no matter how remote the source of that knowledge might seem.  'Nuff said?  The further, and less important advantage with which he was blessed by his creator was that each clue, on the whole, was subject to only a single interpetation.  Multiple datasets with regard to a single clue generally did not exist.
---
> Has the reader guessed by this time what important special advantage Holmes possessed?  It was no more nor less than this:  His knowledge base encompassed everything that was known about anything anywhere in the world in the Victorian Era.  He knew the smell of paralytic poison manufactured from the sap of a tree which grew only in the Amazon Basin.  Every single clue in every case he ever worked bore upon some knowledge which he possessed, no matter how remote the source of that knowledge might seem.  'Nuff said?  A further, though less important advantage with which he was blessed by his creator was that each clue, on the whole, was subject to only a single interpetation.  Multiple datasets in reference to a single clue generally did not exist.
29c29
< Such labeling of logical process as "syllogism" are unnecessary to this educational process.  Classification of types of "belonging" or "not-belonging" are helpful but not essential.  In an investigation where an unknown subject's movements repeatedly seem to take more time than expected, for instance, the classification of this repeated fact as multiple instances of "too much time" might lead the investigator to examine the available facts for things which might explain that one repeating theme.  Why does our guy move so slowly?  A concomitant observation at various scenes of parallel, narrow tracks occurring 30" apart might indicate the possibility of a suspect who is wheelchair-bound.
---
> Such labeling of logical process as "syllogism" are unnecessary to this educational process.  Classification of types of "belonging" or "not-belonging" are helpful but not essential.  In an investigation where an unknown subject's movements repeatedly seem to take more time than expected, for instance, the classification of this repeated fact as multiple instances of "too much time" might lead the investigator to examine the available facts for things which might explain that one repeating theme.  Why does our guy move so slowly?  A concomitant observation at various scenes of parallel, narrow tracks occurring 24" apart might indicate the possibility of a suspect who is wheelchair-bound.
31a32
> A synergy exists between personal ability (as in native capacity for data-processing volume and speed, sensory acuity, etc.), perception, knowledge and logic.  Increases in the appliciation of each factor can multiply the results available from the application of each other factor.  
32a34,40
> How valuable might the observations of a skilled observer who is a non-plumber be relative to investigating for the source of leaks in comparison to the observations of a skilled plumber?  The former might look at a complex of soldered tubing with multiple joints and several leaks, and be able to determine that each leak was at or near a joint.  He might make other observations and yet assign no importance to them, owing to a lack of familiarity with subject matter.  Having assigned no importance to such observations, he might not be able to call them up in response to queries from a plumber as to what he had seen.  The latter might "see at a glance" what the former had missed.  E.G.:  Were there sanding marks visible at the margins of the solder?  Was there green or black coloration in a given pattern on the exterior of the tubing?  Were there dark shiny markings, as of dried liquid, at or adjacent to the joints?  Were there any little whitish, powdery bumps, especially with a greenish tint?  How was the tubing secured?  How much evidence of water absorption was there in surrounding wood?  The answers to these questions would tell the plumber if hard or acidic water had eaten through the tubing, whether the joints had been "brightened" (sanded) before soldering, whether flux had been used, the age of the tubing, the likelihood of failure due to excessive movement, whether the existing materials would suffice to repair the defects or if new materials (and which materials) would be required, etc.  The knowledge base or experience of the viewer can increase sensitivity to various observations and, with all observations in hand, will inform their interpretation.
> 
> If a skilled plumber makes the same observations, but is hindered by preconception (such as that the optimum repair of all defects is a complete replacement, thus maximizing profit), then he never will find out how the leaks were caused.  If an individual knows plumbing concepts but cannot observe, his interpretation of a scene will likewise be defective.
> 
> What does all this have to do with philosophy?
> 
> The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibitiy exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear.
------
AlbaniA|979865753
1c1,385
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Albania
> 
>                                         Introduction
> 
> 
> Background: In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
> has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with severe unemployment, the collapse of a fraudulent nationwide
> investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
> 
>                                          Geography
> 
> 
> 
> Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea, between Greece and Serbia and Montenegro 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 41 00 N, 20 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Europe 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 28,748 sq km 
> land: 27,398 sq km 
> water: 1,350 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Maryland 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 720 km 
> border countries: Greece 282 km, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 151 km, Serbia and Montenegro 287 km (114 km
> with Serbia, 173 km with Montenegro) 
> 
> Coastline: 362 km 
> 
> Maritime claims: 
> continental shelf: 200-m depth or to the depth of exploitation 
> territorial sea: 12 nm 
> 
> Climate: mild temperate; cool, cloudy, wet winters; hot, clear, dry summers; interior is cooler and wetter 
> 
> Terrain: mostly mountains and hills; small plains along coast 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Adriatic Sea 0 m 
> highest point: Maja e Korabit (Golem Korab) 2,753 m 
> 
> Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, timber, nickel, hydropower 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 21% 
> permanent crops: 5% 
> permanent pastures: 15% 
> forests and woodland: 38% 
> other: 21% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: 3,410 sq km (1993 est.) 
> 
> Natural hazards: destructive earthquakes; tsunamis occur along southwestern coast 
> 
> Environment - current issues: deforestation; soil erosion; water pollution from industrial and domestic effluents 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Ozone Layer Protection, Wetlands 
> signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements 
> 
> Geography - note: strategic location along Strait of Otranto (links Adriatic Sea to Ionian Sea and Mediterranean Sea) 
> 
>                                            People
>  
> 
> Population: 3,490,435 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 30% (male 545,329; female 507,589) 
> 15-64 years: 63% (male 1,056,583; female 1,141,664) 
> 65 years and over: 7% (male 104,086; female 135,184) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 0.26% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 19.47 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 6.5 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: -10.36 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.08 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 0.93 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 0.77 male(s)/female 
> total population: 0.96 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 41.33 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 71.57 years 
> male: 68.75 years 
> female: 74.59 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 2.37 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Albanian(s) 
> adjective: Albanian 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Albanian 95%, Greeks 3%, other 2% (Vlachs, Gypsies, Serbs, and Bulgarians) (1989 est.) 
> note: in 1989, other estimates of the Greek population ranged from 1% (official Albanian statistics) to 12% (from a Greek
> organization) 
> 
> Religions: Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10% 
> note: all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing
> private religious practice 
> 
> Languages: Albanian (Tosk is the official dialect), Greek 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 9 and over can read and write 
> total population: 93% (1997 est.) 
> male: NA% 
> female: NA% 
> 
>                                         Government
> 
> 
> 
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Republic of Albania 
> conventional short form: Albania 
> local long form: Republika e Shqiperise 
> local short form: Shqiperia 
> former: People's Socialist Republic of Albania 
> 
> Data code: AL 
> 
> Government type: emerging democracy 
> 
> Capital: Tirana 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 36 districts (rrethe, singular - rreth) and 1 municipality* (bashki); Berat, Bulqize, Delvine, Devoll
> (Bilisht), Diber (Peshkopi), Durres, Elbasan, Fier, Gjirokaster, Gramsh, Has (Krume), Kavaje, Kolonje (Erseke), Korce, Kruje,
> Kucove, Kukes, Kurbin, Lezhe, Librazhd, Lushnje, Malesi e Madhe (Koplik), Mallakaster (Ballsh), Mat (Burrel), Mirdite (Rreshen),
> Peqin, Permet, Pogradec, Puke, Sarande, Shkoder, Skrapar (Corovode), Tepelene, Tirane (Tirana), Tirane* (Tirana), Tropoje
> (Bajram Curri), Vlore 
> note: administrative divisions have the same names as their administrative centers (exceptions have the administrative center name
> following in parentheses) 
> 
> Independence: 28 November 1912 (from Ottoman Empire) 
> 
> National holiday: Independence Day, 28 November (1912) 
> 
> Constitution: a new constitution was adopted by popular referendum on 28 November 1998; note - the opposition Democratic Party
> boycotted the vote 
> 
> Legal system: has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal and compulsory 
> 
> Executive branch: 
> chief of state: President of the Republic Rexhep MEIDANI (since 24 July 1997) 
> head of government: Prime Minister Ilir META (since 29 October 1999) 
> cabinet: Council of Ministers nominated by the prime minister and approved by the president 
> elections: president elected by the People's Assembly for a five-year term; election last held 24 July 1997 (next to be held NA 2002);
> prime minister appointed by the president 
> election results: Rexhep MEIDANI elected president; People's Assembly vote by number - total votes 122, for 110, against 3,
> abstained 2, invalid 7 
> 
> Legislative branch: unicameral People's Assembly or Kuvendi Popullor (155 seats; most members are elected by direct popular vote
> and some by proportional vote for four-year terms) 
> elections: last held 29 June 1997 (next to be held NA 2001) 
> election results: percent of vote by party - PS 53.36%, PD 25.33%, PSD 2.5%, PBDNJ 2.78%, PBK 2.36%, PAD 2.85%, PR 2.25%,
> PLL 3.09%, PDK 1.00%, PBSD 0.84%; seats by party - PS 101, PD 27, PSD 8, PBDNJ 4, PBK 3, PAD 2, PR 2, PLL 2, PDK 1, PBSD 1,
> PUK 1, independents 3 
> 
> Judicial branch: Supreme Court, chairman of the Supreme Court is elected by the People's Assembly for a four-year term 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Albanian Republican Party or PR [Fatmir MEHDIU]; Albanian Socialist Party or PS (formerly the
> Albania Workers Party) [Fatos NANO, chairman]; Albanian United Right or DBSH (includes PBK, Albanian Republican Party or
> PRS, AND PDD) [Abaz ERMENJI]; Christian Democratic Party or PDK [Zef BUSHATI]; Democratic Alliance or PAD [Neritan
> CEKA]; Democratic Party or PD [Sali BERISHA]; Democratic Party of the Right or PDD [Petrit KALAKULA]; Liberal Union Party
> [Teodor LACO]; Movement of Legality Party or PLL [Ekrem SPAHIA]; National Front (Balli Kombetar) or PBK [Abaz ERMENJI];
> Party of National Unity or PUK [Idajet BEQIRI]; Right National Front [Hysni SELFO]; Social Democratic Party or PSD [Skender
> GJINUSHI]; Unity for Human Rights Party or PBDNJ [Vasil MELO, chairman]; note - Teodar LACO of the Liberal Union Party was
> leader of the Social Democratic Union of Albania or PBSD 
> 
> International organization participation: BSEC, CCC, CE, CEI, EAPC, EBRD, ECE, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA,
> IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, IMO, Intelsat (nonsignatory user), Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, OIC, OPCW, OSCE, PFP, UN,
> UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNOMIG, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTrO (applicant) 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Petrit BUSHATI 
> chancery: 2100 S Street NW, Washington, DC 20008 
> telephone: [1] (202) 223-4942 
> FAX: [1] (202) 628-7342 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Joseph LIMPRECHT 
> embassy: Rruga Elbasanit 103, Tirana 
> mailing address: American Embassy, Tirana, Department of State, Washington, DC 20521-9510 
> telephone: [355] (42) 47285 through 47289 
> FAX: [355] (42) 32222 
> 
> Flag description: red with a black two-headed eagle in the center 
> 
>                                           Economy
> 
> 
> 
> Economy - overview: An extremely poor country by European standards, Albania is making the difficult transition to a more
> open-market economy. The economy rebounded in 1993-95 after a severe depression accompanying the collapse of the previous
> centrally planned system in 1990 and 1991. However, a weakening of government resolve to maintain stabilization policies in the
> election year of 1996 contributed to renewal of inflationary pressures, spurred by the budget deficit which exceeded 12%. The collapse
> of financial pyramid schemes in early 1997 - which had attracted deposits from a substantial portion of Albania's population -
> triggered severe social unrest which led to more than 1,500 deaths, widespread destruction of property, and an 8% drop in GDP. The
> new government, installed in July 1997, has taken strong measures to restore public order and to revive economic activity and trade.
> The economy continues to be bolstered by remittances of some 20% of the labor force that works abroad, mostly in Greece and Italy.
> These remittances supplement GDP and help offset the large foreign trade deficit. Most agricultural land was privatized in 1992,
> substantially improving peasant incomes. In 1998, Albania recovered the 8% drop in GDP of 1997 and pushed ahead by 7% in 1999.
> International aid has helped defray the high costs of receiving and returning refugees from the Kosovo conflict. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $5.6 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: 8% (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $1,650 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: 54% 
> industry: 25% 
> services: 21% (1998) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: 19.6% (1996 est.) 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: NA% 
> highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): 0.5% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Labor force: 1.692 million (including 352,000 emigrant workers and 261,000 domestically unemployed) (1994 est.) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 49.5%, industry and services 50.5% 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 14% (October 1997) officially, but may be as high as 28% 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $393 million 
> expenditures: $676 million, including capital expenditures of $NA (1997 est.) 
> 
> Industries: food processing, textiles and clothing; lumber, oil, cement, chemicals, mining, basic metals, hydropower 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: 7% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Electricity - production: 5.15 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 2.91% 
> hydro: 97.09% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 5.29 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 500 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: wheat, corn, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, sugar beets, grapes; meat, dairy products 
> 
> Exports: $242 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: textiles and footwear; asphalt, metals and metallic ores, crude oil; vegetables, fruits, tobacco 
> 
> Exports - partners: Italy 63%, Greece 12%, Germany 6%, Netherlands, Belgium, US (1998) 
> 
> Imports: $925 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, foodstuffs, textiles, chemicals 
> 
> Imports - partners: Italy 43%, Greece 29%, Turkey 4%, Germany 4%, Bulgaria, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
> (1998) 
> 
> Debt - external: $820 million (1998) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: EU pledged $100 million to share with The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1999) 
> 
> Currency: 1 lek (L) = 100 qintars 
> 
> Exchange rates: leke (L) per US$1 - 135.31 (December 1999), 137.69 (1999), 150.63 (1998), 148.93 (1997), 104.50 (1996), 92.70
> (1995) 
> 
> Fiscal year: calendar year 
> 
>                                        Communications
> 
>  
> 
> Telephones - main lines in use: 42,000 (1995) 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: 3,100 (1999) 
> 
> Telephone system: 
> domestic: obsolete wire system; no longer provides a telephone for every village; in 1992, following the fall of the communist
> government, peasants cut the wire to about 1,000 villages and used it to build fences 
> international: inadequate; international traffic carried by microwave radio relay from the Tirana exchange to Italy and Greece 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 16, FM 3, shortwave 2 (1999) 
> 
> Radios: 810,000 (1997) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: 13 (1999) 
> 
> Televisions: 405,000 (1997) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 2 (1999) 
> 
>                                         Transportation
> 
>  
> 
> Railways: 
> total: 670 km 
> standard gauge: 670 km 1.435-m gauge (1996) 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 18,000 km 
> paved: 5,400 km 
> unpaved: 12,600 km (1998 est.) 
> 
> Waterways: 43 km plus Albanian sections of Lake Scutari, Lake Ohrid, and Lake Prespa (1990) 
> 
> Pipelines: crude oil 145 km; petroleum products 55 km; natural gas 64 km (1991) 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Durres, Sarande, Shengjin, Vlore 
> 
> Merchant marine: 
> total: 6 ships (1,000 GRT or over) totaling 10,907 GRT/16,101 DWT 
> ships by type: cargo 6 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports: 10 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 3 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 3 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 7 
> over 3,047 m: 1 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 1 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 2 
> under 914 m: 3 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Heliports: 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
>                                           Military
> 
>  
> 
> Military branches: Army, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces, Interior Ministry Troops, Border Guards 
> 
> Military manpower - military age: 19 years of age 
> 
> Military manpower - availability: 
> males age 15-49: 856,820 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - fit for military service: 
> males age 15-49: 701,194 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - reaching military age annually: 
> males: 35,508 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military expenditures - dollar figure: $42 million (FY99) 
> 
> Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.5% (FY99) 
> 
>                                       Transnational Issues
> 
> 
> 
> Disputes - international: the Albanian Government supports protection of the rights of ethnic Albanians outside of its borders but
> has downplayed them to further its primary foreign policy goal of regional cooperation; Albanian majority in Kosovo seeks
> independence from Serbian Republic; Albanians in The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia claim discrimination in education,
> access to public-sector jobs, and representation in government 
> 
> Illicit drugs: increasingly active transshipment point for Southwest Asian opiates, hashish, and cannabis transiting the Balkan route
> and - to a far lesser extent - cocaine from South America destined for Western Europe; limited opium and cannabis production;
> ethnic Albanian narcotrafficking organizations active and rapidly expanding in Europe 
------
HomePage|979865799
4c4
< 
---
> -- StateS
------
HomePage|979865831
4c4
< -- StateS
---
> -- UnitedStates
------
HomePage|979865850
4a5
> 
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|979865899
40c40
< The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibitiy exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear.
---
> The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibility exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear.
------
AlgeriA|979866581
1c1,397
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Algeria
> 
>                                         Introduction
> 
> 
> 
> Background: After a century of rule by France, Algeria became independent in 1962. The surprising first round success of the
> fundamentalist FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) party in December 1991 balloting caused the army to intervene, crack down on the FIS,
> and postpone the subsequent elections. The FIS response has resulted in a continuous low-grade civil conflict with the secular state
> apparatus, which nonetheless has allowed elections featuring pro-government and moderate religious-based parties. FIS's armed
> wing, the Islamic Salvation Army, dissolved itself in January 2000 and many armed insurgents surrendered under an amnesty
> program designed to promote national reconciliation. Nevertheless, some residual fighting continues. Other concerns include
> large-scale unemployment and the need to diversify the petroleum-based economy. 
> 
>                                          Geography
> 
>  
> 
> Location: Northern Africa, bordering the Mediterranean Sea, between Morocco and Tunisia 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 28 00 N, 3 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Africa 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 2,381,740 sq km 
> land: 2,381,740 sq km 
> water: 0 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly less than 3.5 times the size of Texas 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 6,343 km 
> border countries: Libya 982 km, Mali 1,376 km, Mauritania 463 km, Morocco 1,559 km, Niger 956 km, Tunisia 965 km, Western
> Sahara 42 km 
> 
> Coastline: 998 km 
> 
> Maritime claims: 
> exclusive fishing zone: 32-52 nm 
> territorial sea: 12 nm 
> 
> Climate: arid to semiarid; mild, wet winters with hot, dry summers along coast; drier with cold winters and hot summers on high
> plateau; sirocco is a hot, dust/sand-laden wind especially common in summer 
> 
> Terrain: mostly high plateau and desert; some mountains; narrow, discontinuous coastal plain 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Chott Melrhir -40 m 
> highest point: Tahat 3,003 m 
> 
> Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, phosphates, uranium, lead, zinc 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 3% 
> permanent crops: 0% 
> permanent pastures: 13% 
> forests and woodland: 2% 
> other: 82% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: 5,550 sq km (1993 est.) 
> 
> Natural hazards: mountainous areas subject to severe earthquakes; mud slides 
> 
> Environment - current issues: soil erosion from overgrazing and other poor farming practices; desertification; dumping of raw
> sewage, petroleum refining wastes, and other industrial effluents is leading to the pollution of rivers and coastal waters;
> Mediterranean Sea, in particular, becoming polluted from oil wastes, soil erosion, and fertilizer runoff; inadequate supplies of potable
> water 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of
> the Sea, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Wetlands 
> signed, but not ratified: Nuclear Test Ban 
> 
> Geography - note: second-largest country in Africa (after Sudan) 
> 
>                                            People
> 
> 
> 
> Population: 31,193,917 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 35% (male 5,591,044; female 5,389,046) 
> 15-64 years: 61% (male 9,582,864; female 9,381,088) 
> 65 years and over: 4% (male 577,875; female 672,000) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 1.74% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 23.14 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 5.3 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: -0.47 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.04 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 0.86 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.02 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 41.97 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 69.65 years 
> male: 68.34 years 
> female: 71.02 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 2.8 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Algerian(s) 
> adjective: Algerian 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1% 
> 
> Religions: Sunni Muslim (state religion) 99%, Christian and Jewish 1% 
> 
> Languages: Arabic (official), French, Berber dialects 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
> total population: 61.6% 
> male: 73.9% 
> female: 49% (1995 est.) 
> 
>                                         Government
> 
> 
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria 
> conventional short form: Algeria 
> local long form: Al Jumhuriyah al Jaza'iriyah ad Dimuqratiyah ash Shabiyah 
> local short form: Al Jaza'ir 
> 
> Data code: AG 
> 
> Government type: republic 
> 
> Capital: Algiers 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 48 provinces (wilayas, singular - wilaya); Adrar, Ain Defla, Ain Temouchent, Alger, Annaba, Batna,
> Bechar, Bejaia, Biskra, Blida, Bordj Bou Arreridj, Bouira, Boumerdes, Chlef, Constantine, Djelfa, El Bayadh, El Oued, El Tarf,
> Ghardaia, Guelma, Illizi, Jijel, Khenchela, Laghouat, Mascara, Medea, Mila, Mostaganem, M'Sila, Naama, Oran, Ouargla, Oum el
> Bouaghi, Relizane, Saida, Setif, Sidi Bel Abbes, Skikda, Souk Ahras, Tamanghasset, Tebessa, Tiaret, Tindouf, Tipaza, Tissemsilt, Tizi
> Ouzou, Tlemcen 
> 
> Independence: 5 July 1962 (from France) 
> 
> National holiday: Anniversary of the Revolution, 1 November (1954) 
> 
> Constitution: 19 November 1976, effective 22 November 1976; revised 3 November 1988, 23 February 1989, and 28 November 1996;
> note - referendum approving the revisions of 28 November 1996 was signed into law 7 December 1996 
> 
> Legal system: socialist, based on French and Islamic law; judicial review of legislative acts in ad hoc Constitutional Council
> composed of various public officials, including several Supreme Court justices; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal 
> 
> Executive branch: 
> chief of state: President Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA (since 28 April 1999) 
> head of government: Prime Minister Ahmed BENBITOUR (since 2 December 1999) 
> cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the prime minister 
> elections: president elected by popular vote for a five-year term; election last held 15 April 1999 (next to be held NA April 2004);
> prime minister appointed by the president 
> election results: Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA elected president; percent of vote - Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA 70%; note - six of the
> seven candidates withdrew sighting persistent electoral fraud 
> 
> Legislative branch: bicameral Parliament consists of the National People's Assembly or Al-Majlis Ech-Chaabi Al-Watani (380
> seats; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms) and the Council of Nations (144 seats; one-third of the members
> appointed by the president, two-thirds elected by indirect vote; members serve six-year terms; created as a result of the
> constitutional revision of November 1996) 
> elections: National People's Assembly - last held 5 June 1997 (next to be held NA 2001); elections for two-thirds of the Council of
> Nations - last held 25 December 1997 (next to be held NA 2003) 
> election results: National People's Assembly - percent of vote by party - RND 40.8%, MSP 18.2%, FLN 16.8%, Nahda Movement
> 8.9%, FFS 5%, RCD 5%, PT 1.1%, Republican Progressive Party 0.8%, Union for Democracy and Freedoms 0.3%, Liberal Social
> Party 0.3%, independents 2.8%; seats by party - RND 156, MSP 69, FLN 62, Nahda Movement 34, FFS 20, RCD 19, PT 4, Republican
> Progressive Party 3, Union for Democracy and Freedoms 1, Liberal Social Party 1, independents 11; Council of Nations - percent of
> vote by party - NA%; seats by party - RND 80, FLN 10, FFS 4, MSP 2 (remaining 48 seats appointed by the president, party
> breakdown NA) 
> 
> Judicial branch: Supreme Court (Cour Supreme) 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Algerian Democratic Front or FAD [Sid-Ahmed GHOZALI]; Algerian National Front or ANF
> [Moussa TOUATI]; Algerian Renewal Party or PRA [Noureddine BOUKROUH, chairman]; Democratic National Rally or RND
> [Ahmed OUYAHIA, chairman]; Islamic Salvation Front or FIS (outlawed April 1992) [Ali BELHADJ, Dr. Abassi MADANI,
> Rabeh KEBIR (self-exile in Germany)]; Liberal Social Party [Ahmed KHELIL]; Movement for Democracy in Algeria or MDA
> [Ahmed Ben BELLA]; Movement for Loyalty and Justice [Ahmed Taleb IBRAHIMI, president; Movement of a Peaceful Society or
> MSP [Mahfoud NAHNAH, chairman]; Nahda Movement or Al Nahda [Abdallah DJABALLAH, president]; National Liberation
> Front or FLN [Boualem BENHAMOUDA, secretary general]; National Party for Solidarity and Development or PNSD [Rabah
> BENCHERIF]; National Republican Alliance or ANR [Redha MALEK]; Rally for Culture and Democracy or RCD [Said SAADI,
> secretary general]; Republican Progressive Party [Khadir DRISS]; Social Democratic Movement or MDS [Hachemi CHERIF];
> Socialist Forces Front or FFS [Hocine Ait AHMED, secretary general (self-exile in Switzerland)]; Union for Democracy and
> Freedoms [Mouley BOUKHALAFA]; Workers Party or PT [Louisa HANOUN] 
> note: the government established a multiparty system in September 1989 and, as of 31 December 1990, over 50 legal parties existed; a
> new party law was enacted in March 1997 
> 
> International organization participation: ABEDA, AfDB, AFESD, AL, AMF, AMU, CCC, ECA, FAO, G-15, G-19, G-24,
> G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Inmarsat, Intelsat, Interpol, IOC,
> IOM (observer), ISO, ITU, MONUC, NAM, OAPEC, OAS (observer), OAU, OIC, OPCW, OPEC, OSCE (partner), UN, UNCTAD,
> UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UPU, WCL, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTrO (applicant) 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Idriss JAZAIRY 
> chancery: 2118 Kalorama Road NW, Washington, DC 20008 
> telephone: [1] (202) 265-2800 
> FAX: [1] (202) 667-2174 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Cameron R. HUME 
> embassy: 4 Chemin Cheikh Bachir El-Ibrahimi, Algiers 
> mailing address: B. P. Box 549, Alger-Gare, 16000 Algiers 
> telephone: [213] (2) 69-11-86, 69-12-55, 69-18-54, 69-38-75 
> FAX: [213] (2) 69-39-79 
> 
> Flag description: two equal vertical bands of green (hoist side) and white with a red, five-pointed star within a red crescent; the
> crescent, star, and color green are traditional symbols of Islam (the state religion) 
> 
>                                           Economy
> 
> 
> Economy - overview: The hydrocarbons sector is the backbone of the economy, accounting for roughly 52% of budget revenues,
> 25% of GDP, and over 95% of export earnings. Algeria has the fifth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world and is the second
> largest gas exporter; it ranks fourteenth for oil reserves. Algiers' efforts to reform one of the most centrally planned economies in the
> Arab world stalled in 1992 as the country became embroiled in political turmoil. Burdened with a heavy foreign debt, Algiers
> concluded a one-year standby arrangement with the IMF in April 1994 and the following year signed onto a three-year extended
> fund facility which ended 30 April 1998. Some progress on economic reform, Paris Club debt reschedulings in 1995 and 1996, and oil
> and gas sector expansion contributed to a recovery in growth since 1995. Still, the economy remains heavily dependent on volatile oil
> and gas revenues. The government has continued efforts to diversify the economy by attracting foreign and domestic investment
> outside the energy sector, but has had little success in reducing high unemployment and improving living standards. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $147.6 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: 3.9% (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $4,700 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: 12% 
> industry: 51% 
> services: 37% (1997 est.) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: 23% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: 2.8% 
> highest 10%: 26.8% (1995) 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): 4.2% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Labor force: 9.1 million (2000 est.) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: government 29.5%, agriculture 22%, construction and public works 16.2%, industry 13.6%, commerce
> and services 13.5%, transportation and communication 5.2% (1989) 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 30% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $15.5 billion 
> expenditures: $15.1 billion, including capital expenditures of $NA (1999 est.) 
> 
> Industries: petroleum, natural gas, light industries, mining, electrical, petrochemical, food processing 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: 7% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Electricity - production: 21.38 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 99.77% 
> hydro: 0.23% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 19.882 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 313 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 312 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: wheat, barley, oats, grapes, olives, citrus, fruits; sheep, cattle 
> 
> Exports: $13.7 billion (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: petroleum, natural gas, and petroleum products 97% 
> 
> Exports - partners: Italy 21.2%, US 15.0%, France 12.9%, Spain 10.3%, Brazil 5.9%, Netherlands 5.5% (1998) 
> 
> Imports: $9.3 billion (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: capital goods, food and beverages, consumer goods 
> 
> Imports - partners: France 29.5%, Italy 9.8%, US 7.2%, Spain 6.8%, Germany 6.2%, Canada 4.1% (1998) 
> 
> Debt - external: $30 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: $897.5 million (1994) 
> 
> Currency: 1 Algerian dinar (DA) = 100 centimes 
> 
> Exchange rates: Algerian dinars (DA) per US$1 - 69.046 (January 2000), 66.574 (1999), 58.739 (1998), 57.707 (1997), 54.749
> (1996), 47.663 (1995) 
> 
> Fiscal year: calendar year 
> 
>                                        Communications
> 
> ] 
> 
> Telephones - main lines in use: 1.176 million (1995) 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: 33,500 (1999) 
> 
> Telephone system: 
> domestic: good service in north but sparse in south; domestic satellite system with 12 earth stations (20 additional domestic earth
> stations are planned) 
> international: 5 submarine cables; microwave radio relay to Italy, France, Spain, Morocco, and Tunisia; coaxial cable to Morocco and
> Tunisia; participant in Medarabtel; satellite earth stations - 2 Intelsat (1 Atlantic Ocean and 1 Indian Ocean), 1 Intersputnik, and 1
> Arabsat 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 25, FM 1, shortwave 8 (1999) 
> 
> Radios: 7.1 million (1997) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: 18 (not including low-power stations) (1999) 
> 
> Televisions: 3.1 million (1997) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 1 (1999) 
> 
>                                         Transportation
> 
>  
> 
> Railways: 
> total: 4,820 km (301 km electrified; 215 km double track) 
> standard gauge: 3,664 km 1.435-m gauge (301 km electrified; 215 km double track) 
> narrow gauge: 1,156 km 1.055-m gauge (1996) 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 104,000 km 
> paved: 71,656 km (including 640 km of expressways) 
> unpaved: 32,344 km (1996 est.) 
> 
> Pipelines: crude oil 6,612 km; petroleum products 298 km; natural gas 2,948 km 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Algiers, Annaba, Arzew, Bejaia, Beni Saf, Dellys, Djendjene, Ghazaouet, Jijel, Mostaganem, Oran, Skikda, Tenes
> 
> Merchant marine: 
> total: 78 ships (1,000 GRT or over) totaling 940,196 GRT/1,094,104 DWT 
> ships by type: bulk 9, cargo 27, chemical tanker 7, liquified gas 11, petroleum tanker 5, roll-on/roll-off 13, short-sea passenger 5,
> specialized tanker 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports: 137 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 51 
> over 3,047 m: 8 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 25 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 12 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 5 
> under 914 m: 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 86 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 3 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 23 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 41 
> under 914 m: 19 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Heliports: 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
>                                           Military
> 
> 
> Military branches: National Popular Army, Navy, Air Force, Territorial Air Defense, National Gendarmerie 
> 
> Military manpower - military age: 19 years of age 
> 
> Military manpower - availability: 
> males age 15-49: 8,523,257 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - fit for military service: 
> males age 15-49: 5,220,318 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - reaching military age annually: 
> males: 373,547 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.3 billion (FY94) 
> 
> Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.7% (FY94) 
> 
>                                       Transnational Issues
> 
>  
> 
> Disputes - international: part of southeastern region claimed by Libya 
------
AlgeriA|979866614
308d307
< ] 
------
ReLigion|979866638
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTeChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
------
AmericanSamoa|979866771
1c1,322
< Describe the new page here.
---
> American Samoa
> 
>                                         Introduction
> 
>  
> 
> Background: Settled as early as 1000 B. C., Samoa was "discovered" by European explorers in the 18th century. International
> rivalries in the latter half of the 19th century were settled by an 1899 treaty in which Germany and the US divided the Samoan
> archipelago. The US formally occupied its portion - a smaller group of eastern islands with the excellent harbor of Pago Pago - the
> following year. 
> 
>                                          Geography
> 
> 
> Location: Oceania, group of islands in the South Pacific Ocean, about one-half of the way from Hawaii to New Zealand 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 14 20 S, 170 00 W 
> 
> Map references: Oceania 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 199 sq km 
> land: 199 sq km 
> water: 0 sq km 
> note: includes Rose Island and Swains Island 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly larger than Washington, DC 
> 
> Land boundaries: 0 km 
> 
> Coastline: 116 km 
> 
> Maritime claims: 
> exclusive economic zone: 200 nm 
> territorial sea: 12 nm 
> 
> Climate: tropical marine, moderated by southeast trade winds; annual rainfall averages about 3 m; rainy season from November to
> April, dry season from May to October; little seasonal temperature variation 
> 
> Terrain: five volcanic islands with rugged peaks and limited coastal plains, two coral atolls (Rose Island, Swains Island) 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Pacific Ocean 0 m 
> highest point: Lata 966 m 
> 
> Natural resources: pumice, pumicite 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 5% 
> permanent crops: 10% 
> permanent pastures: 0% 
> forests and woodland: 70% 
> other: 15% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: NA sq km 
> 
> Natural hazards: typhoons common from December to March 
> 
> Environment - current issues: limited natural fresh water resources; the water division of the government has spent substantial
> funds in the past few years to improve water catchments and pipelines 
> 
> Geography - note: Pago Pago has one of the best natural deepwater harbors in the South Pacific Ocean, sheltered by shape from
> rough seas and protected by peripheral mountains from high winds; strategic location in the South Pacific Ocean 
> 
>                                            People
> 
> 
> 
> Population: 65,446 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 39% (male 13,071; female 12,304) 
> 15-64 years: 56% (male 18,358; female 18,597) 
> 65 years and over: 5% (male 1,631; female 1,485) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 2.53% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 25.81 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 4.26 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: 3.74 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 0.99 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 1.1 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.02 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 10.63 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 75.12 years 
> male: 70.66 years 
> female: 79.84 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 3.6 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: American Samoan(s) 
> adjective: American Samoan 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Samoan (Polynesian) 89%, Caucasian 2%, Tongan 4%, other 5% 
> 
> Religions: Christian Congregationalist 50%, Roman Catholic 20%, Protestant and other 30% 
> 
> Languages: Samoan (closely related to Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages), English 
> note: most people are bilingual 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
> total population: 97% 
> male: 98% 
> female: 97% (1980 est.) 
> 
>                                         Government
> 
> 
> 
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Territory of American Samoa 
> conventional short form: American Samoa 
> abbreviation: AS 
> 
> Data code: AQ 
> 
> Dependency status: unincorporated and unorganized territory of the US; administered by the Office of Insular Affairs, US
> Department of the Interior 
> 
> Government type: NA 
> 
> Capital: Pago Pago 
> 
> Administrative divisions: none (territory of the US); there are no first-order administrative divisions as defined by the US
> Government, but there are three districts and two islands* at the second order; Eastern, Manu'a, Rose Island*, Swains Island*,
> Western 
> 
> Independence: none (territory of the US) 
> 
> National holiday: Territorial Flag Day, 17 April (1900) 
> 
> Constitution: ratified 1966, in effect 1967 
> 
> Legal system: NA 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal 
> 
> Executive branch: 
> chief of state: President William Jefferson CLINTON of the US (since 20 January 1993) and Vice President Albert GORE, Jr. (since
> 20 January 1993) 
> head of government: Governor Tauese P. SUNIA (since 3 January 1997) and Lieutenant Governor Togiola TULAFONO (since 3
> January 1997) 
> cabinet: NA 
> elections: US president and vice president elected on the same ticket for four-year terms; governor and lieutenant governor elected
> on the same ticket by popular vote for four-year terms; election last held 3 November 1996 (next to be held 7 November 2000) 
> election results: Tauese P. SUNIA elected governor; percent of vote - Tauese P. SUNIA (Democrat) 51%, Peter REID (independent)
> 49% 
> 
> Legislative branch: bicameral Fono or Legislative Assembly consists of the House of Representatives (21 seats - 20 of which are
> elected by popular vote and 1 is an appointed, nonvoting delegate from Swains Island; members serve two-year terms) and the Senate
> (18 seats; members are elected from local chiefs and serve four-year terms) 
> elections: House of Representatives - last held NA November 1998 (next to be held NA November 2000); Senate - last held 3
> November 1996 (next to be held 7 November 2000) 
> election results: House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - NA; Senate - percent of vote by party -
> NA; seats by party - NA 
> note: American Samoa elects one delegate to the US House of Representatives; election last held 3 November 1998 (next to be held 7
> November 2000); results - Eni R. F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA (Democrat) reelected as delegate for a sixth term 
> 
> Judicial branch: High Court (chief justice and associate justices are appointed by the US Secretary of the Interior) 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Democratic Party [leader NA]; Republican Party [leader NA] 
> 
> International organization participation: ESCAP (associate), Interpol (subbureau), IOC, SPC 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: none (territory of the US) 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: none (territory of the US) 
> 
> Flag description: blue, with a white triangle edged in red that is based on the outer side and extends to the hoist side; a brown and
> white American bald eagle flying toward the hoist side is carrying two traditional Samoan symbols of authority, a staff and a war club 
> 
>                                           Economy
> 
> 
> 
> Economy - overview: This is a traditional Polynesian economy in which more than 90% of the land is communally owned.
> Economic activity is strongly linked to the US, with which American Samoa conducts the great bulk of its foreign trade. Tuna fishing
> and tuna processing plants are the backbone of the private sector, with canned tuna the primary export. Transfers from the US
> Government add substantially to American Samoa's economic well-being. Attempts by the government to develop a larger and
> broader economy are restrained by Samoa's remote location, its limited transportation, and its devastating hurricanes. Tourism, a
> developing sector, may be held back by the current financial difficulties in East Asia. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $150 million (1995 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: NA% 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,600 (1995 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: NA% 
> industry: NA% 
> services: NA% 
> 
> Population below poverty line: NA% 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: NA% 
> highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): NA% 
> 
> Labor force: 13,949 (1996) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: government 33%, tuna canneries 34%, other 33% (1990) 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 12% (1991) 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $121 million (37% in local revenue and 63% in US grants) 
> expenditures: $127 million, including capital expenditures of $NA (FY96/97) 
> 
> Industries: tuna canneries (largely dependent on foreign fishing vessels), handicrafts 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: NA% 
> 
> Electricity - production: 125 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 100% 
> hydro: 0% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 116 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: bananas, coconuts, vegetables, taro, breadfruit, yams, copra, pineapples, papayas; dairy products, livestock 
> 
> Exports: $313 million (1996) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: canned tuna 93% 
> 
> Exports - partners: US 99.6% 
> 
> Imports: $471 million (1996) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: materials for canneries 56%, food 8%, petroleum products 7%, machinery and parts 6% 
> 
> Imports - partners: US 62%, Japan 9%, NZ 7%, Australia 11%, Fiji 4%, other 7% 
> 
> Debt - external: $NA 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: $NA; note - important financial support from the US 
> 
> Currency: 1 US dollar (US$) = 100 cents 
> 
> Exchange rates: US currency is used 
> 
> Fiscal year: 1 October - 30 September 
> 
>                                        Communications
>  
> 
> Telephones - main lines in use: 10,000 (1994) 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: 1,200 (1994) 
> 
> Telephone system: 
> domestic: good telex, telegraph, facsimile and cellular telephone services; domestic satellite system with 1 Comsat earth station 
> international: satellite earth station - 1 Intelsat (Pacific Ocean) 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 1, FM 1, shortwave 0 (1998) 
> 
> Radios: 57,000 (1997) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: 1 (1997) 
> 
> Televisions: 14,000 (1997) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA 
> 
>                                         Transportation
> 
> 
> 
> Railways: 0 km 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 350 km 
> paved: 150 km 
> unpaved: 200 km 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Aunu'u (new construction), Auasi, Faleosao, Ofu, Pago Pago, Ta'u 
> 
> Merchant marine: none (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports: 4 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 2 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 1 
> under 914 m: 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 2 
> under 914 m: 2 (1999 est.) 
> 
>                                           Military
> 
>  
> 
> Military - note: defense is the responsibility of the US 
> 
>                                       Transnational Issues
> 
>  
> 
> Disputes - international: none 
------
ZzZ|979866945
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> NewZealand
------
ZzZ|979866970
1c1
< NewZealand
---
> Zaire
------
ZzZ|979866980
1c1
< Zaire
---
> ZairE
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979867446
1a2,5
> ----
> I am going through here in my spare time and adding information from the CIAWorldFactBook, which is PublicDomain.   But I hope that people will get rid of these entries, which are kind of dull, and write better ones.  Someone wrote an entry on NewZealand which I like very much.
> 
> ----
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979867480
3c3
< I am going through here in my spare time and adding information from the CIAWorldFactBook, which is PublicDomain.   But I hope that people will get rid of these entries, which are kind of dull, and write better ones.  Someone wrote an entry on NewZealand which I like very much.
---
> I am going through here in my spare time and adding information from the CIAWorldFactBook, which is PublicDomain.   But I hope that people will get rid of these entries, which are kind of dull, and write better ones.  Someone wrote an entry on NewZealand which I like very much. --JimboWales
------
NamingConventions|979867760
16a17,21
> ----
> 
> I (JimboWales) am the one who started the bad naming convention.  I simply plead total ignorance.  I realized when I started that it was a problem, but I didn't know what to do, so I just kept plugging away.
> 
> I think that ScottMoonen''''s suggestion has great merit.  Unless someone beats me to it, I will work on making that change over the next few days.
------
JimboWales|979867837
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The best place to learn about who am I is at my website
> [http://www.jimmywales.com www.jimmywales.com].
> 
> You can also see some still stuff about me at the 
> [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JimboWales Bomis Wiki].
------
LarrySanger|979868698
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimmyWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
13c13
< Plenty of SiberianHusky''''s in AlaskA, Larry's home state.  Larry's family used to have a SiberianHusky named Sheba, but Sheba disappeared when Larry was small.
---
> Plenty of SiberianHusky''''s in AlaskA, Larry's home state.  Larry's family used to have a SiberianHusky named Sheba, but Sheba disappeared when Larry was small.
------
OldWikiPediaLogo|979868732
1c1
< In its first day of existence, because the nearest thing to hand (for JimmyWales) that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, indeed WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
---
> In its first day of existence, because the nearest thing to hand (for JimboWales) that was suitable for a logo was an American flag, indeed WikiPedia had the American flag, OldGlory, for a logo.
------
TaoTehChing|979868772
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Tao Teh Ching is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow named Lao Tzu, who was a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of that time.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed.
> 
> Several modern versions of Taoism (Daoism) are replete with polytheism, ancestor worship, ceremony of various kinds, and alchemic efforts to achieve longevity.
> 
> What is written by Lao Tzu contains none of the above.
> 
> Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (Tao for short) is concise, if poetical, purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
> 
> The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  I refrain here from quoting the Tao directly, as every English Language interpretation, of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say, that Lao Tzu demonstrates an understanding of such principles as these:
> 
> Force begets force.  One whose needs are simple will find them fulfilled.  Wealth does not enrich the spirit.  Self-interest and self-importance are vain and self-destructive.  Victory in war is not glorious and not to be celebrated, but stems from devastation, and is to be mourned.  The harder one tries, the more resistance he will create for himself.  The more one acts in harmony with the universe, the more he will achieve, with less effort.  The truly wise make little of their own wisdom -for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know.  It is wise to repay kindness with kindness and to repay evil with kindness.  We are our brothers' keepers.  Skill averts waste.  When we lose the fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values.  Stupidity leads to force.  The wise are responsible for the foolish.  The honest are responsible for the dishonest.  The teacher is responsible for his student.  Glorification of wealth, power and beauty beget crime, envy and shame.  The "feminine" qualities of flexibility and suppleness are superior to "masculine" strength and rigidity.  Everything in its own time and place.
> 
> Behind all this, Lao Tzu speaks of the ineffable Tao, or the "Way," which is described as the indivisible and indescribable unifying principle of the universe, from which all flows.  It is without time, form or substance, and exterior/senior to these traits.  The simpler one becomes, the greater hope he has of co-existing with the Tao, which is the only way one can truly understand it.  
> 
> In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fuit" above the "flower."
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979869145
11c11,17
< What does it mean--what does it show--why is it remarkable?  (Not sure what I'm asking here, but you probably do.)
---
> What does it mean--what does it show--why is it remarkable?  (Not sure what I'm asking here, but you probably do.)
> 
> ----
> 
> Richard Feynman is a Nobel prize winner in Physics (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
> 
> Stas
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979869452
15c15
< Richard Feynman is a Nobel prize winner in Physics (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
---
> Richard Feynman is a Nobel prize winner in Physics[?] (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979869481
15c15
< Richard Feynman is a Nobel prize winner in Physics[?] (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
---
> Richard Feynman is a NobelPrizeWinner in Physics (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979869558
15c15
< Richard Feynman is a NobelPrizeWinner in Physics (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
---
> Richard Feynman is a NobelPrizeWinner in PhysICs (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
------
TaoTehChing|979870188
9c9
< The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  I refrain here from quoting the Tao directly, as every English Language interpretation, of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say, that Lao Tzu demonstrates an understanding of such principles as these:
---
> The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  I refrain here from quoting the Tao directly, as every English Language interpretation, of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say that Lao Tzu demonstrates an understanding of such principles as these:
------
WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia|979871500
1c1
< [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com] is an open content, international, peer reviewed project run by LarrySanger, who got the idea of supplementing NuPedia with a less formal "wiki" encyclopedia project.  So there is a historical connection between the projects.  Both NuPedia and WikiPedia are originated (though not solely controlled) by BoMis, a WebPortal company.  So there is a management connection.
---
> [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com] is an open content, international, peer reviewed project run by LarrySanger, who got the idea of supplementing NuPedia with a less formal "wiki" encyclopedia project.  So there is a historical connection between the projects.  Both NuPedia and WikiPedia are originated by BoMis, a WebPortal company.  So there is a management connection.
5c5
< We hope the projects will be complementary.
---
> We hope the projects will be complementary.
------
HomePage|979871572
10c10
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?
---
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link below.
------
HomePage|979871600
10c10
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link below.
---
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link!''
------
HomePage|979871624
10c10
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link!''
---
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
------
MakeaNewPage|979871694
1c1
< ShortArticles
---
> Very easy.  Simply go to any existing wiki page, such as the NewTopics page, click "Edit text of this page," and type in the name of the new page in the text box. Then save your edit, and you'll see your page name followed by "?". Click on the question mark to edit the new page.
3c3
< The shortest article I know is "a".
---
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside the word, like PhiloSophy.
------
SelfExplanatory|979871711
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A concept is said to be SelfExplanatory if it is written in a such way that explains the concept itself, i.e. no explanation is required except looking at what is meant to be SelfExplanatory.
> 
> You might want to go one click deeper to understand what SelfExplanatory means.
------
MakeaNewPage|979871736
3c3
< To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside the word, like PhiloSophy.
---
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
------
PartakeInDiscussion|979871792
3c3
< Click the "Edit this Page" below to see how this was done...the four hyphens will be revealed.
---
> Click "Edit text of this page" below to see how this was done...the four hyphens will be revealed.
------
SelfExplanatory|979871825
3c3
< You might want to go one click deeper to understand what SelfExplanatory means.
---
> If the above definition does not seem clear enough click the word SelfExplanatory to go one level deeper to understand what SelfExplanatory means.
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|979871839
1,5c1
< Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, precisify that language, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
< ----
< Would I be too '''bold''', if I said ''precisify'' is not a word?
< ----
< "Precisify" is philosopher-talk for "make precise"...
---
> Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, make that language precise, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
------
WikiPedia|979871894
6d5
< 
8,11c7
< 
< A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
< 
< I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
---
> Some old text removed to WikiPediaProcess.
------
WikiPediaProcess|979871913
1a2,5
> ----
> ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
> ----
> A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
3c7
< ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
---
> I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
------
WikiPedia|979871954
7c7
< Some old text removed to WikiPediaProcess.
---
> ''Some old text elided, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
------
PaGe|979872163
4c4,7
< No it won't. Try it!!!
---
> No it won't. Try it!!!
> 
> 
> This example is pretty much SelfExplanatory.
------
StasK|979872677
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> StasK stands for Stas Kolenikov. I find both WikiPedia and NuPedia to be most exciting and interesting projects that only could appear in the 'Net age.
> 
> ([http://www.komkon.org/~tacik More to that])
------
StartaNewParagraph|979872885
19a20,24
> 
> ----------------
> 
> This is a SelfExplanatory PaGe! It is really great that an EncycloPedia can be so InterActive.
> 
------
RusSia|979873094
7a8,11
> 
> ----
> 
> Funny enough, but all Russian websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
------
MathematicalGrouP|979875513
19c19
< 3)	G contains an identity element, say i, that is, if a belongs to G then i*a =a.
---
> 3)	G contains an identity element, say i, that is, if a belongs to G then i*a = a and a*i = a.
32c32
< integers={…-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4…} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
---
> integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
93c93
< and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
---
> and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979876328
17c17,46
< Stas
---
> Stas----
> 
> This MostRemarkableRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
> 
> 
> Euler’s Theorem states that:
> 
> 
> e^(ib) = cos(b) + i * sin(b) where b is a real number.
> 
> 
> So, if b = pi, then  e^(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i * sin(pi).
> 
> 
> Then, since cos(pi) = 1 and sin(pi) = 0,
> 
> 
>                                    e(i*pi) = - 1, and e(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
> 
> The proof of Euler’s Theorem involves the definition of "e," by a Taylor’s Series 
> 
> Expansion of  e^z, where z is a complex number, DeMoivre’s Formula, 
> 
> and the Taylor’s Series Expansion of the sine and cosine functions.
> 
> Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequnce of the
> 
> formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
>        
> 
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979876390
19c19
< This MostRemarkableRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
---
> TheMostRemarkableRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979876506
19c19
< TheMostRemarkableRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
---
> TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979876622
25c25
< e^(ib) = cos(b) + i * sin(b) where b is a real number.
---
>                                  e^(ib) = cos(b) + i * sin(b) where b is a real number.
34c34
<                                    e(i*pi) = - 1, and e(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
---
>                                    e^(i*pi) = - 1, and e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|979876737
36c36
< The proof of Euler’s Theorem involves the definition of "e," by a Taylor’s Series 
---
> The proof of Euler’s Theorem involves the definition of "e," by a Taylor’s Series Expansion of  e^z, where z is a complex number, DeMoivre’s Formula, and the Taylor’s Series Expansion of the sine and cosine functions.
38,44c38
< Expansion of  e^z, where z is a complex number, DeMoivre’s Formula, 
< 
< and the Taylor’s Series Expansion of the sine and cosine functions.
< 
< Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequnce of the
< 
< formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
---
> Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequnce of the formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
------
GoD|979880261
3c3
< There is a large number of different conceptions of the divine, and this is even reflected in the many NamesGivenToTheDivine.
---
> There are a large number of different concepts of the divine, and this fact is reflected in the many NamesGivenToTheDivine.
5c5
< The view that the divine exists is called ''TheIsm.''  There are four varieties of theism, or four differing theories, or conceptions, about God: MonoTheism, PanTheism, PolyTheism, and AnimIsm (the latter might be regarded as a special variety of either PolyTheism or PanTheism).
---
> The view that the divine exists is called ''TheIsm.''  There are four varieties of theism, or four differing theories, or concepts about God(s): MonoTheism, PanTheism, PolyTheism, and AnimIsm (the latter might be regarded as a special variety of either PolyTheism or PanTheism).
7c7
< There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (on most views? I need help here) OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic conception is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
---
> There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of both JudaIsm and IsLam, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (according to the majority of MonoTheists) a concept which might be called OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic concept is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
------
RusSia|979882309
2d1
< 
4d2
< 
8d5
< 
10,11c7
< 
< Funny enough, but all Russian websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
---
> Funny enough, but all Russian websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979886801
6a7,58
> CountriesA
> 
> CountriesB
> 
> CountriesC
> 
> CountriesD
> 
> CountriesE
> 
> CountriesF
> 
> CountriesG
> 
> CountriesH
> 
> CountriesI
> 
> CountriesJ
> 
> CountriesK
> 
> CountriesL
> 
> CountriesM
> 
> CountriesN
> 
> CountriesO
> 
> CountriesP
> 
> CountriesQ
> 
> CountriesR
> 
> CountriesS
> 
> CountriesT
> 
> CountriesU
> 
> CountriesV
> 
> CountriesW
> 
> CountriesX
> 
> CountriesY
> 
> CountriesZ
> 
------
CountriesA|979886858
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AfghanistaN
>      
> AlbaniA 
>      
> AlgeriA
>      
> AmericanSamoa 
>      
> AndorrA
>      
> AngolA 
>      
> AnguillA 
>      
> AntarcticA 
>      
> AntiguaAndBarbuda 
>      
> ArcticOcean 
>      
> ArgentinA
>      
> ArmeniA 
>      
> ArubA
> 
> AshmoreAndCartierIslands 
>      
> AtlanticOcean 
>      
> AustraliA
>      
> AustriA 
>      
> AzerbaijaN
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979886905
59,84d58
< AaA
< 
< BbB
< 
< CcC
< 
< DdD
< 
< EeE
< 
< FfF
< 
< GgG
< 
< HhH
< 
< IiI
< 
< JjJ
< 
< KkK
< 
< LlL
< 
< MmM
< 
86,107d59
< 
< OoO
< 
< PpP
< 
< QqQ
< 
< RrR
< 
< SsS
< 
< TtT
< 
< UuU
< 
< VvV
< 
< WwW
< 
< XxX
< 
< YyY
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979886991
6a7,11
> I am attempting to follow the brilliant suggestions on the NamingConventions page.  So I am reorganizing this area.  But
> please feel free to add stuff.
> 
> ----
> 
------
CountriesN|979887025
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> NewZealand
------
CountriesZ|979887060
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ZairE
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979887078
64,66d63
< NnN
< 
< ZzZ
------
WikiPedia|979887258
3c3
< We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  Doesn't have to be long; a little bit in the early stages will help a lot.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
---
> We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  Click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page to edit a page; for answers to more questions, Doesn't have to be long; a little bit in the early stages will help a lot.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
7c7
< ''Some old text elided, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
---
> ''Some old text elided, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
------
WikiPedia|979887330
3c3
< We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  Click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page to edit a page; for answers to more questions, Doesn't have to be long; a little bit in the early stages will help a lot.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
---
> We invite everyone to contribute.  Just pick a topic, write an article.  Click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page to edit a page; for more information, see HowDoesOneEditaPage.  The articles don't have to be long; a little bit in the early stages will help a lot.  You can do so anonymously or give yourself credit.  If you see an error, you can instantly edit an article to fix it.
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|979889680
3c3
< I am going through here in my spare time and adding information from the CIAWorldFactBook, which is PublicDomain.   But I hope that people will get rid of these entries, which are kind of dull, and write better ones.  Someone wrote an entry on NewZealand which I like very much. --JimboWales
---
> I am going through here in my spare time and adding information from the CIAWorldFactBook, which is PublicDomain.   But I hope that people will get rid of these entries, which are kind of dull, and write better ones.  (Or adapt them and render them into brilliant prose.--LS)  Someone wrote an entry on NewZealand which I like very much. --JimboWales
------
MichigaN|979913643
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Capitol: Lansing
> Largest City: Detroit
> Michigan Resident Population (2000 Census): 9,938,444
> 
> Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automotive industry.  However, it also has a large tourist industry.  Destinations like Traverse City, Macinac Island, and the entire upper peninsula draw sportsman and nature lovers from all over the U.S. and Canada.
------
MichigaN|979913664
1,3c1,3
< Capitol: Lansing
< Largest City: Detroit
< Michigan Resident Population (2000 Census): 9,938,444
---
>     Capitol: Lansing
>     Largest City: Detroit
>     Michigan Resident Population (2000 Census): 9,938,444
------
MichigaN|979929872
5c5
< Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automotive industry.  However, it also has a large tourist industry.  Destinations like Traverse City, Macinac Island, and the entire upper peninsula draw sportsman and nature lovers from all over the U.S. and Canada.
---
> Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automotive industry.  However, it also has a large tourist industry.  Destinations like Traverse City, Macinac Island, and the entire upper peninsula draw sportsmen and nature lovers from all over the U.S. and Canada.
------
MichigaN|979930003
1c1
<     Capitol: Lansing
---
>     Capital: Lansing
5c5
< Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automotive industry.  However, it also has a large tourist industry.  Destinations like Traverse City, Macinac Island, and the entire upper peninsula draw sportsmen and nature lovers from all over the U.S. and Canada.
---
> Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automotive industry.  However, it also has a large tourist industry.  Destinations like Traverse City, Mackinac Island, and the entire upper peninsula draw sportsmen and nature lovers from all over the U.S. and Canada.
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|979930095
2c2
< :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
---
> :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TopOlogy
------
TopOlogy|979930110
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> What is topology, and why do people study it?
------
DonegalFiddleTradition|979930235
1c1
< A tradition, or set of coexisting traditions, at least 200 years old, of playing the fiddle in County Donegal, Ireland.  Donegal is a remote, partly Irish-speaking county in northwestern Ireland and one of the three counties of the northern Irish province of Ulster that are part of the Republic of Ireland.  Donegal's tradition of fiddle playing has completely eclipsed other instrumental traditions in the county.
---
> A tradition, or set of coexisting traditions, at least 200 years old, of playing the FidDle in County Donegal, Ireland.  Donegal is a remote, partly Irish-speaking county in northwestern Ireland and one of the three counties of the northern Irish province of Ulster that are part of the Republic of Ireland.  Donegal's tradition of FidDle playing has completely eclipsed other instrumental traditions in the county.
5c5
< There are, of course, a number of different strands to the history of fiddle playing in County Donegal.  Perhaps the best-known and, in the last half of the twentieth century, the most influential has been that of the Doherty family.  Hugh Doherty is the first known musician of this family.  Born in 1790, he headed an unbroken tradition of fiddlers and pipers in the Doherty family until the death, in 1980, of perhaps the best-known Donegal fiddler, John Doherty.  John, a travelling tinsmith, was known for his extremely precise and fast finger- and bow-work and vast repertoire, and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Irish fiddlers ever recorded.  John's older brother, Mickey, was also recorded and, though Mickey was another of the great Irish fiddlers, his reputation has been overshadowed by John's.  Other representatives, now dead, of older Donegal styles include Neillidh ("Neilly") Boyle, Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, and Frank Cassidy.  A great fiddler from Donegal who bears mention, but who did not play in a traditional Donegal style, was Hugh Gillespie.  Some great Donegal fiddlers are still alive, including James Byrne, Vincent Campbell, John Gallagher, Paddy Glackin, Danny O'Donnell, and Tommy Peoples.  Among the many younger players, the three fiddlers of the Donegal "supergroup" Altan, Maireád Ní Mhaonaigh, Paul O'Shaughnessy, and Ciarán Tourish, are commonly regarded as brilliant, as are Mick Brown, Martin Mcginley, Dermot Mclaughlin, and others too numerous to mention by name.  Finally, although he is not known as a fiddle player, Dermot Byrne, the button accordion player currently with Altan, has a style and repertoire that is firmly within the Donegal instrumental tradition; he is widely regarded as one of the finest button accordion players in Ireland.  
---
> There are, of course, a number of different strands to the history of FidDle playing in County Donegal.  Perhaps the best-known and, in the last half of the twentieth century, the most influential has been that of the Doherty family.  Hugh Doherty is the first known musician of this family.  Born in 1790, he headed an unbroken tradition of fiddlers and pipers in the Doherty family until the death, in 1980, of perhaps the best-known Donegal fiddler, John Doherty.  John, a travelling tinsmith, was known for his extremely precise and fast finger- and bow-work and vast repertoire, and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Irish fiddlers ever recorded.  John's older brother, Mickey, was also recorded and, though Mickey was another of the great Irish fiddlers, his reputation has been overshadowed by John's.  Other representatives, now dead, of older Donegal styles include Neillidh ("Neilly") Boyle, Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, and Frank Cassidy.  A great fiddler from Donegal who bears mention, but who did not play in a traditional Donegal style, was Hugh Gillespie.  Some great Donegal fiddlers are still alive, including James Byrne, Vincent Campbell, John Gallagher, Paddy Glackin, Danny O'Donnell, and Tommy Peoples.  Among the many younger players, the three fiddlers of the Donegal "supergroup" Altan, Maireád Ní Mhaonaigh, Paul O'Shaughnessy, and Ciarán Tourish, are commonly regarded as brilliant, as are Mick Brown, Martin Mcginley, Dermot Mclaughlin, and others too numerous to mention by name.  Finally, although he is not known as a fiddle player, Dermot Byrne, the button accordion player currently with Altan, has a style and repertoire that is firmly within the Donegal instrumental tradition; he is widely regarded as one of the finest button accordion players in Ireland.  
7c7
< '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/the+Donegal+fiddle+tradition/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/the+Donegal+fiddle+tradition/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
------
FidDle|979930752
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/geige.gif [http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/violinunterricht.html Image from "Violinunterricht" page]
> 
> The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style
> 
------
FidDle|979931027
1c1
< http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/geige.gif [http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/violinunterricht.html Image from "Violinunterricht" page]
---
> http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/geige.gif 
3c3
< The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style
---
> [http://www.8ung.at/hansjoergbrugger/violinunterricht.html Image borrowed from "Violinunterricht" page]
4a5,7
> [definition here]
> 
> '''The instrument itself.''' The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
------
DoubleStops|979931229
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in TheDonegalFiddleTradition.
------
DoubleStops|979931238
1c1
< Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in TheDonegalFiddleTradition.
---
> Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the DonegalFiddleTradition.
------
DoubleStops|979931343
1c1
< Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the DonegalFiddleTradition.
---
> Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the (very old) DonegalFiddleTradition--and DoneGal is in the north of Ireland (not to say NorthernIreland, the political region partly controlled by the UK, however).
------
DoubleStops|979931374
1c1
< Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the (very old) DonegalFiddleTradition--and DoneGal is in the north of Ireland (not to say NorthernIreland, the political region partly controlled by the UK, however).
---
> Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the (very old) DonegalFiddleTradition--and DoneGal is in northwest Ireland (not to say NorthernIreland, the political region partly controlled by the UK, however).
------
FidDle|979932418
5c5
< [definition here]
---
> A MusicalInstrument with four strings, typically held under the chin, and played with a BoW; the smallest and highest-pitched of a family of four instruments including VioLin, VioLa, CelLo, and BasS.  For more information about the physical instrument itself, see VioLin.
7c7,25
< '''The instrument itself.''' The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
---
> '''FiddleandViolin.''' The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
> 
> '''FiddleStyles.'''  To a greater extent than classical VioLin playing, fiddle playing is characterized by a huge variety of ethnic or FolkMusic traditions, each of which has its own distinctive sound, including, but not limited to: IrishFiddling (with many distinct styles, including, for example, the DonegalFiddleTradition), ScottishFiddling, EnglishFiddling, AmericanFiddling (including OldTimeFiddling, NewEnglandStyleFiddling, CajunFiddling, TexasStyleFiddling, ContestFiddling, BlueGrassFiddling, and other related traditions), CanadianFiddling (including CapeBretonFiddling, QuebecoisFiddling, and others), NorwegianFiddling (including HardangerFiddling), SwedishFiddling, FinnishFiddling, and FrenchFiddling (including a rich BretonFiddling tradition).
> 
> Suggested topics to be added later by me or anyone else:
> 
> '''HistoryOfFiddlePlaying.'''
> 
> '''FiddleMusic and FiddleTunes.'''
> 
> '''FiddleTunebooks.'''
> 
> '''FiddlePlayers.'''
> 
> '''FiddleRecordings.'''
> 
> '''HowToLearnTheFiddle.'''
> 
> '''WhereToPlayTheFiddle.'''
------
DonegalFiddleTradition|979932570
1c1
< A tradition, or set of coexisting traditions, at least 200 years old, of playing the FidDle in County Donegal, Ireland.  Donegal is a remote, partly Irish-speaking county in northwestern Ireland and one of the three counties of the northern Irish province of Ulster that are part of the Republic of Ireland.  Donegal's tradition of FidDle playing has completely eclipsed other instrumental traditions in the county.
---
> A kind of IrishTraditionalMusic.  A tradition, or set of coexisting traditions, at least 200 years old, of playing the FidDle in County Donegal, Ireland.  Donegal is a remote, partly Irish-speaking county in northwestern Ireland and one of the three counties of the northern Irish province of Ulster that are part of the Republic of Ireland.  Donegal's tradition of FidDle playing has completely eclipsed other instrumental traditions in the county.
------
IrishTraditionalMusic|979932605
3c3
< While once mostly home-made ("kitchen music") by non-professionals for their own entertainment and that of their neighbors and friends, now Irish music can be heard at sessions (informal gatherings of musicians, often in pubs) and in concert halls, not only in Ireland and countries with large Irish immigrant populations, but indeed in many countries around the globe.  It also can be heard on recordings of bands such as The Bothy Band, Altan, and The Chieftains, instrumentalists such as Michael Coleman (fiddle), Joe Cooley (button accordion), Paddy Keenan (pipes), Matt Molloy (flute), and Mary Bergin (tin whistle), and singers such as Joe Heaney, Tríona Ní Dhomnhaill, and Paddy Tunney.  In recent years, Irish music has enjoyed increasing popularity worldwide, largely as a result of the wildly successful, internationally performed dance-and-music stage extravaganza, Riverdance, as well as the "steerage scene" from the movie Titanic.  Those interested in pursuing the art, if they take it seriously, are warmly welcomed by more experienced traditional musicians.
---
> While once mostly home-made ("kitchen music") by non-professionals for their own entertainment and that of their neighbors and friends, now Irish music can be heard at sessions (informal gatherings of musicians, often in pubs) and in concert halls, not only in Ireland and countries with large Irish immigrant populations, but indeed in many countries around the globe.  It also can be heard on recordings of bands such as The Bothy Band, Altan, and The Chieftains, instrumentalists such as Michael Coleman (FidDle), Joe Cooley (button accordion), Paddy Keenan (pipes), Matt Molloy (flute), and Mary Bergin (tin whistle), and singers such as Joe Heaney, Tríona Ní Dhomnhaill, and Paddy Tunney.  In recent years, Irish music has enjoyed increasing popularity worldwide, largely as a result of the wildly successful, internationally performed dance-and-music stage extravaganza, Riverdance, as well as the "steerage scene" from the movie Titanic.  Those interested in pursuing the art, if they take it seriously, are warmly welcomed by more experienced traditional musicians.
5c5
< The music traditionally employs a delightful variety of melody instruments: voice; Uilleann pipes (bellows-blown Irish bagpipes); fiddle; wooden flute; tin whistle (a simple recorder-like instrument); button accordion and two accordion-like instruments, melodeon and concertina; tenor (four-string) banjo; mandolin; harmonica (also called "mouth organ"); harp; and sometimes others.  The harp, in fact, is the national symbol of Ireland.  Dance tunes are sometimes "lilted" as well, that is, sung with nonsense syllables.  While not always regarded as traditional, chordal and rhythmic accompaniment is often provided by, variously, guitar; three lute-like instruments, including cittern, bouzouki (a Greek instrument adopted and now widely played in Irish circles), and mandola (a larger variety of mandolin); piano; bodhrán (a shallow Irish goatskin drum); bones (animal rib-bones or similarly-shaped pieces of wood held between the fingers); and "Jew's harp" or jaw harp.
---
> The music traditionally employs a delightful variety of melody instruments: voice; Uilleann pipes (bellows-blown Irish bagpipes); FidDle; wooden flute; tin whistle (a simple recorder-like instrument); button accordion and two accordion-like instruments, melodeon and concertina; tenor (four-string) banjo; mandolin; harmonica (also called "mouth organ"); harp; and sometimes others.  The harp, in fact, is the national symbol of Ireland.  Dance tunes are sometimes "lilted" as well, that is, sung with nonsense syllables.  While not always regarded as traditional, chordal and rhythmic accompaniment is often provided by, variously, guitar; three lute-like instruments, including cittern, bouzouki (a Greek instrument adopted and now widely played in Irish circles), and mandola (a larger variety of mandolin); piano; bodhrán (a shallow Irish goatskin drum); bones (animal rib-bones or similarly-shaped pieces of wood held between the fingers); and "Jew's harp" or jaw harp.
11c11
< '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent.
------
FiddleandViolin|979932682
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
------
FiddleStyles|979932709
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> To a greater extent than classical VioLin playing, FidDle playing is characterized by a huge variety of ethnic or FolkMusic traditions, each of which has its own distinctive sound, including, but not limited to: IrishFiddling (with many distinct styles, including, for example, the DonegalFiddleTradition), ScottishFiddling, EnglishFiddling, AmericanFiddling (including OldTimeFiddling, NewEnglandStyleFiddling, CajunFiddling, TexasStyleFiddling, ContestFiddling, BlueGrassFiddling, and other related traditions), CanadianFiddling (including CapeBretonFiddling, QuebecoisFiddling, and others), NorwegianFiddling (including HardangerFiddling), SwedishFiddling, FinnishFiddling, and FrenchFiddling (including a rich BretonFiddling tradition).
------
FiddleandViolin|979932726
1c1
< The fiddle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
---
> The FidDle is the same MusicalInstrument as the VioLin.  Essentially, "fiddle" is used to described a violin when the violin is played in a FolkMusic (i.e., TraditionalMusic) or sometimes a JaZz style.  One very slight difference between fiddle and violin occurs in American (e.g., BlueGrass and OldTime music) fiddling: the ViolinBridge is shaved down so that it is essentially flat.  This makes it easier to play DoubleStops.
------
NamingConventions|979933444
10c10
< 
---
> ----
18d17
< 
21c20,28
< I think that ScottMoonen''''s suggestion has great merit.  Unless someone beats me to it, I will work on making that change over the next few days.
---
> I think that ScottMoonen''''s suggestion has great merit.  Unless someone beats me to it, I will work on making that change over the next few days.
> ----
> I believe the above-proposed convention is, in ''some'' cases, too restrictive.  It creates titles that sound strange when used as parts of sentences.  E.g., if I want to say that Afghanistan is a country in Asia, I am forced to say AfghanistanCountry is a country in Asia, which sounds very awkward.
> 
> The argument that this convention makes it easier to search is obviated by the fact that, after all, people will organize countries, countries in Asia, Muslim countries, etc., all on their own pages (in the near or distant future anyway), and more importantly, that a full text search is possible.
> 
> Also, I would prefer not to include categories in ''most'' (not all, I suppose) topic names because that tends to restrict the discussion of the category.  For example, if I were to write "FiddleMusic" instead of "FidDle," then the tendency would be to discuss, well, fiddle music instead of all things fiddle.  I could write "FiddleMusicalInstrument," but then the tendency would be to discuss the fiddle ''qua'' musical instrument, and there are many other aspects of the fiddle apart from those directly related to the fact that it's a musical instrument.  Generally, I'm opposed to imposing pre-set category schemes: things do not wear their categories on their sleeves (as though they had only one supercategory) and we should not name articles as though they did.
> 
> Finally, I think it makes sense simply to capitalize the internal letter of one-word topics which begins the strongest syllable (or next-strongest syllable, if the strongest syllable is the first).  Thus: FidDle; AlAska; RusSia; DoneGal (yes, in fact that's the strongest syllable, the way the Irish use the name).  In cases where there is both one word and one syllable, I'd propose capitalizing the last letter: BasS; JazZ; SoaP. -- LarrySanger
------
NamingConventions|979933715
22c22
< I believe the above-proposed convention is, in ''some'' cases, too restrictive.  It creates titles that sound strange when used as parts of sentences.  E.g., if I want to say that Afghanistan is a country in Asia, I am forced to say AfghanistanCountry is a country in Asia, which sounds very awkward.
---
> I believe the above-proposed convention is, in ''many'' cases, too restrictive.  It creates titles that sound strange when used as parts of sentences.  E.g., if I want to say that Afghanistan is a country in Asia, I am forced to say AfghanistanCountry is a country in Asia, which sounds very awkward.
24c24
< The argument that this convention makes it easier to search is obviated by the fact that, after all, people will organize countries, countries in Asia, Muslim countries, etc., all on their own pages (in the near or distant future anyway), and more importantly, that a full text search is possible.
---
> The argument that this convention makes it easier to search is obviated by the fact that, after all, people will organize all countries, all countries in Asia, all Muslim countries, etc., each on their own pages (in the near or distant future anyway), and more importantly, that a full text search is possible.  Why impose a category scheme in the ''naming convention''?
26c26
< Also, I would prefer not to include categories in ''most'' (not all, I suppose) topic names because that tends to restrict the discussion of the category.  For example, if I were to write "FiddleMusic" instead of "FidDle," then the tendency would be to discuss, well, fiddle music instead of all things fiddle.  I could write "FiddleMusicalInstrument," but then the tendency would be to discuss the fiddle ''qua'' musical instrument, and there are many other aspects of the fiddle apart from those directly related to the fact that it's a musical instrument.  Generally, I'm opposed to imposing pre-set category schemes: things do not wear their categories on their sleeves (as though they had only one supercategory) and we should not name articles as though they did.
---
> So I would prefer not to include categories in ''most'' (not all, I suppose) topic names because that tends to restrict the discussion of the category.  For example, if I were to write "FiddleMusic" instead of "FidDle," then the tendency would be to discuss, well, fiddle music instead of all things fiddle.  I could write "FiddleMusicalInstrument," but then the tendency would be to discuss the fiddle ''qua'' musical instrument, and there are many other aspects of the fiddle apart from those directly related to the fact that it's a musical instrument.  Generally, I'm opposed to imposing pre-set category schemes: things do not wear their categories on their sleeves (as though they had only one supercategory) and we should not name articles as though they did.
28c28,30
< Finally, I think it makes sense simply to capitalize the internal letter of one-word topics which begins the strongest syllable (or next-strongest syllable, if the strongest syllable is the first).  Thus: FidDle; AlAska; RusSia; DoneGal (yes, in fact that's the strongest syllable, the way the Irish use the name).  In cases where there is both one word and one syllable, I'd propose capitalizing the last letter: BasS; JazZ; SoaP. -- LarrySanger
---
> Finally, I think it makes sense simply to capitalize the internal letter of one-word topics which begins the strongest syllable (or next-strongest syllable, if the strongest syllable is the first).  Thus: FidDle; AlAska; RusSia; DoneGal (yes, in fact that's the strongest syllable, the way the Irish use the name).  In cases where there is both one word and one syllable, I'd propose capitalizing the last letter: BasS; JazZ; SoaP.  This is the convention I've been following, anyway.  And, of course, for multi-word topics, capitalize all the words (except, perhaps the conjunctions and articles?) and mash 'em together.
> 
> That's my take, but go and do whatever you like! -- LarrySanger
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|979933859
1c1,3
< Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, make that language precise, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
---
> Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, make that language precise, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
> 
> OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
------
HomePage|979933916
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|979933950
3c3,5
< OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
---
> OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
> 
> So I might have convinced you to be bold in updating pages, but now you want to HowDoesOneEditaPage.
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|979934634
5c5
< So I might have convinced you to be bold in updating pages, but now you want to HowDoesOneEditaPage.
---
> So I might have convinced you to be bold in updating pages, but now you want know: HowDoesOneEditaPage?
------
TaoTehChing|979935464
7c7
< Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (Tao for short) is concise, if poetical, purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
---
> Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (Tao for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
15c15
< In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fuit" above the "flower."
---
> In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower."
------
NamingConventions|979935642
30c30,34
< That's my take, but go and do whatever you like! -- LarrySanger
---
> That's my take, but go and do whatever you like! -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Well, LarrySanger has good points, too.  I think we can all agree that alphabetical page names like 'AaA' are bad.  I want to organize all the CountriesOfTheWorld, but someone else will want to organize all the SportS or whatever.
> 
> I have changed my index pages, but so far I have not made any alteration to the country names.
------
NamingConventions|979935735
34c34,36
< I have changed my index pages, but so far I have not made any alteration to the country names.
---
> I have changed my index pages, but so far I have not made any alteration to the country names.
> 
> One problem with LarrySanger''''s proposal, for multi-syllabic words, is that people may not know whiat is the strongest syllable.
------
LarrySanger|979936532
2c2
< 
---
> ----
------
WikiPediaProcess|979936695
7c7,9
< I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
---
> I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
> ----
> It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image.  This was done, for example, on the FidDle page.  But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia.  Is this wrong?  Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not?  What do you think?
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979939691
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Following is a link to an interesting article regarding the likelihood of historic biblical support for the traditional Christian notion of "Hell."  
> 
> In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern tests.
> 
> This article serves to illustrate that even versions of the Bible which some believers cleave to as "infallible" were openly characterized by their original authors as human interpretations of human writings, and therefore not 100% reliable.
> 
> An interesting read...
> 
> http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter14.html
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979939759
3c3
< In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern tests.
---
> In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern texts.
------
WikiPediaProcess|979940356
9c9,11
< It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image.  This was done, for example, on the FidDle page.  But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia.  Is this wrong?  Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not?  What do you think?
---
> It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image.  This was done, for example, on the FidDle page.  But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia.  Is this wrong?  Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not?  What do you think?
> ----
> Interesting question.  I linked an article (a pretty long one) in BiblicalInterpretation, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless.  Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether?  Then what of my link?  The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material.  If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back.  However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't.  Who has a definitive answer on this?
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979940746
1,9c1
< Following is a link to an interesting article regarding the likelihood of historic biblical support for the traditional Christian notion of "Hell."  
< 
< In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern texts.
< 
< This article serves to illustrate that even versions of the Bible which some believers cleave to as "infallible" were openly characterized by their original authors as human interpretations of human writings, and therefore not 100% reliable.
< 
< An interesting read...
< 
< http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter14.html
---
> Does the traditional Christian notion of HelL have historical Biblical support?
------
HelL|979940758
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Following is a link to an interesting article regarding the likelihood of historic biblical support for the traditional Christian notion of "Hell."  
> 
> In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern texts.
> 
> This article serves to illustrate that even versions of the Bible which some believers cleave to as "infallible" were openly characterized by their original authors as human interpretations of human writings, and therefore not 100% reliable.
> 
> An interesting read...
> 
> http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter14.html
------
NamingConventions|979940861
36c36
< One problem with LarrySanger''''s proposal, for multi-syllabic words, is that people may not know whiat is the strongest syllable.
---
> One problem with LarrySanger'''''s proposal, for multi-syllabic words, is that people may not know whiat is the strongest syllable.
------
NamingConventions|979940945
22c22
< I believe the above-proposed convention is, in ''many'' cases, too restrictive.  It creates titles that sound strange when used as parts of sentences.  E.g., if I want to say that Afghanistan is a country in Asia, I am forced to say AfghanistanCountry is a country in Asia, which sounds very awkward.
---
> I believe the above-proposed convention is, in ''many'' cases, too restrictive.  It creates titles that sound strange when used as parts of sentences.  E.g., if I want to say that Afghanistan is a country in Asia, I am forced to say, "AfghanistanCountry is a country in Asia," which sounds very awkward.
------
CelticMusic|979941340
3c3
< '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent?.
---
> '''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia]. This article is OpenContent.
------
CelticMusic|979941381
1c1
< The term "Celtic music" usually combines Irish traditional music with various other traditional musics, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
---
> The term "Celtic music" usually combines IrishTraditionalMusic with various other TraditionalMusic''''s, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979945086
1c1
< Does the traditional Christian notion of HelL have historical Biblical support?
---
> Does the traditional Christian notion of HelL have historical Biblical support?  (Go to HelL if you want to comment.)
------
WikiPediaProcess|979945263
11c11,13
< Interesting question.  I linked an article (a pretty long one) in BiblicalInterpretation, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless.  Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether?  Then what of my link?  The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material.  If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back.  However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't.  Who has a definitive answer on this?
---
> Interesting question.  I linked an article (a pretty long one) in HelL, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless.  Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether?  Then what of my link?  The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material.  If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back.  However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't.  Who has a definitive answer on this?
> ----
> I'd say just go get permission.  But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page.  That's '''my''' view, anyway.
------
WikiPediaProcess|979945626
13c13,15
< I'd say just go get permission.  But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page.  That's '''my''' view, anyway.
---
> I'd say just go get permission.  But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page.  That's '''my''' view, anyway.
> ----
> Let's post links to PublicDomainResources (for both images and text)!
------
PublicDomainResources|979945760
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This will be a list not only of public domain resources, but also "free" (GNU licensed) and open content resources.  Feel free to rename this page and the link(s) to it, if you like...I'm being lazy.
> 
> [http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/ Images of American Political History]
> 
> [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia.com]
> 
> [http://www.opencontent.org OpenContent.org]
------
PublicDomainResources|979945814
2a3,4
> '''Let's go get stuff from these pages and post it (with appropriate source citation, if necessary) on the Wikipedia!'''
> 
7c9
< [http://www.opencontent.org OpenContent.org]
---
> [http://www.opencontent.org OpenContent.org]
------
HelL|979946756
0a1,2
> An issue of BiblicalInterpretation about the traditional Christian notion of Hell:
> 
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979947697
1c1,6
< Does the traditional Christian notion of HelL have historical Biblical support?  (Go to HelL if you want to comment.)
---
> I. On Biblical interpretation in general
> 
> ----
> II. Particular questions of Biblical interpretation:
> 
> Does the traditional Christian notion of HelL have historical Biblical support?  (Go to HelL if you want to comment.)
------
CommonSense|979949096
21c21,35
< The topic of common sense raises interesting and important questions in a field closely related to EpistemOlogy and PhilosophyOfLanguage called "MetaPhilosophy."  What is common sense?  Supposing that a precise characterization of it cannot be given, does that mean appeal to common sense is off-limits in philosophy?  Why should we care whether a belief is a matter of common sense or not?  Under what circumstances, if any, is it permissible to advocate a view that seems to run contrary to common sense?  Should considerations of common sense play ''any'' decisive role in philosophy?  If not common sense, then should any other similar concept such as that of 'InTuitions' play such a role?  In general, are there "PhilosophicalStartingPoints," and if so, how might we characterize them?  Supposing that there are no beliefs we are willing to HoldComeWhatMay, are there some we ought to HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast?
---
> The topic of common sense raises interesting and important questions in a field closely related to EpistemOlogy and PhilosophyOfLanguage called "MetaPhilosophy."  What is common sense?  Supposing that a precise characterization of it cannot be given, does that mean appeal to common sense is off-limits in philosophy?  Why should we care whether a belief is a matter of common sense or not?  Under what circumstances, if any, is it permissible to advocate a view that seems to run contrary to common sense?  Should considerations of common sense play ''any'' decisive role in philosophy?  If not common sense, then should any other similar concept such as that of 'InTuitions' play such a role?  In general, are there "PhilosophicalStartingPoints," and if so, how might we characterize them?  Supposing that there are no beliefs we are willing to HoldComeWhatMay, are there some we ought to HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast?
> ----
> Common sense as a concept has been so subject to popular abuse that its usefulness as a real philosphic tool may have been vitiated.
> 
> After all, it was "common sense" in fairly recent history that the world was flat, and the center of the universe.  Much that is "common sense" is decidedly common due to its uncritical  adoption by unthinking masses who prefer to be fed their certainties by authority with a spoon, but thought which is common, or even universal, is not necessarily sense - and may depend for its popularity on the fact that it is never closely examined.
> 
> I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  Take, for axample, the broadly accepted "scientific fact" that brain chemistry is a determinor of mood, emotion, and ultimately, sanity.  It "stands to reason" does it not, that if depressed people show low serum levels of serotonin and and vibrant people demonstrate high levels, that increasing serotonin will elevate mood, no?  We must not brook any argument on this point.  Sir Karl Popper gives us a clue, however, as to how we may determine the reliability of the root assumption here.  Under his criteria of falsifiability, we can disprove the entire theory if we can show that one instance of it is false.
> 
> Let us turn, then, to recent empirical work with persons diagnosed with clinical depression.  In a double-blind study, four groups of depressed persons are followed over time.  One group is untreated.  One group is given SSRI's  (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) to increase their serum levels of serotonin.  Another group is prescribed exercise, and another is given both exercise and drugs.  Recurrence of depression is highest in the group taking drugs.  It is very nearly as high in the group taking drugs and exercise.  It is significantly lower in the group receiving no treatment and lowest by an order of magnitude in the group prescribed exercise alone.
> 
> Common sense tells us what to think of these experimental results.  So does Popper.
> 
> "Scientific Authority," however will not waver from the initial premise.  Biochemistry of the brain determines mood.  Function follows form.  We just have to keep poking about until we find the right chemicals and all question of the veracity of biochemical brain theory will be erased.
> 
> It's only common sense.
------
CommonSense|979949780
27c27,29
< I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  Take, for axample, the broadly accepted "scientific fact" that brain chemistry is a determinor of mood, emotion, and ultimately, sanity.  It "stands to reason" does it not, that if depressed people show low serum levels of serotonin and and vibrant people demonstrate high levels, that increasing serotonin will elevate mood, no?  We must not brook any argument on this point.  Sir Karl Popper gives us a clue, however, as to how we may determine the reliability of the root assumption here.  Under his criteria of falsifiability, we can disprove the entire theory if we can show that one instance of it is false.
---
> I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  This is a "science" which insists, with subborn certainty, that the coincidental presence of certain facts together establishes, ipso facto, a cause and effect relationship.  Further, they can tell you in the complete absence of any foundation, which is cause, and which is effect.
> 
> Take, for axample, the broadly accepted "scientific fact" that brain chemistry is a determinor of mood, emotion, and ultimately, sanity.  It "stands to reason" does it not, that if depressed people show low serum levels of serotonin and and vibrant people demonstrate high levels, that increasing serotonin will elevate mood, no?  We must not brook any argument on this point.  Sir KarlPopper gives us a clue, however, as to how we may determine the reliability of the root assumption here.  Under his criteria of falsifiability, we can disprove the entire theory if we can show that one instance of it is false.
------
CommonSense|979949826
27c27
< I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  This is a "science" which insists, with subborn certainty, that the coincidental presence of certain facts together establishes, ipso facto, a cause and effect relationship.  Further, they can tell you in the complete absence of any foundation, which is cause, and which is effect.
---
> I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  This is a "science" which insists, with stubborn certainty, that the coincidental presence of certain facts together establishes, ipso facto, a cause and effect relationship.  Further, they can tell you in the complete absence of any foundation, which is cause, and which is effect.
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast|979953781
1c1,7
< On Quine's conception of a person's set of beliefs as a "seamless web," there is no proposition one could not in principle give up (if there were, there would be a "seam" in the web, protecting the principle from revision or rejection)or HoldComeWhatMay. However, some beliefs may be more useful than others, or may be implicated by a large number of beliefs. Examples might be laws of logic, or the belief in an external world of physical objects. Altering such portions of the web would have immense, ramifying consequences. It is better to alter auxilliary beliefs around the edges of the web in the face of new evidence unfriendly to one's central principles. Thus, while one might agree that there is no belief one can hold come what may, there are some for which there is ample practical ground to hold more stubbornly at least.
---
> On Quine's conception of a person's set of beliefs as a "seamless web," there is no proposition one could not in principle give up (if there were, there would be a "seam" in the web, protecting the principle from revision or rejection)or HoldComeWhatMay. However, some beliefs may be more useful than others, or may be implicated by a large number of beliefs. Examples might be laws of logic, or the belief in an external world of physical objects. Altering such portions of the web would have immense, ramifying consequences. It is better to alter auxilliary beliefs around the edges of the web in the face of new evidence unfriendly to one's central principles. Thus, while one might agree that there is no belief one can hold come what may, there are some for which there is ample practical ground to hold more stubbornly at least.
> ----
> One may certainly hold more stubbornly at least to those notions which serve to give context, comprehensibility, and utility to other notions.
> 
> Care should be taken, however, not to exclude new information which is not inherently self-contradictory.  To the degree that new data conflicts with a large body of mutually consistent observations (note:  observations - not beliefs) one may more safely devalue it, but that a new idea was not suggested by one's interpretation of earlier data is not the same as to say that one may safely discard it because it comes as a complete surprise.  Rather, "surprise" information, instead of being automatically viewed with skepticism, may be be held in a bullpen while it is compared with other cross-verifying observations, and, if not inherently inconsistent with old data, accepted conditionally for purposes of comparison with new input in order to see what it does or does not explain.
> 
> People call this "having an open mind."
------
NamingConventions|979954452
36a37,38
> ----
> We could, should we so desire, make only two very simple rules.  First, multiple words get capitals at the beginning of each word.  Single words (and we could choose, here - and spread the word to attain consistency) get caps on the first and third, or first and last letter.  Hence, GoD is accurate in either scheme by default, and hell would either become HelL or HeLl.  Likewise, AfGhanistan or AfghanistaN.  We would not do both, but one or the other.  At least such a rule would be simple and easy to apply in all cases.  (but then how would we link to "id?" heh)
------
DirectRealism|979956666
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions (JLAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an intance of the GeneticFallacy.
------
DirectRealism|979956731
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions (JLAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an intance of the GeneticFallacy.
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an intance of the GeneticFallacy.
------
PhiloSophy|979958210
1c1
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism
------
WhatsaWikiFor|979958337
1c1
< In principle, a wiki is for whatever its users want it to be for.  But the format lends itself to collaboration--but collaboration that involves ''anyone'' at all, who can do ''anything'' they want to the pages.  You might think that this leads to DisRuption.
---
> In principle, a wiki is for whatever its users want it to be for.  The format lends itself to collaboration--but collaboration that involves ''anyone'' at all, who can do ''anything'' they want to the pages.  You might think that this leads to DisRuption.
------
DirectRealism|979967611
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an intance of the GeneticFallacy.
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy.
------
HomePage|979975344
3,4c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY
< -- UnitedStates
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- WeekEnd
------
NewTopics|979975364
5c5
< NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
---
> NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd
------
WeekEnd|979976486
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In the UnitedStates and other countries, the weekend--one or two days, typically Saturday and Sunday--are days on which most workers do not work.  This is a time for LeiSure and ReCreation.
> 
> The notion of a weekly rest is ancient; Judeo-Christian religions celebrate the SabBath, of course.
> ----
> Doing just a bit of web searching, I could found rather little information about the history of the cultural notion of a weekend.  I did find one article, [http://www.humanscapeindia.org/hs1299/hs12997t.htm "The Tyranny of Time: The clock as god"], which contained the following lines: "People do dream of enjoying their work by doing it at a rhythm which suits them and varying their rhythm for different occupations.  This notion of personal rhythm was what the Industrial Revolution attacked and tried to destroy.  How that happened can be seen in the forgotten history of the weekend.  The English word has been adopted by almost every language, but it represents a poisoned gift from the English to humanity."  This suggests that the weekend is a result of the Industrial Revolution and perhaps the need to give factory workers a rest.  It also suggests that the English gave not only the ''word'' "weekend" to the rest of the world but also the ''concept.''  Both suggestions seem exceedingly implausible, particularly given that religions had been observing the Sabbath for millennia.
> 
> Another article, [http://www.tagnet.org/sthsda/ARTICLE09.htm When, How, and Why Was the Sabbath Changed from Saturday to Sunday?], may be of interest in this connection.
> ----
> I would like the interested Wikipedian to write the authors of the above articles, or to do more research and writing themselves, to see to it that a complete treatment of this very interesting topic be given on Wikipedia!
------
WeekEnd|979976974
9c9,20
< I would like the interested Wikipedian to write the authors of the above articles, or to do more research and writing themselves, to see to it that a complete treatment of this very interesting topic be given on Wikipedia!
---
> I would like the interested Wikipedian to write the authors of the above articles, or to do more research and writing themselves, to see to it that a complete treatment of this very interesting topic be given on Wikipedia!  (And, of course, the completed article could easily be given the NuPedia treatment after that.)
> 
> I have a number of questions on this topic which I would enjoy having answered:
> 
> * What is the history of the weekend, or a weekly or periodic rest, in China and the rest of the Far East?
> * At what time did East and West begin enjoying their weekend days on the ''same'' days?
> * What are the cultural differences between ways weekends are spent?
> * In the West, culturally speaking, the Sabbath forms the fundamental reason for a day of rest.  What reason, if any, is there for a day or days of rest in other cultures, e.g., in China and sub-Saharan Africa?
> * Are there cultures that do ''not'' have a day of rest?
> * What are the results of psychological or other scientific studies on the effects of regular rests or lacks thereof?
> 
> I have many questions, but few answers...
------
WeekEnd|979977005
11c11
< I have a number of questions on this topic which I would enjoy having answered:
---
> I have a number of questions on this topic that I would enjoy having answered:
------
HomePage|979977996
3c3,5
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- WeekEnd
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates
> 
> The WeekEnd is here.  Ever wonder what a WeekEnd is?
------
CountriesP|979982623
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> [Poland]
------
CountriesP|979982676
1c1
< [Poland]
---
> PolanD
------
PolanD|979982710
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Poland is a country in central Europe that lies between GermanY and RussiA.
------
PublicDomainResources|979982799
9a10,12
> 
> [http://www.gutenberg.net]
> 
------
PublicDomainResources|979982850
11c11
< [http://www.gutenberg.net]
---
> [http://www.promo.net/pg]
------
PublicDomainResources|979983292
4a5,6
> [http://www.promo.net/pg Project Gutenberg]
> 
11,12c13
< [http://www.promo.net/pg]
< 
---
> [http://www.andamooka.org Andamooka.org]
------
WeekEnd|979983484
18a19,20
> * Have there been any cultures in which there was not a day of rest every ''seven'' days, but some other number, such as five or ten?
> * Are there any good arguments that the institution of five-days-on, two-days-off should be changed?  (Are any good arguments on that even ''possible''?  What would a good argument about such matters be like?)
20c22
< I have many questions, but few answers...
---
> I have many questions, but few answers...
------
BiblicalInterpretation|979983583
1c1
< I. On Biblical interpretation in general
---
> I. On interpretation in general of TheBible (i.e., the methods, standards, goals, etc., Biblical interpretation)
------
TheBible|979983610
4d3
< 
6d4
< 
10d7
< 
12d8
< 
16d11
< 
18,19c13
< 
< IV BiblicalInterpretation
---
> IV BiblicalInterpretation
------
PhiloSophy|979984231
2a3,6
> LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
> 
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlAto -- ArisTotle -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
> 
3a8,9
> 
> I've added several suggested topics.  At your leisure you might start articles on any or all of the above.  Nearly every trained philosopher, and plenty of untrained ones, have ''something'' reasonably useful and accurate to say about all of these topics!
------
CommonSense|979984591
22a23,24
> '''Discussion:'''
> 
------
WhatIsaWiki|979984743
1c1,3
< A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
---
> A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
> 
> So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
------
PaGe|979986351
1,7c1
< This PaGe is a test of whether if you delete all the text, this will return to PaGe?
< 
< 
< No it won't. Try it!!!
< 
< 
< This example is pretty much SelfExplanatory.
---
> 
------
AustraliA|979992628
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Australia is sometimes called the Wide Brown Land, and also described as the Land Down Under it is to the west of NewZealand, and somewhat south-east of MalaysiA and SingaporE.
> 
> Australia has a population of roughly 19 million people, living in two territories, AustralianCaptialTerritory, NorthernTerritoryAustralia, and six states, WesternAustralia, SouthAustralia, QueenslandAustralia, NewSouthWalesAustralia, and VictoriaAustralia.
> 
> Australia's captial is CanberraAustralia, situated roughly equidistantly between its two largest cities (I think...), MelbourneAustralia, and SydneyAustralia, who were fierce rivals for the position of capital at one stage.
> 
> ----
> 
> Hmm... seeing that there isn't anything here yet, I think that I'll blather on a bit and see if that will motivate someone else to correct me...
------
WhatIsaWiki|979998693
5c5,6
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.  Of course, that would be assuming the link actually <U>worked</U>, which of course, it doesn't.  :^)
> 
------
WhatIsaWiki|979998710
5c5
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.  Of course, that would be assuming the link actually <U>worked</U>, which of course, it doesn't.  :^)
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.  Of course, that would be assuming the link actually worked, which of course, it doesn't.  :^)
------
WhatIsaWiki|979998749
5c5
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.  Of course, that would be assuming the link actually worked, which of course, it doesn't.  :^)
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980000502
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Canon of Scripture
------
WikiPediaFaq|980001025
24a25,33
> ----
> '''Q. I'm lame and I don't want to contribute anything, but that uncommon capitalization is bugging me. What's the deal?'''
> 
> A. Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks! If you were interesting in contributing, you would have read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section,and learned this there.
> ----
> '''Q. Is someone keeping regular backups of this site? What if I write a great article and some clod shows up and nukes it? I'd like some assurance that my efforts aren't going to waste.'''
> 
> A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead! Here, there's
> nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page). Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980001455
1a2,16
> Early Christians and Jews were not interested in laying down a Canon, or set list of inspired books. While all Jews accepted the Torah, there was division about what other books might or might not be inspired by God. 
> 
> The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Old Testament into Greek provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew speaking world. However, even here, there was discussion about what books were inspired. Some editions of the LXX include, for instance I-IV Maccabees or the 151st psalm, while others do not include them.
> 
> After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish community set down their Canon of Scripture, including only those books written in Hebrew and written up to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. (Later scholarship indicates that this division was not perfectly done, that is, some of the books accepted by the Jews were actually written after the deadline.)
> 
> The Christians, on the other hand, tended to use the Greek Bible, and had more books in circulation, though no formal statement was made by the universal Church on the subject. In the Old Testament, the "doubtful" books that were eventually included are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, I-II Maccabees, and Sirach, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel written originally in Greek. The doubtful books in the New Testament were Hebrews, James, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter, and Revelation, mostly because of the unsure authorship of these books.
> 
> When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he argued for the "Veritas Hebraica", or the acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added translations for the doubtful books.
> 
> Over the years, the feeling in favor of this group of "doubtful" books grew, until at the Council of Florence (1451), this list was defined as canonical. The Council of Florence, however, was not binding on the whole Church.
> 
> At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther eliminated the "doubtful" books from his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha". He also argued for the elimiation of certain New Testament books, notably the Letter of James.
> 
> The Catholic Church finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980001476
1a2
> 
16c17
< The Catholic Church finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
---
> The Catholic Church finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|980002367
1c1
< It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.
---
> It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything(2) from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.
------
AppliedEthics|980002872
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Something the Marketing Dept. will never fully understand.
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980003283
5c5
< The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Old Testament into Greek provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew speaking world. However, even here, there was discussion about what books were inspired. Some editions of the LXX include, for instance I-IV Maccabees or the 151st psalm, while others do not include them.
---
> The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the OldTestament into Greek provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew speaking world. However, even here, there was discussion about what books were inspired. Some editions of the LXX include, for instance I-IV Maccabees or the 151st psalm, while others do not include them.
9c9
< The Christians, on the other hand, tended to use the Greek Bible, and had more books in circulation, though no formal statement was made by the universal Church on the subject. In the Old Testament, the "doubtful" books that were eventually included are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, I-II Maccabees, and Sirach, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel written originally in Greek. The doubtful books in the New Testament were Hebrews, James, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter, and Revelation, mostly because of the unsure authorship of these books.
---
> The Christians, on the other hand, tended to use the Greek Bible, and had more books in circulation, though no formal statement was made by the universal Church on the subject. In the OldTestament, the "doubtful" books that were eventually included are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, I-II Maccabees, and Sirach, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel written originally in Greek. The doubtful books in the NewTestament were Hebrews, James, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter, and Revelation, mostly because of the unsure authorship of these books.
11c11
< When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he argued for the "Veritas Hebraica", or the acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added translations for the doubtful books.
---
> When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the VulgateBible, he argued for the "Veritas Hebraica", or the acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added translations for the doubtful books.
15c15
< At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther eliminated the "doubtful" books from his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha". He also argued for the elimiation of certain New Testament books, notably the Letter of James.
---
> At the time of the Reformation, MartinLuther eliminated the "doubtful" books from his OldTestament, terming them "Apocrypha". He also argued for the elimiation of certain NewTestament books, notably the Letter of James.
17c17
< The Catholic Church finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
---
> The CatholicChurch finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The OldTestament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
------
OldTestament|980003402
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Books of the Christian Scriptures referring to the time before Christ. Loosely speaking, the Christian Old Testament corresponds to the Jewish Scriptures, but see DefinitionsOfBiblicalTerms. 
------
OldTestament|980003429
1c1
< Books of the Christian Scriptures referring to the time before Christ. Loosely speaking, the Christian Old Testament corresponds to the Jewish Scriptures, but see DefinitionsOfBiblicalTerms. 
---
> Books of the Christian Scriptures referring to the time before Christ. Loosely speaking, the Christian Old Testament corresponds to the Jewish Scriptures, but see DefinitionofBibleTerms. 
------
NewTestament|980003525
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Christian Scriptures "per se", those written after the birth of Christ. It is generally believed that all the books were written before the death of the last apostle.
------
TheKoran|980003841
1a2,5
> 
> Much of the content in the Qur'an makes reference back to parts of the Christian Bible.  Well-known Biblical characters such as Abraham, Noah, and Jesus are mentioned.  Detractors of the Qur'an and Muhammad have claimed that Muhammad was merely taking older religious documents and stories and embellishing them.  Muslims maintain that this could not be the case, on scientific grounds. Modern science has identified many factual errors and internal inconsistencies in the Bible.  However, the Qur'an has none, according to Muslims; and what's more, in cases where Biblical stories reappear in very similar form Qur'an, the stories are always changed in such a way that the scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies are gone.  This is considered proof of the Qur'an's divine origin.
> 
> The Qur'an today is believed to be identical to the version from the time of Muhammad.  Muhammad only delivered the Qur'an in spoken form during his lifetime; the word "Qur'an" in fact means "the recitation."  The faithful were require to memorize them perfectly, down to the last syllable, and recite them frequently, to make sure they had the text perfectly.  Shortly after his death, his disciples began recording all the Suras down in written form.  Thus, two different mechanisms were in place -- oral and written -- to help ensure that no corruption of the text took place over time.  There is almost no dispute amongst modern Qur'anic scholars that the text today is as it was when it was first written down.
------
TheKoran|980004301
1c1
< The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of GoD for Muslims.  It is, for Muslims, the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet, according to Muslims, over a period of 22 years.
---
> The Koran, otherwise spelled Qur'an, is the book of GoD for Muslims.  It is, for Muslims, the eternal, literal word of God, revealed to Prophet MuHammad.  It consists of 114 suras (chapters) and 6000 ayats (verses).  It was revealed to the Prophet, according to Muslims, over a period of 22 years.
------
MuHammad|980004681
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> As MusLims say, "There is no GoD but AlLah and MuHammad is His prophet."
> 
> Muhammad is the author of the TheKoran.  He was a poor and illiterate man, when the ArchangelGabriel came down to deliver the divine Word to Muhammad.  He recited the Qur'an to Muhammad, and made him memorize it perfectly; its contents are a copy of parts of the BookOfHeaven.  This book the basis of the Muslim religion.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980004847
1c1
< A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A wiki is a collection of inter-linked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
------
WhatIsaWiki|980004859
1c1
< A wiki is a collection of inter-linked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
------
WhatIsaWiki|980004929
3c3
< So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
---
> So it's a collaborative website, (colin likes to eat melted poo) constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980004955
3c3
< So it's a collaborative website, (colin likes to eat melted poo) constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
---
> So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
------
IsLam|980005127
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> IsLam is the group of people who follow the word of the prophet MuHammad, embodied in dual oral and written form in TheKoran.  The individuals of Islam are MusLims.  Islam is not a nation in the usual political sense; there is no country with a body of government for it.  The NationOfIslam is a movement in the UnitedStatesOfAmerica for black empowerment, with one of its leaders being LouisFarrakhan, and its members are Muslims, and therefore members of Islam; but this movement, too, is not a nation in the usual sense of the word.
> 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980005483
15c15
< 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and b belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*
---
> 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*
------
WhatIsaWiki|980005534
1c1
< A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page; just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
------
MathematicalGrouP|980005788
41c41
< 2)	If a, b, and b are integers, then (a+b)+c=a+(b+c). Associativity.
---
> 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (a+b)+c=a+(b+c). Associativity.
65c65
< 2)	If a and b are integers, then (axb)xc=ax(bxc). Associativity.
---
> 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (axb)xc=ax(bxc). Associativity.
------
NewHampshire|980011002
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the original 13 colonies.
> 
> State capitol is Concord, which has also been known over time by the names Rumford and Penacook.
> 
> On the national people-radar of the United States, New Hampshire is best known as the state with the first primary in the presidential election, the spot with the worst recorded weather at an inhabited location (Mt. Washington weather observatory), our colorful fall foliage, and our splashy headline killer, Pamela Smart.
> 
> Regionally, New Hampshire is known for skiing, no sales or income tax (which may well change due to school funding lawsuits), the lakes region and the NH International Speedway (formerly the Loudon Racetrack) which is still the home of the Loudon Classic, the longest running motorcycle race in the United States. 
> 
> New Hampshire is host to the Scottish Highland Games, at Loon Mt. in Lincoln (usually the weekend after Labor day). New Hampshire has also registered an official Tartan with the proper authorities in Scotland; this tartan is worn in kilt form by the State Police while they serve their duties in Lincoln during the Games. Because of the high number of attendents to the Games the State Police are quite visible, both for traffic control and to generally to handle the significant increase in population. 
> 
> Little known facts: New Hampshire boasts the only piece of Interstate Highway that is two-lane (i.e. a single northbound lane and a single southbound lane) with a cobblestone median. This was done to preserve the Old Man on the Mountain, a rock formation visible from I93 in Franconia. 
> 
> Speaking of which, the New Hampshire state quarter shows the self same Old Man on the Mountain, which makes it the only US coin with a head on both faces. 
> 
> Manchester, the largest city in the state, has a main street (Elm Street) which is a dead-end at both ends. 
> 
> 
------
WhatIsaWiki|980012148
6a7,8
> Damn I'm cool!
> 
------
WhatIsaWiki|980012960
7d6
< Damn I'm cool!
------
WhatIsaWiki|980014518
5,7c5
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
< 
< 
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
------
CountriesN|980014615
1a2
> Norway
------
MuSic|980015120
1c1
< That which soothes the savage beast... 
---
> The following music-related topics have been created:
3c3
< is not what soothes an intelligent being ;-)
---
> PopularMusic -- CelticMusic -- IrishTraditionalMusic -- DonegalFiddleTradition
5c5
< Music can soothe but also get the adrenaline in your blood ...
---
> FiddleandViolin -- FidDle -- FiddleStyles -- DoubleStops
7c7
< and Vivaldi's Credo (RV591) and Gloria (Rv589) are superb and what to think of the Beatus Vir and Lauda Jerusalem ...
---
> We don't yet have articles about:
9,13c9
< so a little nonsens-ical ? contribution to what end ???
< 
< ----
< 
< By the way, feel free to replace the above with something that accurately and interestingly describes music.
---
> BaroquePeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- ClassicalPeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- RomanticPeriodOfWesternArtMusic
14a11
> JohannSBach -- WolfgangMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- PiotrTchaikovsky
15a13
> DefinitionOfMusic -- CounterPoint -- MusicalTheory
16a15
> Feel free to add more topics; simply click the "Edit text of this page" link.
------
MuSic|980015158
1c1
< The following music-related topics have been created:
---
> We're ''desperate'' for good music articles (it seems).  The following music-related topics have been created:
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|980015247
1c1
< Yes.  To add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.  For example, have a look at IrishTraditionalMusic.
---
> Yes.  To add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.  For example, have a look at IrishTraditionalMusic.  The proper text to use at the bottom of a Wikipedia page from Nupedia is: "'''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent."
------
CanWeAddNupediaArticlesToTheWiki|980015266
1c1
< Yes.  To add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.  For example, have a look at IrishTraditionalMusic.  The proper text to use at the bottom of a Wikipedia page from Nupedia is: "'''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent."
---
> Yes.  To add a NuPedia article to WikiPedia, all you have to do is find the article, copy the contents, and paste it into the appropriate location (whatever you think is appropriate).  You should also put up the URL to the original article location in Nupedia; this is an adequate "link back" required by the Nupedia license.  For example, have a look at IrishTraditionalMusic.  The proper text to use at the bottom of a Wikipedia page sourced from Nupedia is: "'''Notice, don't remove''': An earlier version of the above article was posted on [http://www.nupedia.com/article/short/Irish+traditional+music/ Nupedia].  This article is OpenContent."
------
CountriesG|980017011
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Add your countries and some information about them here.
> 
> GerMany
------
AlgorithmS|980018971
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The word ALGORITHM is a corruption of the word ALGORISM which came from the name of ABU JA'FAR MOHAMMED IBN MUSA AL-KHWARIZMI (ca. 780 - ca. 850). He was the author of the book "Kitab al-jabr w'al-muqabala" (Rules of Restoration and Reduction) which introduced algebra to people in the West. The word ALGEBRA itself originates from AL-JABR from the book title. The word ALGORISM orignally referred only to the rules of performing arithmetic using Hindu-Arabic numerals, but evolved into "algorithm" by the XVIII-th century. The word has nowadays evolved to include all definite procedures for solving problems, including cooking :)
------
WhatIsaWiki|980020228
1c1
< A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which anyone can visit and edit.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
5c5
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
------
IvoryRing|980021148
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I've used IvoryRing online for a while now, and I get asked where it comes from once in a while. 
> 
> Way back when, I used to play a number of computer adventure games (specifically the likes of Moria and Omega), and one common feature of these games is the way they would generate treasure. There would be a long list of item types (ring, crown, throne, cup, chest, box, dagger, etc) and modifiers (green, old, frail, heroic, merciful, wicker, brass, etc)... and from my view it seemed that they would just randomly merge the two.
> 
> Add to that a need for a constant supply of new screennames on AOL (no, I won't go into detail on why) and I came up with a series of names "PineThrone", "BrassDagger", etc... one that I found kind of nice, since it had a somewhat mysterious sound to it was IvoryRing... hence... 
------
LoGic|980021429
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Logic, or the study of the principles of proper resoning, was pioneered by Aristotle.
> Although it is possible that Aristotle himself had been tought by someone else, the
> earliest records we have of the codification of studying reasoning can be attributed to 
> Aristotle.
> 
> Logic as a science defines the structure of statement and argument, and defines formulae 
> by which these are codified.  Implicit in a study of logic is the understanding of what 
> makes a good argument, and what arguments are fallacious.  Students of classical logic were 
> often made to memorize certain argument forms so that they could more easily create better 
> arguments and disprove weaker ones thrown against them.  The Jesuits emphasized this so 
> highly, that their students were required to take part in a structured argument session 
> with their peers.
> 
> The ultimate goal of Logic is clarity.  By making correct reasoning into a science, 
> Logic seeks to put an end to the indecisiveness of argument and statement.
------
CountriesP|980021619
1a2,3
> PortugaL
> ParaguaY
------
WhatIsaWiki|980026361
5a6,8
> 
> 
> Is this safe? I mean, I could start defaming people. Then the legal implications of this could become a problem to the provider of this service.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980027211
5,8c5
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
< 
< 
< Is this safe? I mean, I could start defaming people. Then the legal implications of this could become a problem to the provider of this service.
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980027266
5c5,7
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
---
> The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
> 
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
------
WikiPediaFaq|980027311
33a34,37
> ----
> '''Q. Is this safe? I mean, I could start defaming people.  Then the legal implications of this could become a problem to the provider of this service.'''
> 
> A. Good question.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980027438
32,33c32,33
< A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead! Here, there's
< nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page). Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).
---
> A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead!  Here, there's
> nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page).  Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).  And yes, we are keeping backups of the server itself.
37c37
< A. Good question.
---
> A. Good question.
------
CountriesO|980027489
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> OmaN
------
WeekEnd|980027648
22c22
< I have many questions, but few answers...
---
> I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
------
LoGic|980027940
1,4c1,3
< Logic, or the study of the principles of proper resoning, was pioneered by Aristotle.
< Although it is possible that Aristotle himself had been tought by someone else, the
< earliest records we have of the codification of studying reasoning can be attributed to 
< Aristotle.
---
> Logic, or the study of the principles of proper reasoning, was pioneered by Aristotle.
> Although it is possible that Aristotle himself had been taught by someone else, the
> earliest study of reasoning can be attributed to Aristotle.
6c5
< Logic as a science defines the structure of statement and argument, and defines formulae 
---
> Logic as a science defines the structure of statement and argument and defines formulae 
8c7
< makes a good argument, and what arguments are fallacious.  Students of classical logic were 
---
> makes a good argument and what arguments are fallacious.  Students of classical logic were 
14,15c13
< The ultimate goal of Logic is clarity.  By making correct reasoning into a science, 
< Logic seeks to put an end to the indecisiveness of argument and statement.
---
> The ultimate goal of logic, if it can be said to have a goal, is valid argumentation (see ValidIty).
------
CountriesG|980029663
3c3,5
< GerMany
---
> <ul>
> <li>GerMany</li>
> </ul>
------
CountriesG|980029670
3,5c3
< <ul>
< <li>GerMany</li>
< </ul>
---
> GerMany
------
CountriesG|980029883
3c3
< GerMany
---
> * GerMany
------
CountriesG|980029892
3c3,4
< * GerMany
---
> GerMany
> Greek
------
CountriesG|980029901
3,4c3,4
< GerMany
< Greek
---
> * GerMany
> * Greek
------
CountriesG|980029917
4c4
< * Greek
---
> * GreeK
------
GerMany|980029959
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Germany is a country in the middle of EuropE and it takes part in the EuroCurrency. Feel free to add more stuff you'd like to add.
------
EuroCurrency|980030149
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelgiE, AustriA, Finnland, Portugal, IreLand, LuxemBurg.
------
CelticMusic|980030184
1c1
< The term "Celtic music" usually combines IrishTraditionalMusic with various other TraditionalMusic''''s, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest France; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern Spain. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
---
> The term "Celtic music" usually combines IrishTraditionalMusic with various other TraditionalMusic''''s, including those of Scotland and the Shetland Islands; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales; the Isle of Man; Northumberland, northern England; Brittany, northwest FrancE; and sometimes Galicia in northwestern SpaiN. The term, though widely used, is eschewed by many traditionalists.
------
NewTopics|980030230
5c5
< NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd
---
> EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd
------
OpenContent|980030424
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> OpenContent is a description for any kind of content (ie articles, pictures, audio, video, whatever) that is published under a non-restrictive license that explicitly allows the copying of the information. (Examples are the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense, which is used by NuPedia.) But OpenContent also describes content that can be modified by anyone. (Of course not without prior review by other participating parties - but there is no closed group like a commercial encyclopedia publisher which is responsible for all the editing.)
------
GNUFreeDocumentationLicense|980030481
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The GNU FDL (Free Documentation License) is a license for OpenContent. The full license is available [http://www.nupedia.com/license.shtml here].
------
ComputerSoftware|980031102
5c5,6
< 
---
> ** EncryptionSoftware
> *** PrettyGoodPrivacy
------
CountriesG|980031445
4c4
< * GreeK
---
> * GreecE
------
PrettyGoodPrivacy|980031557
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> PGP (PrettyGoodPrivacy) is an application developed by PhilZimmermann that provides an easy to use interface for high security encryption of emails and other sensitive content. The newer PGP packages contain plug-ins for most modern email applications like MicrosoftOutlook, OutlookExpress and NetscapeMessenger. PGP uses AsymmetricEncryption with a PublicKey and a PrivateKey which are used to sign and encrypt a message. The PublicKey is publicly available on some of the many KeyServer around the world and it can be used to encrypt a message to the owner of the PublicKey or to verify a signature of the keyowner. The recipient of the encrypted message can then decrypt this message using his PrivateKey. To verify whether an email was not altered during transmission and whether it was really sent by the specified sender you can use PGP to electronically sign your mail. PGP then creats a HashCode of the message, which is then encrypted using the PrivateKey of the signer. The recipient of the mail uses the PublicKey of the signer to decrypt the HashCode which is then compared to the HashCode the recipient computes using the mail content. Only if both hashes are the same the mail was not altered. Currently there exists an open source and free replacement for PGP called GnuPG.
------
PhilZimmermann|980031651
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Phil Zimmermann is the creator of PrettyGoodPrivacy (PGP). He was the first to make asymmetric encryption available to the masses - which was the reason why he was soon charged by the FBI and he nearly had to go to prison for his achievement.
------
PhilZimmermann|980031671
1c1
< Phil Zimmermann is the creator of PrettyGoodPrivacy (PGP). He was the first to make asymmetric encryption available to the masses - which was the reason why he was soon charged by the FBI and he nearly had to go to prison for his achievement.
---
> Phil Zimmermann is the creator of PrettyGoodPrivacy (PGP). He was the first to make asymmetric encryption available to the masses - which was the reason why he was soon charged by the FBI (the FederalBureauOfInvestigation) and he nearly had to go to prison for his achievement.
------
SabBath|980039691
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "Day of rest", from the Hebrew word "shabbat", meaning rest. The seventh or last day of the week. The first sabbath was the "day" God rested after having completed the creation in six "days".
------
GerMany|980040849
1c1,7
< Germany is a country in the middle of EuropE and it takes part in the EuroCurrency. Feel free to add more stuff you'd like to add.
---
> Germany is a country in the middle of EuropE and it takes part in the EuroCurrency.
> 
> Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1936-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka East Germany). West Germany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, England, and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. East Germany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. It was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
> 
> In 1989 East Germany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that East Germany was annexed by West Germany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Later it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by Helmut Kohl, then the prime minister of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in East Germany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = Don't let yourselves be West Germanized. But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
> 
> Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
------
EuroCurrency|980040959
1c1
< The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelgiE, AustriA, Finnland, Portugal, IreLand, LuxemBurg.
---
> The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemBurg.
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042114
1c1,22
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ProgrammingLanguages are at least as numerous as natural languages. Here are some broad categories of programming languages.
> 
> ScriptingLanguages
> 
> * PerL
> * PythoN
> * RubY
> 
> CompiledLanguages
> 
> * Ada
> * C
> * C++
> * FortraN
> * PascaL
> * VisualBasic
> 
> HybridLanguages - e.g. compiled to byte code
> 
> * Java
> * Lisp
> * Scheme
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042178
11,13c11,13
< * Ada
< * C
< * C++
---
> * AdA
> * CLanguage
> * C++Langage
20,22c20,22
< * Java
< * Lisp
< * Scheme
---
> * JavA
> * LisP
> * SchemE
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042216
12,13c12,13
< * CLanguage
< * C++Langage
---
> * C-languagE
> * C++languagE
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042247
12,13c12,13
< * C-languagE
< * C++languagE
---
> * C-LanguagE
> * C++LanguagE
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042405
1c1
< ProgrammingLanguages are at least as numerous as natural languages. Here are some broad categories of programming languages.
---
> ProgrammingLanguages are at least as numerous as natural languages. Here are some broad categories of programming languages. - JavaJini
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980042491
16a17
> * CoBoL
------
JavaJini|980042599
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A Computer Scientist for over 20 years, JavaJini is the alias of Kellie Miller. He is interested in ComputerLanguages, DistributedComputing, ComputerMediatedCommunication, CelticMusic, and ScienceFiction among many other things.
> 
------
JavaJini|980042638
1c1
< A Computer Scientist for over 20 years, JavaJini is the alias of Kellie Miller. He is interested in ComputerLanguages, DistributedComputing, ComputerMediatedCommunication, CelticMusic, and ScienceFiction among many other things.
---
> A Computer Scientist for over 20 years, JavaJini is the alias of Kellie Miller. He is interested in ProgrammingLanguages, DistributedComputing, ComputerMediatedCommunication, CelticMusic, and ScienceFiction among many other things.
------
JavaJini|980042679
1c1
< A Computer Scientist for over 20 years, JavaJini is the alias of Kellie Miller. He is interested in ProgrammingLanguages, DistributedComputing, ComputerMediatedCommunication, CelticMusic, and ScienceFiction among many other things.
---
> A Computer Scientist for over 20 years, JavaJini is the alias of Kellie Miller. He is interested in ProgrammingLanguages, DistributedComputing, ComputerMediatedCommunication, CelticMusic, and ScienceFiction among many other things. He can be reached at kellie-miller@yahoo.com
------
ComputinG|980042863
4a5
> * AccessibleComputing
------
MusicalTheory|980042908
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The MathOfTheMusicalScale.
------
AccessibleComputing|980043141
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This subject covers
> * AssistiveTechnology
> * AccessibleSoftware
> * AccessibleWeb
> * LegalIssuesInAccessibleComputing
------
MusicalTheory|980043242
1c1
< The MathOfTheMusicalScale.
---
> The MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale.
------
ComputinG|980043274
4a5
> * ComputerArchitexture
------
MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale|980044208
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> There's a decent article in issue 4 of the Napalm e-zine
> on Just Intonation and the western scale in general:
> 
> http://napalm.firest0rm.org/issue4.txt
------
MuSic|980044259
6a7,8
> MusicalTheory
> 
13c15
< DefinitionOfMusic -- CounterPoint -- MusicalTheory
---
> DefinitionOfMusic -- CounterPoint
15c17
< Feel free to add more topics; simply click the "Edit text of this page" link.
---
> Feel free to add more topics; simply click the "Edit text of this page" link.
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980044735
23a24,30
> 
> PathologicalLanguages
> 
> * InterCal
> * BeFunge
> * VarAq
> * UnLamda
------
CoBoL|980046455
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The name CoBoL (normally COBOL) is an acronym for Common Business Oriented Language.
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980046563
17a18
> * AssemblerLanguage
30c31
< * UnLamda
---
> * UnLamda
------
ChristianIty|980047009
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Simply and most generally, Christianity comprises the group of religions who believe that JesusChrist is the Savior of the world.
> 
> Christians believe the bible is the word of GoD, to some degree or another (that is, many christians disagree about how accurate the Bible is and how literally it should be taken).  The Bible is the most widely regarded source of information on the life of JesusChrist.  It maintains that JesusChrist is the messiah which the Jews have long awaited; thus Christianity could be considered (at least by Christians) the continuation or fulfillment of the Jewish faith.  Christians and Jews both consider the first five books of the Bible to be the word of GoD.
> 
> Catholicism and Protestantism are the two major divisions of Christianity (but see below).  Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican (ChurchOfEngland) churches are examples of Protestant faiths.  Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are the two primary divisions of Catholicism.  
> 
> Catholics believe that their faith is a continuation of the original Christian church established in the time of Jesus, and that the Pope has authority which can be traced directly to the apostle Peter.
> 
> Protestant faiths trace their roots to the work of John Calvin and Martin Luther, who felt that the Catholic church no longer had GoD's sanction, and thus rejected its authority.
> 
> Several other faiths which also believe in JesusChrist claim not to be descended from either of these groups directly.  TheChurchOfJesusChristofLatterdaySaints, for instance, while often grouped with Protestant religions, believes that it alone has authority from GoD to perform religous rites, much like the Catholics' belief.
> 
> Many people belonging to the above-listed faiths have strong feelings about the "actual" nature of the other Christian faiths, sometimes even claiming that the other faiths do not actually count as Christian.  Thus, when researching branches of Christianity, it is often wise to first define clearly what the working definition of "Christianity" will be, and then get information from each branch regarding their qualificationes based on that definition.
> 
> -J
------
WhatIsaWiki|980048567
7c7,9
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
---
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
> 
> Hola!  Me llamo Eugenio
------
WhatIsaWiki|980049381
9a10,11
> 
> What? Need more information?
------
WhatIsaWiki|980049865
7,11c7
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
< 
< Hola!  Me llamo Eugenio
< 
< What? Need more information?
---
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
------
GoD|980050046
7c7
< There is an ancient tradition that began with the first ProPhet of both JudaIsm and IsLam, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (according to the majority of MonoTheists) a concept which might be called OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic concept is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
---
> There is an ancient monotheistic tradition that began with the first ProPhet of both JudaIsm and IsLam, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (according to the majority of MonoTheists) a concept which might be called OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic concept is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
------
SabBath|980050063
1c1,5
< "Day of rest", from the Hebrew word "shabbat", meaning rest. The seventh or last day of the week. The first sabbath was the "day" God rested after having completed the creation in six "days".
---
> "Day of rest", from the Hebrew word "shabbat", meaning rest. The seventh or last day of the week. The first sabbath was the "day" God rested after having completed the creation in six "days".
> 
> Early Christians honored the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day, and met again on Sunday (the "eight" day, see Acts <chapter, verse?>), to partake of the sacrament and celebrate Christ's resurrection.  Later Paul de-emphasized the need to follow many Jewish laws/traditions.  Eventually, Sunday became the Christian Sabbath.
> 
> A few Christian sects currently honor the Sabbath on Saturday, but most use Sunday.
------
GoD|980050118
7c7
< There is an ancient monotheistic tradition that began with the first ProPhet of both JudaIsm and IsLam, AbraHam (or instead with AdAm, for believers), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (according to the majority of MonoTheists) a concept which might be called OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic concept is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion (and sects within each religion).
---
> There is an ancient monotheistic tradition that began with the first ProPhet of JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, AbraHam (or instead, for believers, that began with AdAm), according to which there is one God, a SpirIt, that (or who) is the CreatorOfTheWorld and possesses the superhuman qualities of OmniPotence (being all-powerful), OmniScience (being all-knowing), and (according to the majority of MonoTheists) a concept which might be called OmniBenevolence (being all-loving).  This basic concept is shared by JudaIsm, ChristianIty, and IsLam, though, of course, it is much embellished by each religion and sects within each religion.
------
TechnologY|980050158
0a1
> * Iron
------
HomePage|980050202
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates
------
ReCreation|980050301
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We spend so much time engaged in recreation, why, we all ought to know all about it.
> 
> The WeekEnd is typically a time for recreation, perhaps (in Western and Muslim cultures) because the SabBath falls on the WeekEnd and the SabBath is "the day of rest."
> 
> Recreation is different from LeiSure.
------
ReCreation|980050417
1c1
< We spend so much time engaged in recreation, why, we all ought to know all about it.
---
> We spend so much time engaged in recreation--so, why, we all ought to know all about it.
5c5,7
< Recreation is different from LeiSure.
---
> Recreation is different from LeiSure.
> 
> MuSic and DanCe play an important part of recreation in many cultures.  So do SportS, of course.
------
ReCreation|980050428
7c7
< MuSic and DanCe play an important part of recreation in many cultures.  So do SportS, of course.
---
> MuSic and DanCe play an important part of recreation in many cultures.  So does SportS, of course.
------
MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale|980050538
1d0
< 
5c4,6
< http://napalm.firest0rm.org/issue4.txt
---
> http://napalm.firest0rm.org/issue4.txt
> ----
> Aw, c'mon: I don't want to read a whole article without first getting an idea of what "math of the Western musical scale" even ''means.''  C'mon, a paragraph about it, please?
------
JohnnyCash|980056725
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Johnny walked the line, rock island line, on an orange blossom special, fell into a burning ring a' fire, had a boy named sue, on a sunday morning sidewalk, got busted for picking flowers in alabama? georgia?, bennie and the jets.. ain'choo worried 'bout gettin' your medication down in florida? i don't care if i do, die, do, die, do.. '56 '57 '58 '59 '61 '62 automobile, folsom prism blues, now slingin rubensesque metallica, waits, revival waddever songs of sin and redemption
------
JohnnyCash|980056764
1c1
< Johnny walked the line, rock island line, on an orange blossom special, fell into a burning ring a' fire, had a boy named sue, on a sunday morning sidewalk, got busted for picking flowers in alabama? georgia?, bennie and the jets.. ain'choo worried 'bout gettin' your medication down in florida? i don't care if i do, die, do, die, do.. '56 '57 '58 '59 '61 '62 automobile, folsom prism blues, now slingin rubensesque metallica, waits, revival waddever songs of sin and redemption
---
> Johnny walked the line, rock island line, on an orange blossom special, fell into a burning ring a' fire, had a boy named sue, on a sunday morning sidewalk, got busted for picking flowers in alabama? georgia?, bennie and the jets.. ain'choo worried 'bout gettin' your nourishment down in florida? i don't care if i do, die, do, die, do.. '56 '57 '58 '59 '61 '62 automobile, folsom prism blues, now slingin rubensesque metallica, waits, revival waddever songs of sin and redemption
------
PythagoreanTheorem|980057516
32c32
<                                      /________________ l
---
>                                      /_____________l
------
PythagoreanTheorem|980057548
32c32
<                                      /_____________l
---
>                                      /__________l
------
PythagoreanTheorem|980057573
32c32
<                                      /__________l
---
>                                      /______________ l
------
WhatIsaWiki|980058967
1c1
< A wiki is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A <I>wiki</I> is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
7c7
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
---
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
------
MuSic|980059095
16a17,18
> Jazz 
> 
------
HomePage|980059270
18c18
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the nothing......
------
AdA|980060749
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Programming language, named after Ada Lovelace, the first programmer.  Really only used anymore in US Department of Defense stuff.  Oh yeah, and Ada95, the most popular Ada compiler actually translates your code to C, then compiles the C.  I love that.
------
WestVirginia|980061035
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Mountain State.  Broke off of Virginia during the US Civil War.  Famous for coal mines in general, and the mine wars in particular.
> 
> State colors:  Blue and Gold
> 
> State bird: Cardinal
> 
> State flower: Rhododendron (Alternately, the Satellite Dish)
> 
> Lots of neat places to visit, like the New River Gorge Bridge (Tall enough that people can parachute off it if they're careful), and lots of national and state parks.
------
WestVirginia|980061116
1c1
< The Mountain State.  Broke off of Virginia during the US Civil War.  Famous for coal mines in general, and the mine wars in particular.
---
> The Mountain State.  Broke off of Virginia during the US Civil War.  Famous for coal mines in general, and the mine wars in particular.  The capitol is Charleston, in the SW area of the state.
------
HomePage|980062158
18c18
< If you have other questions, just ask on the nothing......
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the the WikiPediaFaq.
------
HomePage|980062170
18c18
< If you have other questions, just ask on the the WikiPediaFaq.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
------
JohnnyCash|980062226
0a1,2
> The following may or may not have to do with the famous American country singer, Johnny Cash:
> 
------
JohnnyCash|980062288
1c1
< The following may or may not have to do with the famous American country singer, Johnny Cash:
---
> The following seems to be a prose poem about the famous American country singer, Johnny Cash:
------
WikiPedia|980062299
7c7
< ''Some old text elided, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
---
> ''Some old text deleted, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
------
MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale|980063937
5,6c5,9
< ----
< Aw, c'mon: I don't want to read a whole article without first getting an idea of what "math of the Western musical scale" even ''means.''  C'mon, a paragraph about it, please?
---
> 
> It describes what makes a chord sound in tune to our ear, the
> logarithmic nature of our perception of sound, and how we
> went from just intonation to the less precise compromise of the
> modern scale.  Pending their permission, I'll post the entire article text here.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980064686
2a3,5
> '''Q. When did the WikiPedia start?'''
> 
> ----
------
ChristianIty|980064956
1d0
< 
4c3
< Christians believe the bible is the word of GoD, to some degree or another (that is, many christians disagree about how accurate the Bible is and how literally it should be taken).  The Bible is the most widely regarded source of information on the life of JesusChrist.  It maintains that JesusChrist is the messiah which the Jews have long awaited; thus Christianity could be considered (at least by Christians) the continuation or fulfillment of the Jewish faith.  Christians and Jews both consider the first five books of the Bible to be the word of GoD.
---
> Christians believe TheBible is the word of GoD, to some degree or another (that is, many christians disagree about how accurate TheBible is and how literally it should be taken).  TheBible is the most widely regarded source of information on the life of JesusChrist.  It maintains that JesusChrist is the messiah which the Jews have long awaited; thus Christianity could be considered (at least by Christians) the continuation or fulfillment of the Jewish faith.  Christians and Jews both consider the first five books of TheBible to be the word of GoD.
16c15
< -J
---
> -J
------
WhatIsaWiki|980066848
7a8,9
> 
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
------
WhatIsaWiki|980067736
9c9,11
< This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
---
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
> 
> Blah...
------
WikiPediaFaq|980068263
4a5
> A. January 15, 2001.  An earlier version of the wiki (including original versions of some of these pages) was briefly hosted on Nupedia.com (first posted January 10).  The idea of a Nupedia-sponsored wiki originated out of a conversation LarrySanger had with BenKovitz on the evening of January 2.
6d6
< 
29c29
< '''Q. I'm lame and I don't want to contribute anything, but that uncommon capitalization is bugging me. What's the deal?'''
---
> '''Q. I'm lame and I don't want to contribute anything, but that uncommon capitalization is bugging me.  What's the deal?'''
35,36c35
< A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead!  Here, there's
< nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page).  Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).  And yes, we are keeping backups of the server itself.
---
> A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead!  Here, there's nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page).  Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).  And yes, we are keeping backups of the server itself.
40c39
< A. Good question.
---
> A. Good question.  Why not write on TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis?  (It's probably already been done on Ward Cunningham's original wiki.)
------
CountriesP|980068301
3a4
> Pitcairn Islands
------
CountriesP|980068324
4c4
< Pitcairn Islands
---
> Pitcairn Islands?
------
CountriesP|980068359
4c4
< Pitcairn Islands?
---
> Pitcairn IslandS
------
WhatIsaWiki|980068432
8c8
< 
---
> ----
11c11,13
< Blah...
---
> Blah...
> ----
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
------
WhatIsaWiki|980068473
13c13,15
< Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
---
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
> 
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ....
------
CountriesP|980068551
4c4
< Pitcairn IslandS
---
> PitcairnIsland
------
IslandS|980068625
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 4 Islands located west of Chile and East of French Polynesia. Close to the shipping lane between New Zealand and Panama.
------
NuPedia|980068679
1a2,6
> 
> 
> Yea, but, what's stopping someone putting CRAP in it? Who is the expert and how are you gunna get a good expert for nuthing?
> 
> eh?
------
CountriesP|980068685
4c4
< PitcairnIsland
---
> PitcairnIslandS
------
CountriesP|980068750
4c4
< PitcairnIslandS
---
> PitcairN IslandS
------
NuPedia|980068767
6c6,8
< eh?
---
> eh?
> 
> Face it, Encyclopaedias are full of old news anyhow. What we need is a collectively inspired Arthur C Clark.
------
CountriesP|980068780
4c4
< PitcairN IslandS
---
> PitcairnIslandS
------
WikiPediaProcess|980068786
2a3,4
> I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.
> ----
15c17
< Let's post links to PublicDomainResources (for both images and text)!
---
> Let's post links to PublicDomainResources (for both images and text)!
------
WeekEnd|980068953
22c22,24
< I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
---
> I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
> 
> Anyone know how to get to the secret level in Donkey Kong 64 ?
------
CountriesP|980068963
4c4
< PitcairnIslandS
---
> PitcairnIslands
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980069116
17a18,19
> 
> With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
------
PatentNonsense|980069653
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Patent nonsense, particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:
> 
> * Literal nonsense, i.e., text that, usually intentionally, has no assignable meaning at all.  This tends to be created after the consumption of too much adult beverage, for example, or under the influence of immaturity and/or stupidity.
> * Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.
> 
> The following, while often regrettable, is not patent nonsense, and therefore according to a proposed rule on the WikiPediaProcess page, should not for ''that'' reason be deleted (but some suggestions for improvement are included):
> * Really badly-written stuff.  (So correct it.)
> * Partisan screed.  (Make it hedged or add qualifications in order to make it less biased.)
> * Religious excogitations.  (Make it factual.  Yes, there are ways of doing this; e.g., add phrases like "Followers of X hold that...")
> * Mere opinion, masquerading as fact.  (Remove it to an appropriately-named page, or reword in order to make it fact-stating.)
> * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.)
------
CountriesP|980069747
4a5
> Panama
------
PatentNonsense|980069775
11c11
< * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.)
---
> * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.  So improve it.)
------
CountriesP|980069785
5c5,6
< Panama
---
> PanamA
> 
------
CountriesP|980069837
4c4
< PitcairnIslands
---
> PitcairnIsland
6a7,9
> 
> ----
> Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.
------
CountriesP|980069881
6,7d5
< 
< 
9c7
< Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.
---
> Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.  Go look it up!
------
PatentNonsense|980069906
11c11,13
< * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.  So improve it.)
---
> * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.  So improve it.)
> 
> SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
------
IslandS|980069977
1c1,3
< 4 Islands located west of Chile and East of French Polynesia. Close to the shipping lane between New Zealand and Panama.
---
> 4 Islands located west of Chile and East of French Polynesia. Close to the shipping lane between New Zealand and Panama.
> 
> One Island of the coast of Australia called Fraser Island.
------
CountriesP|980070078
7c7,10
< Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.  Go look it up!
---
> Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.  Go look it up!
> ----
> And the point is? Who cares how many there are?
> ----
------
PitcairnIsland|980070146
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A tiny island in the SouthPacific, one of the most remote sites of human habitation on the planet.  Its fascinating history begins with the famous mutiny on the H.M.S. Bounty; the original PitcairnErs were roughneck sailors and their Tahitian "wives."  An English-Polynesian creole, as well as English, are spoken there.  A protectorate of the U.K.
------
CountriesP|980070167
5,10c5
< PanamA
< ----
< Excuse me, but there is only one Pitcairn Island.  Go look it up!
< ----
< And the point is? Who cares how many there are?
< ----
---
> PanamA
------
WikiPediaProcess|980070184
17a18,19
> ----
> What's to stop the BadGuyS(TM) from deleting accurate stuff and replacing it with PatentNonsense? 
------
CountriesP|980070256
5c5,7
< PanamA
---
> PanamA
> PakistaN
> Papua New GineA
------
WikiPediaProcess|980070275
19c19
< What's to stop the BadGuyS(TM) from deleting accurate stuff and replacing it with PatentNonsense? 
---
> What's to stop the BadGuyS(TM) from deleting accurate stuff and replacing it with PatentNonsense?  This is possible, but we have ways of avoiding DisRuption.  See WikiPediaFaq for more information.
------
WikiPediaProcess|980070519
19a20,21
> ____
> So, Larry, you DO want chaos on a website? Do you think it will become self organising, or will it get hit by multiple failure syndrome?
------
PatentNonsense|980070681
12c12
< 
---
> ----
13a14,15
> 
> Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
------
PatentNonsense|980070751
15c15,17
< Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
---
> Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
> 
> K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
------
WikiPediaProcess|980070835
20,21c20,23
< ____
< So, Larry, you DO want chaos on a website? Do you think it will become self organising, or will it get hit by multiple failure syndrome?
---
> ----
> So, Larry, you DO want chaos on a website?  Do you think it will become self organising, or will it get hit by multiple failure syndrome?
> 
> LarrySanger answers: I think it will be self-organizing.  See Ward Cunningham's original wiki.  But in the case of WikiPedia, I dunno!  Guess we'll see!  (I suggest you remove this question and answer to WikiPediaFaq.)
------
PatentNonsense|980070895
17a18,19
> 
> Go figure!
------
WikiPediaProcess|980071028
23c23
< LarrySanger answers: I think it will be self-organizing.  See Ward Cunningham's original wiki.  But in the case of WikiPedia, I dunno!  Guess we'll see!  (I suggest you remove this question and answer to WikiPediaFaq.)
---
> LarrySanger answers: I think it will be self-organizing.  See [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors Ward Cunningham's original wiki].  But in the case of WikiPedia, I dunno!  Guess we'll see!  (I suggest you remove this question and answer to WikiPediaFaq.)
------
WikiPediaFaq|980071125
39c39
< A. Good question.  Why not write on TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis?  (It's probably already been done on Ward Cunningham's original wiki.)
---
> A. Good question.  Why not write on TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis?  (It's probably already been done on [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors Ward Cunningham's original wiki].)
------
WikiPediaFaq|980071488
35c35
< A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead!  Here, there's nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page).  Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).  And yes, we are keeping backups of the server itself.
---
> A. Well, you probably shouldn't post to this site! Contribute to [http://www.nupedia.com Nupedia] instead!  Here, there's nothing to stop clods from nuking great articles... but the site does keep previous versions of pages (see the "View other revisions" link at the bottom of this page).  Feel free to reinstate previous master works if the current version of a page disappoints you (but who knows - you might even be a clod and not know it!).  And yes, we are keeping backups of the server itself.  For more discussion see [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWipeout this discussion of "wiki wipeouts."]
------
WikiPediaProcess|980071533
3c3
< I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.
---
> I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."] -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaProcess|980071876
1c1
< Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.  Or, if you simply want to ask a question, ask it here.
---
> Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here.  Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions.  Or, if you simply want to raise a policy issue, raise it here.
------
WeekEnd|980072357
22,24c22
< I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
< 
< Anyone know how to get to the secret level in Donkey Kong 64 ?
---
> I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
------
TheBible|980073050
3c3
< (what is 'the Bible' [Hebrew vs Greek, Jewish vs Christian, Orthodox vs. Western, Catholic vs Protestant]; canon; apochrypha, pseudepigrapha)
---
> (what is 'the Bible' [Hebrew/Aramaic vs Greek/Latin, Jewish vs Christian, Orthodox vs. Western, Catholic vs Protestant]; canon; apochrypha, pseudepigrapha)
13c13,15
< IV BiblicalInterpretation
---
> IV BiblicalInterpretation
> 
> (Jewish, Christian, Eastern. Western, influence of philosophy, fundamentalism, patristic interpretation, mediaeval interpretation, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, inerrancy, biblical theology, inspiration, rationalism
------
TheBible|980073181
15c15
< (Jewish, Christian, Eastern. Western, influence of philosophy, fundamentalism, patristic interpretation, mediaeval interpretation, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, inerrancy, biblical theology, inspiration, rationalism
---
> (Jewish, Christian, Eastern. Western, influence of philosophy, fundamentalism, patristic interpretation, mediaeval interpretation, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, inerrancy, biblical theology, inspiration, rationalism, translations)
------
EuroCurrency|980078126
1c1,3
< The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemBurg.
---
> The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemBurg. The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries in relation to the Euro were fixed on Januar 1st, 1999 using the value of the ECU (European Currency Unit) at that time. This means that from that date the Euro is the currency that takes part in the world economy, with a changing exchange rate (actually its value decreased steadily since January 1st, 1999). The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries are then simply calculated using the fixed value that was determined on January 1st, 1999 and the exchange rate of the Euro.
> 
> (I hope you understand anything of the above, I am still working to improve my English.. ;))
------
PrettyGoodPrivacy|980078841
1c1
< PGP (PrettyGoodPrivacy) is an application developed by PhilZimmermann that provides an easy to use interface for high security encryption of emails and other sensitive content. The newer PGP packages contain plug-ins for most modern email applications like MicrosoftOutlook, OutlookExpress and NetscapeMessenger. PGP uses AsymmetricEncryption with a PublicKey and a PrivateKey which are used to sign and encrypt a message. The PublicKey is publicly available on some of the many KeyServer around the world and it can be used to encrypt a message to the owner of the PublicKey or to verify a signature of the keyowner. The recipient of the encrypted message can then decrypt this message using his PrivateKey. To verify whether an email was not altered during transmission and whether it was really sent by the specified sender you can use PGP to electronically sign your mail. PGP then creats a HashCode of the message, which is then encrypted using the PrivateKey of the signer. The recipient of the mail uses the PublicKey of the signer to decrypt the HashCode which is then compared to the HashCode the recipient computes using the mail content. Only if both hashes are the same the mail was not altered. Currently there exists an open source and free replacement for PGP called GnuPG.
---
> PGP (PrettyGoodPrivacy) is an application developed by PhilZimmermann that provides an easy to use interface for high security encryption of emails and other sensitive content. The newer PGP packages contain plug-ins for most modern email applications like MicrosoftOutlook, OutlookExpress and NetscapeMessenger. PGP uses AsymmetricEncryption and the RSA algorithm with a PublicKey and a PrivateKey which are used to sign and encrypt a message. The PublicKey is publicly available on some of the many KeyServer around the world and it can be used to encrypt a message to the owner of the PublicKey or to verify a signature of the keyowner. The recipient of the encrypted message can then decrypt this message using his PrivateKey. To verify whether an email was not altered during transmission and whether it was really sent by the specified sender you can use PGP to electronically sign your mail. PGP then creats a HashCode of the message, which is then encrypted using the PrivateKey of the signer. The recipient of the mail uses the PublicKey of the signer to decrypt the HashCode which is then compared to the HashCode the recipient computes using the mail content. Only if both hashes are the same the mail was not altered. Currently there exists an open source and free replacement for PGP called GnuPG.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980079319
15c15,20
< It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ....
---
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
> ----
> Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
> 
> Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
> 
------
CountriesN|980082832
1a2
> NetherLands
2a4
> 
------
RosaParks|980098353
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Cool ole biddy (ment in a most respectful way, of course), who served as lightning rod for change merely because of her selft confidence in her right to sit where she pleased on the bus.
------
CountriesN|980098413
3,4c3
< Norway
< 
---
> NorwaY
------
CountriesS|980107589
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sweden
------
CountriesS|980107618
1c1
< Sweden
---
> [Sweden]
------
CountriesS|980107689
1c1
< [Sweden]
---
> SwedeN
------
SwedeN|980107934
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CountrY in NortherN EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. Capital is StockholM.
> 
> Other important cities:
> GöteborG
> MalmÖ
> UppsalA
> LinköpinG
> LunD
> VisbY
> 
------
SwedeN|980108149
4,5c4,5
< GöteborG
< MalmÖ
---
> Göteborg (GothenburG)
> Malmö (MalmoE)
7c7
< LinköpinG
---
> Linköping (LinkoepinG)
------
SwedeN|980108191
1c1
< CountrY in NortherN EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. Capital is StockholM.
---
> CountrY in NortherN EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. CapitaL is StockholM.
4,9c4,9
< Göteborg (GothenburG)
< Malmö (MalmoE)
< UppsalA
< Linköping (LinkoepinG)
< LunD
< VisbY
---
> Göteborg (GothenburG),
> Malmö (MalmoE),
> UppsalA,
> Linköping (LinkoepinG),
> LunD, and
> VisbY on GotLand.
------
GotLand|980108255
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Island in the BalticSea. Belonging to SwedeN.
> 
> Biggest city is VisbY that is known for its wall around the city from the time of the HansA.
------
BalticSea|980108558
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sea with BrackisH water between ScandinaviA and BalticA. Connected to the north sea through Öresund (TheStraitOfOeresund) and Stora Bält.
> 
> 
> 
> Contains the big islands GotlanD, Öland (OEland) belonging to SwedeN, BornholM (beloning to DenmarK), Åland (AOland) (belonging to FinlanD), Ösel (OEsel) and Dagö (DagoE) belonging to EstoniA.
------
SwedeN|980108611
1c1
< CountrY in NortherN EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. CapitaL is StockholM.
---
> CountrY in Northern EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. CapitaL is StockholM.
------
LinusTolke|980108911
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Contributor of things to Wikipedia.
> 
> Swedish citizen.
> 
------
CountriesU|980109114
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> UnitedStates
------
EuropE|980109295
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Contintent stretching from the NorthSea and the AtlanticOcean in the west to the UralMountains in the east. From the MediteraineanOcean in the south to the north pole.
> 
> Contains all the following countries:
> SwedeN,
> DenmarK,
> FinlanD,
> EstoniA,
> some more
------
SwedisH|980109348
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Language spoken in SwedeN and FinlanD.
> 
> Defined by the SwedishAcademy.
------
FinlanD|980109450
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CountrY in northern EuropE.
> 
> Capital HelsinkI.
> 
> At some point in time it was controlled by the king of SwedeN.
------
BalticSea|980109534
1c1,2
< Sea with BrackisH water between ScandinaviA and BalticA. Connected to the north sea through Öresund (TheStraitOfOeresund) and Stora Bält.
---
> Sea with BrackisWater between ScandinaviA and BalticA.
> Connected to the north sea through Öresund (TheStraitOfOeresund) and Stora Bält.
------
BalticSea|980109556
1c1
< Sea with BrackisWater between ScandinaviA and BalticA.
---
> Sea with BrackishWater between ScandinaviA and BalticA.
------
TheKoran|980110947
3c3
< Much of the content in the Qur'an makes reference back to parts of the Christian Bible.  Well-known Biblical characters such as Abraham, Noah, and Jesus are mentioned.  Detractors of the Qur'an and Muhammad have claimed that Muhammad was merely taking older religious documents and stories and embellishing them.  Muslims maintain that this could not be the case, on scientific grounds. Modern science has identified many factual errors and internal inconsistencies in the Bible.  However, the Qur'an has none, according to Muslims; and what's more, in cases where Biblical stories reappear in very similar form Qur'an, the stories are always changed in such a way that the scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies are gone.  This is considered proof of the Qur'an's divine origin.
---
> Much of the content in the Qur'an makes reference back to parts of the Christian Bible.  Well-known Biblical characters such as Abraham, Noah, and Jesus are mentioned.  Detractors of the Qur'an and Muhammad have claimed that Muhammad was merely taking older religious documents and stories and embellishing them.  Muslims maintain that this could not be the case, on scientific grounds. Modern science has identified many factual errors and internal inconsistencies in the Bible.  However, the Qur'an has none, according to Muslims; and what's more, in cases where Biblical stories reappear in very similar form in the Qur'an, the stories are always changed in such a way that the scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies are gone.  This is considered proof of the Qur'an's divine origin.
------
RosaParks|980111217
1c1
< Cool ole biddy (ment in a most respectful way, of course), who served as lightning rod for change merely because of her selft confidence in her right to sit where she pleased on the bus.
---
> Cool ole biddy (meant in a most respectful way, of course), who served as lightning rod for social change merely because of her self-confidence and her insistence on her right to sit where she pleased on the bus.
------
DenmarK|980113488
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AKA KingdomOfDenmark, q.v.
------
KingdomOfDenmark|980113597
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Country in NothernEurope.  Inhabitants are called Danes.  Language spoken is Danish.  Capitol Copenhagen.  Other important citiers are Århus, Odense, and Rønne.
------
KlausSeistrup|980113661
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Klaus Alexander Seistrup.
------
KlausSeistrup|980113736
1c1
< Klaus Alexander Seistrup.
---
> Klaus Alexander Seistrup, contributor to WikiPedia.  Citizen of the KingdomOfDenmark.
------
KingdomOfDenmark|980114135
1c1,5
< Country in NothernEurope.  Inhabitants are called Danes.  Language spoken is Danish.  Capitol Copenhagen.  Other important citiers are Århus, Odense, and Rønne.
---
> Country in NothernEurope, bordering the BalticSea and the NorthSea, on a peninsula north of Germany. Constitutional monarchy.  Capital Copenhagen (Danish: København).
> 
> Inhabitants are called Danes (adj. Danish).
> 
> Language spoken is Danish, predominant second language is English.
------
DanCe|980114234
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> While dance has traditionally been a form of ReCreation, many forms of dance have been formalized and refined into specific genres.  These genres include:
> 
> BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance
> 
> 
------
CountriesD|980114303
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> DenmarkK
------
CountriesD|980114320
1c1
< DenmarkK
---
> DenmarK
------
CountriesK|980114356
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> KingdomOfDenmark
------
MuSic|980114652
6a7,8
> TheRecorder
> 
------
MuSic|980114701
7,8d6
< TheRecorder
< 
17a16,17
> 
> TheRecorder
------
SandBox|980114736
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A place for children of all ages to play in.
> 
> ----
> 
> Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?
------
SandBox|980114800
5c5
< Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?
---
> Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
------
KlausSeistrup|980114975
1a2,3
> 
> See also Why:KlausSeistrup.
------
TheRecorder|980115418
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Recorder (German: Blockflöte; French: Flûte à Bec; Italian Flauto Dolce). A fipple flute, i.e. one with a mouthpiece enabling the breath to be directed at the edge without having to form an embouchure with the lips.  Known in the 18th century simply as Flute = Flauto - the transverse form was separately referred to as Traverso.  It was for the recorder that J.S. Bach wrote the 4th Brandenburg concerto in G major (though Thurston Dart controversially suggested that it was intended for flageolets at a higher pitch, and in a recording under Neville Marriner using Dart's editions it was played an octave higher than usual on sopranino recorders.
> 
> The instrument went into decline after the 18th century, being used for about the last time as an other-wordly sound by Gluck in his opera Orfeo ed Euridice.  It was revived at the end of the 19th century by the English researcher into earlier music, Arnold Dolmetsch.  Subsequently it became very popular in schools, since in its initial stages it is relatively easy to play ... though that does not remain the case in more advanced music.
------
BallroomDance|980115626
1c1,48
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ballroom dance originated in the western world, and is now enjoyed both socially and competitively in many parts of the world.
> 
> Contemporary ballroom dance technique has been extensively 
> studied and formalized.  MedalsExams are a commonly accepted standard of measurement of a dancer's technique according to conventional standards, and are classed Bronze, Silver, Gold and Gold Bar.
> 
> The three divisions of contemporary ballroom dance are called:
> 
> ----
> 
> International Standard (also called International Ballroom)
> 
> The dances which make up International Standard ballroom dance are:
> * Waltz
> * Viennese Waltz
> * Tango
> * Foxtrot
> * Quickstep
> 
> ----
> 
> International Latin
> 
> The dances which make up International Latin ballroom dance are:
> * Rumba
> * Samba
> * Cha-Cha
> * Paso Doble
> * Jive
> 
> ----
> 
> American style Ballroom
> 
> The dances which are included in American style ballroom include
> (more than just) the following.  Note that American versions of dances which are also danced in the International style usually have differences in technique.  Also note that popular club dances such as LindyHop, WestCoastSwing and EastCoastSwing will often be danced differently in clubs than in ballroom studios.
> * Foxtrot
> * Cha-Cha
> * Waltz
> * Viennese Waltz
> * TripleSwing (also known as EastCoastSwing)
> * WestCoastSwing
> * LindyHop
> * Tango
> * Mambo
> * Rumba
> * Samba
> * Two Step
> * New York Hustle
------
HomePage|980115704
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe
------
ScienCe|980115802
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> BiologicalScience
> * AnatOmy
> * PhysiolOgy
> * OrnitholOgy
> 
> PhysicalScience
> * PhysIcs
> * AstronOmy
> 
> ChemisTry
> 
------
BiologicalScience|980115861
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The study of life and the processes thereof.
> 
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980117724
4a5
> The CIAWorldFactBook seems to have very long entries. Wouldn't it be better to split them up like this instead: AfGhanistan --LinusTolke
------
AfGhanistan|980117937
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Illustration on an alternative example on how to organize a country. --LinusTolke
> ----
> 
> AfghanistanHistory
> 
> AfghanistanGeography
> 
> AfghanistanPeople
> 
> AfghanistanGovernement
> 
> AfghanistanEconomy
> 
> AfghanistanCommunications
> 
> AfghanistanTransportations
> 
> AfghanistanMilitary
> 
> AfghanistanTransnationalIssues
> 
------
AfghanistanHistory|980117985
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AfGhanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces
> supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic
> Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country. In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure,
> and widespread live mines. 
------
AfghanistanGeography|980118032
1c1,50
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Location: Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 33 00 N, 65 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Asia 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 652,000 sq km 
> land: 652,000 sq km 
> water: 0 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Texas 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 5,529 km 
> border countries: China 76 km, Iran 936 km, Pakistan 2,430 km, Tajikistan 1,206 km, Turkmenistan 744 km, Uzbekistan 137 km 
> 
> Coastline: 0 km (landlocked) 
> 
> Maritime claims: none (landlocked) 
> 
> Climate: arid to semiarid; cold winters and hot summers 
> 
> Terrain: mostly rugged mountains; plains in north and southwest 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Amu Darya 258 m 
> highest point: Nowshak 7,485 m 
> 
> Natural resources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 12% 
> permanent crops: 0% 
> permanent pastures: 46% 
> forests and woodland: 3% 
> other: 39% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: 30,000 sq km (1993 est.) 
> 
> Natural hazards: damaging earthquakes occur in Hindu Kush mountains; flooding 
> 
> Environment - current issues: soil degradation; overgrazing; deforestation (much of the remaining forests are being cut down for fuel and building materials);
> desertification 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban 
> signed, but not ratified: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Life Conservation 
> 
> Geography - note: landlocked
------
AfghanistanPeople|980118067
1c1,48
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Population: 25,838,797 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 42.37% (male 5,598,403; female 5,371,054) 
> 15-64 years: 54.86% (male 7,362,961; female 6,839,914) 
> 65 years and over: 2.77% (male 378,741; female 337,724) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 3.54% (2000 est.) 
> note: this rate reflects the continued return of refugees from Iran 
> 
> Birth rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 18.01 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: 11.54 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 1.08 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 1.12 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 149.28 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 45.88 years 
> male: 46.62 years 
> female: 45.1 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 5.87 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Afghan(s) 
> adjective: Afghan 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 
> 
> Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1% 
> 
> Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much
> bilingualism 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
> total population: 31.5% 
> male: 47.2% 
> female: 15% (1999 est.)
------
AfghanistanGovernement|980118098
1c1,68
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Islamic State of Afghanistan; note - the self-proclaimed Taliban government refers to the country as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 
> conventional short form: Afghanistan 
> local long form: Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan 
> local short form: Afghanestan 
> former: Republic of Afghanistan 
> 
> Data code: AF 
> 
> Government type: no functioning central government, administered by factions 
> 
> Capital: Kabul 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 30 provinces (velayat, singular - velayat); Badakhshan, Badghis, Baghlan, Balkh, Bamian, Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghowr, Helmand, Herat,
> Jowzjan, Kabol, Kandahar, Kapisa, Konar, Kondoz, Laghman, Lowgar, Nangarhar, Nimruz, Oruzgan, Paktia, Paktika, Parvan, Samangan, Sar-e Pol, Takhar, Vardak, Zabol 
> note: there may be two new provinces of Nurestan (Nuristan) and Khowst 
> 
> Independence: 19 August 1919 (from UK control over Afghan foreign affairs) 
> 
> National holiday: Victory of the Muslim Nation, 28 April; Remembrance Day for Martyrs and Disabled, 4 May; Independence Day, 19 August 
> 
> Constitution: none 
> 
> Legal system: a new legal system has not been adopted but all factions tacitly agree they will follow Shari'a (Islamic law) 
> 
> Suffrage: NA; previously males 15-50 years of age 
> 
> Executive branch: on 27 September 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement; the Islamic State
> of Afghanistan has no functioning government at this time, and the country remains divided among fighting factions 
> note: the Taliban have declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin RABBANI; the
> Organization of the Islamic Conference has left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy can be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions; the
> country is essentially divided along ethnic lines; the Taliban controls the capital of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of the country including the predominately ethnic
> Pashtun areas in southern Afghanistan; opposing factions have their stronghold in the ethnically diverse north 
> 
> Legislative branch: non-functioning as of June 1993 
> 
> Judicial branch: non-functioning as of March 1995, although there are local Shari'a (Islamic law) courts throughout the country 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Harakat-i-Islami (Islamic Movement) [Mohammed Asif MOHSENI]; Harakat-Inqilab-i-Islami (Islamic Revolutionary Movement)
> [Mohammad Nabi MOHAMMADI]; Hizbi Islami-Gulbuddin (Islamic Party) [Gulbuddin HIKMATYAR faction]; Hizbi Islami-Khalis (Islamic Party) [Yunis KHALIS
> faction]; Hizbi Wahdat-Akbari faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Mohammad Akbar AKBARI]; Ittihad-i-Islami Barai Azadi Afghanistan (Islamic Union for the Liberation of
> Afghanistan) [Abdul Rasul SAYYAF]; Jabha-i-Najat-i-Milli Afghanistan (Afghanistan National Liberation Front) [Sibghatullah MOJADDEDI]; Mahaz-i-Milli-Islami
> (National Islamic Front) [Sayed Ahamad GAILANI]; Taliban (Religious Students Movement) [Mohammad OMAR]; United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
> comprised of Jumbesh-i-Melli Islami (National Islamic Movement) [Abdul Rashid DOSTAM]; Jamiat-i-Islami (Islamic Society) [Burhanuddin RABBANI and Ahmad
> Shah MASOOD]; and Hizbi Wahdat-Khalili faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Abdul Karim KHALILI] 
> 
> Political pressure groups and leaders: Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Australia, US, and elsewhere have organized politically; Mellat (Social Democratic Party) [leader
> NA]; Peshawar, Pakistan-based groups such as the Coordination Council for National Unity and Understanding in Afghanistan or CUNUA [Ishaq GAILANI]; tribal elders
> represent traditional Pashtun leadership; Writers Union of Free Afghanistan or WUFA [A. Rasul AMIN] 
> 
> International organization participation: AsDB, CP, ECO, ESCAP, FAO, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, Intelsat, IOC,
> IOM (observer), ITU, NAM, OIC, OPCW, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WMO, WToO 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> note: embassy operations suspended 21 August 1997 
> chief of mission: Ambassador (vacant) 
> chancery: 2341 Wyoming Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 
> telephone: [1] (202) 234-3770 
> FAX: [1] (202) 328-3516 
> consulate(s) general: New York 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: the US embassy in Kabul has been closed since January 1989 due to security concerns 
> 
> Flag description: three equal horizontal bands of green (top), white, and black with a gold emblem centered on the three bands; the emblem features a temple-like
> structure with Islamic inscriptions above and below, encircled by a wreath on the left and right and by a bolder Islamic inscription above, all of which are encircled by two
> crossed scimitars 
> note: the Taliban uses a plain white flag 
> 
------
AfghanistanEconomy|980118132
1c1,80
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Economy - overview: Afghanistan is an extremely poor, landlocked country, highly dependent on farming and livestock raising (sheep and goats). Economic considerations
> have played second fiddle to political and military upheavals during two decades of war, including the nearly 10-year Soviet military occupation (which ended 15 February
> 1989). During that conflict one-third of the population fled the country, with Pakistan and Iran sheltering a combined peak of more than 6 million refugees. In early 1999, 1.2
> million Afghan refugees remained in Pakistan and about 1.4 million in Iran. Gross domestic product has fallen substantially over the past 20 years because of the loss of labor
> and capital and the disruption of trade and transport. The majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Inflation
> remains a serious problem throughout the country. International aid can deal with only a fraction of the humanitarian problem, let alone promote economic development. The
> economic situation did not improve in 1998-99, as internal civil strife continued, hampering both domestic economic policies and international aid efforts. Numerical data are
> likely to be either unavailable or unreliable. Afghanistan was by far the largest producer of opium poppies in 1999, and narcotics trafficking is a major source of revenue. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $21 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: NA% 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $800 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: 53% 
> industry: 28.5% 
> services: 18.5% (1990) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: NA% 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: NA% 
> highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): NA% 
> 
> Labor force: 8 million (1997 est.) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 68%, industry 16%, services 16% (1980 est.) 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 8% (1995 est.) 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $NA 
> expenditures: $NA, including capital expenditures of $NA 
> 
> Industries: small-scale production of textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, and cement; handwoven carpets; natural gas, oil, coal, copper 
> 
> Electricity - production: 430 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 41.86% 
> hydro: 58.14% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 510 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 110 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: opium poppies, wheat, fruits, nuts, karakul pelts; wool, mutton 
> 
> Exports: $80 million (does not include opium) (1996 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems 
> 
> Exports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Germany, India, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic 
> 
> Imports: $150 million (1996 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: capital goods, food and petroleum products; most consumer goods 
> 
> Imports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, Singapore, India, South Korea, Germany 
> 
> Debt - external: $5.5 billion (1996 est.) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: US provided about $70 million in humanitarian assistance in 1997; US continues to contribute to multilateral assistance through the UN
> programs of food aid, immunization, land mine removal, and a wide range of aid to refugees and displaced persons 
> 
> Currency: 1 afghani (AF) = 100 puls 
> 
> Exchange rates: afghanis (Af) per US$1 - 4,700 (January 2000), 4,750 (February 1999), 17,000 (December 1996), 7,000 (January 1995), 1,900 (January 1994), 1,019
> (March 1993), 850 (1991); note - these rates reflect the free market exchange rates rather than the official exchange rate, which was fixed at 50.600 afghanis to the dollar
> until 1996, when it rose to 2,262.65 per dollar, and finally became fixed again at 3,000.00 per dollar in April 1996 
> 
> Fiscal year: 21 March - 20 March 
------
AfghanistanCommunications|980118149
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Telephones - main lines in use: 31,200 (1983); note - there were 21,000 main lines in use in Kabul in 1998 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: NA 
> 
> Telephone system: 
> domestic: very limited telephone and telegraph service; in 1997, telecommunications links were established between Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad, and Kabul
> through satellite and microwave systems 
> international: satellite earth stations - 1 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) linked only to Iran and 1 Intersputnik (Atlantic Ocean region); commercial satellite telephone center in
> Ghazni 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 7 (6 are inactive; the active station is in Kabul), FM 1, shortwave 1 (broadcasts in Pushtu, Dari, Urdu, and English) (1999) 
> 
> Radios: 167,000 (1999) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: at least 10 (one government run central television station in Kabul and regional stations in nine of the 30 provinces; the regional stations
> operate on a reduced schedule; also, in 1997, there was a station in Mazar-e Sharif reaching four northern Afghanistan provinces) (1998) 
> 
> Televisions: 100,000 (1999) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA 
> 
------
AfghanistanTransportations|980118165
1c1,34
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Railways: 
> total: 24.6 km 
> broad gauge: 9.6 km 1.524-m gauge from Gushgy (Turkmenistan) to Towraghondi; 15 km 1.524-m gauge from Termiz (Uzbekistan) to Kheyrabad transshipment point on
> south bank of Amu Darya 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 21,000 km 
> paved: 2,793 km 
> unpaved: 18,207 km (1998 est.) 
> 
> Waterways: 1,200 km; chiefly Amu Darya, which handles vessels up to about 500 DWT 
> 
> Pipelines: petroleum products - Uzbekistan to Bagram and Turkmenistan to Shindand; natural gas 180 km 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Kheyrabad, Shir Khan 
> 
> Airports: 46 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 14 
> over 3,047 m: 3 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 4 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 4 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 1 
> under 914 m: 2 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 32 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 5 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 13 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 3 
> under 914 m: 11 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Heliports: 3 (1999 est.) 
------
AfghanistanMilitary|980118184
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Military branches: NA; note - the military does not exist on a national basis; some elements of the former Army, Air and Air Defense Forces, National Guard, Border
> Guard Forces, National Police Force (Sarandoi), and tribal militias still exist but are factionalized among the various groups 
> 
> Military manpower - military age: 22 years of age 
> 
> Military manpower - availability: 
> males age 15-49: 6,401,980 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - fit for military service: 
> males age 15-49: 3,432,236 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - reaching military age annually: 
> males: 244,958 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA 
> 
> Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA% 
> 
------
PhiloSophy|980118198
3c3
< LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
---
> AlTruism -- LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
9c9
< I've added several suggested topics.  At your leisure you might start articles on any or all of the above.  Nearly every trained philosopher, and plenty of untrained ones, have ''something'' reasonably useful and accurate to say about all of these topics!
---
> I've added several suggested topics.  At your leisure you might start articles on any or all of the above.  Nearly every trained philosopher, and plenty of untrained ones, have ''something'' reasonably useful and accurate to say about all of these topics!
------
AfghanistanTransnationalIssues|980118198
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Disputes - international: support to Islamic militants worldwide by some factions; question over which group should hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN 
> 
> Illicit drugs: world's largest illicit opium producer, surpassing Burma (potential production in 1999 - 1,670 metric tons; cultivation in 1999 - 51,500 hectares, a 23%
> increase over 1998); a major source of hashish; increasing number of heroin-processing laboratories being set up in the country; major political factions in the country profit
> from drug trade 
------
AfGhanistan|980118253
1c1
< Illustration on an alternative example on how to organize a country. --LinusTolke
---
> Illustration on an alternative example on how to organize a country. Compare to the "all in one node"-solution in AfghanistaN --LinusTolke
------
BalticSea|980118648
6c6
< Contains the big islands GotlanD, Öland (OEland) belonging to SwedeN, BornholM (beloning to DenmarK), Åland (AOland) (belonging to FinlanD), Ösel (OEsel) and Dagö (DagoE) belonging to EstoniA.
---
> Contains the big islands GotLand, Öland (OEland) belonging to SwedeN, BornholM (beloning to DenmarK), Åland (AOland) (belonging to FinlanD), Ösel (OEsel) and Dagö (DagoE) belonging to EstoniA.
------
AlTruism|980118691
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Altruism.  Altruism doesn't really exist.  Even if you are doing something that is helpful or charitable for others, you will still reap the good of that action.  The idea that one should do things for altruistic purposes is wrong and can lead to the downfall of society, as Ayn Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged.  
> If one portrays that they are doing something completely for others benefit and has no self interest, that is when you should question thier motives.  Why do they wish to appear so benevolent?  When one does for other people at least there are good feelings that arise and right there, the theory of altruism is defunct or never existed.
------
PatentNonsense|980118719
13c13
< SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
---
> Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
15c15
< Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
---
> A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
17c17
< K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
---
> Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
19c19
< Go figure!
---
> A. Go figure!
------
KlausSeistrup|980118969
3c3
< See also Why:KlausSeistrup.
---
> See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
------
KlausSeistrup|980119011
1c1
< Klaus Alexander Seistrup, contributor to WikiPedia.  Citizen of the KingdomOfDenmark.
---
> Klaus Alexander Seistrup, contributor to WikiPedia.  Citizen of the KingdomOfDenmark.  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
3c3,4
< See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
---
> 
> See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  
------
AlTruism|980119041
0a1,2
> The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain.
> 
2c4
< If one portrays that they are doing something completely for others benefit and has no self interest, that is when you should question thier motives.  Why do they wish to appear so benevolent?  When one does for other people at least there are good feelings that arise and right there, the theory of altruism is defunct or never existed.
---
> If one portrays that they are doing something completely for others benefit and has no self interest, that is when you should question thier motives.  Why do they wish to appear so benevolent?  When one does for other people at least there are good feelings that arise and right there, the theory of altruism is defunct or never existed.
------
KlausSeistrup|980119048
1c1,2
< Klaus Alexander Seistrup, contributor to WikiPedia.  Citizen of the KingdomOfDenmark.  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
---
> Klaus Alexander Seistrup, contributor to WikiPedia.  Citizen of the KingdomOfDenmark. 
>  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
4c5
< See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  
---
> See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  
------
KlausSeistrup|980119075
2c2,4
<  What is this for?  This is a pointless change.  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark?  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
---
>  What is this for?  This is a pointless change. 
>  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark? 
>  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
------
KlausSeistrup|980119105
2c2
<  What is this for?  This is a pointless change. 
---
>  What is this for?  This is a pointless page. 
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980119119
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The view that we are always motivated by self-interest, even in seeming acts of AlTruism.
------
PhiloSophy|980119463
1c1,2
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism
---
> '''Some existing articles:'''
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism
3c4,5
< AlTruism -- LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
---
> '''PhilosophicalSubdisciplines:'''
> LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
4a7
> '''PhIlosophers:'''
5a9,11
> 
> '''PhilosophicalTheories:'''
> '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm  [etc. continue the list please]
------
PhiloSophy|980119507
11c11
< '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm  [etc. continue the list please]
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism  [etc. continue the list please]
------
PhiloSophy|980119544
7c7
< '''PhIlosophers:'''
---
> '''PhiloSophers:'''
------
KlausSeistrup|980119728
1a2,4
> 
> See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  
> ----
5,7c8,9
< 
< 
< See also Why:KlausSeistrup.  
---
> ----
> This is a personal page for prolific WikiPedia writer KlausSeistrup.  It is not pointless, for it tells us his middle name and that he is a citizen of Denmark.  Now I can address him in Danish if I wanted to (and could).  Re: Danish royalty, you learn something new every day; aren't wikis great? -- LarrySanger
------
NamingConventions|980119909
38a39,40
> ----
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a tool on each page helping us to find names with incorrect or missing links. My suggestion is to modify the preview page to include a list of all words or combination of words present in the text that have entries (independant of capitalization) in wikipedia. In that way it would be simple to pin-point errors in capitalization and the need for rules diminishes.  --LinusTolke
------
HomePage|980119913
5c5
< The WeekEnd is here.  Ever wonder what a WeekEnd is?
---
> We have a new WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  (I created and used it to announce WikipediaL.)
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980119976
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''January 21, 2001'''
> 
> Wikipedia-L (see WikipediaL), a new mailing list for Wikipedia, now exists!
> 
> -- LarrySanger
------
PartakeInDiscussion|980120023
3c3,4
< Click "Edit text of this page" below to see how this was done...the four hyphens will be revealed.
---
> Click "Edit text of this page" below to see how this was done...the four hyphens will be revealed.----
> By the way, you can participate on WikipediaL if you want to discuss something that, for whatever reason, you don't want to discuss on Wikipedia itself.
------
KlausSeistrup|980120029
7a8,9
> 
> ''Denmark has/is a constitutional monarchy and, yes, we do have a queen (QueenMargretheII) who has ruled the country since 1972 when her father, KingFrederikIX, died. I'm sorry that you find this page pointless, but pages are abundant on this wiki, so go and read another one and forget about this page -- perhaps someone else will find it useful. --KlausSeistrup''
------
NewTopics|980120065
5c5
< EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd
---
> EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd -- WikiPediaAnnouncements -- WikipediaL
------
WikipediaL|980120230
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is the sign-up page address (where you can also find the archive):
> 
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
------
WikipediaL|980120299
1c1
< Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is the sign-up page address (where you can also find the archive):
---
> Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page address (where you can also find a Wikipedia-L archive):
3c3,5
< http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
---
> [http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l Wikipedia-L]
> 
> I have just one request.  If someone asks a question, answers a question, or otherwise says something of lasting interest, will you please put it on the wiki?  Thanks
------
WikiPedians|980120382
1c1,3
< Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher...
---
> The curiously brave people, who, in the face of the dire threat of DisRuption, nonetheless post BrilliantProse (and, sometimes, PatentNonsense).
> 
> Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher.
------
DefinitionofBibleTerms|980120765
1c1
< The Canon of Scripture
---
> TheCanonofScripture for the discussion of Bible history that originally graced this page.
3d2
< Early Christians and Jews were not interested in laying down a Canon, or set list of inspired books. While all Jews accepted the Torah, there was division about what other books might or might not be inspired by God. 
5,19d3
< The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the OldTestament into Greek provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew speaking world. However, even here, there was discussion about what books were inspired. Some editions of the LXX include, for instance I-IV Maccabees or the 151st psalm, while others do not include them.
< 
< After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish community set down their Canon of Scripture, including only those books written in Hebrew and written up to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. (Later scholarship indicates that this division was not perfectly done, that is, some of the books accepted by the Jews were actually written after the deadline.)
< 
< The Christians, on the other hand, tended to use the Greek Bible, and had more books in circulation, though no formal statement was made by the universal Church on the subject. In the OldTestament, the "doubtful" books that were eventually included are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, I-II Maccabees, and Sirach, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel written originally in Greek. The doubtful books in the NewTestament were Hebrews, James, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter, and Revelation, mostly because of the unsure authorship of these books.
< 
< When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the VulgateBible, he argued for the "Veritas Hebraica", or the acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added translations for the doubtful books.
< 
< Over the years, the feeling in favor of this group of "doubtful" books grew, until at the Council of Florence (1451), this list was defined as canonical. The Council of Florence, however, was not binding on the whole Church.
< 
< At the time of the Reformation, MartinLuther eliminated the "doubtful" books from his OldTestament, terming them "Apocrypha". He also argued for the elimiation of certain NewTestament books, notably the Letter of James.
< 
< The CatholicChurch finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The OldTestament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
< 
< With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
------
TheCanonofScripture|980120775
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Canon of Scripture 
> 
> Early Christians and Jews were not interested in laying down a Canon, or set list of inspired books. While all Jews accepted the Torah, there was division about what other books might or might not be inspired by God. 
> 
> The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the OldTestament into Greek provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew speaking world. However, even here, there was discussion about what books were inspired. Some editions of the LXX include, for instance I-IV Maccabees or the 151st psalm, while others do not include them.
> 
> After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish community set down their Canon of Scripture, including only those books written in Hebrew and written up to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. (Later scholarship indicates that this division was not perfectly done, that is, some of the books accepted by the Jews were actually written after the deadline.)
> 
> The Christians, on the other hand, tended to use the Greek Bible, and had more books in circulation, though no formal statement was made by the universal Church on the subject. In the OldTestament, the "doubtful" books that were eventually included are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, I-II Maccabees, and Sirach, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel written originally in Greek. The doubtful books in the NewTestament were Hebrews, James, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter, and Revelation, mostly because of the unsure authorship of these books.
> 
> When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the VulgateBible, he argued for the "Veritas Hebraica", or the acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added translations for the doubtful books.
> 
> Over the years, the feeling in favor of this group of "doubtful" books grew, until at the Council of Florence (1451), this list was defined as canonical. The Council of Florence, however, was not binding on the whole Church.
> 
> At the time of the Reformation, MartinLuther eliminated the "doubtful" books from his OldTestament, terming them "Apocrypha". He also argued for the elimiation of certain NewTestament books, notably the Letter of James.
> 
> The CatholicChurch finally settled the question of the Canon in the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The OldTestament books that had been in doubt were termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval.
> 
> With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
------
WikiPediaFaq|980120820
39a40,41
> ----
> '''Q. Is the words/articles/items OpenContent? What is the license agreements on the contents of WikiPedia?'''
------
BibleHistory|980120820
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See TheCanonOfScripture for one discussion of Bible history.
------
BibleHistory|980120843
1c1
< See TheCanonOfScripture for one discussion of Bible history.
---
> See TheCanonofScripture for one discussion of Bible history.
------
PhysicalScience|980121205
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The art of reverse-engineering the universe.
> 
------
PatentNonsense|980121219
1c1
< Patent nonsense, particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:
---
> Patent nonsense (to be carefully distinguished from BrilliantProse), particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:
------
BrilliantProse|980121233
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Somebody thinks the following WikiPedia pages are "brilliant prose" or at least pretty damn good:
> 
> TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- 
> 
> And the following are looking very promising:
> 
> BallroomDance -- ChristianIty -- DirectRealism -- EuroCurrency -- OpenContent -- 
------
WikiPediaProcess|980121396
23a24,25
> ----
> I would guess that the policy is that the contents is licensed by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense. Since I think that this information is important I will boldly add that to the HomePage. --LinusTolke
------
HomePage|980121461
18a19,20
> ----
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
BrilliantProse|980121569
1c1
< Somebody thinks the following WikiPedia pages are "brilliant prose" or at least pretty damn good:
---
> ''Somebody'' thinks the following WikiPedia pages are "brilliant prose" or at least pretty damn good:
3c3
< TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- 
---
> TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- PythagoreanTheorem -- SabBath -- TaoTehChing -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TheRecorder
7c7
< BallroomDance -- ChristianIty -- DirectRealism -- EuroCurrency -- OpenContent -- 
---
> BallroomDance -- ChristianIty -- DirectRealism -- EuroCurrency -- OpenContent -- PrettyGoodPrivacy
------
WikiPedians|980121595
1c1
< The curiously brave people, who, in the face of the dire threat of DisRuption, nonetheless post BrilliantProse (and, sometimes, PatentNonsense).
---
> The curiously brave people, who, in the face of the dire threat of DisRuption, nonetheless post BrilliantProse (and, sometimes, PatentNonsense) on WikiPedia.
3c3
< Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher.
---
> Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher.
------
BrilliantProse|980121663
7c7,9
< BallroomDance -- ChristianIty -- DirectRealism -- EuroCurrency -- OpenContent -- PrettyGoodPrivacy
---
> BallroomDance -- ChristianIty -- DirectRealism -- EuroCurrency -- OpenContent -- PrettyGoodPrivacy
> 
> Well, whatever this is, it sure isn't PatentNonsense!
------
BrilliantProse|980121723
9c9
< Well, whatever this is, it sure isn't PatentNonsense!
---
> Well, whatever these articles are, they sure aren't PatentNonsense!
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|980121774
1c1
< It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything(2) from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.
---
> It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.  We prefer that you write BrilliantProse rather than PatentNonsense.
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|980121821
3c3
< OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
---
> OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright PatentNonsense, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it with BrilliantProse!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
------
WikiPediaProcess|980121985
25a26,27
> ----
> You were very right to do so.  I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaFaq|980122056
41c41,43
< '''Q. Is the words/articles/items OpenContent? What is the license agreements on the contents of WikiPedia?'''
---
> '''Q. Is the words/articles/items OpenContent? What is the license agreements on the contents of WikiPedia?'''
> 
> A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
WikipediaL|980122695
1c1
< Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page address (where you can also find a Wikipedia-L archive):
---
> Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page (where you can also find a Wikipedia-L archive):
5c5
< I have just one request.  If someone asks a question, answers a question, or otherwise says something of lasting interest, will you please put it on the wiki?  Thanks
---
> I have just one request.  If someone asks a question, answers a question, or otherwise says something of lasting interest, will you please put it on the wiki?  TIA.
------
AssistiveTechnology|980128320
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Technology is a promising window of opportunity to people with disabilities and those who learn and assimilate information in a variety of ways. However, all too often, technology is created without regard to these people, and thus it becomes a barrier rather than an opportunity. Acessibility means excellent usability.  For example, a telephone is quite universally accessible. It is inexpensive for a user, so the poor can use it. It is usable. Think of something that is the most usable of all technologies. Think of something that is the most universally accessible. If you can think of what these things are, you know how to make a piece of technology mostly accessible. A telephone is very accessible for a poor person. It is simple and straightforward. Matched with an automated telephone system enough to present selections broken into simple menus and speech feedback, it is very accessible to the blind. However, it is not accessible to the deaf. But combine this with a visual feedback such as a calculator has, a deaf person could use it. Calculators are cheap, and the screens would be sufficient for the feedback of an automated telephone system. But wait, how would a mobility impaired person acccess this little device. A speech recognition piece of software could work for recognizing short commands, especially considering that this is already employed in many telephone systems. People with mental disabilities would appreciate the simpliciy, and so would everyone else for that matter. Therefore the benefites of universally accessible technolgy end up yielding their greatest rewards to the normal user. 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980138270
1c1
< MathematicalGrouP
---
> MathematicalGroup
3,6c3
< The concept of a GrouP is one of the foundations of ModernAlgebra.
< 
< 
< The definition of a GrouP is brief.
---
> The concept of a Group is one of the foundations of ModernAlgebra. Its definition is brief.
9c6
< A GrouP is a non-empty set, say G and a binary operation, say, "*" denoted (G,*) such that:
---
> A Group is a non-empty set, say G and a binary operation, say, "*" denoted (G,*) such that:
15c12
< 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*
---
> 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*(b*c).
18d14
<         (b*c).
22,25c18
< 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an
< 
< 
<         element b in G such that a*b=i.
---
> 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=i.
29,32c22
< A GrouP that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let I be the set of
< 
<  
< integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
---
> A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let I be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
59c49
< denoted by "x" is (I,x) a GrouP?
---
> denoted by "x" is (I,x) a Group?
85c75
< Therefore, (I,x) is '''not''' a GrouP.
---
> Therefore, (I,x) is '''not''' a Group.
91,93c81
< a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, 
< 
< and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
---
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
------
TheCanonofScripture|980144909
19c19
< With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
---
> With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
------
TopOlogy|980147333
1c1,9
< What is topology, and why do people study it?
---
> Topology is a branch of mathematics dealing exclusively with properties of continuity.  Formally, a topology for a space X is defined a set T of subsets of X satisfying:
> 
> 1) T is closed under abitrary unions
> 2) T is closed under finite intersections
> 3) X, {} are in T
> 
> The sets in T are referred to as open sets, and their complements as closed sets.  Roughly speaking open sets are thought of as neighborhoods of points.  This definition of topology is too general to be of much use and so normally additional conditions are imposed.
> 
> 
------
HomePage|980147488
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
20c20
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
ComputinG|980147948
1c1
< * AlgorithmS
---
> * Algorithms
6a7
> * HumanComputerInteraction
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980148080
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Herein will be the Geek Speak Contributions from the Spring 2001 Human Computer Interaction class at Lewis & Clark College
------
ComputinG|980148135
7c7
< * HumanComputerInteraction
---
> * HumanComputerInteraction (Geek Speak)
------
HiStory|980148207
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Should only include histories of eras and countries that are now defunct.
> 
> HistoryOfMesopotamia
> HistoryOfEgypt
> HistoryOfIndia
> HistoryOfChina
> HistoryOfMesoamerica
> HistoryOfAndes
> HistoryOfGreece
> HistoryOfRome
> HistoryOfByzantium
> HistoryOfIslam
> HistoryOfEurope
> 
> 
------
HiStory|980148240
3a4
> 
4a6
> 
5a8
> 
6a10
> 
7a12
> 
8a14
> 
9a16
> 
10a18
> 
12,13d19
< HistoryOfIslam
< HistoryOfEurope
14a21
> HistoryOfIslam
15a23
> HistoryOfEurope
------
MathematicalGrouP|980148529
19a20,21
> The importance of groups lies in the fact that any set of permutations naturally becomes a group when you include all compositions and inverses.  In fact, any group can be represented in this way; this is called CayleysTheorem.
> 
------
EncycloPedia|980148686
0a1,6
> An Encyclopedia is a traditionally a book containing a collection of information on almost all topics ordered by the words describing the items. It describes persons, places, products, companies, peoples, and much more. A traditional Encyclopedia occupies about one meter of shelf space.
> 
> When the computers become more and more common Encyclopedias is by their structure of words and cross references extremely well suited for moving the contents from the book format to the computer format. Firstly because it is a lot easier to carry around and find what you are looking for and secondly because it is possible to include sounds and films as illustrations.
> ----
> These Encyclopedias are available to look at using the Internet:
> 
------
SwedisH|980148697
1a2
> One of the GermanicLanguages.
------
GermanicLanguages|980148931
1c1,24
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the branches of the IndoEuropean language family, spoken by the GermanicPeoples who were settled north and easy along the borders of the RomanEmpire.
> 
> West Germanic languages:
> 
> LowGerman
> HighGerman
> DutchLanguage
> SwissLanguage
> EnglishLanguage
> 
> North Germanic languages:
> 
> DanishLanguage
> SwedishLanguage (see SwedisH)
> NorwegianLanguage
> 
> East Germanic languages:
> 
> GothicLanguage (extinct)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
GermanicLanguages|980148970
3c3
< West Germanic languages:
---
> West Germanic languages: LowGerman -- HighGerman -- DutchLanguage -- SwissLanguage -- EnglishLanguage
5,9c5
< LowGerman
< HighGerman
< DutchLanguage
< SwissLanguage
< EnglishLanguage
---
> North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage/SwedisH -- NorwegianLanguage
11,19c7
< North Germanic languages:
< 
< DanishLanguage
< SwedishLanguage (see SwedisH)
< NorwegianLanguage
< 
< East Germanic languages:
< 
< GothicLanguage (extinct)
---
> East Germanic languages: GothicLanguage (extinct)
------
GermanicLanguages|980148999
5c5
< North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage/SwedisH -- NorwegianLanguage
---
> North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage / SwedisH -- NorwegianLanguage
------
CountrY|980149022
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A country is a geographical area with its own governement, administration, laws, police, tax rules, and people.
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980149181
64a65,66
> ----
> The world is divided into six contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, AustraliA, OceaniA and AmericA.
------
IndoEuropean|980149665
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European.  Discussion about actual Proto-Indo-European civilization has been set back by its association with Hitler's Aryan doctrine, but they probably lived some place about the CaspianSea around 2000 B.C.  Huge dictionaries have been compiled of inferred PIE words.
> 
> The various subgroups of Indo-European had diverged and spread by about 1500 B.C., and include
> 
> CelticLanguages
> 
> GermanicLanguages
> 
> ItalicLanguages
> 
> IllyrianLanguages
> 
> GreekLanguage
> 
> SlavicLanguages
> 
> AnatolianLanguages
> 
> IndoIranianLanguages, e.g. SanskritLanguage
------
HomePage|980149734
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
---
> HumanComputerInteraction! -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
------
IndoEuropean|980149765
9c9
< ItalicLanguages
---
> ItalicLanguages - including LatinLanguage and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980149868
1c1
< Herein will be the Geek Speak Contributions from the Spring 2001 Human Computer Interaction class at Lewis & Clark College
---
> Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>As We May Think /<b> article.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980149883
1c1
< Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>As We May Think /<b> article.
---
> Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>As We May Think </b> article.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980150078
1a2,5
> 
> Your task, <i>(If you choose to accept it)</i> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
> 
> What do you think about putting copies of the Geek Speak presentations here for the world to see (and maybe add to or delete 8^)
------
BronzeAge|980153433
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Around 2000-1600 BC new groups started appearing around the peripheries of civilization.  These are associated with bronze (copper+tin) implements, chariot archers, warrior nobilities, and generally speaking IndoEuropean languages.  They probably fanned out from a homeland around the CaspianSea.  Around the end of the period this process intensified, and most of the older civilizations were overrun.
> 
> In the west, the first Greeks - the Achaeans - entered the country and founded the MycenaeanCivilization.  This was partially derivative from the older MinoanCivilization on Crete, but soon came to dominate it.  Further west, various groups - mostly notably the CelticPeoples - spread over Europe, almost entirely displacing the original cultures.
> 
> In the east, various Iranian groups appeared.  These include the nomadic Scythians, the Kassites who conquered Babylonia, the Mitanni who pushed the Hurrians into northern Mesopotamia, and the IndoAryans who destroyed the civilization of Harappa.  At around the same time the semitic Hyskos overran Egypt, though they were ejected soon after.  In these last few cases the IndoEuropean nobility were minorities ruling over a predominantly foreign people.
> 
> Around this time, too, the first civilization in China - the ShangDynasty - appears.  This probably was influenced by yet another group of IE migrants, the Tocharians, but not enough work has been done to confirm this hypothesis.
> 
> Around 1200 BC most of the bronze age kingdoms collapsed and urban centers all across the eastern meditteranean were sacked by raiders, all within a few decades.  The following few centuries were dark ages for Greece and the Near East.  By the time civilization had recovered, iron tools had become common, and a new era had begun.
------
IndoEuropean|980153581
1c1
< It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European.  Discussion about actual Proto-Indo-European civilization has been set back by its association with Hitler's Aryan doctrine, but they probably lived some place about the CaspianSea around 2000 B.C.  Huge dictionaries have been compiled of inferred PIE words.
---
> It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European.  They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared during the BronzeAge, around 2000-1600 BC.  Huge amounts of information about PIE lexicon and grammar have been inferred.  Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of NaziGermany.
3c3
< The various subgroups of Indo-European had diverged and spread by about 1500 B.C., and include
---
> The various subgroups of Indo-European include:
19c19
< IndoIranianLanguages, e.g. SanskritLanguage
---
> IndoIranianLanguages, e.g. SanskritLanguage
------
HiStory|980153736
2a3,18
> PalaeolithicPeriod
> 
> NeolithicPeriod
> 
> CopperAge
> 
> BronzeAge
> 
> IronAge
> 
> ClassicalAge
> 
> MiddleAges
> 
> ModernPeriod
> 
23c39
< HistoryOfEurope
---
> HistoryOfEurope
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980153885
66c66
< The world is divided into six contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, AustraliA, OceaniA and AmericA.
---
> The world is divided into seven contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, OceaniA, NorthAmericA, SouthAmericA, and AntarcticA (though the last has no countries).
------
BronzeAge|980154140
5c5
< In the east, various Iranian groups appeared.  These include the nomadic Scythians, the Kassites who conquered Babylonia, the Mitanni who pushed the Hurrians into northern Mesopotamia, and the IndoAryans who destroyed the civilization of Harappa.  At around the same time the semitic Hyskos overran Egypt, though they were ejected soon after.  In these last few cases the IndoEuropean nobility were minorities ruling over a predominantly foreign people.
---
> Various Iranian groups appeared across the MiddleEast, including the nomadic Scythians, the Kassites who conquered Babylonia, the Mitanni who pushed the Hurrians into northern Mesopotamia, and the IndoAryans who destroyed the civilization of Harappa.  The HittiteKingdom was established in Anatolia (modern Tukey), and the semitic Hyskos adopted the new technology and overran Egypt, though they were ejected soon after.  
9c9
< Around 1200 BC most of the bronze age kingdoms collapsed and urban centers all across the eastern meditteranean were sacked by raiders, all within a few decades.  The following few centuries were dark ages for Greece and the Near East.  By the time civilization had recovered, iron tools had become common, and a new era had begun.
---
> Around 1200 BC most of the bronze age kingdoms collapsed and urban centers all across the eastern meditteranean were sacked by raiders, all within a few decades.  The following few centuries were dark ages for Greece and the Near East.  By the time civilization had recovered, iron tools had become common, and a new era had begun.
------
IndoEuropean|980154295
9c9
< ItalicLanguages - including LatinLanguage and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages
---
> ItalicLanguages, including Latin and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages
11c11
< IllyrianLanguages
---
> IllyrianLanguages (now restricted to AlbanianLanguage)
17c17
< AnatolianLanguages
---
> AnatolianLanguages (extinct)
------
KingdomOfDenmark|980168814
1c1
< Country in NothernEurope, bordering the BalticSea and the NorthSea, on a peninsula north of Germany. Constitutional monarchy.  Capital Copenhagen (Danish: København).
---
> Country in NothernEurope, bordering the BalticSea and the NorthSea, on a peninsula and a number of islands north of Germany. Constitutional monarchy.  Capital Copenhagen (Danish: København).
------
AfghanistanGovernement|980168945
67c67
< note: the Taliban uses a plain white flag 
---
> note: the Taliban uses a plain white flag or a white flag with the shahada, see http://fotw.digibel.be/flags/af.html
------
EuropE|980169041
1c1
< Contintent stretching from the NorthSea and the AtlanticOcean in the west to the UralMountains in the east. From the MediteraineanOcean in the south to the north pole.
---
> Contintent stretching from the NorthSea and the AtlanticOcean in the west to the UralMountains in the east. From the MediterraneanSea in the south to the north pole.
8c8
< some more
---
> some more
------
WhatIsaWiki|980179432
20c20,21
< 
---
> ----
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
------
WhatIsaWiki|980179449
21c21,23
< Wow, This is kinda wierd
---
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
> 
>     ---- Drachs
------
SabBath|980180628
3c3
< Early Christians honored the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day, and met again on Sunday (the "eight" day, see Acts <chapter, verse?>), to partake of the sacrament and celebrate Christ's resurrection.  Later Paul de-emphasized the need to follow many Jewish laws/traditions.  Eventually, Sunday became the Christian Sabbath.
---
> Early Christians honored the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day, and met again on Sunday (the "eighth" day, see Acts 20:7), to partake of the sacrament and celebrate Christ's resurrection.  Later Paul de-emphasized the need to follow many Jewish laws/traditions.  Eventually, Sunday became the Christian Sabbath.
5c5
< A few Christian sects currently honor the Sabbath on Saturday, but most use Sunday.
---
> A few Christian sects, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, currently honor the Sabbath on Saturday, but most use Sunday.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|980184817
38c38
< Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequnce of the formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
---
> Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequence of the formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
------
IndoEuropean|980191138
1c1
< It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European.  They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared during the BronzeAge, around 2000-1600 BC.  Huge amounts of information about PIE lexicon and grammar have been inferred.  Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of NaziGermany.
---
> It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared during the BronzeAge, around 2000-1600 BC.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of NaziGermany.
------
GerMany|980191433
3c3
< Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1936-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka East Germany). West Germany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, England, and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. East Germany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. It was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
---
> Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1936-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, England, and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
5c5
< In 1989 East Germany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that East Germany was annexed by West Germany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Later it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by Helmut Kohl, then the prime minister of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in East Germany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = Don't let yourselves be West Germanized. But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
---
> In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the prime minister of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
7c7
< Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
---
> Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
------
ItalY|980196564
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Italia (Italy) is a country in the 
> south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
> MediterraneanSea.
> 
> It takes part in the EuroCurrency.
> 
> The capital is Roma (Rome); the real capital is Milano (Milan).
> 
------
GiovanniPensa|980196637
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Lives is ItalY. 
------
GiovanniPensa|980196732
1c1
< Lives is ItalY. 
---
> Lives is Italy.
------
ItalY|980196836
1c1
< Italia (Italy) is a country in the 
---
> Italia (Italy) is a repubblic in the 
7c7
< The capital is Roma (Rome); the real capital is Milano (Milan).
---
> The capital is Roma (Rome); the economic capital is Milano (Milan) in the north.
------
ItalY|980197044
1c1
< Italia (Italy) is a repubblic in the 
---
> Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
------
AssistiveTechnology|980197937
1c1,3
< Technology is a promising window of opportunity to people with disabilities and those who learn and assimilate information in a variety of ways. However, all too often, technology is created without regard to these people, and thus it becomes a barrier rather than an opportunity. Acessibility means excellent usability.  For example, a telephone is quite universally accessible. It is inexpensive for a user, so the poor can use it. It is usable. Think of something that is the most usable of all technologies. Think of something that is the most universally accessible. If you can think of what these things are, you know how to make a piece of technology mostly accessible. A telephone is very accessible for a poor person. It is simple and straightforward. Matched with an automated telephone system enough to present selections broken into simple menus and speech feedback, it is very accessible to the blind. However, it is not accessible to the deaf. But combine this with a visual feedback such as a calculator has, a deaf person could use it. Calculators are cheap, and the screens would be sufficient for the feedback of an automated telephone system. But wait, how would a mobility impaired person acccess this little device. A speech recognition piece of software could work for recognizing short commands, especially considering that this is already employed in many telephone systems. People with mental disabilities would appreciate the simpliciy, and so would everyone else for that matter. Therefore the benefites of universally accessible technolgy end up yielding their greatest rewards to the normal user. 
---
> Technology is a promising window of opportunity to people with disabilities and those who learn and assimilate information in a variety of ways. However, all too often, technology is created without regard to these people, and thus it becomes a barrier rather than an opportunity. Acessibility means excellent usability.  For example, a telephone is quite universally accessible. It is inexpensive for a user, so the poor can use it. It is usable. Think of something that is the most usable of all technologies. Think of something that is the most universally accessible. If you can think of what these things are, you know how to make a piece of technology mostly accessible. A telephone is very accessible for a poor person. It is simple and straightforward. Matched with an automated telephone system enough to present selections broken into simple menus and speech feedback, it is very accessible to the blind. However, it is not accessible to the deaf. But combine this with a visual feedback such as a calculator has, a deaf person could use it. Calculators are cheap, and the screens would be sufficient for the feedback of an automated telephone system. But wait, how would a mobility impaired person acccess this little device. A speech recognition piece of software could work for recognizing short commands, especially considering that this is already employed in many telephone systems. People with mental disabilities would appreciate the simpliciy, and so would everyone else for that matter. Therefore the benefites of universally accessible technolgy end up yielding their greatest rewards to the normal user.---- 
> 
> The classic example of an AssistiveTechnology that has improved everyone's life is the "curb cuts" in the sidewalk at crossings. While these curb cuts surely enable mobility impaired pedestrians to cross the street, they have also aided parents with carriages and strollers, shoppers with carts, travellers and workers with pull-type bags in doing the same activity. Good accessible design '''is''' universal design. 
------
TopOlogy|980198273
3a4,5
> 
> 
4a7,8
> 
> 
5a10,11
> 
> 
------
MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale|980198751
9c9,136
< modern scale.  Pending their permission, I'll post the entire article text here.
---
> modern scale.  With ajax's permission, 
> I've posted the text of the entire article here.
> 
> Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Just Intonation
>                          or
>            Western Scales Ate My Brain
> 
> First, some introduction: according to napalm.firest0rm.org:80, "Napalm
> is an e-zine devoted to computer security, with a healthy dose of music,
> news, and ethics." Well, maybe we oughtta live up to that, so here's some
> music theory in your ear. (Or your eye, unless you're text-to-speeching
> this.)
> 
> Generally speaking, a scale is a progression of notes that takes you from
> one octave to the next.  (Although it can actually be much larger than
> just one octave, generally we don't do that.)  Notes have pitches, which
> can be measured in oscillations per second, or hertz.  The human ear can
> perceive from about 20Hz at the low end to around 20,000Hz at the high
> end.  Now, it turns out that the human ear differentiates pitch
> logarithmically, and that doubling any given pitch raises it an
> octave.  Thus the human ear has a range of a little under ten octaves.
> 
> Now it also turns out that when the ear hears any two notes in
> combination, the interval, whether major or minor, is perceived to be in
> tune when the ratio between the two notes approaches a ratio of two low
> integers.  The degenerate case would be a 1:1 ratio, which would be two
> notes in unison; a 2:1 ratio, as above, is an octave.  Roughly, the
> intervals for the twelve-tone scale used in western music are:
> 
>  1:1	unison 
>  21:20	half step / minor second
>  9:8	whole step / major second
>  6:5	minor third
>  5:4	major third
>  4:3	perfect fourth
>  7:5	tritone / augmented fourth / diminished fifth
>  3:2	perfect fifth
>  8:5	minor sixth
>  5:3	major sixth
>  9:5	dominant seventh / flat seventh
>  17:9	major seventh / natural seventh
>  2:1	octave
> 
> The note that a scale centers around is called the tonic.  A scale in
> which the ratio of any note to the tonic is an integer ratio is called a
> scale of just intonation.  These scales have a very natural-sounding
> quality to them.
> 
> The problem is, they're murder to implement in any stopped or fretted
> instrument.  The difficulty is subtle, but it means big headaches.  It's
> hard to explain, though, so I'll give an example.
> 
> For purposes of tuning we need a reference pitch, something all the
> instruments can agree on.  Usually a 440hz sine wave is used as the
> reference pitch, as an A natural.  Now, according to our table above, we
> can calculate the pitch of any other note by setting up a simple ratio
> relationship.  For example, if I wanted to calculate the pitch of a
> perfect fifth from an A440, I would write:
> 
>     (X / 440) = (3 / 2)
> 
> and solve for X.  Simple algebra, right?  In the above, X comes to 660.
> Let's calculate two more:
> 
>     (X / 440) = (9 / 8); major second = 495
>     (X / 440) = (5 / 4); major third = 550
> 
> Now, assume that what you know about scale theory is right and that the
> second of a second (of a tonic) is the same note (and pitch) as the major
> third of the tonic.  If that were true, then in:
> 
>     (X / 495) = (9 / 8)
> 
> X should equal 550.  This is the subtle bit, so make sure you understand
> it.  The above equation takes the second of 440 (495) and finds the note a
> second up from it (9 / 8).  I'll let you all punch that into xcalc and see
> what happens.
> 
> Didn't work, did it?  You got 556.875, right?
> This is the problem.  Any given scale of just intonation must be tuned to
> a tonic, which is fine if you only want to play in one key.  However, you
> have to retune the instrument every time you modulate keys.  As many
> classical composers (and pop ballad writers) will tell you, this has a way
> of limiting your expressive power.
> 
> So what's a keyboard manufacturer to do?  Tha answer is simple: make one
> note in tune, and space all the other notes equally (logarithmically
> equally, anyway).  This is what happens on most fretted instruments and
> keyboard instruments.  Now, instead of calculating pitch with integer
> ratios, we just plug an interval into the following equation:
> 
>     P = 440 * 2 ^ (n / 12)
> 
> where n is the number of half steps sharp you want to go (and hey, guess
> what, negative numbers work as expected; (n == -3) finds the pitch of the
> major sixth below A440).  This is called a scale of even (or equal)
> temperament, since the distance to any other note is independent of (and
> consistent across) key centers.
> 
> Now, waitasec, doesn't this put everything out of tune?  Well, yes it
> does, but not by very much.  Observe:
> 
>  Note    Just Pitch      E.T. Pitch (approx.)    Error (%) 
>  A       440             440                     0.0
>  Bb      462             466.16                  +0.9
>  B       495             493.88                  -0.2
>  C       528             523.25                  -0.8
>  C#      550             554.37                  +0.7
>  D       586.6-          587.33                  +0.1
>  D#      616             622.25                  +1.0
>  E       660             659.26                  -0.1
>  F       704             698.46                  -0.7
>  F#      733.3-          739.99                  +0.9
>  G       792             783.99                  -1.0
>  Ab      831.1-          830.61                  -0.1
> 
> As you can see, we're never more than 1% out of pitch, which most people
> can't hear.  However, you *are* out of tune inherently, so when your
> instrument then goes further out of tune you sound *really* bad.  The
> advantage, though, is that you get stopped instruments, which makes
> composition and playing much easier.
> 
> (Of course, you'll notice I cheated, and listed a just intonation scale
> that happens to be close to the 12-step equal temperament scale.  Sue
> me.  There are also Indian raga scales and other non-standard scales that
> are "just intonation" scales, but I wanted to present something
> understandable.)
> 
------
TopOlogy|980200013
13c13,14
< The sets in T are referred to as open sets, and their complements as closed sets.  Roughly speaking open sets are thought of as neighborhoods of points.  This definition of topology is too general to be of much use and so normally additional conditions are imposed.
---
> The sets in T are referred to as open sets, and their complements as closed sets.  Roughly speaking open sets are thought of as neighborhoods of points.  This definition of topology is too general to be of much use and so normally additional conditions are imposed.----
> The importance of TopOlogy is, in part, that one can define different topological spaces with elements from AnalySis, AlgeBra, or GeoMetry and then one can determine the properties of such spaces and prove theorems about them. Of equal importance, one can prove what is '''not''' true about such spaces. Thus, through TopOlogy one can obtain results in AnalySis, AlgeBra and GeoMetry. This makes TopOlogy very powerful. 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980200588
83c83,85
< a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?
---
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?----
> 
> Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdealS and FieldS.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980200944
1c1
< MathematicalGroup
---
> MathematicalGrouP
------
MathematicalGrouP|980203840
4d3
< 
6c5
< A Group is a non-empty set, say G and a binary operation, say, "*" denoted (G,*) such that:
---
> A Group is a NonEmpty SeT, say G and a BinaryOperation, say, "*" denoted (G,*) such that:
9c8
< 1)	G has closure, that is, if a and b belong to G, then a*b belongs to G.
---
> 1)	G has CloSure, that is, if a and b belong to G, then a*b belongs to G.
------
HomePage|980206509
3c3,5
< HumanComputerInteraction! -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
---
> Encyclopedia Topics:  HumanComputerInteraction! -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
> 
> Techie Topics:  ProposedModerationSystem
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|980206598
2c2
< :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TopOlogy
---
> :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TopOlogy -- AlgeBra -- AnalySis -- GeoMetry
------
ProposedModerationSystem|980206762
1c1,74
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.<br><br>
> 
> http://redrival.com/btifaq/design.gif
> 
> _Primary review body_
> 
> The Primary review body has two purposes,
> 
> The first is to reject articles. It will be allowed to reject an article if the article,
> 
> * Contains Illegal content 
> * Is clearly commercial (i.e Spam)
> * Is technically invalid (i.e broken digital signature)
> * Is unreadable/nonesensical
> * Clearly an attempt to abuse the system (e.g binary bomb or the like)
> 
> The Primary review body's secondary task is to clasify an articles content, examples of possible classification include,
> 
> * Article contains a main-stream view.
> * Article contains areas which are factually debated.
> * Article may be factually biased.
> * Article contains a non-mainstream view
> 
> The classification will be stored with the article.
> 
> In the long term the Primary review body may need to be split into two part, one dealing with rejection and the other with classification.
> 
> The review body will work democratically, each article will be presented to the body and they will vote on it. The review body should be able to grow in size, to permit this new members should be allowed to join the body by a majority vote of the body. It should also be permittable to dismiss members of the body by a vote. 
> 
> In a vote to dismiss a member, only those who were members prior to that members entry should be allowed to vote, this will prevent possible abuse of the system if a subversive group tried to gain a majority in the review body.
> 
> 
> _Proxy group_
> A proxy group could reject/accept articles on whatever criteria they wished, any activities that happen between the author and the proxy group are out of the scope of this document.
> 
> -------
> 
> _Search Engines_
> 
> These would allow searching of the article database. A possible search engine could allow users to vote if the users thought the article factually incorrect, this data could be stored and a tally of such votes against an article displayed along side the article.
> 
> -------
> 
> _Indexes_
> 
> This would be the main way for normal users to access the articles. Anyone should be allowed to create an Index. An Index would basically be a collection of article-IDs pre-selected by the people running that Index. This would allow a form a moderation without causing censorship.
> 
> A possible style of indexing could be in dmoz style where the Index is controlled by one person (the "primary controller"). This person would from a top-directory level create subsections. The primary controller could either manage these subsections themselves, or appoint controllers for these specific subsections. The controllers of these subsections will have all the ability of the primary controller except that their powers will only apply to their subsection.
> 
> The controllers would be responsible for adding links to articles to their 
> section of the index and also for creating subsections and appointing subsection controllers.
> 
> A controller would have the ability to alter everything in their section of the index, including anything in subsections of their section.
> 
> This will allow a tree like structure of trust with the ultimate 
> authority with the person who started the index.
> 
> There could exist many of these indexes each favouring different 
> types of articles and different styles of viewpoint. For instance an 
> index could be setup which only dealt with non-controversial areas.
> 
> ------
> 
> _Nupedia integration_
> 
> If Nupedia wished to integrate with this system it would be relatively easy. Nupedia could become a "proxy group" with Nupedia accepting articles as they currently do and then passing them into the system. Nupedia would also run their own index which would be primarily based on articles signed(as proxy) by Nupedia.
> 
> Nupedia in this way could become a factually reliable front for the encyclopedia which provides a strong moderation style. Nupedia could also have people searching through the articles to find articles which would pass Nupedia's style of filtering, Nupedia could contact the authors of these articles and request the author resubmit the article via the Nupedia proxy group. Most authors would be likely to accept such an offer as Nupedia reputation as a reliable factual source would make it more likely that the article will be accepted by other indexes.
> 
> I think this would provide the best combination of the GNU Encyclopedia/Nupedia as it would emphasis the strengths of both without comprimising either.
> 
> ------
> 
> Comments appreciated, preferably via the bug-gnupedia mailing list, but I can also be contacted directly at ImranG@btinternet.com.
------
ProposedModerationSystem|980206804
1c1
< Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.<br><br>
---
> Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.
33a34
> 
------
ProposedModerationSystem|980207538
1c1
< Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.
---
> Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.<br><br>
75c75,88
< Comments appreciated, preferably via the bug-gnupedia mailing list, but I can also be contacted directly at ImranG@btinternet.com.
---
> Comments appreciated, preferably via the bug-gnupedia mailing list, but I can also be contacted directly at ImranG@btinternet.com.  Or list below:
> 
> ------
> 
> I added Imran's article above.  I'm uncertain about the classification approach ("mainstream" seems hard to define, to me).  I would advocate simply advertising a list of preferred classification tags, and let the author decide for herself where they'd like to be classified (if at all).  Look at www.indymedia.org for an example of a system where they must balance the need to be open to all, yet filter out blather.  Their approach is, rather than vote on each item, to use a traditional editor, but keep the process open (anyone can look behind the scenes to see what was not accepted.)
> 
> Also, as a *great* example of how indexes can be constructed dynamically and collaboratively, look at the front page
> of THIS site.  :-)  The Nupedia folks laid out their idea of how to hierarchically index the material here, but anyone
> coming to this page can generate their own unique index.  E.g., I could say I want my encyclopedia to have this set
> of topics be my index:
> 
> AlaskA -- AlTruism -- PhysicalScience -- TransporT
> 
> --Bryce
------
TechnologY|980207890
4a5
> * SpacecraftPropulsion
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980208165
1c1,132
< Describe the new page here.
---
> SPACECRAFT PROPULSION
> 
> There are many different types of ways to accelerate craft in space.
> Below is a summary of some of the more popular, proven technologies.
> 
> ''' Solid '''
> 
> The first rockets made by the Chinese used gunpowder, and
> until this century all rockets used some form of solid or
> powdered propellant. Solid rockets are considered to be safe and
> reliable; these kinds of rockets have been used for so long that
> engineers have a very good understanding of them.
> 
> One of the many drawbacks to solid rocket systems is that once
> they've been ignited, they can't be turned off. That is why they
> aren't commonly used in satellites; satellites need rockets that
> can be fired multiple times (or <em>pulsed</em>.)
> 
> ''' Hybrid '''
> 
> A hybrid propulsion system is composed of solid fuel and liquid or gas
> oxidizer, typically.  These systems are superior to solid propulsion
> systems because of safety, throttling, restartability, stability,
> and environmental cleanliness.  Hybrid systems are more complex than
> solids, though, and more expensive.  
> 
> ''' Monoprop '''
> 
> Most combustable chemicals you are familiar with (gasoline,
> alcohol, wood, natural gas) requires oxygen to ignite and burn,
> but there are some unique chemicals that burn by themselves - no
> oxygen required! The most commonly used monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em>.
> 
> Rocket scientists long ago realized the usefulness of these
> chemicals for satellite propulsion. Because only one chemical is
> used, the system is very simple, and thus very cheap.
> Unfortunately, monopropellants are not nearly as efficient as the
> other propulsion technologies. Engineers choose monopropellant
> systems when the satellite's propulsion needs are not very great.
> If the propulsion system is going to be heavily used, such as on
> a geosynchronous satellite or an interplanetary spacecraft, other
> technologies are used.
> 
> 
> ''' Biprop '''
> 
> Systems that use both a propellant and an oxidizer are called
> bipropellant systems. Bipropellant systems are more efficient
> than monopropellant systems, but they tend to be more complicated
> because of the extra hardware components needed to make sure the
> right amount of propellant gets mixed with the right amount of
> oxidizer (this is known as the <em>mixture ratio</em>.) 
> 
> ''' Dual mode propulsion '''
> 
> Dual mode propulsion systems combine the high efficiency of biprop with
> the reliability and simplicity of monoprop systems.  Dual mode systems
> are either hydrazine/N2O4, or MMH/peroxide (the former is much more
> common).  Typically, this system works as follows:  During the initial
> high-impulse orbit-raising manuevers, the system operates in a
> bipropellant fashion, providing high thrust at high efficiency; when it
> arrives on orbit, it closes off either the fuel or oxidier, and conducts
> the remainder of its mission in a simple, predictable monopropellant
> fashion.  
> 
> ''' Resistojet '''
> 
> A resistojet can be thought of as a "space heater attached to a water
> hose".  Of course, it's much more sophisticated than that!  But it is a
> good analogy, because it emphasizes the two characteristic parts of the
> system:  A source of heat produced by electricity through some sort of a
> resistor, and a source of (typically non-reactive) fluid.
> 
> Resistojets have been flown in space, and do well in situations where
> energy is much more plentiful than mass, and where propulsion efficiency
> needs to be reasonably high but low-thrust is acceptable.
> 
> ''' Arcjet '''
> 
> Arcjets are a form of electric propulsion, whereby an electrical
> discharge (arc) is created in a flow of propellant (typically hydrazine
> or ammonia).  This imparts additional energy to the propellant, so that
> one can extract more work out of each kilogram of propellant, at the
> expense of increased power consumption and (usually) higher cost.  Also,
> the thrust levels available from typically used arcjet engines are very
> low compared with chemical engines.
> 
> ''' Hall Effect Thrusters (HETs) '''
> 
> Also known simply as <em>plasma thrusters</em>, HETs use the
> Hall Effect to accelerate ions to produce thrust. A varient
> called stationary plasma thruster (SPT) has been used by the
> Russians for stationkeeping for many years and will be used on
> Western satellites soon. 
> 
> One problem with HETs is that their plume diverges quickly and
> thus can impinge on other spacecraft parts leading to thermal and
> contamination problems.
> 
> ''' Ion Thruster '''
> 
> Of all the electric thrusters, ion engines have been the most
> seriously considered commercially and academically. Ion engines
> use accelerated beams of ions for propulsion. 
> 
> Ion engines are best used for missions requiring very high
> delta-V's, interplanetary missions, for example. This is because
> the more performance required of the propulsion system, the
> faster a high efficiency system like ion engines will pay off.
> 
> NASA has developed an ion engine called NSTAR for use in their
> interplanetary missions. Hughes has developed the XIPS Xenon Ion
> Propulsion System for performing stationkeeping on geosynchronous
> satellites.
> 
> ''' Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) Thrusters '''
> 
> Thrusters that use the Lorentz force are called
> magnetoplasmadynamic (or MPD) thrusters. MPD thruster technology
> has been explored academically, but commercial interest has been
> low.
> 
> MPD thrusters can be run in a steady state fashion or in a
> pulsed mode.
> 
> ''' Pulsed plasma thruster (PPT) '''
> 
> Pulsed plasma thrusters use an arc of electric current through a
> solid propellant (almost always teflon), to produce a quick and highly
> efficient and dependable burst of impulse.  PPT's are great for attitude
> control, and for main propulsion on particularly small spacecraft (those
> in the hundred-kilogram or less category).  
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980208240
132c132,135
< in the hundred-kilogram or less category).  
---
> in the hundred-kilogram or less category).  
> 
> ------
> -- Added above article.  Bryce Harrington
------
HomePage|980208984
5c5
< Techie Topics:  ProposedModerationSystem
---
> Techie Topics:  ProposedModerationSystem -- TechFaq 
------
TechFaq|980209221
1c1,59
< Describe the new page here.
---
> By Dan Geiser <dgeiser13@hotmail.com>
> 
> One thing that I've always find helpful when becoming involved with any 
> project or subject are guidelines that new participants can use to get up 
> and running without causing too much of a stink.  Has anyone even broached 
> the idea of starting a FAQ in which to record information about the general 
> consensus of project participants?
> 
> Relating back to my previous posting about deciding what, exactly, one wants 
> to create before naming it...it seems to me that up until now some of these 
> things can be defined.  For bookeeping purposes I can call the unnamed 
> project GNE as in GNE's Not an Encyclopedia.  This does not have to be the 
> name of the project!
> 
> What is GNE?
> 
> 1. Potential Attributes of GNE:
> 
> Only one I can think of...free information.  To me that's the biggest one.  
> There are probably (definitely) others but everything can start at this 
> point.
> 
> Now one could say, "Well, what is the scope of this information?"  Is this 
> general information, specific information or a combination of the two?  It 
> can be whatever we make it.  If one stands behind the concept that almost 
> any word or phrase which has meaning could be in GNE then within the context 
> of a specific word or phrase one could have different levels of detail and 
> abstraction.
> 
> For example, at abstraction level 1 (the most abstract) an entry for "Dog" 
> might be quite simple, perhaps a few sentences or a paragraph.  Some other 
> terms in GNE like "animal" might relate to dog at abstraction level 1 but 
> other terms like "mammal" might require an additional level of detail.  One 
> could have as many level of details as deemed necessary by the article 
> writers within that topic.
> 
> 
> Another thing which needs to come in play as some sort of moderation system. 
>   I don't know if this should be a pure voting system, some sort of karma 
> system (like Slashdot), peer review, an apprentice system (like Advagato), 
> etc.  I DO NOT know what the right solution is.
> 
> But, ultimately I picture a framework where anybody (and I do mean anybody!) 
> can submit an article on any topic.  With their article they can submit a 
> list of one or more keywords which apply to this article.
> 
> The new article is entered into the database as is.  Not a single person has 
> to look at it.  From there the moderation/review process either agrees with 
> the topic as presented and confirm it's validity by voting/confirming it.  
> They can also suggest or keywords to be added or remove and can also comment 
> upon the abstration level of the article.
> 
> It really doesn't get much simpler than that. :-)
> 
> -------
> -- Added Dan Geiser's proposal for a FAQ.  I agree with what Dan says.
> Maybe we could use THIS page, or another like it, for listing consensus
> on various topics?  
> 
------
ItalY|980210218
1,8c1,8
< Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
< south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
< MediterraneanSea.
< 
< It takes part in the EuroCurrency.
< 
< The capital is Roma (Rome); the economic capital is Milano (Milan) in the north.
< 
---
> Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
> south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
> MediterraneanSea.
> 
> It is one of the countries that uses the EuroCurrencyUnit.
> 
> The capital is Roma (Rome); the economic capital is Milano (Milan) in the north.
> 
------
HomePage|980210671
3c3
< Encyclopedia Topics:  HumanComputerInteraction! -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction
5c5
< Techie Topics:  ProposedModerationSystem -- TechFaq 
---
> ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- TechFaq 
------
ProposedGNUModerationSystem|980210717
1c1,88
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here's a proposed moderation design for the GNU Encyclopedia, by Imran Ghory.<br><br>
> 
> http://redrival.com/btifaq/design.gif
> 
> _Primary review body_
> 
> The Primary review body has two purposes,
> 
> The first is to reject articles. It will be allowed to reject an article if the article,
> 
> * Contains Illegal content 
> * Is clearly commercial (i.e Spam)
> * Is technically invalid (i.e broken digital signature)
> * Is unreadable/nonesensical
> * Clearly an attempt to abuse the system (e.g binary bomb or the like)
> 
> The Primary review body's secondary task is to clasify an articles content, examples of possible classification include,
> 
> * Article contains a main-stream view.
> * Article contains areas which are factually debated.
> * Article may be factually biased.
> * Article contains a non-mainstream view
> 
> The classification will be stored with the article.
> 
> In the long term the Primary review body may need to be split into two part, one dealing with rejection and the other with classification.
> 
> The review body will work democratically, each article will be presented to the body and they will vote on it. The review body should be able to grow in size, to permit this new members should be allowed to join the body by a majority vote of the body. It should also be permittable to dismiss members of the body by a vote. 
> 
> In a vote to dismiss a member, only those who were members prior to that members entry should be allowed to vote, this will prevent possible abuse of the system if a subversive group tried to gain a majority in the review body.
> 
> 
> _Proxy group_
> 
> A proxy group could reject/accept articles on whatever criteria they wished, any activities that happen between the author and the proxy group are out of the scope of this document.
> 
> -------
> 
> _Search Engines_
> 
> These would allow searching of the article database. A possible search engine could allow users to vote if the users thought the article factually incorrect, this data could be stored and a tally of such votes against an article displayed along side the article.
> 
> -------
> 
> _Indexes_
> 
> This would be the main way for normal users to access the articles. Anyone should be allowed to create an Index. An Index would basically be a collection of article-IDs pre-selected by the people running that Index. This would allow a form a moderation without causing censorship.
> 
> A possible style of indexing could be in dmoz style where the Index is controlled by one person (the "primary controller"). This person would from a top-directory level create subsections. The primary controller could either manage these subsections themselves, or appoint controllers for these specific subsections. The controllers of these subsections will have all the ability of the primary controller except that their powers will only apply to their subsection.
> 
> The controllers would be responsible for adding links to articles to their 
> section of the index and also for creating subsections and appointing subsection controllers.
> 
> A controller would have the ability to alter everything in their section of the index, including anything in subsections of their section.
> 
> This will allow a tree like structure of trust with the ultimate 
> authority with the person who started the index.
> 
> There could exist many of these indexes each favouring different 
> types of articles and different styles of viewpoint. For instance an 
> index could be setup which only dealt with non-controversial areas.
> 
> ------
> 
> _Nupedia integration_
> 
> If Nupedia wished to integrate with this system it would be relatively easy. Nupedia could become a "proxy group" with Nupedia accepting articles as they currently do and then passing them into the system. Nupedia would also run their own index which would be primarily based on articles signed(as proxy) by Nupedia.
> 
> Nupedia in this way could become a factually reliable front for the encyclopedia which provides a strong moderation style. Nupedia could also have people searching through the articles to find articles which would pass Nupedia's style of filtering, Nupedia could contact the authors of these articles and request the author resubmit the article via the Nupedia proxy group. Most authors would be likely to accept such an offer as Nupedia reputation as a reliable factual source would make it more likely that the article will be accepted by other indexes.
> 
> I think this would provide the best combination of the GNU Encyclopedia/Nupedia as it would emphasis the strengths of both without comprimising either.
> 
> ------
> 
> Comments appreciated, preferably via the bug-gnupedia mailing list, but I can also be contacted directly at ImranG@btinternet.com.  Or list below:
> 
> ------
> 
> I added Imran's article above.  I'm uncertain about the classification approach ("mainstream" seems hard to define, to me).  I would advocate simply advertising a list of preferred classification tags, and let the author decide for herself where they'd like to be classified (if at all).  Look at www.indymedia.org for an example of a system where they must balance the need to be open to all, yet filter out blather.  Their approach is, rather than vote on each item, to use a traditional editor, but keep the process open (anyone can look behind the scenes to see what was not accepted.)
> 
> Also, as a *great* example of how indexes can be constructed dynamically and collaboratively, look at the front page
> of THIS site.  :-)  The Nupedia folks laid out their idea of how to hierarchically index the material here, but anyone
> coming to this page can generate their own unique index.  E.g., I could say I want my encyclopedia to have this set
> of topics be my index:
> 
> AlaskA -- AlTruism -- PhysicalScience -- TransporT
> 
> --Bryce
------
TechFaq|980210811
1,59c1
< By Dan Geiser <dgeiser13@hotmail.com>
< 
< One thing that I've always find helpful when becoming involved with any 
< project or subject are guidelines that new participants can use to get up 
< and running without causing too much of a stink.  Has anyone even broached 
< the idea of starting a FAQ in which to record information about the general 
< consensus of project participants?
< 
< Relating back to my previous posting about deciding what, exactly, one wants 
< to create before naming it...it seems to me that up until now some of these 
< things can be defined.  For bookeeping purposes I can call the unnamed 
< project GNE as in GNE's Not an Encyclopedia.  This does not have to be the 
< name of the project!
< 
< What is GNE?
< 
< 1. Potential Attributes of GNE:
< 
< Only one I can think of...free information.  To me that's the biggest one.  
< There are probably (definitely) others but everything can start at this 
< point.
< 
< Now one could say, "Well, what is the scope of this information?"  Is this 
< general information, specific information or a combination of the two?  It 
< can be whatever we make it.  If one stands behind the concept that almost 
< any word or phrase which has meaning could be in GNE then within the context 
< of a specific word or phrase one could have different levels of detail and 
< abstraction.
< 
< For example, at abstraction level 1 (the most abstract) an entry for "Dog" 
< might be quite simple, perhaps a few sentences or a paragraph.  Some other 
< terms in GNE like "animal" might relate to dog at abstraction level 1 but 
< other terms like "mammal" might require an additional level of detail.  One 
< could have as many level of details as deemed necessary by the article 
< writers within that topic.
< 
< 
< Another thing which needs to come in play as some sort of moderation system. 
<   I don't know if this should be a pure voting system, some sort of karma 
< system (like Slashdot), peer review, an apprentice system (like Advagato), 
< etc.  I DO NOT know what the right solution is.
< 
< But, ultimately I picture a framework where anybody (and I do mean anybody!) 
< can submit an article on any topic.  With their article they can submit a 
< list of one or more keywords which apply to this article.
< 
< The new article is entered into the database as is.  Not a single person has 
< to look at it.  From there the moderation/review process either agrees with 
< the topic as presented and confirm it's validity by voting/confirming it.  
< They can also suggest or keywords to be added or remove and can also comment 
< upon the abstration level of the article.
< 
< It really doesn't get much simpler than that. :-)
< 
< -------
< -- Added Dan Geiser's proposal for a FAQ.  I agree with what Dan says.
< Maybe we could use THIS page, or another like it, for listing consensus
< on various topics?  
< 
---
> See GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq.
------
GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq|980210874
1c1,60
< Describe the new page here.
---
> By Dan Geiser <dgeiser13@hotmail.com>
> 
> One thing that I've always find helpful when becoming involved with any 
> project or subject are guidelines that new participants can use to get up 
> and running without causing too much of a stink.  Has anyone even broached 
> the idea of starting a FAQ in which to record information about the general 
> consensus of project participants?
> 
> Relating back to my previous posting about deciding what, exactly, one wants 
> to create before naming it...it seems to me that up until now some of these 
> things can be defined.  For bookeeping purposes I can call the unnamed 
> project GNE as in GNE's Not an Encyclopedia.  This does not have to be the 
> name of the project!
> 
> What is GNE?
> 
> 1. Potential Attributes of GNE:
> 
> Only one I can think of...free information.  To me that's the biggest one.  
> There are probably (definitely) others but everything can start at this 
> point.
> 
> Now one could say, "Well, what is the scope of this information?"  Is this 
> general information, specific information or a combination of the two?  It 
> can be whatever we make it.  If one stands behind the concept that almost 
> any word or phrase which has meaning could be in GNE then within the context 
> of a specific word or phrase one could have different levels of detail and 
> abstraction.
> 
> For example, at abstraction level 1 (the most abstract) an entry for "Dog" 
> might be quite simple, perhaps a few sentences or a paragraph.  Some other 
> terms in GNE like "animal" might relate to dog at abstraction level 1 but 
> other terms like "mammal" might require an additional level of detail.  One 
> could have as many level of details as deemed necessary by the article 
> writers within that topic.
> 
> 
> Another thing which needs to come in play as some sort of moderation system. 
>   I don't know if this should be a pure voting system, some sort of karma 
> system (like Slashdot), peer review, an apprentice system (like Advagato), 
> etc.  I DO NOT know what the right solution is.
> 
> But, ultimately I picture a framework where anybody (and I do mean anybody!) 
> can submit an article on any topic.  With their article they can submit a 
> list of one or more keywords which apply to this article.
> 
> The new article is entered into the database as is.  Not a single person has 
> to look at it.  From there the moderation/review process either agrees with 
> the topic as presented and confirm it's validity by voting/confirming it.  
> They can also suggest or keywords to be added or remove and can also comment 
> upon the abstration level of the article.
> 
> It really doesn't get much simpler than that. :-)
> 
> -------
> -- Added Dan Geiser's proposal for a FAQ.  I agree with what Dan says.
> Maybe we could use THIS page, or another like it, for listing consensus
> on various topics?  
> ----
> For questions about WikiPedia, please see the WikiPediaFaq.  For discussion of the WikiPedia process, see WikiPediaProcess.
------
TechFaq|980210964
1c1,3
< See GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq.
---
> For questions about WikiPedia, please see the WikiPediaFaq. For discussion of the WikiPedia process, see WikiPediaProcess.
> ----
> See also GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq (which was originally created on this page apparently by someone who doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not, actually, the GNU encyclopedia, as much as we want to be closely associated with it!).
------
ItalY|980211051
5c5
< It is one of the countries that uses the EuroCurrencyUnit.
---
> It is one of the countries that uses the EuRo.
------
ItalY|980211091
5c5
< It is one of the countries that uses the EuRo.
---
> It is one of the countries that uses EuroCurrency.
------
HomePage|980211146
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- GNUStuff
------
HomePage|980211174
3,5c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- GNUStuff
< 
< ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- TechFaq 
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- GNUStufF
------
GNUStufF|980211295
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Welcome, GNU people!  Feel free to develop ideas about the new GNU encyclopedia here!  What relation should the GNU encyclopedia have to NuPedia?  To WikiPedia (if any)?  By the way, feel free to post GNU encyclopedia articles on WikiPedia.
> 
> ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq
------
HomePage|980211334
5c5
< We have a new WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  (I created and used it to announce WikipediaL.)
---
> We have a new WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
------
HomePage|980211417
16c16
< * What are your NewTopics?
---
> * What are your NewTopics?  Where's the BrilliantProse?  How can we avoid PatentNonsense?
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980211457
0a1,2
> Got an announcement?  So, make it!
> 
5c7
< -- LarrySanger
---
> -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980211513
4a5,8
> GNU people are using WikiPedia to discuss their stuff, which is very cool.  Go to GNUStufF to partake.
> 
> '''January 21, 2001'''
> 
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980211523
3c3
< '''January 21, 2001'''
---
> '''January 22, 2001'''
------
HomePage|980211565
7c7
< You're wondering
---
> You're confused and you're wondering
------
GNUStufF|980211618
3c3
< ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq
---
> ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense
------
GNUStufF|980211647
3a4,5
> ----
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense. 
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980211925
5a6,7
> 
> Very nice, LinusTolke!  Very Nice! --JimboWales
------
HomePage|980211946
3c3,5
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- GNUStufF
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction
> 
> '''GNUStufF'''
------
SouthAustralia|980212868
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> South Australia is classed as the state in south central Australia along the Indian Ocean. It covers an area of 984,377 square kilometres (380,070 square miles). The capital of South Australia is Adelaide and its known as the City of Churches. South Australia became a British colony in 1836 and joined the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The state's population is 1,4000,622 and most of those reside in the fertile coastal areas and in the valley of the Murray River which is the only navigable river and drains about one seventh of Australia then enters the sea in South Australia. The first recorded sighting of the South Australian coast was in 1627 when a Dutch ship examined the coastline. 
> 
> The terrain consists largely of dry wasteland, with several low mountain ranges in which the most important mountains are the Mt
> Lofty-Flinders Ranges system which extends north about 800 kilometers from Cape Jervis to the northern end of Lake Torrens and salt lakes. Its principal industries and export are wheat, wine and wool. More than half the nations wines are produced here. 
> 
> South Australia has boundaries with other states on the west, east, north and the south is flanked by the Southern Ocean. South
> Australia's temperate range is 29C in January and 15C July.
> 
> South Australia adopted their flag on 13 January 1904. The flag of South Australia is a British Blue Ensign defaced with the state badge. The badge depicts a white-backed piping shrike (magpie) with wings outstretched on a yellow disc. The state badge is believed to have been designed by Robert Craig of the Adelaide School of Arts.
> 
> 
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980213525
29,32c29,32
< Most combustable chemicals you are familiar with (gasoline,
< alcohol, wood, natural gas) requires oxygen to ignite and burn,
< but there are some unique chemicals that burn by themselves - no
< oxygen required! The most commonly used monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em>.
---
> Most familiar combustible chemicals (gasoline, alcohol, wood, natural gas) 
> require oxygen to ignite and burn, but there are some unique chemical compounds that
> burn by themselves - no oxygen required! The most commonly used 
> monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em> (N2H4).
34c34
< Rocket scientists long ago realized the usefulness of these
---
> Rocket scientists long ago realized the usefulness of monopropellant
96c96
< One problem with HETs is that their plume diverges quickly and
---
> One problem with HETs is that their plumes diverge quickly and
107c107
< delta-V's, interplanetary missions, for example. This is because
---
> delta-V's (the overall change in velocity, taken as a single value), interplanetary missions, for example. This is because
112,113c112,113
< interplanetary missions. Hughes has developed the XIPS Xenon Ion
< Propulsion System for performing stationkeeping on geosynchronous
---
> interplanetary missions. Hughes has developed the XIPS (Xenon Ion
> Propulsion System) for performing stationkeeping on geosynchronous
118,120c118
< Thrusters that use the Lorentz force are called
< magnetoplasmadynamic (or MPD) thrusters. MPD thruster technology
< has been explored academically, but commercial interest has been
---
> Thrusters that use the Lorentz force (a force exerted on charge particles by magnetic and electrical fields in combination) are called magnetoplasmadynamic (or MPD) thrusters. MPD thruster technology has been explored academically, but commercial interest has been
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980213895
31,32c31
< burn by themselves - no oxygen required! The most commonly used 
< monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em> (N2H4).
---
> burn by themselves - no oxygen required! This is because the combined chemicals, when energized, "reduce," or change in ionic state by reacting with each other, as opposed to an outside oxidant.  The most commonly used monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em> (N2H4), a chemical which is characterized as "strongly reducing".
------
TopOlogy|980215537
13,14c13,17
< The sets in T are referred to as open sets, and their complements as closed sets.  Roughly speaking open sets are thought of as neighborhoods of points.  This definition of topology is too general to be of much use and so normally additional conditions are imposed.----
< The importance of TopOlogy is, in part, that one can define different topological spaces with elements from AnalySis, AlgeBra, or GeoMetry and then one can determine the properties of such spaces and prove theorems about them. Of equal importance, one can prove what is '''not''' true about such spaces. Thus, through TopOlogy one can obtain results in AnalySis, AlgeBra and GeoMetry. This makes TopOlogy very powerful. 
---
> The sets in T are referred to as open sets, and their complements as closed sets.  Roughly speaking open sets are thought of as neighborhoods of points.  This definition of topology is too general to be of much use and so normally additional conditions are imposed.
> ----
> The importance of TopOlogy is, in part, that one can define different topological spaces with elements from AnalySis, AlgeBra, or GeoMetry and then one can determine the properties of such spaces and prove theorems about them. Of equal importance, one can prove what is '''not''' true about such spaces. Thus, through TopOlogy one can obtain results in AnalySis, AlgeBra and GeoMetry. This makes TopOlogy very powerful.
> ----
> In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which are a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimentsional space.
------
PythagoreanTheorem|980219791
32c32
<                                      /______________ l
---
>                                      /________________ l
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980221280
1c1,122
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A TrigonometricFunction is a function of an angle defined by a ratio of two sides of a right triangle that contains that angle.
> 
> Although this definition implies that the TrigonometricFunctions are defined only for angles of less than 90 degrees, they are defined on all angles whose measure is a real number.
> 
> There are six basic TrigonometricFunctions.
> 
>       *    Sine
>       *    Cosine
>       *    Tangent
>       *    Secant
>       *    Cosecant
>       *    Cotangent
> 
> There are then six definitions, one for each function. To illustrate these definitions, see the right triangle below (Figure1).
> 
> 
>                                                Angle B
> 
>               
>                                                    /l
> 
>                                                 /   l
> 
>                                              /      l          a
>                          c
>                                           /         l
> 
>                                        /            l
> 
>                          Angle A     /______________l  
> 
>                                            
>                                                              Angle C
> 
>                                          b
> 
>                                 Figure 1
> 
> Using the angle A to define these functions, special names are used for the sides of 
> this triangle in the definitions.
> *     The ''hypotenuse'' is the side opposite the right angle, in this case c.
> *     The ''opposite side'' is the opposite the angle on which the function is defined, in this case a.
> *     The ''adjacent side'' is the side that is a leg of the angle, but not the hypotenuse, in this case b.
> 
> Then,
> 
> 1). The ''sine'' of an angle is the ratio of the length of the opposite side to the length of the hypotenuse, abbreviated "sin."
> 
> In general the sin (theta) = length of the opposite side/length of the hypotenuse.
> 
> In our example the sin (A) = a/c.
> 
> 2). The ''cosine'' of an angle is the ratio of the length of the adjacent side to the length of the hypotenuse, abbreviated "cos."
> 
> In general, the cos (theta) = length of the adjacent side/length of the hypotenuse.
> 
> In our example, the cos (A) = b/c.
> 
> 3). The ''tangent'' of an angle is the ratio of the length of the opposite side to the length of the adjacent side, abbreviated "tan."
> 
> In general, the tan (theta) = length of the opposite side/ length of the adjacent side.
> 
> In our example, the tan (A) = a/b.
> 
> The remaining three functions are best defined using the above three functions.
> 
> 4). The ''cosecant'' (A) is the inverse of the ratio of the sin (A), the ratio of the length of the hypotenuse to thelength of the adjacent side, abbreviated "csc."
> 
> Then csc (A) = c/a.
> 
> 5). The ''secant'' (A) is the inverse of the ratio of cos (A), the ratio of the length of the hypotenuse to the length of the opposite side, abbreviated "sec."
> 
> Then the sec (A) = c/b.
> 
> 6). The ''cotangent'' of (A) is the inverse of the ratio of the tan (A), the ratio of the length of the adjacent side to the length of the opposite side, abbreviated "cot."
> 
> Then the cot (A)  = b/a.
> 
> The familiar mnemonic to remember these definitions is CAHSOHTOA. It reminds
> one that "CAH," the cos= adjacent/hypotenuse, "SOA," the sin = opposite/hypotenuse, and "TOA," the tan = opposite/adjacent. 
> 
> A simple example will show how easy it is to calculate these functions for a common angle.
> 
> Suppose we have a right triangle where the two other angles are equal, and therefore = 45 degrees. Then the length of side b and the length of side c are equal.  Now, one can determine the sin, cos and tan of an angle of 45 degrees. Let a = 1, then b = 1.
> Using the PythagoreanTheorem, c = sqrt (a^2 + b^2). Then c  = sqrt (2). This is illustrated in Figure 2.
> 
> 
> 
>                                                Angle B
> 
>               
>                                                    /l
> 
>                                                 /   l
> 
>                                              /      l          a = 1
>                       c = sqrt(2)
>                                           /         l
> 
>                                        /            l
> 
>                          Angle A     /______________l  
> 
>                                            
>                                                              Angle C
> 
>                                          b = 1
> 
>                                 Figure 2
> 
> Then sin (45degrees) = 1/sqrt (2) = sqrt (2)/2,
> 
> the cos (45degrees) = 1/sqrt (2) = sqrt (2)/2
> 
> and, the tan (45degrees) = sqrt (2)/sqrt (2)  = 1.
> 
> Using the definitions, the csc (45degrees) = sqrt (2). The sec (45degrees) = sqrt (2), and the cot (45degrees) = 1.
> 
> '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoranThoerem, and
> theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
> The next step is to determine the value of these six functions for angles greater than or equal to 90 degrees. Other closely related topics are the graphs of these functions, the 
> TrigonomtricIdentities, and, in CalculuS, the continuity and differentiability of these functions. 
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980221369
119,120c119
< '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoranThoerem, and
< theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
---
> '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and for an angle of 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoranThoerem, and theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
------
ScienCe|980222937
1d0
< 
10,11c9
< 
< ChemisTry
---
> * ChemisTry
------
HomePage|980225147
19c19
< 
---
> * * and WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis? (please don't take this the wrong way, psycho@racc2000.com)
------
ScienCe|980225193
4c4,11
< * OrnitholOgy
---
> * TaxonOmy
> * OntolOgy
> 
> * KingdomMonera
> * KingdomProtista
> * KingdomPlantae
> * KingdomFungi
> * KingdomAnimalia
------
WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis|980225268
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Just a curiosity of mine.  I do hope that none were offended by this.  I left my e-mail address if you wish to flame me. -Raleigh
------
SoftwarePackages|980225639
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> New sub-category for operating systems
------
KingdomProtista|980226268
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Eukaryotes are considerably more complicated than prokaryotes (KingdomMonera).
> 
> Each cell has at least one nucleus, a structure where the DNA is stored bound by a double membrane.  Generally there is more than one ChromoSome, and there are usually multiple copies of the same genes.  Nuclei divide through a process called NuclearMitosis, where microtubules pull apart the divided chromosomes and ensure each daughter has a full set.
> 
> Many eukaryotes also undergo a process of SexualReproduction.  This involves two phases: SynGamy, where two haploid (single gene set) cells fuse to form a diploid, and NuclearMeiosis, a process similar to mitosis where the chromosomes are divided to form haploids.  The role of haploid and diploid stages in the life cycle varies considerably.
> 
> There are a wide variety of intracellular organelles.  These include membrane bound structures, notably EndoplasmicReticulum and various-purposed vacuoles.  Nearly all eukaryotes have MitoChondria to burn food, and quite a few have ChloroPlasts for photosynthesis; these appear to actually be reduced endosymbiont bacteria.
> 
> Multicellular organization has arisen among the eukaryotes a number of times.  Of such forms, the KingdomAnimalia, KingdomPlantae, and KingdomFungi are typically listed separately as top-level taxa.  Other groups are left in the junk-basket category of KingdomProtista.  These include the following:
> 
> * TaxonEuglenozoa (euglenids, kinetoplastids)
> * TaxonAlveolata (ciliates, dinoflagellates, apicomplexan sporozoa)
> * TaxonChromista (stramenopiles: water molds, golden and brown algae, diatoms)
> * FlagellateTaxa
> * AmoeboidTaxa
> * AlgalTaxa
> * SlimeMolds
------
AmoeboidTaxa|980227249
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Amoeboids include a wide variety of completely unrelated free-living and parasitic groups.  Amoebae move and feed via cellular projections called pseudopods, which are divided into rhizopods (unsupported) and actinopods (supported by rigid microtubules).
> 
> Lobose amoebae are forms with broad, blunt rhizopods.  They may either have a single pseudopod at the front or many branching outwards.  They move by flowing into the pseudopod and feed by physically engulfing other objects, trapping them in vacuoles.  Forms include:
> 
> * GenusPelomyxa, the giant amoeba (up to 1 mm!)
> * TaxonRamicristates, including most of the familiar amoebae
> * TaxonEntamoebae, various parasitic amoebae
> 
> Filose amoebae include forms with fine, branching rhizopods.  TaxonGranuloreticulosa has members with rhizopods that form a network, and include the well-known shelled Foraminifera.
> 
> The actinopod amoebae are divided into the Radiolaria, marine mostly shelled forms, and Heliozoa, which are mostly-fresh water and naked.  Pseudopods take the form of rigid spikes that collect food and aid in buoyancy.  Some heliozoans move by rolling along the substrate.  Radiolarian forms include:
> 
> * TaxonPhaeodarea
> * TaxonPolycystinea
> * TaxonAcantharea
> 
> and heliozoan forms include:
> 
> * TaxonActinophryida
> * TaxonCentrohelida
> 
> Also worth mentioning is the TaxonXenophyophorea, which includes various giant marine forms.
> 
------
AmoeboidTaxa|980227283
22c22
< Also worth mentioning is the TaxonXenophyophorea, which includes various giant marine forms.
---
> Also worth mentioning is the TaxonXenophyophorea, which includes various giant marine forms.  All of these are classified under the KingdomProtista.
------
ScienCe|980227598
5c5
< * OntolOgy
---
> * OntOgeny
------
WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis|980227999
1c1,3
< Just a curiosity of mine.  I do hope that none were offended by this.  I left my e-mail address if you wish to flame me. -Raleigh
---
> Just a curiosity of mine.  I do hope that none were offended by this.  I left my e-mail address if you wish to flame me. -Raleigh
> ----
> See WikiPediaFaq.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980228100
29c29
< '''Q. I'm lame and I don't want to contribute anything, but that uncommon capitalization is bugging me.  What's the deal?'''
---
> '''Q. I'm lame and I don't want to contribute anything, but that uncommon capitalization is bugging me.  What's the deal?  WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis?'''
31c31
< A. Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks! If you were interesting in contributing, you would have read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section,and learned this there.
---
> A. Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks!  If you were interesting in contributing, you would have read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section,and learned this there.
43c43
< A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis|980228147
3c3
< See WikiPediaFaq.
---
> Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks. Read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section and be enlightened!
------
TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis|980228347
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker?  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
------
TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis|980228361
1c1
< Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker?  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
---
> Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker.  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
------
TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis|980228395
1c1
< Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker.  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
---
> Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker (or a stinking boozer).  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
------
TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis|980228438
1c1
< Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker (or a stinking boozer).  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?
---
> Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker (or a stinking boozer).  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?  Well, sure, but could anyone be taken seriously for doing so?  Could anyone ''win'' such a lawsuit?
------
HomePage|980228554
19d18
< * * and WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis? (please don't take this the wrong way, psycho@racc2000.com)
------
WhyIsEveryThingOnThePageLikeThis|980228609
1c1
< Just a curiosity of mine.  I do hope that none were offended by this.  I left my e-mail address if you wish to flame me. -Raleigh
---
> Just a curiosity of mine.  I do hope that none were offended by this.  I left my e-mail address if you wish to flame me. -Raleigh (psycho@racc2000.com)
3c3
< Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks. Read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section and be enlightened!
---
> Uncommon capitalizations signify hyperlinks. Read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section and be enlightened!
------
ReLigion|980229941
1c1
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine  -- HareKrishna
------
WhatIsaWiki|980229976
23a24,25
> ----
> Investigation of the Wiki concept...
------
HareKrishna|980230015
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Hare Krishna devotees believe that  Krishna is a literal name of the Supreme. It is said to mean  "all- attractive." All beauty is said to derive from the Supreme. The Supreme is also known as "Rama," meaning "highest eternal pleasure." 
> 
> Chanting "Hare Krishna" is supposed to be a way of seeking Krishna directly, partly through the very sounds and vibrations of the words, which serve to mediate divine energy from Krishna directly to the devotee. 
> 
> Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.
> This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped in side the individual. 
> 
> Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances according to learning, advancement or development in a given life, or the reverse.
> 
> Sufficient enlightenment has the potential to free the individual from the cycle of life and death altogether. 
> 
> The original messenger of the Krishna message to humanity is said to have been , a great warrior named Arjuna who lived about five thousand years ago.  Krishna appeared to him in the form of his chariot driver and revealed himself, along with special knowledge and insights, before a great battle, the prospect of which had overwhelmed Arjuna's courage.
> 
> Initiated devotees of the Hare Krishna movement vow to follow certain life rules, including abstaining from gambling, intoxicants, meat and illicit sex.  Sex in marriage for procreation is considered right and proper: 
> 
> The ideas of Krishna consciousness were brought to the West from India in 1965 by the movement's prime teacher, referred to by them as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who was 69 at the time.  His given name was Srila Prabhupada.  He had writted books on the subject and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Afric, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
------
RinGs|980230443
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A Ring is a commutative groupunder an operation +,
> along with an associative operation * with unit element 1,
> such that multiplication distributes over addition.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980232888
7,25c7
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.''
< ----
< This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
< 
< Blah...
< ----
< Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
< 
< It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
< ----
< Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
< 
< Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
< ----
< Wow, This is kinda wierd
< 
<     ---- Drachs
< ----
< Investigation of the Wiki concept...
---
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.  Other discussion removed to SandBox.''
------
SandBox|980232962
1a2,7
> ----
> Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
> ----
> ''Some other discussion removed from WhatIsaWiki follows.''
> ----
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
2a9
> Blah...
3a11
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
5c13,23
< Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
---
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
> ----
> Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
> 
> Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
> ----
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
> 
>     -- Drachs
> ----
> Investigation of the Wiki concept...
------
RinGs|980233153
1c1
< A Ring is a commutative groupunder an operation +,
---
> A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +,
3a4,5
> ----
> Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles?  Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger
------
RinGs|980233381
1,3c1,12
< A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +,
< along with an associative operation * with unit element 1,
< such that multiplication distributes over addition.
---
> A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +, together with a second operation * s.t.
> 
> 1.  a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
> 1.  a*(b+c) = (a*b)+(a*c), (a+b)*c = (a*c)+(b*c)
> 
> Very often the definition of a ring is taken to require a multiplicative identity, or unity, denoted 1.  Nearly all important rings actually satisfy this.  It has the disadvantage, however, of making ring ideals not subrings, as compared with their group-analog, the normal subgroups.  It has the advantage of adding a lot more structure to 
> 
> A justification for the definition of a ring is that collections of commutative group homomorphisms closed under composition form rings (much the same way bijections form groups).  The commutative group is referred to as a module under the ring; the module is called faithful if the actions of ring elements are each different.
> 
> A ring where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero is called an IntegralDomain.  The most interesting of these are FielDs, where every non-zero element has a multiplicative inverse.
> 
> Some important rings include the integers, modular arithmetics, and polynomials.
5c14,16
< Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles?  Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger
---
> Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles?  Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger
> 
> I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :) -JG
------
RinGs|980233738
16a17,18
> 
> Except for the terms you use to define 'ring'; those are more primitive than 'ring', I hope! -- LarrySanger
------
JoshuaGrosse|980233846
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> RinGs-leader.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980234703
1c1
< Questions not answered in HowDoesOneEditaPage, LinkToExternalPages, LinkToAnExistingPage.
---
> Questions not answered in HowDoesOneEditaPage, WhatIsaWiki, WhatsaWikiFor, WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki, WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia, or HowCanIExploreWikiPedia.  See also WikiPediaProcess for discussion of unsettled and unsettling questions about Wikipedia.
------
HiStory|980235347
3,39c3,22
< PalaeolithicPeriod
< 
< NeolithicPeriod
< 
< CopperAge
< 
< BronzeAge
< 
< IronAge
< 
< ClassicalAge
< 
< MiddleAges
< 
< ModernPeriod
< 
< HistoryOfMesopotamia
< 
< HistoryOfEgypt
< 
< HistoryOfIndia
< 
< HistoryOfChina
< 
< HistoryOfMesoamerica
< 
< HistoryOfAndes
< 
< HistoryOfGreece
< 
< HistoryOfRome
< 
< HistoryOfByzantium
< 
< HistoryOfIslam
< 
< HistoryOfEurope
---
> * PalaeolithicPeriod
> * NeolithicPeriod
> * CopperAge
> * BronzeAge
> * IronAge
> * ClassicalAge
> * MiddleAges
> * ModernPeriod
> 
> * HistoryOfMesopotamia
> * HistoryOfEgypt
> * HistoryOfIndia
> * HistoryOfChina
> * HistoryOfMesoamerica
> * HistoryOfAndes
> * HistoryOfGreece
> * HistoryOfRome
> * HistoryOfByzantium
> * HistoryOfIslam
> * HistoryOfEurope
------
MathematicalGrouP|980235543
81,82c81,82
< '''Question''': Given the set of rational numbers Z, that is the set of number a/b such that
< a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Z,x) a GrouP?----
---
> '''Question''': Given the set of rational numbers Q, that is the set of number a/b such that
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Q,x) a GrouP?----
------
AbstractAlgebra|980237445
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of one or more sets of elements, together with one or more operations on these sets.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
> 
> * MathematicalGrouPs
> * RinGs and ModulEs
> * FielDs and VectorSpaces
> * AssociativeAlgebrae
> 
> The motivation for most of these definitions can be found in treating the symmetries of various objects.  For instance, a collection of one-to-one functions on a set S can naturally be extended to form a group G; such a structure is called an S-RepresentatioN of G.  The group is said to ''act'' upon the set, represented in terms of a BinaryOp GXS->S (action on left) or SXG->S (action on right).  Most of the other structures can be discussed similarly.
> 
> A map between two algebrae that preserves structure is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
------
RinGs|980237571
3,4c3,4
< 1.  a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
< 1.  a*(b+c) = (a*b)+(a*c), (a+b)*c = (a*c)+(b*c)
---
> * a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
> * a*(b+c) = (a*b)+(a*c), (a+b)*c = (a*c)+(b*c)
8c8
< A justification for the definition of a ring is that collections of commutative group homomorphisms closed under composition form rings (much the same way bijections form groups).  The commutative group is referred to as a module under the ring; the module is called faithful if the actions of ring elements are each different.
---
> Every ring can be represented in terms of actions on MathematicalGroups.  The two structures together form what are known as ModulEs.
18c18
< Except for the terms you use to define 'ring'; those are more primitive than 'ring', I hope! -- LarrySanger
---
> Except for the terms you use to define 'ring'; those are more primitive than 'ring', I hope! -- LarrySanger
------
AbstractAlgebra|980237619
3c3
< * MathematicalGrouPs
---
> * MathematicalGrouP
------
AbstractAlgebra|980237815
8,10c8
< The motivation for most of these definitions can be found in treating the symmetries of various objects.  For instance, a collection of one-to-one functions on a set S can naturally be extended to form a group G; such a structure is called an S-RepresentatioN of G.  The group is said to ''act'' upon the set, represented in terms of a BinaryOp GXS->S (action on left) or SXG->S (action on right).  Most of the other structures can be discussed similarly.
< 
< A map between two algebrae that preserves structure is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
---
> A map between two algebrae that preserves the operations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980238851
7d6
< 
10d8
< 
12a11
> 3)	G contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to G then e*a = a and a*e = a.
14c13
< 3)	G contains an identity element, say i, that is, if a belongs to G then i*a = a and a*i = a.
---
> 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=e=b*a.
15a15
> Sets of BiJections form groups under composition, providing they are closed under this operation and inverses.  A HomoMorphism from a group to a such a set is called a representation thereof, and it is called faithful if different group elements correspond to different BiJections.  CayleysTheorem states that every group has such a representation, so the study of groups can be considered as the study of permutations.
17c17
< 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=i.
---
> A subset of G closed under * forms a SubGroup in an obvious way.  Every group contains at least two subgroups, itself and the trivial group containing only the identity.  Every other element is contained in a minimal subgroup isomorphic either to the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic, treated as groups under addition.
19c19
< The importance of groups lies in the fact that any set of permutations naturally becomes a group when you include all compositions and inverses.  In fact, any group can be represented in this way; this is called CayleysTheorem.
---
> The KerneL of a group HomoMorphism consists of those elements that get mapped to an identity.  As it turns out, the possible KerneLs of a group are precisely the NormalSubGroups - those subgroups H such that g*H=H*g for all g in G - and this fixes the homomorphic image of the group up to isomorphism.
23c23
< A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let I be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (I,+) is a GrouP.
---
> A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let Z be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (Z,+) is a GrouP.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980238943
38c38
<        (I,+) has an identity element.
---
>        (Z,+) has an identity element.
44c44
<         Every element of (I,+) has an inverse.
---
>         Every element of (Z,+) has an inverse.
49,50c49,50
< Question: Given the set of integers, I, as above, and the operation multiplication,
< denoted by "x" is (I,x) a Group?
---
> Question: Given the set of integers, Z, as above, and the operation multiplication,
> denoted by "x" is (Z,x) a Group?
62c62
<        (I,x) has an identity element.
---
>        (Z,x) has an identity element.
70c70
< Then, every element of (I,x) does not have an inverse.
---
> Then, every element of (Z,x) does not have an inverse.
76c76
< Therefore, (I,x) is '''not''' a Group.
---
> Therefore, (Z,x) is '''not''' a Group.  It is a weaker type of object sometimes called a SemiGroup.
------
RinGs|980239708
8c8
< Every ring can be represented in terms of actions on MathematicalGroups.  The two structures together form what are known as ModulEs.
---
> Sets of commutative group HomoMorphisms form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulEs.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
10c10
< A ring where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero is called an IntegralDomain.  The most interesting of these are FielDs, where every non-zero element has a multiplicative inverse.
---
> A subring (not necessarily with identity) closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary ring'' elements is called an ideal.  These relate to the kernels of ring HomoMorphisms the same way NormalSubGroups relate to those of GroupHomomorphisms.
12c12,14
< Some important rings include the integers, modular arithmetics, and polynomials.
---
> A ring where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero is called an IntegralDomain.  In such rings, multiplicative cancellation is possible.  Of particular interest are FielDs, IntegralDomain''''s where every non-zero element has a muliplicative inverse.
> 
> Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  ModularArithmetics of prime order are actually fields, but those of composite order aren't even integral domains.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|980239777
1,2c1,2
< :PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions
< :TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TopOlogy -- AlgeBra -- AnalySis -- GeoMetry
---
> :AbstractAlgebra -- AnalySis -- TopOlogy -- GeoMetry -- CombinaTorics -- SetTheory
> :PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld 
------
IntegerNumbers|980240057
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The integers consist of the numbers {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
> 
> The integers form a MathematicalGroup under addition.  The group of its self-homomorphisms turns out to be isomorphic to the integers themselves, so their composition can be used to define multiplication thereupon and turn the integers into a ring.
------
ModularArithmetic|980240446
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ModularArithmetics are the images of the IntegerNumbers under group/ring HomoMorphisms.  Such an operation is going to zero out some NormalSubgroup/Ideal, and these turn out to be precisely the sets of the form pZ for some integer p; the resulting group/ring is denoted Zp.
> 
> To put it another way, Zp consists of the remainders {0,1,...,p-1}, so that p=0.  For instance, Z3 has the following addition and multiplication tables:
> 
> +  0  1  2
> 0  0  1  2
> 1  1  2  0
> 2  2  0  1
> 
> *  0  1  2
> 0  0  0  0
> 1  0  1  2
> 2  0  2  1
> 
> When p is a composite number, the factors of p are going to turn out to be ZeroDivisors.  When p is prime, these don't exist, and so Zp is an IntegralDomain and in fact necessarily a field.
------
ModularArithmetic|980240489
5,8c5,8
< +  0  1  2
< 0  0  1  2
< 1  1  2  0
< 2  2  0  1
---
> | +  0  1  2
> | 0  0  1  2
> | 1  1  2  0
> | 2  2  0  1
10,13c10,13
< *  0  1  2
< 0  0  0  0
< 1  0  1  2
< 2  0  2  1
---
> | *  0  1  2
> | 0  0  0  0
> | 0  1  2
> | 0  0  2  1
------
ModularArithmetic|980240507
12c12
< | 0  1  2
---
> | 0  0  1  2  
------
ModularArithmetic|980240599
5,8c5,7
< | +  0  1  2
< | 0  0  1  2
< | 1  1  2  0
< | 2  2  0  1
---
> 0+0=0    1+0=1    2+0=2
> 0+1=1    1+1=2    2+1=0
> 0+2=2    1+2=0    2+2=1
10,13c9,11
< | *  0  1  2
< | 0  0  0  0
< | 0  0  1  2  
< | 0  0  2  1
---
> 0*0=0    1*0=0    2*0=0
> 0*1=0    1*1=1    2*1=2
> 0*2=0    1*2=2    2*2=1
------
RinGs|980240657
14c14
< Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  ModularArithmetics of prime order are actually fields, but those of composite order aren't even integral domains.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
---
> Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
------
RationalNumbers|980240693
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The RationalNumbers are the unique smallest field containing the IntegerNumbers.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980241022
1c1,3
< RinGs-leader.
---
> ''RinGs-leader.''
> 
> Ok, if you want me to have a HomePage...JoshuaGrosse is a student of pure mathematics with a distinct over-abundance of spare time.  He figured that it wouldn't hurt, therefore, to spend some of it just randomly smashing things he knows into WikiPedia.  Interests include maths, sciences, and histories.
------
RinGs|980241423
20a21,22
> 
> Fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though.  Once there's pages enough to at least be able to properly define the RealNumbers, I'll go back and sort things out.  Sound 'K?
------
HiStory|980241466
1c1
< Should only include histories of eras and countries that are now defunct.
---
> Should only include histories of eras and countries that are now defunct.  [Why "now defunct"?  The U.S. isn't defunct; what about AmericanHistory? --LarrySanger]
------
IntegerNumbers|980245146
1c1
< The integers consist of the numbers {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
---
> The integers are the unique smallest TotalOrderedSet that has neither an upper nor a lower bound.  There are a countable number of them, and each has both a predecessor and successor.  As a set they are usually denoted Z, for ''Zahlen''.
3c3,11
< The integers form a MathematicalGroup under addition.  The group of its self-homomorphisms turns out to be isomorphic to the integers themselves, so their composition can be used to define multiplication thereupon and turn the integers into a ring.
---
> The integers can be made into an algebraic structure by defining addition and multiplication in a natural way:
> 
>       The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.  Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.  Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.
> 
>       The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.
> 
> Labelled as such, Z = {... < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < ...}.  This is the unique infinite cyclic group/ring, and more over the finite ones are precisely the homomorphic images of Z, i.e. the ModularArithmetic''''s Z/(p*Z) for some p in Z.
> 
> The integers are the archetypical example of an IntegralDomain.  The units are 1 and -1, and every nonzero nonunit can be expressed uniquely in terms of a product of primes.  There are an infinite number of PrimeNumbers in Z and their distribution is pretty irregular.  The unique smallest field containing a copy of Z is the RationalNumbers.
------
IntegerNumbers|980245189
5c5,7
<       The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.  Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.  Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.
---
>       The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.
>       Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.
>       Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.
7c9,11
<       The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.
---
>       The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, 
>       so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice 
>       of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.
------
IntegerNumbers|980245280
1c1
< The integers are the unique smallest TotalOrderedSet that has neither an upper nor a lower bound.  There are a countable number of them, and each has both a predecessor and successor.  As a set they are usually denoted Z, for ''Zahlen''.
---
> The integers are the unique smallest TotalOrderedSet that has neither an upper nor a lower bound.  There are a countable number of them, and each has both a predecessor and successor.  As a set they are usually denoted Z, for ''Zahlen'' (Ger. "number").
5,7c5
<       The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.
<       Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.
<       Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.
---
> ''The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.  Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.  Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.''
9,11c7
<       The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, 
<       so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice 
<       of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.
---
> ''The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.''
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980245467
1c1
< SPACECRAFT PROPULSION
---
> SPACECRAFT PROPULSION [xxx]
------
TotalOrderedSet|980245797
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A total-ordered set is a PoSet (T,<) where for any a,b in T, exactly one of the following hold:
> * a=b
> * a<b
> * a>b
> 
> The set of all OrdinalNumbers less than a given one form a total-ordered set.  In particular, the finite ordinals (NaturalNumbers) form the unique smallest total-ordered set with no upper bound.  The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor a lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.
> 
> If the ContinuumHypothesis is true, the any set of CardinalNumbers is total-ordered.  Otherwise things get quite a bit messier.
------
AbstractAlgebra|980245973
8c8,10
< A map between two algebrae that preserves the operations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
---
> A map between two algebrae that preserves the operations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
> 
> ''More will go here soon, including definitions of all these terms.  Promise.''
------
GerMany|980247134
3c3
< Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1936-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, England, and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
---
> Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1939-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
------
PittiPan|980257868
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> [http://pitti.pan@gmx.de Mail]
------
PittiPan|980258045
1c1
< [http://pitti.pan@gmx.de Mail]
---
> If you have any question, don't hesistate to [mailto:pitti.pan@gmx.de Mail me]
------
GerMany|980258245
1c1
< Germany is a country in the middle of EuropE and it takes part in the EuroCurrency.
---
> Germany is a major IndustrializedCountry in the middle of EuropE. The official name is "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany).
3c3
< Germany fought in World War I from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1939-1945. After that war it was split into two parts, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was at first occupied and later allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a fairly free country with a combination socialist/market economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc.
---
> Germany measures about 800 km (about 500 mi) from north to south; the country extends about 600 km (about 400 mi) from west to east and has is with a total area of 356 970 km² the fourth largest country in Europe. G. is an union  of 16 states ("Bundesländer"), from north to south: SchleswigHolstein, MecklenburgVorpommern, NiederSachsen, HamburG, BremeN, NordrheinWestfalen, HesseN, SachsenAnhalt, BrandenburG, BerliN, Hessen, ThüringeN, Sachsen, RheinlandPfalz, SaarlanD, BadenWürtemberg, BayerN. It's adjacent in the north to the NorthSea, DenmarK, BalticSea, in the east to PolanD, CzechRepublic, in the south to the SwitzerlanD and AustriA  and in the West to the NetherlandS, FrancE, LuxembourG and BelgiuM.
5c5,17
< In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the prime minister of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
---
> There were about 82 million residents at the end of 1999,  inclusive  7.3 million foreigners.
> 
> Germany takes part in the NATO, the EuropeanUnion and the EuroCurrency.
> 
> Before G. was unified under OttoVonBismarck in 1871 there had been many little states, principalities and kingdoms, after then Germany experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth.
> 
> Germany was a main participant in WorldWarOne from 1914-1918. After G. was defeated, it lost also its colonies and big parts of the army (TreatyOfVersailles). 1918 the German emperor WilliamTheSecond resigned and the Weimar Republic constitutes itself. 
> 
> The worldwide depression of the 1930s plunged the country once more into disaster. Millions of unemployed Germans, disillusioned by capitalist democracy, turned either to the Communist Party or to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), the fascist party of NationalSocialism. By 1930 the Nazis were the second largest party in the Reichstag. 1933 the Nazis got the power and formed an terrible regime under the dictatorship from AdolfHitler. All people, which are not conform with the Nazis, had been threatened, many of them there murdered. The Nazis and their accomplice murdered some millions Jews (HolocausT), communists, pastors, democrats, gypsies, gays, lesbians and many other. To get "Lebensraum" (living space) they started WorldWarTwo by occupying PolanD 1939. 
> 
> At the PotsdamConference 1945, after the loss of World War II the Allies had divided the soon-to-be-defeated Germany into four military occupation zones—French in the southwest, British in the northwest, American in the south, and Soviet in the east. Berlin, in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four zones. As part of the ColdWar the zones developed 1949 in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a western capitalistic country with a so called Social Market Economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc. Berlin was divided in the to parts West-Berlin (capitalistic) and "Berlin, capital of the DDR". West-Berlin was surrounded by the BerlinWall from August, 13th 1961until 1989.
> 
> In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the Federal Chancellor of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
7a20,23
> 
> Since 1998 the [http://www.bundesregierung.de government] is build from a coalition of the [http://www.spd.de Social Democratic Party Germanys] and [http://www.gruene.de Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen](The Green Party / ecological oriented party). Chancellor is Gerhard Schröder. The next election for the [http://www.bundestag.de German Parliament] will be in the autumn of 2002.
> 
> BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA. 
------
EuropE|980262779
1c1,50
< Contintent stretching from the NorthSea and the AtlanticOcean in the west to the UralMountains in the east. From the MediterraneanSea in the south to the north pole.
---
> ContinenT stretching from the NorthSea and the AtlanticOcean in the west to the UralMountains in the east. From the MediterraneanSea in the south to the NorthPole. Europe is the western fifth of the EurAsian landmass.
> 
> Perhaps The name Europe is derived from EuropA.
> 
> Europe hat a long history of great cultural and economic achievement, starting with
> the ancient Greeks and Romans. From the 15th century European nations, particularly Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain, built large colonial empires, with vast holdings in AfricA, AmericA, and AsiA. The IndustrializatioN started in 18th century from here. After WorldWarTwo and in the ColdWar Europe was divided in two major political and economic blocs—CommunisT nations in EasternEurope and CapitalistiC countries in WesternEurope. Arround 1990 the Eastern bloc broke up. 
> 
> E. comprises at the beginning of the year 2001 the following countries:
>     AlbaniA,
>     AndorrA,
>     AustriA,
>     BelaruS,
>     BelgiuM,
>     BosniaAndHerzegovina,
>     BulgariA,
>     CroatiA,
>     CzechRepublic,
>     DenmarK,
>     EstoniA,
>     FinlanD,
>     FrancE,
>     GermanY (Federal Republic of)
>     GreecE,
>     HungarY,
>     IcelanD,
>     IrelanD (Republic of),
>     ItalY,
>     LatviA,
>     LiechtensteiN,
>     LithuaniA,
>     LuxembourG,
>     Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of)
>     MoldovA,
>     MonacO,
>     NetherlandS,
>     NorwaY,
>     PolanD,
>     PortugaL,
>     RomaniA,
>     RussiA,
>     SlovakiA,
>     SloveniA,
>     SpaiN,
>     SwedeN,
>     SwitzerlanD,
>     TurkeY (Republic of)
>     UkrainE,
>     UnitedKingdom,
>     VaticaN,
>     YugoslaviA (Federal Republic of)
3,8d51
< Contains all the following countries:
< SwedeN,
< DenmarK,
< FinlanD,
< EstoniA,
< some more
------
GermanY|980262957
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Germany is a major IndustrializedCountry in the middle of EuropE. The official name is "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany).
> 
> Germany measures about 800 km (about 500 mi) from north to south; the country extends about 600 km (about 400 mi) from west to east and has is with a total area of 356 970 km² the fourth largest country in Europe. G. is an union  of 16 states ("Bundesländer"), from north to south: SchleswigHolstein, MecklenburgVorpommern, NiederSachsen, HamburG, BremeN, NordrheinWestfalen, HesseN, SachsenAnhalt, BrandenburG, BerliN, Hessen, ThüringeN, Sachsen, RheinlandPfalz, SaarlanD, BadenWürtemberg, BayerN. It's adjacent in the north to the NorthSea, DenmarK, BalticSea, in the east to PolanD, CzechRepublic, in the south to the SwitzerlanD and AustriA  and in the West to the NetherlandS, FrancE, LuxembourG and BelgiuM.
> 
> There were about 82 million residents at the end of 1999,  inclusive  7.3 million foreigners.
> 
> Germany takes part in the NATO, the EuropeanUnion and the EuroCurrency.
> 
> Before G. was unified under OttoVonBismarck in 1871 there had been many little states, principalities and kingdoms, after then Germany experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth.
> 
> Germany was a main participant in WorldWarOne from 1914-1918. After G. was defeated, it lost also its colonies and big parts of the army (TreatyOfVersailles). 1918 the German emperor WilliamTheSecond resigned and the Weimar Republic constitutes itself. 
> 
> The worldwide depression of the 1930s plunged the country once more into disaster. Millions of unemployed Germans, disillusioned by capitalist democracy, turned either to the Communist Party or to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), the fascist party of NationalSocialism. By 1930 the Nazis were the second largest party in the Reichstag. 1933 the Nazis got the power and formed an terrible regime under the dictatorship from AdolfHitler. All people, which are not conform with the Nazis, had been threatened, many of them there murdered. The Nazis and their accomplice murdered some millions Jews (HolocausT), communists, pastors, democrats, gypsies, gays, lesbians and many other. To get "Lebensraum" (living space) they started WorldWarTwo by occupying PolanD 1939. 
> 
> At the PotsdamConference 1945, after the loss of World War II the Allies had divided the soon-to-be-defeated Germany into four military occupation zones—French in the southwest, British in the northwest, American in the south, and Soviet in the east. Berlin, in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four zones. As part of the ColdWar the zones developed 1949 in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a western capitalistic country with a so called Social Market Economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc. Berlin was divided in the to parts West-Berlin (capitalistic) and "Berlin, capital of the DDR". West-Berlin was surrounded by the BerlinWall from August, 13th 1961until 1989.
> 
> In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the Federal Chancellor of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
> 
> Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
> 
> Since 1998 the [http://www.bundesregierung.de government] is build from a coalition of the [http://www.spd.de Social Democratic Party Germanys] and [http://www.gruene.de Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen](The Green Party / ecological oriented party). Chancellor is Gerhard Schröder. The next election for the [http://www.bundestag.de German Parliament] will be in the autumn of 2002.
> 
> BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA. 
------
GerMany|980262989
1,23c1
< Germany is a major IndustrializedCountry in the middle of EuropE. The official name is "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany).
< 
< Germany measures about 800 km (about 500 mi) from north to south; the country extends about 600 km (about 400 mi) from west to east and has is with a total area of 356 970 km² the fourth largest country in Europe. G. is an union  of 16 states ("Bundesländer"), from north to south: SchleswigHolstein, MecklenburgVorpommern, NiederSachsen, HamburG, BremeN, NordrheinWestfalen, HesseN, SachsenAnhalt, BrandenburG, BerliN, Hessen, ThüringeN, Sachsen, RheinlandPfalz, SaarlanD, BadenWürtemberg, BayerN. It's adjacent in the north to the NorthSea, DenmarK, BalticSea, in the east to PolanD, CzechRepublic, in the south to the SwitzerlanD and AustriA  and in the West to the NetherlandS, FrancE, LuxembourG and BelgiuM.
< 
< There were about 82 million residents at the end of 1999,  inclusive  7.3 million foreigners.
< 
< Germany takes part in the NATO, the EuropeanUnion and the EuroCurrency.
< 
< Before G. was unified under OttoVonBismarck in 1871 there had been many little states, principalities and kingdoms, after then Germany experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth.
< 
< Germany was a main participant in WorldWarOne from 1914-1918. After G. was defeated, it lost also its colonies and big parts of the army (TreatyOfVersailles). 1918 the German emperor WilliamTheSecond resigned and the Weimar Republic constitutes itself. 
< 
< The worldwide depression of the 1930s plunged the country once more into disaster. Millions of unemployed Germans, disillusioned by capitalist democracy, turned either to the Communist Party or to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), the fascist party of NationalSocialism. By 1930 the Nazis were the second largest party in the Reichstag. 1933 the Nazis got the power and formed an terrible regime under the dictatorship from AdolfHitler. All people, which are not conform with the Nazis, had been threatened, many of them there murdered. The Nazis and their accomplice murdered some millions Jews (HolocausT), communists, pastors, democrats, gypsies, gays, lesbians and many other. To get "Lebensraum" (living space) they started WorldWarTwo by occupying PolanD 1939. 
< 
< At the PotsdamConference 1945, after the loss of World War II the Allies had divided the soon-to-be-defeated Germany into four military occupation zones—French in the southwest, British in the northwest, American in the south, and Soviet in the east. Berlin, in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four zones. As part of the ColdWar the zones developed 1949 in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a western capitalistic country with a so called Social Market Economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc. Berlin was divided in the to parts West-Berlin (capitalistic) and "Berlin, capital of the DDR". West-Berlin was surrounded by the BerlinWall from August, 13th 1961until 1989.
< 
< In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the Federal Chancellor of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
< 
< Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
< 
< Since 1998 the [http://www.bundesregierung.de government] is build from a coalition of the [http://www.spd.de Social Democratic Party Germanys] and [http://www.gruene.de Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen](The Green Party / ecological oriented party). Chancellor is Gerhard Schröder. The next election for the [http://www.bundestag.de German Parliament] will be in the autumn of 2002.
< 
< BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA. 
---
> See GermanY.
------
CountriesG|980263083
3c3
< * GerMany
---
> * GermanY
------
EuropA|980263642
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In GreekMythology a Phoenician princess. As ZeuS saw her he fell in love with her. He assumes the guise of a bull and kidnaped her to CretE. She bore him some childs, so MinoS and RhadamanthuS. 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980265271
84c84
< Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdealS and FieldS.
---
> Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdeaLs and FielDs.
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980265525
120c120
< The next step is to determine the value of these six functions for angles greater than or equal to 90 degrees. Other closely related topics are the graphs of these functions, the 
---
> The next step is to determine the value of these six functions for angles greater than or equal to 90 degrees. Finally, we must determine the value of the functions for angles that are less than or equal to 0, thus defining these functions over the real numbers. Other closely related topics are the graphs of these functions, the 
------
HareKrishna|980268501
5,6c5
< Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.
< This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped in side the individual. 
---
> Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.  This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped in side the individual. 
8c7
< Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances according to learning, advancement or development in a given life, or the reverse.
---
> Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.
12c11
< The original messenger of the Krishna message to humanity is said to have been , a great warrior named Arjuna who lived about five thousand years ago.  Krishna appeared to him in the form of his chariot driver and revealed himself, along with special knowledge and insights, before a great battle, the prospect of which had overwhelmed Arjuna's courage.
---
> The original bearer of the Krishna message to humanity is said to have been Krishna, himself.  He lived among men about five thousand years ago with a great warrior named Arjuna, in the form of his chariot driver. He revealed himself, along with special knowledge and insights before a great battle, the prospect of which had overwhelmed Arjuna's courage.
14c13
< Initiated devotees of the Hare Krishna movement vow to follow certain life rules, including abstaining from gambling, intoxicants, meat and illicit sex.  Sex in marriage for procreation is considered right and proper: 
---
> Initiated devotees of the Hare Krishna movement vow to follow certain life rules, including abstaining from gambling, intoxicants, meat (including fish, fowl and eggs) and illicit sex.  Sex in marriage for procreation is considered right and proper: 
16c15,17
< The ideas of Krishna consciousness were brought to the West from India in 1965 by the movement's prime teacher, referred to by them as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who was 69 at the time.  His given name was Srila Prabhupada.  He had writted books on the subject and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Afric, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
---
> The ideas of Krishna consciousness were brought to the West from India in 1965 by the movement's prime teacher, referred to by them as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who was 69 at the time.  His given name was Srila Prabhupada.  The apellation "His Divine Grace" is somewhat ironic in that Prabhupada laid no claim to holiness or divinity.  
> 
> Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
------
TopOlogy|980268598
17c17
< In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which are a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimentsional space.
---
> In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which are a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimensional space.
------
IntegerNumbers|980272019
3,7c3
< The integers can be made into an algebraic structure by defining addition and multiplication in a natural way:
< 
< ''The order AutoMorphisms of Z turn out to be order IsoMorphic to Z itself under the induced ordering.  Thus we can take their composition to define a group operation (addition) on Z, unique up to choice of zero.  Order AutoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x+z for some z in Z.''
< 
< ''The group EndoMorphisms of Z again turn out to be group IsoMorphic to Z itself under induced addition, so we can take their multiplication to define a ring multiplication thereupon.  This is unique up to choice of ordering; by convention 0 < 1.  Group EndoMorphisms take the form f(x)=x*z=z*x for some z in Z.''
---
> The integers turn out to be order IsoMorphic to the set of their own order AutoMorphisms, allowing us to take their compositions to form a group operation (addition), and in turn to the set of its own group EndoMorphisms, allowing us to take ''their'' compositions to define a ring multiplication.  Thus Z has a natural ring structure, unique up to choice of zero and whether 0<1 or 1<0 (former by convention).
11c7
< The integers are the archetypical example of an IntegralDomain.  The units are 1 and -1, and every nonzero nonunit can be expressed uniquely in terms of a product of primes.  There are an infinite number of PrimeNumbers in Z and their distribution is pretty irregular.  The unique smallest field containing a copy of Z is the RationalNumbers.
---
> The integers are the archetypical example of an IntegralDomain.  The units are 1 and -1, and every nonzero nonunit can be expressed uniquely in terms of a product of primes.  There are an infinite number of PrimeNumbers in Z and their distribution is pretty irregular.  The unique smallest field containing a copy of Z is the RationalNumbers.
------
AbstractAlgebra|980272118
6a7
> * LatticEs
------
LatticEs|980274539
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A lattice is a PartialOrderedSet (X, <=) where any two elements x,y have both a GreatestLowerBound xvy and LeastUpperBound x^y.
> 
> The operations v,^ on a lattice form an algebraic structure satisfying the following properties:
> 
>     ava=a                   a^a=a                   (idempotency laws)
>     avb=bva                 a^b=b^a                 (commutativity laws)
>     av(bvc)=(avb)vc         a^(b^c)=(a^b)^c         (associativity laws)
>     av(a^b)=a               a^(bvc)=a               (absorption laws)
> 
> Moreover, any algebra satisfying the above properties is a lattice, where x<=y is defined to be true if and only if xvy=y (or equivalently, x^y=x).
> 
> A lattice which satisfies the following properties is referred to as a boolean algebra:
> 
>     There exists some element 0, such that av0=a for all a                 (bounded below)
>     There exists some element 1, such that a^1=a for all a                 (bounded above)
>     For all a,b,c, (avb)^c=(a^c)v(b^c) and (a^b)vc=(avc)^(bvc)             (distributive laws - these are equivalent)
>     For every a, there exists an element ~a such that av~a=1 and a^~a=0    (existence of complements)
> 
> Complements are unique within bounded distributive lattices.  Boolean algebrae are very similar to RinGs, except they have complements instead of inverses, and moreover the distributive laws work for each operation over the other.
> 
> The subobjects of any given object form a boolean algebra under <= taken to mean "is a subobject of".  In the case of sets, v and ^ become unions and intersections; in the case of groups they become semidirect products and intersections, and so forth.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980276961
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A partial order <= on a set X is a RelatioN satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
> 
>     a <= a                              (reflexive property)
>     If a <= b, b <= a, then a = b       (antisymmetric property)
>     If a <= b, b <= c, then a <= c      (transitive property)
> 
> PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSets, and include sets of ordinals.
> 
> We write a < b if a <= b and the two are not equal.  Given any two a,b in X, the OpenInterval (a,b) is defined to be the set of all x in X such that a < x < b.  Arbitrary unions of OpenIntervals define the order-TopOlogy of the poset.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
> 
> A map f:X->Y from one poset to another is called an order-HomoMorphism if f(x)<=f(y) when x<=y; if it is bijective, it is called an order-IsoMorphism.  Any order-based property a poset has will also be true in any poset isomorphic to it.  Every poset (X,<=) has a unique dual poset (X,>=).
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277007
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSets, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277034
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277075
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277089
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet'''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet'''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277097
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet'''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet'''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277122
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''''''s ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''''''s, and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''s'' ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''s'', and include sets of ordinals.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980277131
7c7
< PartialOrderedSet''s'' ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''s'', and include sets of ordinals.
---
> PartialOrderedSet''s'' ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''s'', and include sets of OrdinalNumbers.
------
ReLigion|980280215
1c1,8
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine  -- HareKrishna
---
> Religion in general:
> GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
> 
> Branches of reigion:
> ChristianIty -- IsLam -- HareKrishna
> 
> Religious books:
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
------
GNUStufF|980280257
3c3,4
< ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense
---
> ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense -- GNEArchitecture
> 
5c6
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense. 
---
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense. 
------
GNUStufF|980280387
3c3
< ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense -- GNEArchitecture
---
> ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense -- GNEArchitecTure
------
GNEArchitecTure|980280496
1c1,173
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> My (Mike Warren's) current favourite name is GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia! (Can't
> remember who suggested it...)
> 
> In any case, my ideas for how this should all work:
> 
> 
> OVERVIEW
> 
> Since the goal of GNE is to keep submissions almost completely open
> (barring completely obvious spam), some method of classification is
> needed. Since almost everyone has suggested a different way of
> classifying articles, it makes the most sense to keep the
> classification information separate and allow for multiple
> classifiers.
> 
> 
> THE BACK END ARTICLE REPOSITORY
> 
> Hence, only information absolutely essential to the article should be
> kept in the actual article repository. I think keeping this in XML has
> some advantages: it is readily human readable; some simple semantic
> hints can be included by the author if she chooses (here I mean things
> like <date>Jurassic</date> or <name>Mike Warren</name>); changing the
> DTD/Schema can be quite easy in many cases (unlike changing the schema
> of a database). Unique IDs will need to be assigned to each article,
> so that the classifiers can reference them. Anything from the really
> simple (sequentially-assigned 128-bit integers) to the complicated
> (MD5 or similar hashes of the content) can be employed for this
> purpose.
> 
> Using this method to store the articles, it seems to make sense to
> just use an existing Web server like Apache to serve these articles,
> which can then be accessed easily:
> 
>     http://www.gne.org/article/unique-id-12345.xml
> 
> If a single directory becomes insufficient (as seems likely at some
> point), then the first bits of the unique IDs can be used to make
> sub-directories, and the URL re-writing ability of Apache (and
> presumably other Web servers) can be used to change the above URLs
> into the actual URL. This has the advantage that existing free
> software is employed to implement the back-end and mirroring the data
> is extremely easy (just tar it, or rsync, or FTP). It will also be
> necessary to include an index of all articles which exist on the
> server. This need be nothing more than a complete list of all the
> unique IDs of the articles, enabling easy access by the classifiers
> (see below).
> 
> Whichever method of assigning the IDs is used, many have expressed the
> need/desire to digitally sign the articles. Since the article itself
> needs to be signed, it makes little sense to include the signature in
> the actual XML of the article (since then it would need to be removed
> to check the signature, and raises questions like, ``exactly which
> bytes do I remove to take out the signature). The above scheme for
> serving the articles fits in well here: signatures can just go in
> well-known signature files:
> 
>     http://www.gne.org/article/unique-id-12345.xml.asc
> 
> for the above example. If such a file doesn't exist, the article is
> not signed.
> 
> 
> THE CLASSIFIERS
> 
> No actual user or client program should be accessing the repository
> directly, in all likelihood. A number of classification databases will
> exist, which will index all the articles in the repository according
> to their own criteria. One of the simplest ones (which the GNE project
> itself will likely supple) will be a simple author and title
> index. Every night (say) this classifier will request the article
> index from one of the back-end repositories. Looking through the list
> of unique IDs, it will note any IDs which are not already in its own
> database.  For these, it will request the XML file from the repository
> and parse it, extracting whatever information is relevant to this
> classification (in this example, just the author(s) and title). If
> this classifier is more complicated (perhaps its the Nupedia one),
> then these new articles will be sent to mailing lists for comments
> about which category it should go in (or if it should be excluded from
> the classification, by putting it in an ``ignore'' category).
> 
> The classifiers can do absolutely anything imaginable, from providing
> a kids-only view of the information, to a keyword search capability to
> more complex things. As classifications become irrelevant or unused,
> they can simply be deleted; nothing needs to change in the article
> repository.  If someone is dissatisfied with the current
> classification schemes, they can take some base software provided by
> GNE and modify it to suit their needs; classifiers based on voting of
> users, voting of ``experts'' or many other schemes can be created.
> 
> These classifier systems should probably store much of their
> information in a database like MySQL since they will be accessing it a
> lot.
> 
> 
> CONVERTERS/CLIENTS
> 
> No matter what classifier is used, the user needs to actually see the
> articles.  This needs conversion from the XML format into some other
> suitable format, like HTML or DVI. The GNE project will produce such
> converters, which will be employed by the classifiers when showing an
> article to an actual user. It might also be useful (in the future) to
> make clients which interact (using some known protocol) with the
> classifiers and then allow the user to choose from whatever formats
> the client software knows to convert to. I wouldn't suggest doing such
> a thing until well after the classifier software is stable, if ever.
> 
> 
> DIAGRAM
> 
> So, here's what will happen:
> <pre>
> 
>                                  +---------------------+
>                                  | Classifier Projects |
>                                  +---------------------+
>                                           . . .                                    +---------+
>   +------+                       +---------------------+                           | Backend |
>   | user | <--- Web browser ---> | Dewey Decimal Sys.  | <--- fetches article ---> +---------+
>   +------+                       +---------------------+                           |12345.xml|
>                                  | Library of Congress |                           |33213.xml|
>                                  +---------------------+                           |77662.xml|
>                                  | Children-only       +                           |  ...    |
>                                  +---------------------+                           +---------+
>                                           . . .                                               
>                                                                                               
>   Web browser/GNE client          Database-driven lookup                      Directory(s) of 
>                                        mechanism                              XML files, with
>                                                                               index & optional
>                                                                               signature
> </pre>
> 
> 
> SOFTWARE BY GNE
> 
> The software which GNE would need to write includes:
> 
> . A PARSER which will take almost-plain-text and convert it into XML
>   in the DTD/Schema decided upon for the back-end articles. This will
>   include author, revision and content. It will not include a digital
>   signature or any classification information whatsoever. The content
>   can contain optional semantic hint tags intended for use by the
>   classifiers.
> 
> . BASIC CLASSIFIER software, which will ease the task of writing some
>   classifier.  As a minimum, this should include options to send
>   articles to mailing lists and some basic hierarchical classification
>   mechanism (since many classifiers will likely be hierarchical).
> 
> . CONVERTERS to take XML content in our DTD/Schema and produce LaTeX,
>   HTML, DVI or other formats, for use by the classifiers when serving
>   content to users. This means no load on repository servers, and
>   flexibility for the classifiers, which might like to change the HTML
>   to conform to their design style.
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> A simple, efficient and almost completely inclusive back-end article
> repository is indexed by a number of classifier projects, with which
> the user interacts to get at content they're interested in. These
> classifiers are limited only by the imagination, and don't affect what
> is stored in the article repository; no classifier group can
> ``censor'' the GNE project, since another classifier group could start
> up to correct and wrong (in their opinion) classifications. No
> articles are rejected from the back-end repository, which is easy to
> mirror, easy to maintain and presents no major load on the server
> beyond its duties as a Web page server. Classifier databases can run
> on any system, anywhere in the world and use any mirror of the
> repository.
> 
> 
------
GNEArchitecTure|980280974
1d0
< 
139,155c138,144
< . A PARSER which will take almost-plain-text and convert it into XML
<   in the DTD/Schema decided upon for the back-end articles. This will
<   include author, revision and content. It will not include a digital
<   signature or any classification information whatsoever. The content
<   can contain optional semantic hint tags intended for use by the
<   classifiers.
< 
< . BASIC CLASSIFIER software, which will ease the task of writing some
<   classifier.  As a minimum, this should include options to send
<   articles to mailing lists and some basic hierarchical classification
<   mechanism (since many classifiers will likely be hierarchical).
< 
< . CONVERTERS to take XML content in our DTD/Schema and produce LaTeX,
<   HTML, DVI or other formats, for use by the classifiers when serving
<   content to users. This means no load on repository servers, and
<   flexibility for the classifiers, which might like to change the HTML
<   to conform to their design style.
---
> <ul>
> <li>A PARSER which will take almost-plain-text and convert it into XML  in the DTD/Schema decided upon for the back-end articles. This will  include author, revision and content. It will not include a digital  signature or any classification information whatsoever. The content  can contain optional semantic hint tags intended for use by the  classifiers.
> 
> <li>BASIC CLASSIFIER software, which will ease the task of writing some  classifier.  As a minimum, this should include options to send  articles to mailing lists and some basic hierarchical classification  mechanism (since many classifiers will likely be hierarchical).
> 
> <li>CONVERTERS to take XML content in our DTD/Schema and produce LaTeX,  HTML, DVI or other formats, for use by the classifiers when serving  content to users. This means no load on repository servers, and  flexibility for the classifiers, which might like to change the HTML  to conform to their design style.
> </ul>
------
GNEArchitecTure|980281095
138,139c138
< <ul>
< <li>A PARSER which will take almost-plain-text and convert it into XML  in the DTD/Schema decided upon for the back-end articles. This will  include author, revision and content. It will not include a digital  signature or any classification information whatsoever. The content  can contain optional semantic hint tags intended for use by the  classifiers.
---
> * A PARSER which will take almost-plain-text and convert it into XML  in the DTD/Schema decided upon for the back-end articles. This will  include author, revision and content. It will not include a digital  signature or any classification information whatsoever. The content  can contain optional semantic hint tags intended for use by the  classifiers.
141c140
< <li>BASIC CLASSIFIER software, which will ease the task of writing some  classifier.  As a minimum, this should include options to send  articles to mailing lists and some basic hierarchical classification  mechanism (since many classifiers will likely be hierarchical).
---
> * BASIC CLASSIFIER software, which will ease the task of writing some  classifier.  As a minimum, this should include options to send  articles to mailing lists and some basic hierarchical classification  mechanism (since many classifiers will likely be hierarchical).
143,144c142
< <li>CONVERTERS to take XML content in our DTD/Schema and produce LaTeX,  HTML, DVI or other formats, for use by the classifiers when serving  content to users. This means no load on repository servers, and  flexibility for the classifiers, which might like to change the HTML  to conform to their design style.
< </ul>
---
> * CONVERTERS to take XML content in our DTD/Schema and produce LaTeX,  HTML, DVI or other formats, for use by the classifiers when serving  content to users. This means no load on repository servers, and  flexibility for the classifiers, which might like to change the HTML  to conform to their design style.
------
GNEArchitecTure|980281127
1c1
< My (Mike Warren's) current favourite name is GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia! (Can't
---
> My (MikeWarren) current favourite name is GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia! (Can't
------
WikiPedia|980281154
1c1
< WikiPedia is an encyclopedia project built using wiki software.  Who knows where it will go?
---
> WikiPedia is an encyclopedia project built using WikiWiki software by WikiPedians.  Who knows where it will go?
------
WikiPedians|980281239
3c3
< Necessary but not sufficient condition for being a WikiWatcher.
---
> Sufficient but not necessary condition for being a WikiWatcher.
------
MikeWarren|980281298
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Calgary, Alberta resident and recent CPSC graduate from
> the UniversityOfCalgary, Mike Warren is 23 and works at
> a leak-detection company where he's been employed part
> time during his last two years of school.
> 
> He knows Python, Java, C, C++ and enough Lisp/Scheme to 
> customize XEmacs. Sometimes, he climbs, cycles or back-packs
> in the nearby mountains.
------
WikiPedia|980281305
1c1
< WikiPedia is an encyclopedia project built using WikiWiki software by WikiPedians.  Who knows where it will go?
---
> WikiPedia is an encyclopedia project built using WikiWiki software by WikiPedians for WikiWatcher''''s.  Who knows where it will go?
------
HomePage|980284890
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
------
ArtsandEntertainment|980285051
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FiLm
> TheaTer
> MuSic
> PainTing
> SculpTure
> OpeRa
> DanCe
> 
------
ArtsandEntertainment|980285111
1,7c1
< FiLm
< TheaTer
< MuSic
< PainTing
< SculpTure
< OpeRa
< DanCe
---
> FiLm -- TheaTer -- MuSic -- PainTing -- SculpTure -- OpeRa -- DanCe
------
FiLm|980285214
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FilmHistory -- FilmCriticism
------
FilmCriticism|980285766
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <p>A distinction must be drawn between criticism and reviewing.  Most people who call themselves film critics and publish commentary on films in periodicals are actually film reviewers.  A film criticism is actually more closely aligned with PhiloSophy than it is commentary.  The film critic tries to come to understand why film works, how it works, and what effects it has on people.</p>
> 
> <p>Some of the names you must know in exploring the world of FilmCiticim include:
> <ul><li>AndreBazin</li>
> <li>SiegfriedKracauer</li>
> <li>SergeiEisenstein</li>
> <li>ChristianMetz</li>
> <li>WilliamRothman</li>
> <li>KajaSilverman</li>
> <li>Jean-LouisBoudry</li>
> <li>AndrewSarris</li>
> <li>MaryAnnDoane</li></ul>
> 
> <p>Of course there are many more, but these will put you on the right track.</p>
------
FilmCriticism|980285870
1c1
< <p>A distinction must be drawn between criticism and reviewing.  Most people who call themselves film critics and publish commentary on films in periodicals are actually film reviewers.  A film criticism is actually more closely aligned with PhiloSophy than it is commentary.  The film critic tries to come to understand why film works, how it works, and what effects it has on people.</p>
---
> A distinction must be drawn between criticism and reviewing.  Most people who call themselves film critics and publish commentary on films in periodicals are actually film reviewers.  A film criticism is actually more closely aligned with PhiloSophy than it is commentary.  The film critic tries to come to understand why film works, how it works, and what effects it has on people.
3,12c3,12
< <p>Some of the names you must know in exploring the world of FilmCiticim include:
< <ul><li>AndreBazin</li>
< <li>SiegfriedKracauer</li>
< <li>SergeiEisenstein</li>
< <li>ChristianMetz</li>
< <li>WilliamRothman</li>
< <li>KajaSilverman</li>
< <li>Jean-LouisBoudry</li>
< <li>AndrewSarris</li>
< <li>MaryAnnDoane</li></ul>
---
> Some of the names you must know in exploring the world of film criticim include:
> *  AndreBazin
> *  SiegfriedKracauer
> *  SergeiEisenstein
> *  ChristianMetz
> *  WilliamRothman
> *  KajaSilverman
> *  Jean-LouisBoudry
> *  AndrewSarris
> *  MaryAnnDoane
14c14
< <p>Of course there are many more, but these will put you on the right track.</p>
---
> Of course there are many more, but these will put you on the right track.
------
FilmHistory|980286346
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Some of the people you should know during the earliest era of film history (1872-1903):
> *  Eadweard Muybridge
> *  ThomasEdison
> *  WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson
> *  GeorgeEastman
> *  LumiereBrothers
> *  GeorgeMelies
> *  EdwinSPorter
------
WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson|980286462
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It has almost certainly been proved that W. K. L. Dickson was the actual inventor of the motion picture camera.  He was under the employ of ThomasEdison.  In fact, Edison saw very little value in the contraption, but thought that it might be served to endorse his phonograph.
------
ThomasEdison|980286630
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Initially, it was believed that Edison invented the motion picture camera, but it has since been proven that WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson actually invented it at the Edison laboratories.  However, his influence on the history of film stretches far beyond that of instigator.  He became a powerhouse of film production and must be given credit for establishing a standard that allowed film to emerge as a mass media and not just a vaudeville novelty.
------
FilmHistory|980286650
2c2
< *  Eadweard Muybridge
---
> *  EadweardMuybridge
------
PhiloSophy|980287801
15c15
< I've added several suggested topics.  At your leisure you might start articles on any or all of the above.  Nearly every trained philosopher, and plenty of untrained ones, have ''something'' reasonably useful and accurate to say about all of these topics!
---
> I've added several suggested topics.  At your leisure you might start articles on any or all of the above.  Nearly every trained philosopher, and plenty of untrained ones, have ''something'' reasonably useful and accurate to say about many of these topics!
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980289077
1c1,3
< The view that we are always motivated by self-interest, even in seeming acts of AlTruism.
---
> The view that we are always motivated by self-interest, even in seeming acts of AlTruism.
> ----
> PsychologicalEgoism can be contrasted well with EthicalEgoism, which is the view that we always <i>ought<i> to be motivated by SelfInterest.
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980289091
3c3
< PsychologicalEgoism can be contrasted well with EthicalEgoism, which is the view that we always <i>ought<i> to be motivated by SelfInterest.
---
> PsychologicalEgoism can be contrasted well with EthicalEgoism, which is the view that we always <em>ought<em> to be motivated by SelfInterest.
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980289107
3c3
< PsychologicalEgoism can be contrasted well with EthicalEgoism, which is the view that we always <em>ought<em> to be motivated by SelfInterest.
---
> PsychologicalEgoism can be contrasted well with EthicalEgoism, which is the view that we always _ought_ to be motivated by SelfInterest.
------
ThomasEdison|980289256
1c1,3
< Initially, it was believed that Edison invented the motion picture camera, but it has since been proven that WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson actually invented it at the Edison laboratories.  However, his influence on the history of film stretches far beyond that of instigator.  He became a powerhouse of film production and must be given credit for establishing a standard that allowed film to emerge as a mass media and not just a vaudeville novelty.
---
> Initially, it was believed that ThomasEdison invented the motion picture camera, but it has since been proven that WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson actually invented it at the Edison laboratories.  However, his influence on the history of film stretches far beyond that of instigator.  He became a powerhouse of film production and must be given credit for establishing a standard that allowed film to emerge as a mass media and not just a vaudeville novelty.
> ----
> I have read that, similarly, the credit traditionally given to ThomasEdison for the invention of the LightBulb is misplaced.  I am not competent to assess this claim.
------
GNEArchitecTure|980291628
48a49,53
> Versioning of the articles is also desired. This can be
> simply:
> 
>   http://www.gne.org/articles/unique-id.version.xml
> 
------
ReLigion|980292567
4,5c4,5
< Branches of reigion:
< ChristianIty -- IsLam -- HareKrishna
---
> Branches of religion:
> ChristianIty -- IsLam -- HareKrishna -- JudaIsm -- ShinTo -- BuddhIsm -- ShamanIsm -- JainIsm -- HinduIsm 
------
ReLigion|980293600
2c2
< GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
---
> GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- PhilosophyOfReligion
4c4
< Branches of religion:
---
> Religion:
------
ReLigion|980293654
4c4
< Religion:
---
> Particular religions:
------
GNEArchitecTure|980300024
1,2c1
< My (MikeWarren) current favourite name is GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia! (Can't
< remember who suggested it...)
---
> My (MikeWarren) current favourite name is GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia! (Dan Geiser's suggestion.)
------
FilmCriticism|980300136
3c3
< Some of the names you must know in exploring the world of film criticim include:
---
> Some of the names you must know in exploring the world of film criticism include:
14c14
< Of course there are many more, but these will put you on the right track.
---
> Of course there are many more, but these will put you on the right track.
------
PhiloSophy|980300681
11c11
< '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism  [etc. continue the list please]
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism -- EthicalityVsMorality [etc. continue the list please]
------
GNUStufF|980300790
3c3,7
< ProposedGNUModerationSystem -- GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq -- GNUFreeDocumentationLicense -- GNEArchitecTure
---
> * ProposedGNUModerationSystem
> * GNUEncyclopediaTechFaq 
> * GNUFreeDocumentationLicense 
> * GNEArchitecTure
> * PreliminaryDTD
------
PreliminaryDTD|980301464
1c1,71
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Instead of describing an entire DTD in detail, we should
> add tags to this ``example'' XML layout until we thing
> everything is covered.
> 
> 
> <article>
> <authors>
>   <author>
>   <name>Mike Warren</name>
>   <email>foo@bar.com</name>
>   </author>
>   <author>
>   <name>Someone Else</name>
>   <email>baz@bar.com</name>
>   </author>
> </authors>
> 
> <date>January 19, 2001</date>
> 
> <content>
> 
> <abstract>This is an abstract.</abstract>
> 
> <title>A Title</title>
> 
> <subtitle>A Sub Title</subtitle>
> 
> This is some content. It goes on and on, and doesn't
> really care about what is says. Paragraphs split with
> a blank line.
> 
> Like this; I am a new paragraph. I'm pretty short, though.
> 
> <subtitle>Another Sub Section</subtitle>
> 
> I am some more content. My purpose is to demonstrate some
> of the symantic hint tags which we might include. <name>Someone Else</name> might have a name, associated with a birthday (like, say, <date>April 13, 1977</date>). They might have been born
> in a place such as <place>Calgary, Alberta</place> which doesn't
> have to be a full, canonical place-name.
> 
> It might be interesting to specify <jargon>jargon</jargon>
> in the content. One might even have a footnote, defined inline <footnote>This footnote would actually be rendered in a manner
> considered good for the medium. For example, at the bottom of
> a printed page.</footnote>.
> 
> Although complicated, adding inline LaTeX would be a very
> nice future feature:
> <latex>
> \begin{table}
> \end{table}
> </latex>
> 
> References are a little harder, but defining those inline
> as well might be best, as for the GPL
> <reference>
> <author>Richard Stallman</author>
> <title>General Public License</title>
> <proceedings></proceedings>
> <book></book>
> <journal></journal>
> <periodical></periodical>
> <date></date>
> </reference>.
> 
> </content>
> 
> <edit date="January 20, 2001" author="Mike Warren <foo@bar.com>">
> A context diff on the <content> appears here...
> </edit>
> 
> </article>
------
PreliminaryDTD|980301635
6,16c6,16
< <article>
< <authors>
<   <author>
<   <name>Mike Warren</name>
<   <email>foo@bar.com</name>
<   </author>
<   <author>
<   <name>Someone Else</name>
<   <email>baz@bar.com</name>
<   </author>
< </authors>
---
>  <article>
>  <authors>
>    <author>
>    <name>Mike Warren</name>
>    <email>foo@bar.com</name>
>    </author>
>    <author>
>    <name>Someone Else</name>
>    <email>baz@bar.com</name>
>    </author>
>  </authors>        
18c18
< <date>January 19, 2001</date>
---
>  <date>January 19, 2001</date>
20c20
< <content>
---
>  <content>
22c22
< <abstract>This is an abstract.</abstract>
---
>  <abstract>This is an abstract.</abstract>
24c24
< <title>A Title</title>
---
>  <title>A Title</title>
26c26
< <subtitle>A Sub Title</subtitle>
---
>  <subtitle>A Sub Title</subtitle>
28,30c28,30
< This is some content. It goes on and on, and doesn't
< really care about what is says. Paragraphs split with
< a blank line.
---
>  This is some content. It goes on and on, and doesn't
>  really care about what is says. Paragraphs split with
>  a blank line. 
32c32
< Like this; I am a new paragraph. I'm pretty short, though.
---
>  Like this; I am a new paragraph. I'm pretty short, though.
34c34
< <subtitle>Another Sub Section</subtitle>
---
>  <subtitle>Another Sub Section</subtitle>
36,37c36,37
< I am some more content. My purpose is to demonstrate some
< of the symantic hint tags which we might include. <name>Someone Else</name> might have a name, associated with a birthday (like, say, <date>April 13, 1977</date>). They might have been born
---
>  I am some more content. My purpose is to demonstrate some
>  of the symantic hint tags which we might include. <name>Someone  Else</name> might have a name, associated with a birthday (like,  say, <date>April 13, 1977</date>). They might have been born
39a40,69
>  
>  It might be interesting to specify <jargon>jargon</jargon>
>  in the content. One might even have a footnote, defined inline    <footnote>This footnote would actually be rendered in a manner
>  considered good for the medium. For example, at the bottom of 
>  a printed page.</footnote>.
> 
>  Although complicated, adding inline LaTeX would be a very
>  nice future feature:
>  <latex>
>  \begin{table}
>  \end{table}
>  </latex>
> 
>  References are a little harder, but defining those inline
>  as well might be best, as for the GPL
>  <reference>
>  <author>Richard Stallman</author>
>  <title>General Public License</title>
>  <proceedings></proceedings>
>  <book></book>
>  <journal></journal>
>  <periodical></periodical>
>  <date></date>
>  </reference>. 
>  
>  </content>
> 
>  <edit date="January 20, 2001" author="Mike Warren      <foo@bar.com>">
>  A context diff on the <content> appears here...
>  </edit>
41,71c71
< It might be interesting to specify <jargon>jargon</jargon>
< in the content. One might even have a footnote, defined inline <footnote>This footnote would actually be rendered in a manner
< considered good for the medium. For example, at the bottom of
< a printed page.</footnote>.
< 
< Although complicated, adding inline LaTeX would be a very
< nice future feature:
< <latex>
< \begin{table}
< \end{table}
< </latex>
< 
< References are a little harder, but defining those inline
< as well might be best, as for the GPL
< <reference>
< <author>Richard Stallman</author>
< <title>General Public License</title>
< <proceedings></proceedings>
< <book></book>
< <journal></journal>
< <periodical></periodical>
< <date></date>
< </reference>.
< 
< </content>
< 
< <edit date="January 20, 2001" author="Mike Warren <foo@bar.com>">
< A context diff on the <content> appears here...
< </edit>
< 
< </article>
---
>  </article>
------
PreliminaryDTD|980301670
37,39c37,41
<  of the symantic hint tags which we might include. <name>Someone  Else</name> might have a name, associated with a birthday (like,  say, <date>April 13, 1977</date>). They might have been born
< in a place such as <place>Calgary, Alberta</place> which doesn't
< have to be a full, canonical place-name.
---
>  of the symantic hint tags which we might include. <name>Someone
>  Else</name> might have a name, associated with a birthday (like,
>  say, <date>April 13, 1977</date>). They might have been born
>  in a place such as <place>Calgary, Alberta</place> which 
>  doesn't have to be a full, canonical place-name.
------
PreliminaryDTD|980301702
44c44,45
<  in the content. One might even have a footnote, defined inline    <footnote>This footnote would actually be rendered in a manner
---
>  in the content. One might even have a footnote, defined inline
>  <footnote>This footnote would actually be rendered in a manner
------
PreliminaryDTD|980301821
70c70
<  <edit date="January 20, 2001" author="Mike Warren      <foo@bar.com>">
---
>  <edit date="January 20, 2001" author="Mike Warren foo@bar.com>">
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980302080
121c121
< TrigonomtricIdentities, and, in CalculuS, the continuity and differentiability of these functions. 
---
> TrigonomtricIdentities, and, in CalculuS, the LimiT, the ContinuiTy and DifferentiabiliTy of each these functions. 
------
EthicalityVsMorality|980302125
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethicality and Morality?  Are they not, after all, synonymous?  Doesn't one pretty much imply the other?  Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, no and no" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible.
> 
> The root word for Ethical is the Greek "ethos," meaning "character."  The root word for Moral is Latin "mos," meaning "custom."
> 
> Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct.  Character and custom, however, provide two very different standards for defining what is right and what is wrong.  Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time.  People have character.  Societies have custom.  To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference.
> 
> It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick.  Let us say that good, or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those things which tend away from that greatest survival.  This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory.  
> 
> (more to come, as time permits)
> 
> 
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980303026
119c119
< '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and for an angle of 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoranThoerem, and theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
---
> '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and for an angle of 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoreanThoerem, and theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980303054
119c119
< '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and for an angle of 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoreanThoerem, and theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
---
> '''Q.''' Can you determine the value of the six TrigonometricFunctions for an angle of 60 degrees and for an angle of 30 degrees using only the definitions, the PythagoreanTheorem, and theorems from EuclideanGeometry?----
------
PhiloSophy|980303202
11c11,14
< '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism -- EthicalityVsMorality [etc. continue the list please]
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism [etc. continue the list please]
> 
> '''PhilosophicalIssuesAndProblems:'''
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality
------
EthicalityVsMorality|980303351
10,11c10,11
< 
< 
---
> ----
> I have studied ethics quite a bit and I can't say that I have seen the word "ethicality" very often, though I found it in [http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ethicality a dictionary].  I would rename this page "EthicsVsMorals" (or better yet, "EthicsAndMorals") and then it will be a topic that more people are apt to recognize. -- LarrySanger
------
PreliminaryDTD|980305646
6a7
>  <id>the-unique-id-for-this-article (assigned)</id>
------
PreliminaryDTD|980305673
2c2
< add tags to this ``example'' XML layout until we thing
---
> add tags to this ``example'' XML layout until we think
------
HiStory|980308242
1c1
< Should only include histories of eras and countries that are now defunct.  [Why "now defunct"?  The U.S. isn't defunct; what about AmericanHistory? --LarrySanger]
---
> Should only include histories of eras, fields and countries that are now defunct...because otherwise, you should probably just put it on the appropriate country or field page.
------
EthicalityVsMorality|980309050
11c11,13
< I have studied ethics quite a bit and I can't say that I have seen the word "ethicality" very often, though I found it in [http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ethicality a dictionary].  I would rename this page "EthicsVsMorals" (or better yet, "EthicsAndMorals") and then it will be a topic that more people are apt to recognize. -- LarrySanger
---
> I have studied ethics quite a bit and I can't say that I have seen the word "ethicality" very often, though I found it in [http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ethicality a dictionary].  I would rename this page "EthicsVsMorals" (or better yet, "EthicsAndMorals") and then it will be a topic that more people are apt to recognize. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> As you wish...
------
PhiloSophy|980309171
14c14
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality
---
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals
------
PhiloSophy|980309276
14c14
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals
---
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality
------
PhiloSophy|980309356
14c14
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality
---
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality -- EthicsVsMorals
------
EthicsVsMorals|980309379
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethicality and Morality? Are they not, after all, synonymous? Doesn't one pretty much imply
> the other? Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, no and no" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible. 
> 
> The root word for Ethical is the Greek "ethos," meaning "character." The root word for Moral is Latin "mos," meaning "custom." 
> 
> Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct. Character and custom, however, provide two very different
> standards for defining what is right and what is wrong. Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time. People have
> character. Societies have custom. To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference. 
> 
> It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick. Let us say that good,
> or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those
> things which tend away from that greatest survival. This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory. 
> 
> (more to come, as time permits)
------
PhiloSophy|980309525
14c14
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicalityVsMorality -- EthicsVsMorals
---
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals
------
EthicsVsMorals|980312005
1,2c1
< Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethicality and Morality? Are they not, after all, synonymous? Doesn't one pretty much imply
< the other? Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, no and no" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible. 
---
> Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethics and Morals? Are they not, after all, synonymous? Doesn't one pretty much imply the other? Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, No, and No" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible. 
6,12c5
< Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct. Character and custom, however, provide two very different
< standards for defining what is right and what is wrong. Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time. People have
< character. Societies have custom. To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference. 
< 
< It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick. Let us say that good,
< or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those
< things which tend away from that greatest survival. This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory. 
---
> Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct. Character and custom, however, provide two very different standards for defining what is right and what is wrong. Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time. People have character. Societies have custom. To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference. 
14c7,19
< (more to come, as time permits)
---
> It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick. Let us say that good, or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those things which tend away from that greatest survival. This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory.
> 
> While an objective standard of right and wrong may be desirable, this is not to say that objective standards and subjective standards are complete strangers to each other, necessarily.  One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obediance to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
> 
> While those of faith will argue that their custom is dictated by the Supreme Authority and as such establishes an asolute standard for both a morals and ethics (making them indistiguishable in that milleu), we may still discuss how what is "moral" may not be "right" by objective criteria, and vice-versa.
> 
> Consider:  It is moral, within the context of their society, for native African cannibals to eat their enemies.  Judeo-Christian morality declares this practice sinful.  One may argue on one hand that such practices are harmless in the context of an economy which relies on scarce resources and to which overpopulation is anathema.  On closer inspection, however, we find that a neurologic disorder, possibly of genetic (or viral?) origin literally causes the physical deterioration of the brains of some mammals, including humans, who practice cannibalism.  This has been responsible for destructive epidemics among cannibalistic tribes, and so unqualifiedly militates against their survival.  By objective standards, then, we might find that cannibalism is "bad."  And not because this or that social standard says so, but because it is insidiously destroying populations who practice it.  But one discovers this only by moving outside of the social structure of cannibalism and applying some science.
> 
> So - things can be innately good or bad, all social standards aside.  A person of character might learn what he can about the world around him, what will positively or negatively impact it, support the former, and strive against the latter.  such a person, by any standard, would probably have to be classified as ethical.  Some social groups might find his actions offensive or sinful but, if he is honest about his observations, possesses personal integrity, and is true to values which embrace working maximum benefit and minimum harm - for their own sake, we could not but call him ethical.
> 
> Ralph Waldo Emerson almost grasped this fully over two hundred years ago in his essay, "Self-Reliance."  He railed against the political sycophants and religious hypocrites of his day, pointing out that their values obtained to self-aggrandizement and social popularity, but not to the general good.  Therefore, they were untrue to themselves.
> 
> EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the reach of his vision.
------
AlTruism|980318795
1c1
< The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain.
---
> The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain.  When you say Widely dismissed, do you have anything to actually back that up?  What philosophers have dismissed this idea?  I would like to know how you can substantiate your critisism.
------
AlTruism|980318913
1c1,3
< The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain.  When you say Widely dismissed, do you have anything to actually back that up?  What philosophers have dismissed this idea?  I would like to know how you can substantiate your critisism.
---
> The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain. 
> 
> When you say '''widely dismissed''', do you have anything to actually back that up?  What philosophers have dismissed this idea?  I would like to know how you can substantiate your critisism.
------
KlausSeistrup|980319067
5,8c5
<  What is this for?  This is a pointless page. 
<  Is there really a Kingdom of Denmark? 
<  Is there a King and Queen?  I wasn't aware of such.
< 
---
>  
11c8
< This is a personal page for prolific WikiPedia writer KlausSeistrup.  It is not pointless, for it tells us his middle name and that he is a citizen of Denmark.  Now I can address him in Danish if I wanted to (and could).  Re: Danish royalty, you learn something new every day; aren't wikis great? -- LarrySanger
---
> This is a personal page for prolific WikiPedia writer KlausSeistrup.  It is not pointless, for it tells us his middle name and that he is a citizen of Denmark.  Now I can address him in Danish if I wanted to (and could).  Re: Danish royalty, you learn something new every day; aren't wikis great? -- LarrySanger
------
AlTruism|980319218
1,4d0
< The following view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain. 
< 
< When you say '''widely dismissed''', do you have anything to actually back that up?  What philosophers have dismissed this idea?  I would like to know how you can substantiate your critisism.
< 
6a3,12
> ----
> The foregoing view is known as ''PsychologicalEgoism'' and is widely dismissed by philosophers, for reasons that somebody ought to explain. 
> ----
> When you say '''widely dismissed''', do you have anything to actually back that up?  What philosophers have dismissed this idea?  I would like to know how you can substantiate your criticism.
> ----
> You can find it dismissed in any of many dozens of general philosophy textbooks as well as books about ethics.  It is hackneyed, common knowledge, among professional philosophers, to reject PsychologicalEgoism.  By the way, in saying that it has been dismissed, I don't pretend to be making a ''criticism''--just pointing out a fact.  Actually, I was asking that someone else take the time to make the ''criticism'' plain.
> 
> By the way, you might not know that AynRand herself rejected PsychologicalEgoism very firmly, as a matter of fact.  (Not that that's an argument!)
> 
> Also, I'd say that this discussion should probably be removed to the PsychologicalEgoism page, because it presents that view, rather than discussing altruism itself.  That's just my opinion, I'll leave it up to you. -- LarrySanger
------
AlTruism|980319456
8c8
< You can find it dismissed in any of many dozens of general philosophy textbooks as well as books about ethics.  It is hackneyed, common knowledge, among professional philosophers, to reject PsychologicalEgoism.  By the way, in saying that it has been dismissed, I don't pretend to be making a ''criticism''--just pointing out a fact.  Actually, I was asking that someone else take the time to make the ''criticism'' plain.
---
> You can find it dismissed in any of many dozens of general philosophy textbooks as well as books about ethics.  Here is just [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/egoism.htm one example].  It is hackneyed, among professional philosophers, to say that PsychologicalEgoism is untenable.  By the way, in saying that it has been dismissed, I don't pretend to be making a ''criticism''--just pointing out a fact.  Actually, I was asking that someone else take the time to make the ''criticism'' plain.
12c12
< Also, I'd say that this discussion should probably be removed to the PsychologicalEgoism page, because it presents that view, rather than discussing altruism itself.  That's just my opinion, I'll leave it up to you. -- LarrySanger
---
> Also, I'd say that this discussion should probably be removed to the PsychologicalEgoism page, because it presents that view, rather than discussing altruism itself.  That's just my opinion, I'll leave it up to you. -- LarrySanger
------
AlTruism|980323346
4a5,8
> 
> ''There's not a lot to explain; there is plain and simple empirical evidence of people doing altruistic acts.  People sometimes do generous things even if it makes them unhappy.  Of course you could say this is to get one's conscience to leave you alone, but since a conscience is darn close to an AltruismInstinct, that's pretty weak.''
> 
> ''People evolved to have empathy towards others and do altruistic things because that's good for everybody in general, though not always in specifics.  Whether altruism makes any sense, of course, is a different matter, though I wouldn't personally say it doesn't.''
7c11
< ----
---
> 
------
AbstractAlgebra|980324604
1c1
< An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of one or more sets of elements, together with one or more operations on these sets.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
---
> An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of a sets of elements together with one or more operations on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
9c9
< A map between two algebrae that preserves the operations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as the algebraic structure is concerned.
---
> A subalgebra of a given algebra is a subset thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  The subalgebrae of given algebrae usually form LatticEs under inclusion.
11c11
< ''More will go here soon, including definitions of all these terms.  Promise.''
---
> A map between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
------
MarylanD|980325582
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
> HEREIS A SIMPLE REMEDY TO CURE HEADACHE AND TENSION
> wHENEVERYOUGET A HEADACHE OR TENSION JUST RUB SOME LINIMENT LIKE vICKS VAPARUB AND ON THE FOREHEAD AND BACK OF HEAD AND THEN TAKE A LADIES HAIR DRYER AND BLOW SOME HOT WARM AIR. iN AFEW SECONDS YOU WILL BE CURED OF YOUR HEADACHE AND TENSION.
> 
>  iF YOU LIKE THE IDEA AND FIND IT WORKS PLEASE SEND 10 $ TO
> mR.v.sUNDERAM,nO 4NEWbALAJI NAGAR,cOIMBATORE,iNDIA,641 046.
> 
> tHANK YOU, tHIS AMOUNT WILLBEUSED FOR CHARITY.
> 
> SUNDERAM
> 
> 24/1/2001
------
PreliminaryDTD|980325884
6c6
<  <article>
---
>  <article DTDversion="preliminaryDTD0.01">
------
MathematicalGrouP|980327168
1c1
< MathematicalGrouP
---
> '''MathematicalGrouP - definition'''
11c11
< 3)	G contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to G then e*a = a and a*e = a.
---
> 3)	G contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to G then e*a = a and a*e = a.  This turns out to be unique.
13c13
< 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=e=b*a.
---
> 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=e=b*a.  This turns out to be unique.
15c15
< Sets of BiJections form groups under composition, providing they are closed under this operation and inverses.  A HomoMorphism from a group to a such a set is called a representation thereof, and it is called faithful if different group elements correspond to different BiJections.  CayleysTheorem states that every group has such a representation, so the study of groups can be considered as the study of permutations.
---
> Usually the operation, whatever it ''really'' is, is denoted like multiplication; we write a*b for the ''product'' of a and b, 1 for the identity and a^-1 for the inverse of a.  Otherwise, the operation is denoted like addition; we write a+b for the sum of a and b, 0 for the identity and -a for the inverse of a.
17c17
< A subset of G closed under * forms a SubGroup in an obvious way.  Every group contains at least two subgroups, itself and the trivial group containing only the identity.  Every other element is contained in a minimal subgroup isomorphic either to the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic, treated as groups under addition.
---
> '''Subgroups, HomoMorphisms, etc'''
19c19
< The KerneL of a group HomoMorphism consists of those elements that get mapped to an identity.  As it turns out, the possible KerneLs of a group are precisely the NormalSubGroups - those subgroups H such that g*H=H*g for all g in G - and this fixes the homomorphic image of the group up to isomorphism.
---
> A subset H of a group (G,*) that itself forms a group under the restriction of * is called a subgroup.  Every group has at least two subgroups, G itself and the trivial group {e}.  Every other element is contained in a unique smallest subgroup, called a CyclicGroup, isomorphic to the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic.
21,78c21
< ----
<  
< A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let Z be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (Z,+) is a GrouP.
< 
< 
< Proof:
< 
< 
< 1)	If a and b are integers then a+b is an integer: Closure.
< 
< 
< 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (a+b)+c=a+(b+c). Associativity.
< 
< 
< 3)	0 is an integer and for any integer a, a+0=a.
< 
< 
<        (Z,+) has an identity element.
< 
< 
< 4)	If a is an integer, then there is an integer b= (-a), such that a+b=0.
< 
< 
<         Every element of (Z,+) has an inverse.
< 
< ----
< 
< 
< Question: Given the set of integers, Z, as above, and the operation multiplication,
< denoted by "x" is (Z,x) a Group?
< 
< 
< 1)	If a and b are integers then axb is an integer. Closure.
< 
< 
< 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (axb)xc=ax(bxc). Associativity.
< 
< 
< 3)	1 is an integer and for any integer a, ax1=a.
< 
< 
<        (Z,x) has an identity element.
< 
< 
< 4)	'''BUT''', if a is an integer, there is not necessarily an integer b =1/a such that
< 
<         (a)x(1/a)=1.
< 
< 
< Then, every element of (Z,x) does not have an inverse.
< 
< 
< For example, given the integer 4, there is no integer b such that 4xb=1.
< 
< 
< Therefore, (Z,x) is '''not''' a Group.  It is a weaker type of object sometimes called a SemiGroup.
< 
< ----
---
> A group HomoMorphism is a map from one group to another that maps products to products, and thence identities to identities and inverses to inverses.  If it is also OneToOne, it is called an IsoMorphism.  The structure of a group is determined completely by its IsoMorphism class.
79a23
> The set of elements a HomoMorphism sends to e is called its KerNel, and is necessarily a subgroup H satisfying a*H=H*a for all a in G.  Such subgroups are called normal.  There is a homomorphism from G having any given normal subgroup as its kernel; the image of G is unique up to homorphism, and is called the FactorGroup G/H.
81,82c25
< '''Question''': Given the set of rational numbers Q, that is the set of number a/b such that
< a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Q,x) a GrouP?----
---
> The intersection of any two subgroups H,K is a group, and if they are disjoint, the DirectProduct H*K is a group.  This is isomorphic to the Cartesian product of H and K under componentwise multiplication, which is something that can e taken even when H and K are not being looked at as subgroups.
84c27
< Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdeaLs and FielDs.
---
> A group without any normal subgroups is called simple.  The 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980327187
27c27,97
< A group without any normal subgroups is called simple.  The 
---
> A group without any normal subgroups is called simple.  The simple commutative groups are precisely the ModularArithmetic''''s of prime order; any other finite commutative group is isomorphic to a direct product of these.
> 
> '''Representations'''
> 
> The set of all BiJections on some set X form a group under composition.  This is called the SymmetricGroup on X.  The symmetries of mathematical objects are usually subgroups of the SymmetricGroup.  In fact any group is isomorphic to a subgroup of the SymmetricGroup on ''some'' set X; such a map is called a representation of the group.
> 
> The action of the group G defines a product GxX->X (action on the left) or XxG->X (action on the right).  Note every group acts on itself in an obvious way.  If no subset of X is closed under the group action, then the representation is called irreducible; other representations are arbitrary unions of reducible ones.
> ----
>  
> A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let Z be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (Z,+) is a GrouP.
> 
> 
> Proof:
> 
> 
> 1)	If a and b are integers then a+b is an integer: Closure.
> 
> 
> 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (a+b)+c=a+(b+c). Associativity.
> 
> 
> 3)	0 is an integer and for any integer a, a+0=a.
> 
> 
>        (Z,+) has an identity element.
> 
> 
> 4)	If a is an integer, then there is an integer b= (-a), such that a+b=0.
> 
> 
>         Every element of (Z,+) has an inverse.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> Question: Given the set of integers, Z, as above, and the operation multiplication,
> denoted by "x" is (Z,x) a Group?
> 
> 
> 1)	If a and b are integers then axb is an integer. Closure.
> 
> 
> 2)	If a, b, and c are integers, then (axb)xc=ax(bxc). Associativity.
> 
> 
> 3)	1 is an integer and for any integer a, ax1=a.
> 
> 
>        (Z,x) has an identity element.
> 
> 
> 4)	'''BUT''', if a is an integer, there is not necessarily an integer b =1/a such that
> 
>         (a)x(1/a)=1.
> 
> 
> Then, every element of (Z,x) does not have an inverse.
> 
> 
> For example, given the integer 4, there is no integer b such that 4xb=1.
> 
> 
> Therefore, (Z,x) is '''not''' a Group.  It is a weaker type of object sometimes called a SemiGroup.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> '''Question''': Given the set of rational numbers Q, that is the set of number a/b such that
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Q,x) a GrouP?----
> 
> Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdeaLs and FielDs.
------
GNEArchitecTure|980338812
157c157
< up to correct and wrong (in their opinion) classifications. No
---
> up to correct the wrong (in their opinion) classifications. No
------
PreliminaryDTD|980339966
5,6c5,7
< 
<  <article DTDversion="preliminaryDTD0.01">
---
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
> <!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "preliminaryDTD0.01">
>  <article>
------
PreliminaryDTD|980340196
5,6c5,6
< <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
< <!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "preliminaryDTD0.01">
---
>  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
>  <!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "preliminaryDTD0.01">
------
TopOlogy|980344085
18a19,25
> ----
> 
> Just to be clear, a Moebius strip can be modelled in 3D space (we made them as kids all the time), it's the Klein bottle that cannot.
> 
> Its been a while since I've had topology, but I seem to remember there being a theorem indicating that there were only some specific number (6 is it?) of different topological shapes in 3-space.  Does anyone remember this?
> 
> I've been out of it for far too long...
------
MarylanD|980344169
2,12d1
< HEREIS A SIMPLE REMEDY TO CURE HEADACHE AND TENSION
< wHENEVERYOUGET A HEADACHE OR TENSION JUST RUB SOME LINIMENT LIKE vICKS VAPARUB AND ON THE FOREHEAD AND BACK OF HEAD AND THEN TAKE A LADIES HAIR DRYER AND BLOW SOME HOT WARM AIR. iN AFEW SECONDS YOU WILL BE CURED OF YOUR HEADACHE AND TENSION.
< 
<  iF YOU LIKE THE IDEA AND FIND IT WORKS PLEASE SEND 10 $ TO
< mR.v.sUNDERAM,nO 4NEWbALAJI NAGAR,cOIMBATORE,iNDIA,641 046.
< 
< tHANK YOU, tHIS AMOUNT WILLBEUSED FOR CHARITY.
< 
< SUNDERAM
< 
< 24/1/2001
------
AfghanistaN|980352721
1c1
< Afghanistan
---
> Afghanistan is a country in Southern AsiA, north and west of PakistaN, east of IraN
3,372c3,11
<                                                    Introduction
< 
< 
< 
< Background: Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces
< supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic
< Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country. In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure,
< and widespread live mines. 
< 
<                                                    Geography
< 
< 
< 
< Location: Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran 
< 
< Geographic coordinates: 33 00 N, 65 00 E 
< 
< Map references: Asia 
< 
< Area: 
< total: 652,000 sq km 
< land: 652,000 sq km 
< water: 0 sq km 
< 
< Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Texas 
< 
< Land boundaries: 
< total: 5,529 km 
< border countries: China 76 km, Iran 936 km, Pakistan 2,430 km, Tajikistan 1,206 km, Turkmenistan 744 km, Uzbekistan 137 km 
< 
< Coastline: 0 km (landlocked) 
< 
< Maritime claims: none (landlocked) 
< 
< Climate: arid to semiarid; cold winters and hot summers 
< 
< Terrain: mostly rugged mountains; plains in north and southwest 
< 
< Elevation extremes: 
< lowest point: Amu Darya 258 m 
< highest point: Nowshak 7,485 m 
< 
< Natural resources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones 
< 
< Land use: 
< arable land: 12% 
< permanent crops: 0% 
< permanent pastures: 46% 
< forests and woodland: 3% 
< other: 39% (1993 est.) 
< 
< Irrigated land: 30,000 sq km (1993 est.) 
< 
< Natural hazards: damaging earthquakes occur in Hindu Kush mountains; flooding 
< 
< Environment - current issues: soil degradation; overgrazing; deforestation (much of the remaining forests are being cut down for fuel and building materials);
< desertification 
< 
< Environment - international agreements: 
< party to: Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban 
< signed, but not ratified: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Life Conservation 
< 
< Geography - note: landlocked 
< 
<                                                      People
< 
< 
< 
< Population: 25,838,797 (July 2000 est.) 
< 
< Age structure: 
< 0-14 years: 42.37% (male 5,598,403; female 5,371,054) 
< 15-64 years: 54.86% (male 7,362,961; female 6,839,914) 
< 65 years and over: 2.77% (male 378,741; female 337,724) (2000 est.) 
< 
< Population growth rate: 3.54% (2000 est.) 
< note: this rate reflects the continued return of refugees from Iran 
< 
< Birth rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Death rate: 18.01 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Net migration rate: 11.54 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Sex ratio: 
< at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female 
< under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female 
< 15-64 years: 1.08 male(s)/female 
< 65 years and over: 1.12 male(s)/female 
< total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
< 
< Infant mortality rate: 149.28 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
< 
< Life expectancy at birth: 
< total population: 45.88 years 
< male: 46.62 years 
< female: 45.1 years (2000 est.) 
< 
< Total fertility rate: 5.87 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
< 
< Nationality: 
< noun: Afghan(s) 
< adjective: Afghan 
< 
< Ethnic groups: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 
< 
< Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1% 
< 
< Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much
< bilingualism 
< 
< Literacy: 
< definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
< total population: 31.5% 
< male: 47.2% 
< female: 15% (1999 est.) 
< 
<                                                    Government
< 
< 
< 
< Country name: 
< conventional long form: Islamic State of Afghanistan; note - the self-proclaimed Taliban government refers to the country as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 
< conventional short form: Afghanistan 
< local long form: Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan 
< local short form: Afghanestan 
< former: Republic of Afghanistan 
< 
< Data code: AF 
< 
< Government type: no functioning central government, administered by factions 
< 
< Capital: Kabul 
< 
< Administrative divisions: 30 provinces (velayat, singular - velayat); Badakhshan, Badghis, Baghlan, Balkh, Bamian, Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Ghowr, Helmand, Herat,
< Jowzjan, Kabol, Kandahar, Kapisa, Konar, Kondoz, Laghman, Lowgar, Nangarhar, Nimruz, Oruzgan, Paktia, Paktika, Parvan, Samangan, Sar-e Pol, Takhar, Vardak, Zabol 
< note: there may be two new provinces of Nurestan (Nuristan) and Khowst 
< 
< Independence: 19 August 1919 (from UK control over Afghan foreign affairs) 
< 
< National holiday: Victory of the Muslim Nation, 28 April; Remembrance Day for Martyrs and Disabled, 4 May; Independence Day, 19 August 
< 
< Constitution: none 
< 
< Legal system: a new legal system has not been adopted but all factions tacitly agree they will follow Shari'a (Islamic law) 
< 
< Suffrage: NA; previously males 15-50 years of age 
< 
< Executive branch: on 27 September 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement; the Islamic State
< of Afghanistan has no functioning government at this time, and the country remains divided among fighting factions 
< note: the Taliban have declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin RABBANI; the
< Organization of the Islamic Conference has left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy can be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions; the
< country is essentially divided along ethnic lines; the Taliban controls the capital of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of the country including the predominately ethnic
< Pashtun areas in southern Afghanistan; opposing factions have their stronghold in the ethnically diverse north 
< 
< Legislative branch: non-functioning as of June 1993 
< 
< Judicial branch: non-functioning as of March 1995, although there are local Shari'a (Islamic law) courts throughout the country 
< 
< Political parties and leaders: Harakat-i-Islami (Islamic Movement) [Mohammed Asif MOHSENI]; Harakat-Inqilab-i-Islami (Islamic Revolutionary Movement)
< [Mohammad Nabi MOHAMMADI]; Hizbi Islami-Gulbuddin (Islamic Party) [Gulbuddin HIKMATYAR faction]; Hizbi Islami-Khalis (Islamic Party) [Yunis KHALIS
< faction]; Hizbi Wahdat-Akbari faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Mohammad Akbar AKBARI]; Ittihad-i-Islami Barai Azadi Afghanistan (Islamic Union for the Liberation of
< Afghanistan) [Abdul Rasul SAYYAF]; Jabha-i-Najat-i-Milli Afghanistan (Afghanistan National Liberation Front) [Sibghatullah MOJADDEDI]; Mahaz-i-Milli-Islami
< (National Islamic Front) [Sayed Ahamad GAILANI]; Taliban (Religious Students Movement) [Mohammad OMAR]; United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
< comprised of Jumbesh-i-Melli Islami (National Islamic Movement) [Abdul Rashid DOSTAM]; Jamiat-i-Islami (Islamic Society) [Burhanuddin RABBANI and Ahmad
< Shah MASOOD]; and Hizbi Wahdat-Khalili faction (Islamic Unity Party) [Abdul Karim KHALILI] 
< 
< Political pressure groups and leaders: Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Australia, US, and elsewhere have organized politically; Mellat (Social Democratic Party) [leader
< NA]; Peshawar, Pakistan-based groups such as the Coordination Council for National Unity and Understanding in Afghanistan or CUNUA [Ishaq GAILANI]; tribal elders
< represent traditional Pashtun leadership; Writers Union of Free Afghanistan or WUFA [A. Rasul AMIN] 
< 
< International organization participation: AsDB, CP, ECO, ESCAP, FAO, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, Intelsat, IOC,
< IOM (observer), ITU, NAM, OIC, OPCW, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WMO, WToO 
< 
< Diplomatic representation in the US: 
< note: embassy operations suspended 21 August 1997 
< chief of mission: Ambassador (vacant) 
< chancery: 2341 Wyoming Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 
< telephone: [1] (202) 234-3770 
< FAX: [1] (202) 328-3516 
< consulate(s) general: New York 
< 
< Diplomatic representation from the US: the US embassy in Kabul has been closed since January 1989 due to security concerns 
< 
< Flag description: three equal horizontal bands of green (top), white, and black with a gold emblem centered on the three bands; the emblem features a temple-like
< structure with Islamic inscriptions above and below, encircled by a wreath on the left and right and by a bolder Islamic inscription above, all of which are encircled by two
< crossed scimitars 
< note: the Taliban uses a plain white flag 
< 
<                                                     Economy
< 
< 
< 
< Economy - overview: Afghanistan is an extremely poor, landlocked country, highly dependent on farming and livestock raising (sheep and goats). Economic considerations
< have played second fiddle to political and military upheavals during two decades of war, including the nearly 10-year Soviet military occupation (which ended 15 February
< 1989). During that conflict one-third of the population fled the country, with Pakistan and Iran sheltering a combined peak of more than 6 million refugees. In early 1999, 1.2
< million Afghan refugees remained in Pakistan and about 1.4 million in Iran. Gross domestic product has fallen substantially over the past 20 years because of the loss of labor
< and capital and the disruption of trade and transport. The majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Inflation
< remains a serious problem throughout the country. International aid can deal with only a fraction of the humanitarian problem, let alone promote economic development. The
< economic situation did not improve in 1998-99, as internal civil strife continued, hampering both domestic economic policies and international aid efforts. Numerical data are
< likely to be either unavailable or unreliable. Afghanistan was by far the largest producer of opium poppies in 1999, and narcotics trafficking is a major source of revenue. 
< 
< GDP: purchasing power parity - $21 billion (1999 est.) 
< 
< GDP - real growth rate: NA% 
< 
< GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $800 (1999 est.) 
< 
< GDP - composition by sector: 
< agriculture: 53% 
< industry: 28.5% 
< services: 18.5% (1990) 
< 
< Population below poverty line: NA% 
< 
< Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
< lowest 10%: NA% 
< highest 10%: NA% 
< 
< Inflation rate (consumer prices): NA% 
< 
< Labor force: 8 million (1997 est.) 
< 
< Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 68%, industry 16%, services 16% (1980 est.) 
< 
< Unemployment rate: 8% (1995 est.) 
< 
< Budget: 
< revenues: $NA 
< expenditures: $NA, including capital expenditures of $NA 
< 
< Industries: small-scale production of textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, and cement; handwoven carpets; natural gas, oil, coal, copper 
< 
< Electricity - production: 430 million kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - production by source: 
< fossil fuel: 41.86% 
< hydro: 58.14% 
< nuclear: 0% 
< other: 0% (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - consumption: 510 million kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - imports: 110 million kWh (1998) 
< 
< Agriculture - products: opium poppies, wheat, fruits, nuts, karakul pelts; wool, mutton 
< 
< Exports: $80 million (does not include opium) (1996 est.) 
< 
< Exports - commodities: opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems 
< 
< Exports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Germany, India, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic 
< 
< Imports: $150 million (1996 est.) 
< 
< Imports - commodities: capital goods, food and petroleum products; most consumer goods 
< 
< Imports - partners: FSU, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, Singapore, India, South Korea, Germany 
< 
< Debt - external: $5.5 billion (1996 est.) 
< 
< Economic aid - recipient: US provided about $70 million in humanitarian assistance in 1997; US continues to contribute to multilateral assistance through the UN
< programs of food aid, immunization, land mine removal, and a wide range of aid to refugees and displaced persons 
< 
< Currency: 1 afghani (AF) = 100 puls 
< 
< Exchange rates: afghanis (Af) per US$1 - 4,700 (January 2000), 4,750 (February 1999), 17,000 (December 1996), 7,000 (January 1995), 1,900 (January 1994), 1,019
< (March 1993), 850 (1991); note - these rates reflect the free market exchange rates rather than the official exchange rate, which was fixed at 50.600 afghanis to the dollar
< until 1996, when it rose to 2,262.65 per dollar, and finally became fixed again at 3,000.00 per dollar in April 1996 
< 
< Fiscal year: 21 March - 20 March 
< 
<                                                  Communications
< 
<  
< 
< Telephones - main lines in use: 31,200 (1983); note - there were 21,000 main lines in use in Kabul in 1998 
< 
< Telephones - mobile cellular: NA 
< 
< Telephone system: 
< domestic: very limited telephone and telegraph service; in 1997, telecommunications links were established between Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad, and Kabul
< through satellite and microwave systems 
< international: satellite earth stations - 1 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) linked only to Iran and 1 Intersputnik (Atlantic Ocean region); commercial satellite telephone center in
< Ghazni 
< 
< Radio broadcast stations: AM 7 (6 are inactive; the active station is in Kabul), FM 1, shortwave 1 (broadcasts in Pushtu, Dari, Urdu, and English) (1999) 
< 
< Radios: 167,000 (1999) 
< 
< Television broadcast stations: at least 10 (one government run central television station in Kabul and regional stations in nine of the 30 provinces; the regional stations
< operate on a reduced schedule; also, in 1997, there was a station in Mazar-e Sharif reaching four northern Afghanistan provinces) (1998) 
< 
< Televisions: 100,000 (1999) 
< 
< Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA 
< 
<                                                   Transportation
< 
< 
< 
< Railways: 
< total: 24.6 km 
< broad gauge: 9.6 km 1.524-m gauge from Gushgy (Turkmenistan) to Towraghondi; 15 km 1.524-m gauge from Termiz (Uzbekistan) to Kheyrabad transshipment point on
< south bank of Amu Darya 
< 
< Highways: 
< total: 21,000 km 
< paved: 2,793 km 
< unpaved: 18,207 km (1998 est.) 
< 
< Waterways: 1,200 km; chiefly Amu Darya, which handles vessels up to about 500 DWT 
< 
< Pipelines: petroleum products - Uzbekistan to Bagram and Turkmenistan to Shindand; natural gas 180 km 
< 
< Ports and harbors: Kheyrabad, Shir Khan 
< 
< Airports: 46 (1999 est.) 
< 
< Airports - with paved runways: 
< total: 14 
< over 3,047 m: 3 
< 2,438 to 3,047 m: 4 
< 1,524 to 2,437 m: 4 
< 914 to 1,523 m: 1 
< under 914 m: 2 (1999 est.) 
< 
< Airports - with unpaved runways: 
< total: 32 
< 2,438 to 3,047 m: 5 
< 1,524 to 2,437 m: 13 
< 914 to 1,523 m: 3 
< under 914 m: 11 (1999 est.) 
< 
< Heliports: 3 (1999 est.) 
< 
<                                                     Military
< 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
< 
< Military branches: NA; note - the military does not exist on a national basis; some elements of the former Army, Air and Air Defense Forces, National Guard, Border
< Guard Forces, National Police Force (Sarandoi), and tribal militias still exist but are factionalized among the various groups 
< 
< Military manpower - military age: 22 years of age 
< 
< Military manpower - availability: 
< males age 15-49: 6,401,980 (2000 est.) 
< 
< Military manpower - fit for military service: 
< males age 15-49: 3,432,236 (2000 est.) 
< 
< Military manpower - reaching military age annually: 
< males: 244,958 (2000 est.) 
< 
< Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA 
< 
< Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA% 
< 
<                                                 Transnational Issues
< 
<  
< 
< Disputes - international: support to Islamic militants worldwide by some factions; question over which group should hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN 
< 
< Illicit drugs: world's largest illicit opium producer, surpassing Burma (potential production in 1999 - 1,670 metric tons; cultivation in 1999 - 51,500 hectares, a 23%
< increase over 1998); a major source of hashish; increasing number of heroin-processing laboratories being set up in the country; major political factions in the country profit
< from drug trade 
---
>  AfghanistanHistory
>  AfghanistanGeography
>  AfghanistanPeople
>  AfghanistanGovernement
>  AfghanistanEconomy
>  AfghanistanCommunications
>  AfghanistanTransportations
>  AfghanistanMilitary
>  AfghanistanTransnationalIssues
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980352792
4,7d3
< 
< The CIAWorldFactBook seems to have very long entries. Wouldn't it be better to split them up like this instead: AfGhanistan --LinusTolke
< 
< Very nice, LinusTolke!  Very Nice! --JimboWales
------
AfGhanistan|980352842
1,21c1
< Illustration on an alternative example on how to organize a country. Compare to the "all in one node"-solution in AfghanistaN --LinusTolke
< ----
< 
< AfghanistanHistory
< 
< AfghanistanGeography
< 
< AfghanistanPeople
< 
< AfghanistanGovernement
< 
< AfghanistanEconomy
< 
< AfghanistanCommunications
< 
< AfghanistanTransportations
< 
< AfghanistanMilitary
< 
< AfghanistanTransnationalIssues
< 
---
> 
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|980353273
5d4
< 
8d6
< 
10,62c8,16
< 
< CountriesA
< 
< CountriesB
< 
< CountriesC
< 
< CountriesD
< 
< CountriesE
< 
< CountriesF
< 
< CountriesG
< 
< CountriesH
< 
< CountriesI
< 
< CountriesJ
< 
< CountriesK
< 
< CountriesL
< 
< CountriesM
< 
< CountriesN
< 
< CountriesO
< 
< CountriesP
< 
< CountriesQ
< 
< CountriesR
< 
< CountriesS
< 
< CountriesT
< 
< CountriesU
< 
< CountriesV
< 
< CountriesW
< 
< CountriesX
< 
< CountriesY
< 
< CountriesZ
< 
---
>  CountriesA  CountriesJ  CountriesS
>  CountriesB  CountriesK  CountriesT
>  CountriesC  CountriesL  CountriesU
>  CountriesD  CountriesM  CountriesV
>  CountriesE  CountriesN  CountriesW
>  CountriesF  CountriesO  CountriesX
>  CountriesG  CountriesP  CountriesY
>  CountriesH  CountriesQ  CountriesZ
>  CountriesI  CountriesR
------
CountriesC|980353289
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CanadA
------
CountriesH|980353311
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> HonduraS
------
CountriesJ|980353337
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> JapaN
------
CountriesB|980353366
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> BahraiN
------
CountriesL|980353391
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> LuxemburG
------
EuropE|980353460
31c31
<     LuxembourG,
---
>     LuxemburG,
------
CountriesM|980353483
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MarockO
------
CountriesE|980353500
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> EstoniA
------
CountriesF|980353518
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FinlanD
------
CountriesQ|980353544
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> QataR
------
CountriesI|980353559
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ItalY
------
EuroCurrency|980353589
1c1
< The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemBurg. The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries in relation to the Euro were fixed on Januar 1st, 1999 using the value of the ECU (European Currency Unit) at that time. This means that from that date the Euro is the currency that takes part in the world economy, with a changing exchange rate (actually its value decreased steadily since January 1st, 1999). The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries are then simply calculated using the fixed value that was determined on January 1st, 1999 and the exchange rate of the Euro.
---
> The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries in relation to the Euro were fixed on Januar 1st, 1999 using the value of the ECU (European Currency Unit) at that time. This means that from that date the Euro is the currency that takes part in the world economy, with a changing exchange rate (actually its value decreased steadily since January 1st, 1999). The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries are then simply calculated using the fixed value that was determined on January 1st, 1999 and the exchange rate of the Euro.
------
MarylanD|980353703
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A state in the east of the UnitedStates.
------
SportS|980355327
2a3,10
> I have tried to do a classification of sports in categories.
> ----
> Speed sports (where the goal is to be as quick as possible. No or very little contact with your opponents.):
> * BiCycling
> * RunninG
> * OrienteerinG
> 
> Precision sports (where the goal is to be as accurate as possible in throwing, tossing, rolling, ... No or very little contact with your opponents.):
4,6c12,14
< * ArmWrestling
< * AustralianRulesFootball
< * AutoRacing
---
> * BilliardS
> * BowlinG
> * CroqueT
7a16
> Ball sports (where you and your opponent(s) are working to get control of and place a ball):
11,16c20,30
< * BassFishing
< * BiathloN
< * BiCycling
< * BilliardS
< * BodyBuilding
< * BowlinG
---
> * AmericanFootBall
> * AustralianRulesFootball
> * CrickeT
> * FieldHockey
> * FootBall
> * IceHockey
> * TableTennis
> * Tennis
> 
> Fighting (where you and your opponents compete against each other using your strength and speed in contact.):
> * ArmWrestling
18c32,33
< * Bushwalking
---
> * WrestlinG
> * FencinG
20,22c35,38
< * CheerLeading
< * CrickeT
< * CroqueT
---
> Motor sports (where you use the power of an engine as an important part of the sport.):
> * AutoRacing
> * EndurO
> * Formula1
24,26c40,42
< * FieldHockey
< * AmericanFootball
< * EuropeanFootball
---
> Combination sports (where the winning is decided by putting together results from several of the other categories):
> * BiathloN
> * PentathloN
28c44,46
< * OrienteerinG
---
> Comparison sports (where the winning is decided by a judge):
> * BodyBuilding
> * CheerLeading
30c48,53
< * RunninG
---
> Sports without competition (where the ultimate goal is not to win but to have fun):
> * BushWalking
> 
> Hunting sports (where the sport is to find, lure, catch some animal):
> * BassFishing
> * FoxHunt
------
FootBall|980355564
1c1,7
< That which one buys a large screen television for... 
---
> Two teams of eleven players each fight to get a spherical ball into the other teams goal.
> 
> The players are not allowed to touch the ball with their arms or shoulders.
> 
> Each team has a goal keeper that is allowed to touch the ball with his arms and shoulders when he is standing within the marked area around the home goal.
> ----
> That which one buys a large screen television for... 
------
EthicsVsMorals|980356174
9c9,11
< While an objective standard of right and wrong may be desirable, this is not to say that objective standards and subjective standards are complete strangers to each other, necessarily.  One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obediance to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
---
> While an objective standard of right and wrong may be desirable, this is not to say that objective standards and subjective standards are complete strangers to each other, necessarily.  After all, social mores are seldom entirely arbitrary.  They are adopted by societies during the natural course of events because at one time or another this or that rule is seen as beneficial to the survival of the group as a group.  Members who subscribe to the rules of the society arguably see survival potential in them.  
> 
> One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obediance to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
15c17,21
< So - things can be innately good or bad, all social standards aside.  A person of character might learn what he can about the world around him, what will positively or negatively impact it, support the former, and strive against the latter.  such a person, by any standard, would probably have to be classified as ethical.  Some social groups might find his actions offensive or sinful but, if he is honest about his observations, possesses personal integrity, and is true to values which embrace working maximum benefit and minimum harm - for their own sake, we could not but call him ethical.
---
> Note that governmental bodies and professions such as medicine and the law have developed codes of conduct for their members.  These are called ethical codes, and not moral codes.  Morality, being custom-based, relies heavily on the mores of the society - which tend to have religious origins.  Therefore, in the field of morals, one talks of such things as "sin" and "virtue".  In the field of professional ethics, the discussion tends to revolve around responsibility, duty, and benefit vs negligence, betrayal and harm.  There is an obvious effort in the field of civic and professional ethics to establish and follow and objective standard based upon the concrete consequences of one's acts.
> 
> The founders (and to a lesser degree, subsequent leaders) of social groupings may see a necessity for a given type of behavior in a purely ethical sense.  "We must do this or perish."  He may attempt to educate others as to the necessity of the behavior which he prescribes.  How likely is it, though, that the followers, adherents, members or what-have-you will share their leaders' insights and understanding?  One of the reasons they are sheep instead of shepherds is that they sense a superior ability to survive in the guy holding the staff.  So, when education fails, when personal wisdom and responsibility are inadequate, rules, threats and punishments are established.  Now we have moved from the field of ethics, founded in personal character - and into the field of morals, founded in approval by authority.
> 
> So - things can be innately good or bad, all social standards aside.  A person of character might learn what he can about the world around him; determine what will positively or negatively impact it; resolve to support the former, and strive against the latter.  Such a person by any standard would probably have to be classified as ethical.  Some social groups might find his actions offensive or sinful, but if he is honest about his observations, possesses personal integrity, and is true to values which embrace working maximum benefit and minimum harm - for their own sake - we could not but call him ethical.
19c25
< EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the reach of his vision.
---
> EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision.
------
FootBall|980356458
7a8,9
> ----
> Not to start a religious war or anything, but the definition above is for what we Americans call SocceR.  FootBall is what they play in the SuperBowl. :-) --JimboWales
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980358001
3a4,5
> ----
> Whether one ought or ought not be motivated by self interest may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture."  The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole.  So- if one is able to envision man as dependent on the success of other life forms and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing the best for the most.
------
AlTruism|980358526
11,12c11,14
< 
< You can find it dismissed in any of many dozens of general philosophy textbooks as well as books about ethics.  Here is just [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/egoism.htm one example].  It is hackneyed, among professional philosophers, to say that PsychologicalEgoism is untenable.  By the way, in saying that it has been dismissed, I don't pretend to be making a ''criticism''--just pointing out a fact.  Actually, I was asking that someone else take the time to make the ''criticism'' plain.
---
> ----
> You can find it dismissed in any of many dozens of general philosophy textbooks as well as books about ethics.  Here is just [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/egoism.htm one example].  It is hackneyed, among professional philosophers, to say that PsychologicalEgoism is untenable.  By the way, in saying that it has been dismissed, I don't pretend to be making a ''criticism''--just pointing out a fact.  
> ----
> Actually, I was asking that someone else take the time to make the ''criticism'' plain.
16a19,20
> ----
> Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
------
AlTruism|980358576
20c20
< Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
---
> Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
------
PsychologicalEgoism|980358643
5c5
< Whether one ought or ought not be motivated by self interest may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture."  The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole.  So- if one is able to envision man as dependent on the success of other life forms and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing the best for the most.
---
> Whether one ought or ought not be motivated by self interest may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture."  The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole.  So- if one is able to envision man as dependent on the success of other life forms and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing the best for the most.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980360125
5a6,7
> 
> Geek Speak (articlkes to follow)
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980360133
7c7
< Geek Speak (articlkes to follow)
---
> Geek Speak (articles to follow)
------
FootBall|980362431
9c9,11
< Not to start a religious war or anything, but the definition above is for what we Americans call SocceR.  FootBall is what they play in the SuperBowl. :-) --JimboWales
---
> Not to start a religious war or anything, but the definition above is for what we Americans call SocceR.  FootBall is what they play in the SuperBowl. :-) --JimboWales
> ----
> I suggest AmericanFootball and EuropeanFootball as topics.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
EthicsVsMorals|980367948
11c11
< One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obediance to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
---
> One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obedience to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
13c13
< While those of faith will argue that their custom is dictated by the Supreme Authority and as such establishes an asolute standard for both a morals and ethics (making them indistiguishable in that milleu), we may still discuss how what is "moral" may not be "right" by objective criteria, and vice-versa.
---
> While those of faith will argue that their custom is dictated by the Supreme Authority and as such establishes an asolute standard for both a morals and ethics (making them indistiguishable within that milleu), we may still discuss how what is "moral" may not be "right" by objective criteria, and vice-versa.
15c15
< Consider:  It is moral, within the context of their society, for native African cannibals to eat their enemies.  Judeo-Christian morality declares this practice sinful.  One may argue on one hand that such practices are harmless in the context of an economy which relies on scarce resources and to which overpopulation is anathema.  On closer inspection, however, we find that a neurologic disorder, possibly of genetic (or viral?) origin literally causes the physical deterioration of the brains of some mammals, including humans, who practice cannibalism.  This has been responsible for destructive epidemics among cannibalistic tribes, and so unqualifiedly militates against their survival.  By objective standards, then, we might find that cannibalism is "bad."  And not because this or that social standard says so, but because it is insidiously destroying populations who practice it.  But one discovers this only by moving outside of the social structure of cannibalism and applying some science.
---
> Consider:  It is moral, within the context of their society, for native African cannibals to eat their enemies.  Judeo-Christian morality declares this practice sinful.  One may argue on one hand that such practice is harmless in the context of a hunter-gatherer economy which relies on scarce resources and to which overpopulation is anathema.  On closer inspection, however, we find that a neurologic disorder, possibly of genetic (or viral?) origin literally causes the physical deterioration of the brains of some mammals, including humans, who practice cannibalism.  This has been responsible for destructive epidemics among cannibalistic tribes, and so unqualifiedly militates against their survival.  By objective standards, then, we might find that cannibalism is "bad."  And not because this or that social standard says so, but because it is insidiously destroying populations who practice it.  But one discovers this only by moving outside of the social structure of cannibalism and applying some science.
17c17
< Note that governmental bodies and professions such as medicine and the law have developed codes of conduct for their members.  These are called ethical codes, and not moral codes.  Morality, being custom-based, relies heavily on the mores of the society - which tend to have religious origins.  Therefore, in the field of morals, one talks of such things as "sin" and "virtue".  In the field of professional ethics, the discussion tends to revolve around responsibility, duty, and benefit vs negligence, betrayal and harm.  There is an obvious effort in the field of civic and professional ethics to establish and follow and objective standard based upon the concrete consequences of one's acts.
---
> Note that governmental bodies and professions such as medicine and the law have developed codes of conduct for their members.  These are called ethical codes, and not moral codes.  Morality, being custom-based, relies heavily on the mores of the society - which tend to have religious origins.  Therefore, in the field of morals, one talks of such things as "sin" and "virtue".  In the field of professional ethics, the discussion tends to revolve around responsibility, duty, and benefit vs negligence, betrayal and harm.  There is an obvious effort in the field of civic and professional ethics to establish and follow an objective standard based upon the concrete consequences of one's acts.
19c19,21
< The founders (and to a lesser degree, subsequent leaders) of social groupings may see a necessity for a given type of behavior in a purely ethical sense.  "We must do this or perish."  He may attempt to educate others as to the necessity of the behavior which he prescribes.  How likely is it, though, that the followers, adherents, members or what-have-you will share their leaders' insights and understanding?  One of the reasons they are sheep instead of shepherds is that they sense a superior ability to survive in the guy holding the staff.  So, when education fails, when personal wisdom and responsibility are inadequate, rules, threats and punishments are established.  Now we have moved from the field of ethics, founded in personal character - and into the field of morals, founded in approval by authority.
---
> The founder (and to a lesser degree, subsequent leaders) of a social grouping may see a necessity for a given type of behavior in a purely ethical sense.  "We must do this or perish."  He may attempt to educate others as to the necessity of the behavior which he prescribes.  How likely is it, though, that the followers, adherents, members or what-have-you will share their leader's insights and understanding?  One of the reasons they are sheep instead of shepherds is that they sense a superior ability to survive in the guy holding the staff.  So, when education fails, when personal wisdom and responsibility are inadequate, rules, threats and punishments are established.  Now we have moved from the field of ethics, founded in personal character - and into the field of morals, founded in approval by authority.
> 
> Ethically, there may be such things as neutral-value activities.  Walking around naked, using profanity, painting one's car fuscia - all may have no innate implications as to survivability in and of themselves.  However, one may quickly find that one's activites have impact on the sensory and emotional states of others.  As such, violating a social more or "good taste," even if it carries no penalty, interferes with the smooth passage of others through life and in such a miniscule fashion reduces the general survival.  This fact can make the violation of moral standards an unethical act because of the turmoil created.
25c27
< EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision.
---
> EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision.
------
TopOlogy|980368389
21c21
< Just to be clear, a Moebius strip can be modelled in 3D space (we made them as kids all the time), it's the Klein bottle that cannot.
---
> Just to be clear, a Moebius strip can be modeled in 3D space (we made them as kids all the time), it's the Klein bottle that cannot.
25a26,29
> 
> ----
> 
> Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itelf, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.  
------
TopOlogy|980368467
29c29
< Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itelf, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.  
---
> Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itself, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.  
------
FiLm|980368494
1a2,4
> 
> Initially, film constituted the movement that is perceived when a string of celluloid-recorded images are projected at a rate of more than 16 frames a second (see PersistenceofVision).  However, since the advent of many other media technologies, film may include a broad range of media--both linear and non-linear, dramatic and informational, motion and still (though progressive).
>  
------
PersistenceofVision|980368793
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The theory that the mind retains an image for a split second.  This accounts for the fact that when a motion picture flashes a series of progressive images, instead of the mind seeing the flashing of a series of images, it sees the illusion of motion.
> 
> Through experience in the early days of film innovation, it was determined that any rate less than 16 frames per second caused the mind to see flashing images.  Today's theatrical film runs at 24 frames a second and television runs barely under 30 frames a second.
------
PersistenceofVision|980370184
3a4,5
> ----
> Also the name of a short story by JohnVarley, and the title of one of his later [http://www.sfsite.com/isfdb-bin/plist.cgi?PRSSTNCVSN19XX anthologies].
------
CliffordAdams|980370555
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Cliff is the author of the [UseMod:UseModWiki UseMod wiki clone].  He is also a winner of the Third Annual Obfuscated Perl contest.  See his [MeatBall:CliffordAdams home page on Meatball] for more information.
> 
> Cliff has always loved encyclopedias, and is glad he could help a little with this effort.
------
CliffordAdams|980370609
1c1
< Cliff is the author of the [UseMod:UseModWiki UseMod wiki clone].  He is also a winner of the Third Annual Obfuscated Perl contest.  See his [MeatBall:CliffordAdams home page on Meatball] for more information.
---
> Cliff is the author of the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl UseMod wiki clone].  He is also a winner of the Third Annual Obfuscated Perl contest.  See his [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CliffordAdams home page on Meatball] for more information.
------
FootBall|980371013
11c11,17
< I suggest AmericanFootball and EuropeanFootball as topics.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> I suggest AmericanFootball and EuropeanFootball as topics.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Do non-Americans refer to Soccer as Soccer as well as FootBall?
> 
> If so, we could change this page to simply be a pointer to AmericanFootball, SocceR, and AustralianFootball.
> I think AustralianFootball is the same thing as RugBy, but
> I'm not an expert!
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980371175
1c1
< Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>As We May Think </b> article.
---
> Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>AsWeMayThink </b> article.
7a8,12
> ----
> 
> Questions from JimboWales:
> Who is 'Bush'?  I assume you don't mean GeorgeWBush or his dad, GeorgeBush, because I doubt if either of them ever wrote anything about HumanComputerInteraction.  :-)  And what is a GeekSpeak presentation?
> (Please delete my questions after they've been answered!)
------
GeorgeWBush|980371261
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The current PresidentOfTheUnitedStates.
> 
> My thinking is that on this topic we should try to refrain from
> being political.  Some people like him, others don't.  The same
> thing is of course true for BillClinton.
> 
> Rants might be fun, but maybe we can be more encyclopedic here?
------
BillClinton|980371380
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> PresidentOfTheUnitedStates from 1992-2000.
> 
> He was impeached by the HouseOfRepresentatives, but not convicted by the SenatE, for lying under oath to a GrandJury regarding matters related to his sexual affair with MonicaLewinsky.
> 
> There's a great deal more to be said about him -- let's try to keep it nonpartisan and encyclopedic?
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980371466
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here's an incomplete list, that I hope someone will make complete
> soon.  There must be an easy to copy-and-paste list someone on the web.
> 
> GeorgeWashington
> JohnAdams
> ThomasJefferson
> ----
> 
> RichardNixon
> GeraldFord
> JimmyCarter
> RonaldReagan
> GeorgeBush
> BillClinton
> GeorgeWBush
------
AlTruism|980371983
20a21,25
> ----
> How about this for a definition of altruism?
> 
> The view that one ought to be motivated solely or primarily by the interests of others rather than the interests of oneself.
> Altruism is then viewed as a conclusion, rather than a foundation or argument -- presumably some meta-ethical argument would be needed in order to explain why we ought to be altruistic.
------
AlTruism|980372105
22c22
< How about this for a definition of altruism?
---
> How about this for a definition of altruism?  I think it needs some revision, but perhaps it is a useful start.
25c25
< Altruism is then viewed as a conclusion, rather than a foundation or argument -- presumably some meta-ethical argument would be needed in order to explain why we ought to be altruistic.
---
> Altruism is then viewed as a conclusion, rather than a foundation or argument -- presumably some meta-ethical argument would be needed in order to explain why we ought to be altruistic. --JimboWales
------
EthicsVsMorals|980372444
27a28,31
> ----
> Another way to look at the distinction is to say that morals are accepted from an authority (cultural, religious, etc.), while ethics are accepted because they follow from personally-accepted principles.  For example, if one accepts the authority of a religion, and that religion forbids stealing, then stealing would be immoral.  An ethical view might be based on an idea of personal property that should not be taken without social consent (like a court order).  Stealing would directly contradict that view.  On the other hand, if one has different basic principles that didn't recognize an item as "property", a similar action might not be unethical.  (Helping a slave escape would be ethical if one believes people should not be owned as property.)
> 
> Professional and "ethical" codes of conduct are an interesting case--they are very similar to morality in that they are often accepted and adhered to in a moral sense.  For example, consider a doctor who follows a professional code of ethics, including a strong requirement to not violate the patient's privacy.  The doctor discovers that a patient has a genetic/inherited disease that is treatable, and that the patient has siblings who are likely to have the same disease.  The patient asks the doctor not to tell anyone (including the siblings) about the disease.  The interesting question is not so much what the doctor should do, but how the doctor should come to a decision.  Should the doctor follow the consensus of the professional community, even if it conflicts with personal ethics?  Would it matter if the rest of the community was united or divided over the question?
------
EthicsVsMorals|980374963
31a32,45
> ----
> I will, for now forego tackling the medical ethics question.  The issue of property, however is an interesting one.  It is the case that items, objects, or life forms do not possess innate qualities which make them "property" of this or that person or "not-property" of anyone.  How, then, would one apply an ethical standard to the issue of theft which is not grounded in a societal or moral code?  Mr. Adams makes the case that, "An ethical view might be based on an idea of personal property that should not be taken without social consent..." but why?  Ethics require not mere assumptions, but reason leading to conclusions.  In order to hold the ethical view that there is such a thing as personal property and that it ought not be taken, one must arrive there by reasononing.
> 
> What is it about a thing which makes it one's property?  In one form or another, one could say that it is the chain of creation.  There are two apparent chains of creation at work here, but in actuality, only one.  The illusory chain of creation is "I was created the owner of this."  The actual chain of creation is "I produced the effort or energy to created this, bring this about, or to bring it under my control.  And I did so without wasting the effort of another."  Having brought about a state of property, one may freely bestow it upon one's progeny, bringing about the illusory chain or creation.
> 
> The taking of things or property through force is only legitemized when he from whom it was taken agrees to the conquest, thereby obtaining a benefit of residing under the protection of new government, or of avoiding lethal or disabling force which would cancel his prior claim upon the property.
> 
> A person's own creative energy is in fact owned by him and to waste it works observable harm upon him and is is therefore classifiable as "bad."
> 
> A person directs his creative energy toward the accomplishment of work, and toward the making of agreements with his fellows as to what that work may be traded for.  Each successive trade in a chain continues the chain of the original creation and so, even though he bought the loaf of bread instead of baking it, he created the energy which resulted in the bread and traded it to the baker so that the baker's creative efforts were not wasted.
> 
> How do people as property figure in here?  As one did not in any case create another human being, (the special case of children could be argued but this is unnecessary for now as one generally does not assert property rights over his/her children), as human beings are not controllable without their consent, and as to force involuntary control over a human wastes his effort, this disqualifies human beings from being property.
> 
> Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights.
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980376851
1c1
< Here's an incomplete list, that I hope someone will make complete
---
> Here's an incomplete list in no particular order, that I hope someone will make complete
4,6c4,9
< GeorgeWashington
< JohnAdams
< ThomasJefferson
---
> * GeorgeWashington
> * JohnAdams
> * ThomasJefferson
> * JohnQuicyAdams
> * FranklinPierce
> * AbrahamLincoln
8,15c11,17
< 
< RichardNixon
< GeraldFord
< JimmyCarter
< RonaldReagan
< GeorgeBush
< BillClinton
< GeorgeWBush
---
> * RichardNixon
> * GeraldFord
> * JimmyCarter (1976-1980)
> * RonaldReagan (1980-1988)
> * GeorgeBush (1988-1992)
> * BillClinton (1992-2000)
> * GeorgeWBush (2000-
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980378466
9a10
> 
17a19,68
> 
> 
> * George Washington		  (1789-1797)
> * John Adams			  (1797-1801)
> * Thomas Jefferson		  (1801-1809)
> * James Madison		  (1809-1817)
> * James Monroe		  (1817-1825)
> * John Quincy Adams		  (1825-1829)
> * Andrew Jackson		  (1829-1837)
> * Martin Van Buren		  (1837-1841)
> * William Henry Harrison	  (1841)
> * John Tyler		  	  (1841-1845)
> * James Polk			  (1845-1849)
> * Zachary Taylor		  (1849-1850)
> * Millard Fillmore		(1850-1853)
> * Franklin		Pierce (1853-1857)
> * James		Buchanan (1857-1861)
> * Abraham		Lincoln (1861-1865)
> * Andrew		Johnson (1865-1869)
> * Ulysses		S. Grant (1869-1877)
> * Rutherford B. Hayes		(1877-1881)
> * James A.		Garfield (1881)
> * Chester A.		Arthur (1881-1885)
> * Grover       Cleveland (1885-1889)
> * Benjamin       Harrison (1889-1893)
> * Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
> * William McKinley (1897-1901)
> * Theodore       Roosevelt (1901-1909)
> * William       H. Taft (1909-1913)
> * Woodrow       Wilson (1913-1921)
> * Warren       Harding (1921-1923)
> * Calvin       Coolidge (1923-1929)
> * Herbert       Hoover (1929-1933)
> * Franklin       D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
> * Harry       S Truman (1945-1953)
> * Dwight       D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
> * John       F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
> * Lyndon       B. Johnson (1963-1969)
> * Richard       M. Nixon (1969-1974)
> * Gerald      R. Ford (1974-1977)
> * Jimmy       Carter (1977-1981)
> * Ronald       W. Reagan (1981-1989)
> * George       Bush (1989-1993)
> * William       J. Clinton (1993-2001)
> 
> 
> 
> ------
> Sorry for the poor formatting; I got the list from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/.
> Looks like they've got more info, and I'd bet that info is in the public domain and therefore copyable?
------
BryceHarrington|980379277
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Homepage:  http://www.neptune.net/~bryce/
> 
> I work on the WorldForge project, too:  http://www.worldforge.org/
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980380104
1,2d0
< Here's an incomplete list in no particular order, that I hope someone will make complete
< soon.  There must be an easy to copy-and-paste list someone on the web.
4,43c2,24
< * GeorgeWashington
< * JohnAdams
< * ThomasJefferson
< * JohnQuicyAdams
< * FranklinPierce
< * AbrahamLincoln
< 
< ----
< * RichardNixon
< * GeraldFord
< * JimmyCarter (1976-1980)
< * RonaldReagan (1980-1988)
< * GeorgeBush (1988-1992)
< * BillClinton (1992-2000)
< * GeorgeWBush (2000-
< 
< 
< * George Washington		  (1789-1797)
< * John Adams			  (1797-1801)
< * Thomas Jefferson		  (1801-1809)
< * James Madison		  (1809-1817)
< * James Monroe		  (1817-1825)
< * John Quincy Adams		  (1825-1829)
< * Andrew Jackson		  (1829-1837)
< * Martin Van Buren		  (1837-1841)
< * William Henry Harrison	  (1841)
< * John Tyler		  	  (1841-1845)
< * James Polk			  (1845-1849)
< * Zachary Taylor		  (1849-1850)
< * Millard Fillmore		(1850-1853)
< * Franklin		Pierce (1853-1857)
< * James		Buchanan (1857-1861)
< * Abraham		Lincoln (1861-1865)
< * Andrew		Johnson (1865-1869)
< * Ulysses		S. Grant (1869-1877)
< * Rutherford B. Hayes		(1877-1881)
< * James A.		Garfield (1881)
< * Chester A.		Arthur (1881-1885)
< * Grover       Cleveland (1885-1889)
< * Benjamin       Harrison (1889-1893)
---
> * GeorgeWashington (1789-1797)
> * JohnAdams (1797-1801)
> * ThomasJefferson (1801-1809)
> * James Madison (1809-1817)
> * James Monroe (1817-1825)
> * JohnQuincyAdams (1825-1829)
> * Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
> * Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
> * William Henry Harrison (1841)
> * John Tyler (1841-1845)
> * James Polk (1845-1849)
> * Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
> * Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
> * FranklinPierce (1853-1857)
> * James Buchanan (1857-1861)
> * AbrahamLincoln (1861-1865)
> * Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
> * Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
> * Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
> * James A. Garfield (1881)
> * Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885)
> * Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
> * Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
46,63c27,44
< * Theodore       Roosevelt (1901-1909)
< * William       H. Taft (1909-1913)
< * Woodrow       Wilson (1913-1921)
< * Warren       Harding (1921-1923)
< * Calvin       Coolidge (1923-1929)
< * Herbert       Hoover (1929-1933)
< * Franklin       D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
< * Harry       S Truman (1945-1953)
< * Dwight       D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
< * John       F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
< * Lyndon       B. Johnson (1963-1969)
< * Richard       M. Nixon (1969-1974)
< * Gerald      R. Ford (1974-1977)
< * Jimmy       Carter (1977-1981)
< * Ronald       W. Reagan (1981-1989)
< * George       Bush (1989-1993)
< * William       J. Clinton (1993-2001)
< 
---
> * Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
> * William H. Taft (1909-1913)
> * Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
> * Warren Harding (1921-1923)
> * Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
> * Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
> * Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
> * Harry S Truman (1945-1953)
> * Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
> * John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
> * Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
> * RichardMNixon (1969-1974)
> * GeraldRFord (1974-1977)
> * JimmyCarter (1977-1981)
> * RonaldWReagan (1981-1989)
> * GeorgeBush (1989-1993)
> * BillClinton (1993-2001)
> * GeorgeWBush (2001-2005)
64a46,47
> Also of note,
> * JoshuaANorton the First Emperor of the United States of America (1849-1880)
68c51
< Looks like they've got more info, and I'd bet that info is in the public domain and therefore copyable?
---
> Looks like they've got more info, and I'd bet that info is in the public domain and therefore copyable?
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980380149
1d0
< 
47c46
< * JoshuaANorton the First Emperor of the United States of America (1849-1880)
---
> * Emperor JoshuaANorton I (1849-1880)
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980380233
8a9
> Answer to questions
10,12c11
< Questions from JimboWales:
< Who is 'Bush'?  I assume you don't mean GeorgeWBush or his dad, GeorgeBush, because I doubt if either of them ever wrote anything about HumanComputerInteraction.  :-)  And what is a GeekSpeak presentation?
< (Please delete my questions after they've been answered!)
---
> Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president.  Geekspeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at Lewis at Clark called Human Computer Interaction.
------
UnitedStates|980380291
1c1,2
< TheStates
---
> * TheStates
> * ThePresidents
------
UnitedStates|980380325
2c2
< * ThePresidents
---
> * PresidentOfTheUnitedStates
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980380625
1c1
< Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring Self Organizing Web pages inspired by Bush's <b>AsWeMayThink </b> article.
---
> Ok, HCI students, this is our little sandbox for exploring SelfOrganizingWeb pages inspired by Bush's AsWeMayThink  article.
5c5
< What do you think about putting copies of the Geek Speak presentations here for the world to see (and maybe add to or delete 8^)
---
> What do you think about putting copies of the GeekSpeak presentations here for the world to see (and maybe add to or delete 8^)
7c7
< Geek Speak (articles to follow)
---
> GeekSpeak (articles to follow)
11c11
< Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president.  Geekspeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at Lewis at Clark called Human Computer Interaction.
---
> Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president.  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at LewisAndClarkCollege called Human Computer Interaction.
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980382089
50a51,52
> ----
> An important question.  Could you research this and report back?
------
TheBible|980382964
7c7
< (Hebrew Bible divided into 3 sections, Law, Prophets, Writings; Christian Bible divided into 2 parts (Old and New) with some subdivision not so clearly defined/recognised; what is in each part and section; summary of contents of each section, part, book)
---
> (Hebrew Bible divided into 3 sections, Law, Prophets, Writings; Christian Bible divided into 2 parts (Old and New) with some subdivision not so clearly defined/recognised; what is in each part and section; summary of contents of each section, part, book.  BooksOfTheBible)
15c15
< (Jewish, Christian, Eastern. Western, influence of philosophy, fundamentalism, patristic interpretation, mediaeval interpretation, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, inerrancy, biblical theology, inspiration, rationalism, translations)
---
> (Jewish, Christian, Eastern. Western, influence of philosophy, fundamentalism, patristic interpretation, mediaeval interpretation, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, inerrancy, biblical theology, inspiration, rationalism, translations)
------
BooksOfTheBible|980383370
1c1,76
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> The books in the KingJamesBible (and most other Christian bibles) are as follows.  The Catholic Bible includes additional books which have been called TheApocrypha (but perhaps not by the Catholics themselves?).
> 
> TheOldTestament
> 
> * Genesis
> * Exodus
> * Leviticus
> * Numbers
> * Deuteronomy
> * Joshua
> * Judges
> * Ruth
> * 1 Samuel
> * 2 Samuel
> * 1 Kings
> * 2 Kings
> * 1 Chronicles
> * 2 Chronicles
> * Ezra
> * Nehemiah
> * Esther
> * Job
> * Psalms
> * Proverbs
> * Ecclesiastes
> * The Song of Solomon
> * Isaiah
> * Jeremiah
> * Lamentations
> * Ezekiel
> * Daniel
> * Hosea
> * Joel
> * Amos
> * Obadiah
> * Jonah
> * Micah
> * Nahum
> * Habakkuk
> * Zephaniah
> * Haggai
> * Zechariah
> * Malachi
> 
> TheNewTestament
> 
> * Matthew
> * Mark
> * Luke
> * John
> * The Acts of the Apostles
> * Romans
> * 1 Corinthians
> * 2 Corinthians
> * Galatians
> * Ephesians
> * Phillipians
> * Colossians
> * 1 Thessalonians
> * 2 Thessalonians
> * 1 Timothy
> * 2 Timothy
> * Titus
> * Philemon
> * Hebrews
> * James
> * 1 Peter
> * 2 Peter
> * 1 John
> * 2 John
> * 3 John
> * Jude
> * Revelations
> 
> 
------
EthicsVsMorals|980383537
33c33
< I will, for now forego tackling the medical ethics question.  The issue of property, however is an interesting one.  It is the case that items, objects, or life forms do not possess innate qualities which make them "property" of this or that person or "not-property" of anyone.  How, then, would one apply an ethical standard to the issue of theft which is not grounded in a societal or moral code?  Mr. Adams makes the case that, "An ethical view might be based on an idea of personal property that should not be taken without social consent..." but why?  Ethics require not mere assumptions, but reason leading to conclusions.  In order to hold the ethical view that there is such a thing as personal property and that it ought not be taken, one must arrive there by reasononing.
---
> I will, for now forego tackling the medical ethics question.  The issue of property, however is an interesting one.  Items, objects, or life forms do not possess innate qualities which make them "property" of this or that person or "not-property" of anyone.  How, then, would one apply an ethical standard to the issue of theft which is not grounded in a societal or moral code?  Mr. Adams makes the case that, "An ethical view might be based on an idea of personal property that should not be taken without social consent..." but why?  Ethics requires not mere assumptions, but reason leading to conclusions.  In order to hold the ethical view that there is such a thing as personal property and that it ought not be taken, one must arrive there by reasononing.
35c35
< What is it about a thing which makes it one's property?  In one form or another, one could say that it is the chain of creation.  There are two apparent chains of creation at work here, but in actuality, only one.  The illusory chain of creation is "I was created the owner of this."  The actual chain of creation is "I produced the effort or energy to created this, bring this about, or to bring it under my control.  And I did so without wasting the effort of another."  Having brought about a state of property, one may freely bestow it upon one's progeny, bringing about the illusory chain or creation.
---
> What is it about a thing which makes it one's property?  In one form or another, one could say that it is the chain of creation.  There are two apparent chains of creation at work here, but in actuality, only one.  The illusory chain of creation is "I was created the owner of this."  The actual chain of creation is "I produced the effort or energy to create this, bring this about, or to bring it under my control.  And I did so without wasting the effort of another."  Having brought about a state of property, one may freely bestow it upon one's progeny, bringing about the illusory chain of creation.
37c37
< The taking of things or property through force is only legitemized when he from whom it was taken agrees to the conquest, thereby obtaining a benefit of residing under the protection of new government, or of avoiding lethal or disabling force which would cancel his prior claim upon the property.
---
> The taking of things or property through force is only legitemized when he from whom it was taken agrees to the conquest, thereby obtaining a benefit of residing under the protection of new government, or of avoiding lethal or disabling force which would cancel his prior claim upon the property.  If a mugger takes your wallet against your protest, you have not consented or given up your claim, and so he steals it from you.  If you give your son $20.00 for gas and do not expect repayment, it is legitemately now his property.  If the U.S. conquers Texas and the residents thereof consent to U.S. government, a former taking by force is legitemized.
41c41
< A person directs his creative energy toward the accomplishment of work, and toward the making of agreements with his fellows as to what that work may be traded for.  Each successive trade in a chain continues the chain of the original creation and so, even though he bought the loaf of bread instead of baking it, he created the energy which resulted in the bread and traded it to the baker so that the baker's creative efforts were not wasted.
---
> A person directs his creative energy toward the accomplishment of work or creation of product, and toward the making of agreements with his fellows as to what that work or product may be traded for.  Each successive trade in a chain continues the chain of the original creation and so, even though he bought the loaf of bread instead of baking it, he created the energy which resulted in the bread and traded it to the baker so that the baker's creative efforts were not wasted.
45c45
< Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights.
---
> Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights.
------
AlbaniA|980383693
0a1,20
> 
> 
> AlbaniaHistory
> 
> AlbaniaGeography
> 
> AlbaniaPeople
> 
> AlbaniaGovernement
> 
> AlbaniaEconomy
> 
> AlbaniaCommunications
> 
> AlbaniaTransportations
> 
> AlbaniaMilitary
> 
> AlbaniaTransnationalIssues
> 
385c405
< ethnic Albanian narcotrafficking organizations active and rapidly expanding in Europe 
---
> ethnic Albanian narcotrafficking organizations active and rapidly expanding in Europe 
------
AlbaniaHistory|980383733
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
>  In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
> has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with severe unemployment, the collapse of a fraudulent nationwide
> investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
------
AlbaniaHistory|980383745
1c1
<  In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
---
> In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
3c3
< investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
---
> investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
------
AlbaniaGeography|980383795
1c1,37
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea, between Greece and Serbia and Montenegro 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 41 00 N, 20 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Europe 
> 
> Area: total: 28,748 sq km land: 27,398 sq km water: 1,350 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Maryland 
> 
> Land boundaries: total: 720 km border countries: Greece 282 km, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 151 km, Serbia and
> Montenegro 287 km (114 km with Serbia, 173 km with Montenegro) 
> 
> Coastline: 362 km 
> 
> Maritime claims: continental shelf: 200-m depth or to the depth of exploitation territorial sea: 12 nm 
> 
> Climate: mild temperate; cool, cloudy, wet winters; hot, clear, dry summers; interior is cooler and wetter 
> 
> Terrain: mostly mountains and hills; small plains along coast 
> 
> Elevation extremes: lowest point: Adriatic Sea 0 m highest point: Maja e Korabit (Golem Korab) 2,753 m 
> 
> Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, timber, nickel, hydropower 
> 
> Land use: arable land: 21% permanent crops: 5% permanent pastures: 15% forests and woodland: 38% other: 21% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: 3,410 sq km (1993 est.) 
> 
> Natural hazards: destructive earthquakes; tsunamis occur along southwestern coast 
> 
> Environment - current issues: deforestation; soil erosion; water pollution from industrial and domestic effluents 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Ozone Layer Protection,
> Wetlands signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements 
> 
> Geography - note: strategic location along Strait of Otranto (links Adriatic Sea to Ionian Sea and Mediterranean Sea) 
------
AlbaniA|980383832
2d1
< 
22,85d20
< 
<                                         Introduction
< 
< 
< Background: In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
< has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with severe unemployment, the collapse of a fraudulent nationwide
< investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
< 
<                                          Geography
< 
< 
< 
< Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea, between Greece and Serbia and Montenegro 
< 
< Geographic coordinates: 41 00 N, 20 00 E 
< 
< Map references: Europe 
< 
< Area: 
< total: 28,748 sq km 
< land: 27,398 sq km 
< water: 1,350 sq km 
< 
< Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Maryland 
< 
< Land boundaries: 
< total: 720 km 
< border countries: Greece 282 km, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 151 km, Serbia and Montenegro 287 km (114 km
< with Serbia, 173 km with Montenegro) 
< 
< Coastline: 362 km 
< 
< Maritime claims: 
< continental shelf: 200-m depth or to the depth of exploitation 
< territorial sea: 12 nm 
< 
< Climate: mild temperate; cool, cloudy, wet winters; hot, clear, dry summers; interior is cooler and wetter 
< 
< Terrain: mostly mountains and hills; small plains along coast 
< 
< Elevation extremes: 
< lowest point: Adriatic Sea 0 m 
< highest point: Maja e Korabit (Golem Korab) 2,753 m 
< 
< Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, timber, nickel, hydropower 
< 
< Land use: 
< arable land: 21% 
< permanent crops: 5% 
< permanent pastures: 15% 
< forests and woodland: 38% 
< other: 21% (1993 est.) 
< 
< Irrigated land: 3,410 sq km (1993 est.) 
< 
< Natural hazards: destructive earthquakes; tsunamis occur along southwestern coast 
< 
< Environment - current issues: deforestation; soil erosion; water pollution from industrial and domestic effluents 
< 
< Environment - international agreements: 
< party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Hazardous Wastes, Ozone Layer Protection, Wetlands 
< signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements 
< 
< Geography - note: strategic location along Strait of Otranto (links Adriatic Sea to Ionian Sea and Mediterranean Sea) 
------
AlbaniaPeople|980383873
1c1,33
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Population: 3,490,435 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 0-14 years: 30% (male 545,329; female 507,589) 15-64 years: 63% (male 1,056,583; female 1,141,664) 65 years and
> over: 7% (male 104,086; female 135,184) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 0.26% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 19.47 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 6.5 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: -10.36 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: at birth: 1.08 male(s)/female under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female 15-64 years: 0.93 male(s)/female 65 years and over: 0.77
> male(s)/female total population: 0.96 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 41.33 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: total population: 71.57 years male: 68.75 years female: 74.59 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 2.37 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: noun: Albanian(s) adjective: Albanian 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Albanian 95%, Greeks 3%, other 2% (Vlachs, Gypsies, Serbs, and Bulgarians) (1989 est.) note: in 1989, other
> estimates of the Greek population ranged from 1% (official Albanian statistics) to 12% (from a Greek organization) 
> 
> Religions: Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10% note: all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and
> religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing private religious practice 
> 
> Languages: Albanian (Tosk is the official dialect), Greek 
> 
> Literacy: definition: age 9 and over can read and write total population: 93% (1997 est.) male: NA% female: NA% 
------
AlbaniA|980383893
1d0
< 
8c7
< AlbaniaGovernement
---
> AlbaniaGovernment
------
HomePage|980383991
21a22,23
> ----
> WhichWikiShouldWeUse
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980384093
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The other day, on a page I cannot find now, someone suggested that we might switch to a version of Wiki which supports arbitrary linking.  The idea is that, particularly for an encyclopedia, having arbitrary links is better than the amusing but odd wiki capitalization conventions.
> 
> It strikes me that a very simple system would be to be able
> to link like this: <<< United States >>>.
> 
> Is there a wiki software that can support this?
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980385037
4c4
< to link like this: <<< United States >>>.
---
> to link like this: <<< Albania >>>.
6c6,21
< Is there a wiki software that can support this?
---
> Is there a wiki software that can support this? -- JimboWales
> 
> ----
> 
> I just had another thought.  Perhaps arbitrary linking using
> <<< >>> should be limited to single words only.  For example,
> a list of UnitedStates might be written like this:
> 
> <<< Alabama >>>
> <<< Alaska >>>
> NorthDakota
> 
> That is, if you use <<< >>>, the rule is that there has to be
> only one word inside there.
> 
> The whole point here is to get away from weird names for single-word articles, things like NuPedia or AlaSka.
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980385082
14a15
> 
15a17
> 
17a20
> <<< Wisconsin >>>
21c24,26
< The whole point here is to get away from weird names for single-word articles, things like NuPedia or AlaSka.
---
> The whole point here is to get away from weird names for single-word articles, things like NuPedia or AlaSka.  Is
> there a wiki that can do that?  Or, should I just add the capability to this one?  Or, is this whole idea really bad for some reason?
>   
------
UnitedStates|980387219
2a3
> * SenatorsOfTheUnitedStates
------
SenatorsOfTheUnitedStates|980387293
1c1,226
< Describe the new page here.
---
>  
> 
> Senators of the 107th Congress
> A
> 	Akaka,
> 	 Daniel (D - HI)
> 	Allard,
> 	 Wayne (R - CO)
> 	Allen,
> 	 George (R - VA)
> B
> 	Baucus,
> 	 Max (D - MT)
> 	Bayh,
> 	 Evan (D - IN)
> 	Bennett,
> 	 Robert (R - UT)
> 	Biden Jr,
> 	 Joseph (D - DE)
> 	Bingaman,
> 	 Jeff (D - NM)
> 	Bond,
> 	 Christopher (R - MO)
> 	Boxer,
> 	 Barbara (D - CA)
> 	Breaux,
> 	 John (D - LA)
> 	Brownback,
> 	 Sam (R - KS)
> 	Bunning,
> 	 Jim (R - KY)
> 	Burns,
> 	 Conrad (R - MT)
> 	Byrd,
> 	 Robert (D - WV)
> C
> 	Campbell,
> 	 Ben Nighthorse (R - CO)
> 	Cantwell,
> 	 Maria (D - WA)
> 	Carnahan,
> 	 Jean (D - MO)
> 	Carper,
> 	 Thomas (D - DE)
> 	Chafee,
> 	 Lincoln (R - RI)
> 	Cleland,
> 	 Max (D - GA)
> 	Clinton,
> 	 Hillary (D - NY)
> 	Cochran,
> 	 Thad (R - MS)
> 	Collins,
> 	 Susan (R - ME)
> 	Conrad,
> 	 Kent (D - ND)
> 	Corzine,
> 	 Jon (D - NJ)
> 	Craig,
> 	 Larry (R - ID)
> 	Crapo,
> 	 Mike (R - ID)
> D
> 	Daschle,
> 	 Thomas (D - SD)
> 	Dayton,
> 	 Mark (D - MN)
> 	DeWine,
> 	 Mike (R - OH)
> 	Dodd,
> 	 Christopher (D - CT)
> 	Domenici,
> 	 Pete (R - NM)
> 	Dorgan,
> 	 Byron (D - ND)
> 	Durbin,
> 	 Richard (D - IL)
> E
> 	Edwards,
> 	 John (D - NC)
> 	Ensign,
> 	 John (R - NV)
> 	Enzi,
> 	 Mike (R - WY)
> F
> 	Feingold,
> 	 Russell (D - WI)
> 	Feinstein,
> 	 Dianne (D - CA)
> 	Fitzgerald,
> 	 Peter (R - IL)
> 	Frist,
> 	 William (R - TN)
> G
> 	Graham,
> 	 Bob (D - FL)
> 	Gramm,
> 	 Phil (R - TX)
> 	Grassley,
> 	 Chuck (R - IA)
> 	Gregg,
> 	 Judd (R - NH)
> H
> 	Hagel,
> 	 Charles (R - NE)
> 	Harkin,
> 	 Tom (D - IA)
> 	Hatch,
> 	 Orrin (R - UT)
> 	Helms,
> 	 Jesse (R - NC)
> 	Hollings,
> 	 Ernest (D - SC)
> 	Hutchinson,
> 	 Tim (R - AR)
> 	Hutchison,
> 	 Kay Bailey (R - TX)
> I
> 	Inhofe,
> 	 James (R - OK)
> 	Inouye,
> 	 Daniel (D - HI)
> J
> 	Jeffords,
> 	 James (R - VT)
> 	Johnson,
> 	 Tim (D - SD)
> K
> 	Kennedy,
> 	 Edward (D - MA)
> 	Kerry,
> 	 John (D - MA)
> 	Kohl,
> 	 Herb (D - WI)
> 	Kyl,
> 	 Jon (R - AZ)
> L
> 	Landrieu,
> 	 Mary (D - LA)
> 	Leahy,
> 	 Patrick (D - VT)
> 	Levin,
> 	 Carl (D - MI)
> 	Lieberman,
> 	 Joseph (D - CT)
> 	Lincoln,
> 	 Blanche (D - AR)
> 	Lott,
> 	 Trent (R - MS)
> 	Lugar,
> 	 Richard (R - IN)
> M
> 	McCain,
> 	 John (R - AZ)
> 	McConnell,
> 	 Mitch (R - KY)
> 	Mikulski,
> 	 Barbara (D - MD)
> 	Miller,
> 	 Zell (D - GA)
> 	Murkowski,
> 	 Frank (R - AK)
> 	Murray,
> 	 Patty (D - WA)
> N
> 	Nelson,
> 	 Ben (D - NE)
> 	Nelson,
> 	 Bill (D - FL)
> 	Nickles,
> 	 Don (R - OK)
> R
> 	Reed,
> 	 Jack (D - RI)
> 	Reid,
> 	 Harry (D - NV)
> 	Roberts,
> 	 Pat (R - KS)
> 	Rockefeller IV,
> 	 John (D - WV)
> S
> 	Santorum,
> 	 Rick (R - PA)
> 	Sarbanes,
> 	 Paul (D - MD)
> 	Schumer,
> 	 Charles (D - NY)
> 	Sessions,
> 	 Jeff (R - AL)
> 	Shelby,
> 	 Richard (R - AL)
> 	Smith,
> 	 Bob (R - NH)
> 	Smith,
> 	 Gordon (R - OR)
> 	Snowe,
> 	 Olympia (R - ME)
> 	Specter,
> 	 Arlen (R - PA)
> 	Stabenow,
> 	 Debbie (D - MI)
> 	Stevens,
> 	 Ted (R - AK)
> T
> 	Thomas,
> 	 Craig (R - WY)
> 	Thompson,
> 	 Fred (R - TN)
> 	Thurmond,
> 	 Strom (R - SC)
> 	Torricelli,
> 	 Robert (D - NJ)
> V
> 	Voinovich,
> 	 George (R - OH)
> W
> 	Warner,
> 	 John (R - VA)
> 	Wellstone,
> 	 Paul (D - MN)
> 	Wyden,
> 	 Ron (D - OR)
> 
> * 50 Democrats
> * 50 Republicans
> *  0 Independent
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980387698
26c26,35
<   
---
> 
> ------
> 
> Hi Jimbo, I had made a suggestion a few days ago about perhaps switching to TWiki, as it is one of the more
> polished (and well-documented) Wiki's.  Twiki supports doing links as we've been doing here, as
> well as forced links with [[double brackets]].  It's got gobs of other features... Check out
> http://www.twiki.org.  It's got pretty good docs, too.  I highly recommend it.
> 
> -- Bryce
>   
------
GNUStufF|980390475
7a8
> * GNEProjectDesign
------
GNEProjectDesign|980390526
1c1,135
< Describe the new page here.
---
> More thoughts by MikeWarren about GNE. See also GNEArchitecTure.
> 
> 
> Introduction
> 
> As discussion rages over moderation and back-end design, I thought I'd write a more
> cohesive version of my thoughts. There should be one article repository (with
> potential for many mirrors of it) and many different classifications, hopefully by
> different groups of people. 
> 
> Editing
> 
> Authors may like to take advantage of editors. Volunteers who wish to edit work can
> organize themselves onto one or many editing mailing lists, much like Nupedia has
> done. Authors can submit their articles to the list and make changes which editors
> might suggest if they see fit. 
> 
> Once an author is satisfied with her work, she can then submit it to the article
> repository. 
> 
> Article Repository
> 
> There should exist a large group of moderators (hopefully everyone in the project) for
> the repository. When an article arrives, they will vote on whether it is spam or not.
> Unless there is unanimous consent that the article is completely useless, it will go into
> the repository. This can prevent abuse of the system (i.e. someone sending in random
> binary files) while still keeping the process completely open and allowing all authors to
> put their work into the pool. 
> 
> The only stipulation, obviously, is that the work be licensed under the GNU FDL. 
> 
> There seems to be consensus that XML will be used to mark up the articles;
> submissions arriving which are not in the correct DTD ( TEI seems to be the
> front-runner currently) will be subject to the brutal treatment of various conversion
> scripts. The resultant XML document will be assigned a unique ID and placed in the
> repository. There has also been talk of using a Web-based form submission service;
> this is also a good idea. 
> 
> The repository will be kept simple and will utilize the capabilities of modern Web
> servers by being a simple hierarchy of directories with the .xml files inside them. The
> directories will not be a classification of the content, but merely a way to get around
> limits on the number of files in a file-system. Each document will simply be called
> unique-id.[version].[language].xml. If it has been digitally signed, there will be a
> corresponding file unique-id.[version].[language].xml.asc 
> 
> Version numbers can be anything, really, but simply sequentially increasing them
> seems like the best course. Language can correspond to the LOCALE meanings. So,
> one might have a directory like: 
> 
>  http://www.gne.org/articles/a/123456.1.en.xml
>  http://www.gne.org/articles/a/123456.2.en.xml
>  http://www.gne.org/articles/a/123456.3.en.xml
>  http://www.gne.org/articles/a/123456.3.en.xml.asc
> 
> Which means that there are three versions of the article with ID 123456 and the last
> one (version 3) has been digitally signed. 
> 
> The repository server will keep a list of all the unique IDs of all the documents it
> contains. This will allow the classification systems to easily update themselves with
> new documents by requesting this list (i.e. http://www.gne.org/articles/index).
> For the above example, the index would just contain: 
> 
>  123456.1.en
>  123456.2.en
>  123456.3.en
> 
> Classifiers
> 
> Everybody seems to have their own favourite way of classifying articles, from voting to
> Dewey Decimal to Library of Congress. All have merit, and there are probably lots of
> users who would find each approach useful. 
> 
> It seems like a good idea, then, to allow for multiple classification systems. Users would
> interact with the repository through one particular classification. Hence, the
> classifications systems will be doing all the searching and indexing that users might
> want; storing the information they use in a database makes a lots of sense. 
> 
> How might this work? Taking the above example again, a fresh classifier which just
> lists articles by author and title downloads the index and notices that there are three
> versions of a single article. Since it doesn't know about this article yet (it looks in its
> database and finds nothing about the unique ID 123456) and only cares about the
> latest articles, it asks for the file http://www.gne.org/articles/123456.3.en.xml.
> The repository server re-writes the URL into
> http://www.gne.org/articles/a/123456.3.en.xml and sends the XML file back.
> The database updating program parses the file and extracts the author and title
> information, putting these into the database with the unique ID 123456. This
> particular classifier doesn't care about digital signatures, so it never requests the .asc
> file to see if there is one. 
> 
> Next, a user visits the Web site for this classifier, and visits the author list which shows
> a single entry: the author of the article with unique ID 123456. 
> 
> In a similar manner, other classifiers might do much more complicated things, like
> send the article to a mailing list of peer-reviewers (again, like Nupedia) or any
> number of schemes to classify the article in question. 
> 
> Software
> 
> So, what software does GNE need to write? If we use TEI as the representation format,
> the project can start receiving submissions immediately; a cursory reading of TEITools
> indicates that it can convert to HTML, TeX and RTF. All that needs creating is a
> method of getting the submission into TEI in the first place, which can be a Python (or
> whatever) script which accepts plain text and makes guesses at what things should be
> (i.e. bold face, references, etcetera). Then, editors can make sure this makes sense and
> the author can give the final okay. 
> 
> We can serve submissions live from the XML repository using Apache and TEITools.
> Classification projects can thus begin work immediately, and this will be the major
> programming work of the project (besides building better anything-to-TEI
> conversion scripts). Splitting interested parties into groups for this can begin
> immediately as well. 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> I propose that four groups are formed immediately: 
> 
> Backend :: This group will set up and manage the back-end server. It should do
> nothing more than accept submissions in DTD-compliant XML, accept revised
> versions of the same document and accept signatures for existing documents. From
> this, it should make the above-mentioned index file and serve XML pages to the
> classifiers. This group should also set up the moderation system which rejects things
> which are unanimously decided to be spam. This group should also determine whether
> or not multimedia will be inline in the XML or served as separate files. 
> 
> Editing :: This group will provide editing services for authors. Any author can submit
> their article to the group for comments, although this will obviously not be a
> requirement. 
> 
> Classification :: This group will write the first generic classifier project, which will be
> targeted as being a template for other more specific classifier projects to use. 
> 
> Conversion :: This group will work on methods and programs for efficiently
> converting submitted articles into TEI. Emphasis should be on making it easy for
> (especially) academic groups to submit articles, so LaTeX might be a good first choice
> after plain text. 
------
GNEProjectDesign|980390552
4c4
< Introduction
---
> _Introduction_
135c135
< after plain text. 
---
> after plain text. 
------
GNEProjectDesign|980390727
4c4
< _Introduction_
---
> '''Introduction'''
11c11
< Editing
---
> '''Editing'''
21c21
< Article Repository
---
> '''Article Repository'''
67c67
< Classifiers
---
> '''Classifiers'''
97c97
< Software
---
> '''Software'''
113c113
< Conclusion
---
> '''Conclusion'''
117c117
< Backend :: This group will set up and manage the back-end server. It should do
---
> 'Backend' :: This group will set up and manage the back-end server. It should do
125c125
< Editing :: This group will provide editing services for authors. Any author can submit
---
> 'Editing' :: This group will provide editing services for authors. Any author can submit
129c129
< Classification :: This group will write the first generic classifier project, which will be
---
> 'Classification' :: This group will write the first generic classifier project, which will be
132c132
< Conversion :: This group will work on methods and programs for efficiently
---
> 'Conversion' :: This group will work on methods and programs for efficiently
------
GNUStufF|980390797
8a9
> * ProjectName
------
ProjectName|980390862
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We need a definitive name for this project. Currently:
> 
> * GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia (liked-by: DanGeiser, MikeWarren)
> * GNU/Alexandria
> * GNUpedia
> * GNUledge
------
ProjectName|980390895
3c3
< * GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia (liked-by: DanGeiser, MikeWarren)
---
> * GNE: GNE's Not an Encyclopedia (like: DanGeiser [originator], MikeWarren)
6c6
< * GNUledge
---
> * GNUledge
------
WestVirginia|980391209
9c9
< Lots of neat places to visit, like the New River Gorge Bridge (Tall enough that people can parachute off it if they're careful), and lots of national and state parks.
---
> Lots of neat places to visit, like the New River Gorge Bridge (Tall enough that people can parachute off it if they're careful), and lots of national and state parks.----In the words of John Denver - "Almost heaven"
------
WestVirginia|980391330
9c9
< Lots of neat places to visit, like the New River Gorge Bridge (Tall enough that people can parachute off it if they're careful), and lots of national and state parks.----In the words of John Denver - "Almost heaven"
---
> Lots of neat places to visit, like the New River Gorge Bridge (Tall enough that people can parachute off it if they're careful), and lots of national and state parks.----In the words of John Denver - "Almost heaven"----Green Bank, WV - Home of a world-renown radioastronomy center!
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980394277
35c35,44
<   
---
> 
> ----
> 
> TWiki is a good wiki.  (I prefer my own <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>, but I'm slightly biased. :-)  TWiki certainly has more documentation than <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>.  A third possibility is the <nowiki>MoinMoin</nowiki>: see http://moin.sourceforge.net/.
> 
> Adding [[word]] or <<<word>>> -style links to ''this'' wiki should not be very difficult.  The main disadvantage of such links is that they would not be automatic.  That is, if someone typed the plain word "Alabama", it would not become a link automatically.  (The user would have to type something like "[[Alabama]]".)  On the other hand, I'm not sure that every instance of simple words ''should'' be a link.  Requiring explicit links might make the page look cleaner.
> 
> If this wiki community really wants more free-form links, I'd be willing to take a look at adding [[word]]-style links as an option in <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>.  --CliffordAdams
> 
> P.S.  The "Please notice" text on the edit page is missing a closing </b> tag.  This makes any previews show up completely in bold text.  [Please delete this note when the bug is fixed.]
------
TopOlogy|980395587
29c29
< Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itself, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.  
---
> Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itself, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.
30a31
> ''And strictly speaking the paper is not actually continuous, but is actually composed of many separated atoms, so isn't really a torus.  I think there is a certain point of "good enough" for making pictures/sculptures of mathematical objects, and that the Moebius strip in paper meets it.''
------
BooksOfTheBible|980395860
1d0
< 
4c3
< TheOldTestament
---
> The OldTestament
46c45
< TheNewTestament
---
> The NewTestament
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980396100
2a3,6
> '''January 24, 2001'''
> 
> WikiPedia has definitely taken a life of its own; new people are arriving every day and the project seems to be getting only more popular.  Long live WikiPedia!
> 
------
SelfOrganizingWeb|980396161
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
> [URL http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/320s01.html#assignment]
------
SubGroup|980396440
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Given a group G under an operation *, we say that some subset H of G is a SubGroup if H is a group under the restriction of * thereto.  This occurs if and only if H is closed to products and inverses.
> 
> The subgroups of any given group form a lattice under inclusion.  There is a minimal subgroup, the trivial group {e}, and a maximal subgroup, the group itself.  The minimal subgroup containing some set S is denoted <S> and is said to be generated by S.  Groups generated by a single element are called cyclic and are isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic.
> 
> A group HomoMorphism f:G->K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Moreover, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  Of particular importance is the preimage of {e}, called the kernel of the homomorphism.  Any kernel H always satisfies the property g*H=H*g for all g in G.  Such subgroups are called normal.  There is a homomorphism f with any given normal subgroup H as its kernel, and moreover the homomorphic images under all such f are isomorphic to the QuotientGroup G/H.
------
HomoMorphism|980396633
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A homomorphism, from one mathematical object to another of the same kind, is a function that preserves all relevant structure.  For instance, if we are concerned about some operation *, homomorphisms must satisfy f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y).
> 
> A homomorphism which is also OneToOne is called an IsoMorphism; two isomorphic objects are completely indistinguishable as far as the structure in question is concerned.  A homomorphism from a set to itself is called an EndoMorphism, and if it is also an isomorphism is called an AutoMorphism.
> 
------
GeekSpeak|980397441
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
> ('arcane computer acronym, terminology or technology')
------
SubGroup|980397515
5c5,11
< A group HomoMorphism f:G->K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Moreover, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  Of particular importance is the preimage of {e}, called the kernel of the homomorphism.  Any kernel H always satisfies the property g*H=H*g for all g in G.  Such subgroups are called normal.  There is a homomorphism f with any given normal subgroup H as its kernel, and moreover the homomorphic images under all such f are isomorphic to the QuotientGroup G/H.
---
> Given a subgroup H and some g in G, we define the left-coset g*H={g*h:h in H} and the right-coset H*g={h*g:h in H}.  If g*H=H*g for every g in G, then H is said to be normal.  In that case we can define a multiplication on cosets by
> 
>    (g1*H)*(g2*H) := (g1*g2)*H
> 
> The resulting structure is called the quotient group G/H.  There is a natural homomorphism f:G -> G/H given by f(g)=g*H.  The image f(H) is trivial.
> 
> In general a group HomoMorphism f:G -> K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Also, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  We call the preimage of the trivial group {e} in K the kernel of the homomorphism.  As it turns out, the kernel is always normal and the image of G is always isomorphic to G/ker(f).
------
SubGroup|980397525
11c11
< In general a group HomoMorphism f:G -> K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Also, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  We call the preimage of the trivial group {e} in K the kernel of the homomorphism.  As it turns out, the kernel is always normal and the image of G is always isomorphic to G/ker(f).
---
> In general a group HomoMorphism f: G -> K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Also, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  We call the preimage of the trivial group {e} in K the kernel of the homomorphism.  As it turns out, the kernel is always normal and the image of G is always isomorphic to G/ker(f).
------
MathematicalGrouP|980397633
17,33c17
< '''Subgroups, HomoMorphisms, etc'''
< 
< A subset H of a group (G,*) that itself forms a group under the restriction of * is called a subgroup.  Every group has at least two subgroups, G itself and the trivial group {e}.  Every other element is contained in a unique smallest subgroup, called a CyclicGroup, isomorphic to the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic.
< 
< A group HomoMorphism is a map from one group to another that maps products to products, and thence identities to identities and inverses to inverses.  If it is also OneToOne, it is called an IsoMorphism.  The structure of a group is determined completely by its IsoMorphism class.
< 
< The set of elements a HomoMorphism sends to e is called its KerNel, and is necessarily a subgroup H satisfying a*H=H*a for all a in G.  Such subgroups are called normal.  There is a homomorphism from G having any given normal subgroup as its kernel; the image of G is unique up to homorphism, and is called the FactorGroup G/H.
< 
< The intersection of any two subgroups H,K is a group, and if they are disjoint, the DirectProduct H*K is a group.  This is isomorphic to the Cartesian product of H and K under componentwise multiplication, which is something that can e taken even when H and K are not being looked at as subgroups.
< 
< A group without any normal subgroups is called simple.  The simple commutative groups are precisely the ModularArithmetic''''s of prime order; any other finite commutative group is isomorphic to a direct product of these.
< 
< '''Representations'''
< 
< The set of all BiJections on some set X form a group under composition.  This is called the SymmetricGroup on X.  The symmetries of mathematical objects are usually subgroups of the SymmetricGroup.  In fact any group is isomorphic to a subgroup of the SymmetricGroup on ''some'' set X; such a map is called a representation of the group.
< 
< The action of the group G defines a product GxX->X (action on the left) or XxG->X (action on the right).  Note every group acts on itself in an obvious way.  If no subset of X is closed under the group action, then the representation is called irreducible; other representations are arbitrary unions of reducible ones.
---
> Some important concepts: SubGroup''''s, PermutationGroup''''s.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinGs and ModulEs.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980397650
17c17
< Some important concepts: SubGroup''''s, PermutationGroup''''s.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinGs and ModulEs.
---
> Some important concepts: SubGroup''s'', PermutationGroup''s''.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinGs and ModulEs.
------
HomoMorphism|980398274
4a5
> Given a homomorphism f:X->Y, we can define an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient (set of all equivalence classes) X/~ can be defined to have an object-structure in a natural way.  We then find that the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.
------
GeekSpeak|980398789
2c2,20
< ('arcane computer acronym, terminology or technology')
---
> ('arcane computer acronym, terminology or technology')
> 
> 1/18/01
> '''Interface'''- parts of the computer that we work with; two different subsystems transmitting one piece of hardware to another;give and take of information
> 
> '''Widget'''- objects that make up interfaces, i.e. mouse, menus, textbox, buttons; basic tools and objects.
> 
> '''Hypertext'''- gives the reader control instead of the author; allows user to jump around from source to source; linkages between texts.
> 
> '''CAD'''-  particular software design program, esp.archetectural
> 
> '''Gesture recognition'''- interpreting body movements into text, as a command (recognizing handwriting, signlanguage, etc)
> 
> '''Nano technology'''- cellular, microscopic, level of technology
> 
> '''GOMS'''- 'G'oals, 'O'perators, 'M'ethods, and 'S'election rules; hard science approach
> 
> 
> 
------
GeekSpeak|980398915
2c2
< ('arcane computer acronym, terminology or technology')
---
> ('arcane' 'computer' 'acronym', 'terminology' 'or' 'technology')
------
GeekSpeak|980399061
2c2
< ('arcane' 'computer' 'acronym', 'terminology' 'or' 'technology')
---
> (''arcane computer acronym, terminology or technology'')
4c4
< 1/18/01
---
>                        
17c17
< '''GOMS'''- 'G'oals, 'O'perators, 'M'ethods, and 'S'election rules; hard science approach
---
> '''GOMS'''- ''G''oals, ''O''perators, ''M''ethods, and ''S''election rules; hard science approach
------
EquivalenceRelation|980399067
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An equivalence relation ~ on a set X is a RelatioN satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
> 
>     a~a                                 (reflexive property)
>     If a~b, then b~a                    (symmetric property)
>     If a~b, b~c, then a~c               (transitive property)
> 
> Given any x in X, we define the equivalence class of x to be the set [x] = {y in G : x~y}.  The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient X/~.  These form a partition of X, and conversely any partition of X is a quotient X/~ for some equivalence relation ~.
> 
> A trivial example of an equivalence relation is equality.  X = X/(=) for any set X.
> 
------
AsWeMayThink|980399281
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
> 50 years after "As we may think": the Brown/MIT Vannevar Bush
>              symposium
>              Rosemary Simpson, Allen Renear, Elli Mylonas and Andries van Dam, Pages 47 -
>              67, Interactions Volume 3, No. 2 (Mar. 1996) 
------
EquivalenceRelation|980399382
7,9c7
< Given any x in X, we define the equivalence class of x to be the set [x] = {y in G : x~y}.  The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient X/~.  These form a partition of X, and conversely any partition of X is a quotient X/~ for some equivalence relation ~.
< 
< A trivial example of an equivalence relation is equality.  X = X/(=) for any set X.
---
> Given any x in X, we define the equivalence class of x to be the set [x] = {y in G : x~y}.  The equivalence classes form a partition of X, and conversely every partition of x corresponds to some unique equivalence relation ~.
10a9
> The set of all equivalence classes is denoted X/~, and called a quotient set.  In cases where X has some additional structure preserved under ~, the quotient naturally becomes an object of the same type; the map that sends x to [x] is then a HomoMorphism.
------
HomoMorphism|980399496
5c5
< Given a homomorphism f:X->Y, we can define an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient (set of all equivalence classes) X/~ can be defined to have an object-structure in a natural way.  We then find that the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.
---
> Any homomorphism f: X -> Y defines an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient X/~ can then be given an object-structure in a natural way, e.g. [x]*[y]=[x*y].  In that case the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.
------
HomoMorphism|980399558
3c3
< A homomorphism which is also OneToOne is called an IsoMorphism; two isomorphic objects are completely indistinguishable as far as the structure in question is concerned.  A homomorphism from a set to itself is called an EndoMorphism, and if it is also an isomorphism is called an AutoMorphism.
---
> A homomorphism which is also one-to-one is called an isomorphism; two isomorphic objects are completely indistinguishable as far as the structure in question is concerned.  A homomorphism from a set to itself is called an endomorphism, and if it is also an isomorphism is called an automorphism.
------
AsWeMayThink|980399764
2,5c2,6
< 50 years after "As we may think": the Brown/MIT Vannevar Bush
<              symposium
<              Rosemary Simpson, Allen Renear, Elli Mylonas and Andries van Dam, Pages 47 -
<              67, Interactions Volume 3, No. 2 (Mar. 1996) 
---
> 
> Bush Symposium Web Site: [URL http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/graphics/html/info/vannevar_bush.html]
> 
> Bush Symposium Information Farm: [URL http://www.eastgate.com/squirrel]
> 
------
AsWeMayThink|980400183
2a3,4
> Bush, Vannevar. (1945)'''"As We May Think"'''.  ''Atlantic Monthly''.
> 
------
GeekSpeak|980400529
17c17
< '''GOMS'''- ''G''oals, ''O''perators, ''M''ethods, and ''S''election rules; hard science approach
---
> '''GOMS'''- '''G'''oals, '''O'''perators, '''M'''ethods, and '''S'''election rules; hard science approach
18a19
> '''ENIAC'''- the '''E'''lectronic '''N'''umerical '''I'''ntegrator '''A'''nd '''C'''omputer
19a21
> '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et
------
EquivalenceRelation|980401477
9c9,12
< The set of all equivalence classes is denoted X/~, and called a quotient set.  In cases where X has some additional structure preserved under ~, the quotient naturally becomes an object of the same type; the map that sends x to [x] is then a HomoMorphism.
---
> The set of all equivalence classes is denoted X/~, and called a quotient set.  In cases where X has some additional structure preserved under ~, the quotient naturally becomes an object of the same type; the map that sends x to [x] is then a HomoMorphism.
> 
> Equality always defines an equivalence relation, and in fact it is minimal under implications.  X = X/=.
> 
------
MathematicalRelation|980402061
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and partial orders (see PartialOrderedSet).
> 
> A relation can also be thought of as a function R: (X x X) -> {0,1} where R(x,y)=1 if xRy and R(x,y)=0 if not.  This defines a BooleanAlgebra for the relations on X in a natural way.
------
EquivalenceRelation|980402084
1c1
< An equivalence relation ~ on a set X is a RelatioN satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
---
> An equivalence relation ~ on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
------
PartialOrderedSet|980402112
1c1
< A partial order <= on a set X is a RelatioN satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
---
> A partial order <= on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
------
AlTruism|980402552
20c20
< Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
---
> Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980402761
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A boolean algebra is a lattice (see LatticEs) which satisfies the following properties:
> 
>     There exists some element 0, such that av0=a for all a                 (bounded below)
>     There exists some element 1, such that a^1=a for all a                 (bounded above)
>     For all a,b,c, (avb)^c=(a^c)v(b^c)                                     (distributive law)
>     For all a, there exists an element ~a such that av~a=1 and a^~a=0      (existence of complements)
> 
> Complements are guaranteed to be unique within bounded distributive lattices.  Note the definition of Boolean algebrae is very similar to that of RinGs, except elements have complements instead of inverses.  Moreover the distributive law can be shown to hold both ways, i.e. (a^b)vc=(avc)^(bvc).
> 
> A particularly important boolean algebra is given by the lattice {0,1} with ordering =>, defined so that 0=>1.  This is because this represents ordinary logical truth values: 0 is "false", 1 is "true", avb is "a or b", a^b is "a and b", and a=>b is "a implies b".
> 
> As an immediate consequence of the above, the MathematicalRelation''s'' over a set form a boolean algebra under these operations.  So, then, do the subsets of any given set under inclusions, and in fact the subobjects of ''any'' given mathematical object typically form a boolean algebra under inclusions.
------
LatticEs|980402816
12,21c12
< A lattice which satisfies the following properties is referred to as a boolean algebra:
< 
<     There exists some element 0, such that av0=a for all a                 (bounded below)
<     There exists some element 1, such that a^1=a for all a                 (bounded above)
<     For all a,b,c, (avb)^c=(a^c)v(b^c) and (a^b)vc=(avc)^(bvc)             (distributive laws - these are equivalent)
<     For every a, there exists an element ~a such that av~a=1 and a^~a=0    (existence of complements)
< 
< Complements are unique within bounded distributive lattices.  Boolean algebrae are very similar to RinGs, except they have complements instead of inverses, and moreover the distributive laws work for each operation over the other.
< 
< The subobjects of any given object form a boolean algebra under <= taken to mean "is a subobject of".  In the case of sets, v and ^ become unions and intersections; in the case of groups they become semidirect products and intersections, and so forth.
---
> One ''very'' important kind of lattice is a BooleanAlgebra.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980403391
10,12c10
< A particularly important boolean algebra is given by the lattice {0,1} with ordering =>, defined so that 0=>1.  This is because this represents ordinary logical truth values: 0 is "false", 1 is "true", avb is "a or b", a^b is "a and b", and a=>b is "a implies b".
< 
< As an immediate consequence of the above, the MathematicalRelation''s'' over a set form a boolean algebra under these operations.  So, then, do the subsets of any given set under inclusions, and in fact the subobjects of ''any'' given mathematical object typically form a boolean algebra under inclusions.
---
> True-false statements form a boolean algebra, with implications => as the partial order.  Then avb represents "a or b",  a^b represents "a and b", and ~a represents "not a".  MathematicalRelation''s'' are a good example of such statements.
------
MathematicalRelation|980403443
3c3
< A relation can also be thought of as a function R: (X x X) -> {0,1} where R(x,y)=1 if xRy and R(x,y)=0 if not.  This defines a BooleanAlgebra for the relations on X in a natural way.
---
> Relations form a BooleanAlgebra with implications => as the partial order.
------
PatentNonsense|980405191
3,4c3,4
< * Literal nonsense, i.e., text that, usually intentionally, has no assignable meaning at all.  This tends to be created after the consumption of too much adult beverage, for example, or under the influence of immaturity and/or stupidity.
< * Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.
---
> * Literal nonsense, i.e., text that, usually intentionally, has no assignable meaning at all.  This tends to be created after the consumption of too much adult beverage, for example, or under the influence of immaturity and/or stupidity. (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.)
> * Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.  (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.)
------
UtaH|980406200
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Area: 219,900 square kilometers
> Population: Over 2,000,000
> Capital: Salt Lake City
> 
> Utah's bid for statehood was accepted in 1896 over forty years after its initial request.
> 
> One of Utah's most defining characteristics is the variety of its terrain.  From the Uinta Mountain range in the north (being the only east west running mountain range in North America) to the beautiful desert landscapes of Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks.
> 
> Another notable fact about Utah is that the continental meeting of the railroads happened at Promontory Point, Utah.
------
ArtsandEntertainment|980406382
1c1
< FiLm -- TheaTer -- MuSic -- PainTing -- SculpTure -- OpeRa -- DanCe
---
> FiLm -- TheaTer -- MuSic (PopularMusic)-- PainTing -- SculpTure -- OpeRa -- DanCe
------
ArtsandEntertainment|980406415
1c1
< FiLm -- TheaTer -- MuSic (PopularMusic)-- PainTing -- SculpTure -- OpeRa -- DanCe
---
> FiLm -- TheaTer -- MuSic -- PainTing -- SculpTure -- OpeRa -- DanCe
------
MuSic|980406470
19c19
< Jazz 
---
> JazzMusic 
------
BooleanAlgebra|980407948
6,10c6
<     For all a, there exists an element ~a such that av~a=1 and a^~a=0      (existence of complements)
< 
< Complements are guaranteed to be unique within bounded distributive lattices.  Note the definition of Boolean algebrae is very similar to that of RinGs, except elements have complements instead of inverses.  Moreover the distributive law can be shown to hold both ways, i.e. (a^b)vc=(avc)^(bvc).
< 
< True-false statements form a boolean algebra, with implications => as the partial order.  Then avb represents "a or b",  a^b represents "a and b", and ~a represents "not a".  MathematicalRelation''s'' are a good example of such statements.
---
>     For all a, there exists an e
------
BooleanAlgebra|980407949
6c6,8
<     For all a, there exists an e
---
>     For all a, there exists an element ~a such that av~a=1 and a^~a=0      (existence of complements)
> 
> Complements are guaranteed to be unique within bounded distributive lattices.  Note the definition of Boolean algebrae is very similar to that of RinGs, except elements have complements instead of inverses.  Moreover the distributive law can be shown to hold both ways, i.e. (a^b)vc=(avc)^(bvc).
------
MathematicalRelation|980408043
1,3c1
< The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and partial orders (see PartialOrderedSet).
< 
< Relations form a BooleanAlgebra with implications => as the partial order.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and partial orders (see PartialOrderedSet).
------
EquivalenceRelation|980408127
11c11
< Equality always defines an equivalence relation, and in fact it is minimal under implications.  X = X/=.
---
> Equality always defines an equivalence relation, and in fact it is minimal.  X = X/=.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980408326
8a9,10
> 
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.
------
OregoN|980408515
1c1,33
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Oregonians are proud of their state's wealth of beautiful forests and streams,
> and place great importance on proper use of their environment, yet struggle to
> balance this need with the desire to achieve progress.  The state has
> pioneered many of the nation's environmental firsts, such as one of the first
> bottle bills, but has also suffered under the decline of its lumber and steel
> industries.  
> 
> Oregon City, Oregon was the site of the first public library established west
> of the Rocky Mountains.  It was stocked with only 300 volumes.
> 
> '''ECONOMY'''
> 
> The Willamette Valley is very fertile, and coupled with Oregon's infamous rains,
> gives the state a wealth of agricultural products.  Apples and other fruits, cattle,
> dairy products, potatoes, and peppermint are all valuable products.  Vast pine
> forests have made Oregon the nation's major lumbering state since 1950.  In recent
> years, processing, publishing, and manufacturing have become much more dominant.
> And lately, high technology industries and services have grown considerably.
> Oregon has one of the largest salmon-fishing industries, and great care has been
> taken by the hydroelectric companies to preserve the habitats and migrational
> patterns of this fish.  Tourism is also strong in the state; Oregon's evergreen
> mountain forests, pristine lakes (including CraterLake), and scenic beaches draw 
> visitors year round.
> 
> '''GOVERNMENT'''
> 
> Oregon's Governer serves a four-year term.  The legislature consists of a thirty
> member senate and sixty member house.  Senators serve four year terms, and house
> representatives two.  At the national level, Oregon is represented by two senators
> and five representatives.  It has seven electorial votes.
> 
> '''FACTS'''
> Oregon (Facts and Figures)Area, 96,981 sq mi (251,181 sq km). Pop. (1990) 2,842,321, an 8% increase over 1980 pop. Capital, Salem. Statehood, Feb. 14, 1859 (33d state). Highest pt., Mt. Hood, 11,239 ft (3,428 m); lowest pt., sea level. Nickname, Beaver State. Motto, The Union. State bird, Western meadowlark. State flower, Oregon grape. State tree, Douglas fir. Abbr., Oreg.; OR.
------
AsWeMayThink|980409133
1,3c1
< Describe the new page here.
< 
< Bush, Vannevar. (1945)'''"As We May Think"'''.  ''Atlantic Monthly''.
---
> VannevarBush (1945)'''"As We May Think"'''.  ''Atlantic Monthly''.
------
GeekSpeak|980409241
1d0
< Describe the new page here.
------
LatticEs|980410166
1,3c1
< A lattice is a PartialOrderedSet (X, <=) where any two elements x,y have both a GreatestLowerBound xvy and LeastUpperBound x^y.
< 
< The operations v,^ on a lattice form an algebraic structure satisfying the following properties:
---
> A lattice is a set L, together with two binary operations v,^, such that for any a,b,c in L,
10c8
< Moreover, any algebra satisfying the above properties is a lattice, where x<=y is defined to be true if and only if xvy=y (or equivalently, x^y=x).
---
> If avb=b, or equivalently a^b=a, we say that a<=b.  Thus defined, (L,<=) is a PartialOrderedSet, and moreover (L,v,^) is the unique lattice associated therewith.  TotalOrderedSet''s'' and BooleanAlgebra''e'' are two important types of lattice.
12d9
< One ''very'' important kind of lattice is a BooleanAlgebra.
------
OregoN|980410673
33c33,46
< Oregon (Facts and Figures)Area, 96,981 sq mi (251,181 sq km). Pop. (1990) 2,842,321, an 8% increase over 1980 pop. Capital, Salem. Statehood, Feb. 14, 1859 (33d state). Highest pt., Mt. Hood, 11,239 ft (3,428 m); lowest pt., sea level. Nickname, Beaver State. Motto, The Union. State bird, Western meadowlark. State flower, Oregon grape. State tree, Douglas fir. Abbr., Oreg.; OR.
---
> 
>    Area: 96,981 sq mi (251,181 sq km). 
>    Population: (1990) 2,842,321, an 8% increase over 1980 pop. 
>    Capital: Salem. 
> *   Statehood: Feb. 14, 1859 (33d state). 
> *   Highest point: Mt. Hood, 11,239 ft (3,428 m)
> *   Lowest pt.: sea level. 
> *   Nickname: Beaver State. 
> *   Motto: The Union. 
> *   State Bird: Western meadowlark. 
> *   State Flower: Oregon grape. 
> *   State Tree: Douglas fir. 
> *   Abbreviation: Oreg. Ore. OR
> 
------
GeekSpeak|980411240
4c4
< '''Interface'''- parts of the computer that we work with; two different subsystems transmitting one piece of hardware to another;give and take of information
---
> '''Interface'''- parts of the computer that we work with; two different subsystems transmitting one piece of information to another;give and take of information
10c10
< '''CAD'''-  particular software design program, esp.archetectural
---
> '''CAD'''-  Computer Assisted Design; particular software design program, esp.archetectural
16c16
< '''GOMS'''- '''G'''oals, '''O'''perators, '''M'''ethods, and '''S'''election rules; hard science approach
---
> '''GOMS'''- '''G'''oals, '''O'''perators, '''M'''ethods, and '''S'''election rules; hard science approach to HCI developed by Card, Moran & Newell in spelled out in their book "The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction, 1983.
18c18
< '''ENIAC'''- the '''E'''lectronic '''N'''umerical '''I'''ntegrator '''A'''nd '''C'''omputer
---
> '''ENIAC'''- the '''E'''lectronic '''N'''umerical '''I'''ntegrator '''A'''nd '''C'''omputer.  Arguably, the first all electronic digital computer started in 1943 and finished in 1946.  Some claim that Goliath really was the first, but ENIAC has the best press agent ;^)
20c20
< '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et
---
> '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!)
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980411428
11c11
< Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president.  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at LewisAndClarkCollege called Human Computer Interaction.
---
> Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president (who is really more of a shrub!).  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at LewisAndClarkCollege called Human Computer Interaction.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980411732
11c11
< Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president (who is really more of a shrub!).  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a class at LewisAndClarkCollege called Human Computer Interaction.
---
> Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president (who is really more of a shrub!).  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a [http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/320s01.html class at LewisAndClarkCollege] called Human Computer Interaction.
------
OregoN|980412849
8,9c8,42
< Oregon City, Oregon was the site of the first public library established west
< of the Rocky Mountains.  It was stocked with only 300 volumes.
---
> OregonCityOregon was the site of the first public library established west
> of the RockyMountains.  It was stocked with only 300 volumes.
> 
> '''HISTORY'''
> 
> Oregon was originally occupied by a number of NativeAmerican tribes, including the BannockPeople, ChinookPeople, 
> KlamathPeople, and NezPercePeople.  JamesCook explored the coast in 1778 in search of the NorthwestPassage.
> LewisAndClark travelled through the region during their expedition to explore the LouisianaPurchase, at the
> direction of ThomasJefferson.  They found the state wet and miserable, and built their winter fort in WashingtoN.
> 
> Fur traders began trading and trapping, and built up an active fur trade, and in the process brought foreign
> sickness and disease that depopulated nearly all of the native americans tribes.  AstoriaOregon was established by 
> representatives of JohnJacobAstor's AmericanFurCompany in 1811, creating the first permanent white settlement.
> 
> The OregonTrail infused the region with new settlers, starting in 1842-43, as the UnitedStates sought to wrest
> control of the area from GreatBritain.  This controversy was resolved in 1846 when the Canadian boundary was
> set at the 49th parallel.
> 
> In the 1880s, railroads enabled marketing of the state's lumber and wheat, and the more rapid growth of its cities.
> 
> Industrial expansion began with ernest following the construction of the BonnevilleDam in 1943 on the ColumbiaRiver.
> The power, food, and lumber provided by Oregon have helped fuel the development of the west, and the periodic 
> fluctuations in the nation's building industry has severely impacted the state's economy on multiple occasions.
> 
> The state has a long history of polarizing conflicts between its citizens:  Native americans vs. English fur trappers, 
> English vs. settlers from the U.S., ranchers vs. farmers, wealthy growing cities vs. established but poor rural areas,
> loggers vs. environmentalists, white supremicists vs. anti-racists, and native-Oregonians vs. Californians (or
> outsiders in general).  The state ballots frequently experience the extremes of the political spectrum - anti-gay,
> pro-religions measures on the same ballot as liberal drug-decriminalization measures.  
> 
> These controversies have served to keep the citizens of the state well engaged and aware of the consequences of their
> actions.  They have little fear of testing out new ideas, and often lead the nation in innovative policies and laws,
> yet at the same time pay great attention to the side effects and negatives these changes can have, and adjust as
> required.
> 
37,45c70,78
< *   Statehood: Feb. 14, 1859 (33d state). 
< *   Highest point: Mt. Hood, 11,239 ft (3,428 m)
< *   Lowest pt.: sea level. 
< *   Nickname: Beaver State. 
< *   Motto: The Union. 
< *   State Bird: Western meadowlark. 
< *   State Flower: Oregon grape. 
< *   State Tree: Douglas fir. 
< *   Abbreviation: Oreg. Ore. OR
---
>    Statehood: Feb. 14, 1859 (33d state). 
>    Highest point: Mt. Hood, 11,239 ft (3,428 m)
>    Lowest pt.: sea level. 
>    Nickname: Beaver State. 
>    Motto: The Union. 
>    State Bird: Western meadowlark. 
>    State Flower: Oregon grape. 
>    State Tree: Douglas fir. 
>    Abbreviation: Oreg. Ore. OR
------
ThomasJefferson|980414942
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Thomas Jefferson was primary author of the Declaration of Independence and
> the third president of the United States, as well as a vast number of other
> contributions and achievements.
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|980415743
5c5,7
< Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was
> the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
> 
------
GeekSpeak|980416907
20c20
< '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!)
---
> '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG.
------
GeekSpeak|980417250
20c20
< '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG.
---
> '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. ALittleLuck did this one
------
ALittleLuck|980417263
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980417564
11c11,15
< Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president (who is really more of a shrub!).  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a [http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/320s01.html class at LewisAndClarkCollege] called Human Computer Interaction.
---
> Bush was a visionary computer guy who is no longer alive, not the president (who is really more of a shrub!).  GeekSpeak is a term for presentations describing computer related terms given in a [http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/320s01.html class at LewisAndClarkCollege] called Human Computer Interaction. 
> 
> ----
> Just like this picture (added by ALittleLuck )
> http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg
------
ALittleLuck|980417607
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Come-on, try to figure out who I am.
------
GeekSpeak|980417657
20c20
< '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. ALittleLuck did this one
---
> '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
------
HomePage|980417842
3,5c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
< 
< '''GNUStufF'''
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
10,12c8,9
< * WhatIsaWiki?
< * WhatsaWikiFor?
< * WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
---
> * WhatIsaWiki?  WhatsaWikiFor?  WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
> * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
15,17d11
< And of course,
< * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
< And
19a14
> 
23c18,20
< WhichWikiShouldWeUse
---
> * GNUStufF
> * WhichWikiShouldWeUse
> 
------
PatentNonsense|980420112
1c1
< Patent nonsense (to be carefully distinguished from BrilliantProse), particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:
---
> Patent nonsense (to be carefully distinguished from BrilliantProse as well as PrivateNonsense), particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:
------
PrivateNonsense|980420589
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Acts of nonsense between consenting adults in private,have been ruled a constitutionally protected right by the WikiSupremeCourt.
------
PaulaAbdul|980420758
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Bio:
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
------
PhiloSophy|980421604
2c2
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism--Fun with ArthurSchopenhauer
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980421859
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view. 
------
PhiloSophy|980422629
11c11
< '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism [etc. continue the list please]
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' RealIsm -- AntiRealism -- IrrealIsm -- NominaliIsm -- PlatonIsm '''EpistemOlogy:''' FoundationalIsm -- CoherentIsm -- ReliabilIsm -- JustifiedTrueBelief '''EthIcs:''' HedonIsm -- EudaimonIsm -- ConsequentialIsm -- UtilitarianIsm -- AlTruism -- EgoIsm -- PsychologicalEgoism -- DeconstructionIsm [etc. continue the list please]
------
DeconstructionIsm|980422682
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See PatentNonsense
------
TopOlogy|980439914
31c31,38
< ''And strictly speaking the paper is not actually continuous, but is actually composed of many separated atoms, so isn't really a torus.  I think there is a certain point of "good enough" for making pictures/sculptures of mathematical objects, and that the Moebius strip in paper meets it.''
---
> ''And strictly speaking the paper is not actually continuous, but is actually composed of many separated atoms, so isn't really a torus.  I think there is a certain point of "good enough" for making pictures/sculptures of mathematical objects, and that the Moebius strip in paper meets it.''
> 
> ----
> 
> OK - fair enough, but the generally, the purpose of this whole exercise is to use a mathematical model to further understand something that exists, not bring into existance things have the exact characteristics of any given mathematical model.  The Klein bottle is interesting because there is nothing physical that it is modelling, but we can analyze it anyway.
> 
> As far as your "paper is not continuous" argument, does this mean that we should be using Toplogical models that have CantorSet qualities in order to keep our models more like the real world?
> 
------
TopOlogy|980439966
37c37
< As far as your "paper is not continuous" argument, does this mean that we should be using Toplogical models that have CantorSet qualities in order to keep our models more like the real world?
---
> As far as your "paper is not continuous" argument, does this mean that we should be using Toplogical models that have CantorSet qualities in order to make our models more like the real world?
------
SportS|980440121
50c50
< 
---
> * Snowboarding?
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980442104
44a45,58
> ----
> This issue contains a conflict in the different uses of the system. On one hand we can use a simple enough syntax to mark the links like the funny capitalisation of letters and on the other hand the writer of each entry will have to put extra thought into what is a link and what is not.
> 
> I think that since the ambition is to build an encyklopedia we should go for the latter. An important thing with an encyklopedia is the words and their spelling and the funny capitalisation destroys the charm of the language. In some extreme cases there might even be a difference in the meanings because of the capitalisation. (Example from the top of my head: March n. month, march v. to walk). I would also like the possibility to write names with their correct spelling including the spaces like George W. Bush and North Dakota.
> 
> Actually I would like to make it even more complicated for the writer. I would like the WikiPedia to provide a possibility to link to the correct version of a word if words have several meanings like this: York (linked to York/PA) is named after the English city (York linked to York/England). and have this appear as "York (clickable) is named after the English city York (clickable)".
> 
> Since this makes it harder on the person writing the texts we need tools to help him. I have identified two important set of tools:
> * First a tool that during preview goes through the text and signal all words that are present in the encyklopedia and thus are immediate candidates for linking. This is good as a help in identifing words or word combinations that are present elsewhere. The tool could also help him in choosing the correct version of the word.
> * The second tool that is a tool that when we add a new word, goes through the whole wiki and finds all places where this word or combination of words is used without a link. Kind of like the search function except that it does not include the words linked here (or linked to some other entry in the case where we have several entries with the same name).
> 
> A third more elaborate tools would be for those that want to spend time fixing all the errors that the persons not running the second tool would insert into the database and that would be a tool that finds (at random or in some order) entries with words or word combinations that are now defined but not linked to.
> 
> I realise that my technically ordering and systematising mind is what makes me wish this but I can't get out of it. --LinusTolke
------
SubGroup|980442334
11c11,13
< In general a group HomoMorphism f: G -> K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Also, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  We call the preimage of the trivial group {e} in K the kernel of the homomorphism.  As it turns out, the kernel is always normal and the image of G is always isomorphic to G/ker(f).
---
> In general a group HomoMorphism f: G -> K sends subgroups of G to subgroups of K.  Also, the preimage of any subgroup of K is a subgroup of G.  We call the preimage of the trivial group {e} in K the kernel of the homomorphism.  As it turns out, the kernel is always normal and the image of G is always isomorphic to G/ker(f).
> 
> The normal subgroups of any group G form a lattice under inclusion.  The minimal and maximal elements are {e} and G, the glb of two subgroup is their intersection and their lub is a ProductGroup.  If the subgroups are not normal then the lub needn't exist.
------
MathematicalRelation|980442461
1c1
< The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and partial orders (see PartialOrderedSet).
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
------
FootBall|980442571
17c17,25
< I'm not an expert!
---
> I'm not an expert!
> ----
> I was very much aware of this conflict when I wrote this entry. I just wanted to stir up something. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has probably spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
> 
> Do the following comparison:
> * American sites: http://www.football.com/ http://www.soccer.com/
> * British sites: http://www.football.co.uk/ http://www.soccer.co.uk/
> 
> -- LinusTolke
------
AsWeMayThink|980442723
2a3,4
> The article itself:  [URL http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm]
> 
------
PresidentOfTheUnitedStates|980442819
4,5c4,5
< * James Madison (1809-1817)
< * James Monroe (1817-1825)
---
> * JamesMadison (1809-1817)
> * JamesMonroe (1817-1825)
7,13c7,13
< * Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
< * Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
< * William Henry Harrison (1841)
< * John Tyler (1841-1845)
< * James Polk (1845-1849)
< * Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
< * Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
---
> * AndrewJackson (1829-1837)
> * MartinVanBuren (1837-1841)
> * WilliamHenryHarrison (1841)
> * JohnTyler (1841-1845)
> * JamesPolk (1845-1849)
> * ZacharyTaylor (1849-1850)
> * MillardFillmore (1850-1853)
15c15
< * James Buchanan (1857-1861)
---
> * JamesBuchanan (1857-1861)
17,36c17,36
< * Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
< * Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
< * Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
< * James A. Garfield (1881)
< * Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885)
< * Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
< * Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
< * Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
< * William McKinley (1897-1901)
< * Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
< * William H. Taft (1909-1913)
< * Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
< * Warren Harding (1921-1923)
< * Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
< * Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
< * Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
< * Harry S Truman (1945-1953)
< * Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
< * John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
< * Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
---
> * AndrewJohnson (1865-1869)
> * UlyssesSGrant (1869-1877)
> * RutherfordBHayes (1877-1881)
> * JamesAGarfield (1881)
> * ChesterAArthur (1881-1885)
> * GroverCleveland (1885-1889)
> * BenjaminHarrison (1889-1893)
> * GroverCleveland (1893-1897)
> * WilliamMcKinley (1897-1901)
> * TheodoreRoosevelt (1901-1909)
> * WilliamHTaft (1909-1913)
> * WoodrowWilson (1913-1921)
> * WarrenHarding (1921-1923)
> * CalvinCoolidge (1923-1929)
> * HerbertHoover (1929-1933)
> * FranklinDRoosevelt (1933-1945)
> * HarrySTruman (1945-1953)
> * DwightDEisenhower (1953-1961)
> * JohnFKennedy (1961-1963)
> * LyndonBJohnson (1963-1969)
52c52
< An important question.  Could you research this and report back?
---
> An important question.  Could you research this and report back?
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980446837
2a3,6
> '''January 25, 2001'''
> 
> Since this wiki first started, January 10, 2001, we have made 270 pages!  Wow!
> 
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980447266
17,19c17
< Wikipedia-L (see WikipediaL), a new mailing list for Wikipedia, now exists!
< 
< -- LarrySanger
---
> Wikipedia-L (see WikipediaL), a new mailing list for Wikipedia, now exists!
------
NuPedia|980447373
1,8c1
< Nupedia (http://www.nupedia.com/) is soon to become the greatest EncycloPedia in HisTory, because of its essential features, viz., it is: OpenContent, free, freely-distributable, rigorously PeerReview""ed, international, unbiased, and in the fullness of time, comprehensive.
< 
< 
< Yea, but, what's stopping someone putting CRAP in it? Who is the expert and how are you gunna get a good expert for nuthing?
< 
< eh?
< 
< Face it, Encyclopaedias are full of old news anyhow. What we need is a collectively inspired Arthur C Clark.
---
> Nupedia (http://www.nupedia.com/) is soon to become the greatest EncycloPedia in HisTory, because of its essential features, viz., it is: OpenContent, free, freely-distributable, rigorously PeerReview""ed, international, unbiased, and in the fullness of time, comprehensive.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980447707
31a32,33
> 
> '''Q. Yeah, but why? I read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section.  I understand that I have to use uncommon capitalizations to create a link.  Whats the purpose?'''
39a42,43
> ----
> '''Q. Whats the point of getting a user number?'''
------
PitcairnIsland|980447911
1c1
< A tiny island in the SouthPacific, one of the most remote sites of human habitation on the planet.  Its fascinating history begins with the famous mutiny on the H.M.S. Bounty; the original PitcairnErs were roughneck sailors and their Tahitian "wives."  An English-Polynesian creole, as well as English, are spoken there.  A protectorate of the U.K.
---
> A tiny island in the SouthPacific, one of the most remote sites of human habitation on the planet.  Its fascinating history begins with the famous mutiny on the H.M.S. Bounty; the original PitcairnErs were roughneck sailors and their Tahitian "wives."  An English-Polynesian creole, as well as English, are spoken there.  A protectorate of the U.K.--but politically unique.  Population (1991) around 60.
------
TheLegalImplicationsOfWikis|980448199
1c1
< Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an insensitive clod, overly fond of sheep, and a boozing stinker (or a stinking boozer).  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?  Well, sure, but could anyone be taken seriously for doing so?  Could anyone ''win'' such a lawsuit?
---
> Suppose I were to defame JimboWales, e.g., saying that he is an [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22insensitive+clod%22 insensitive clod], overly [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fond+of+sheep%22 fond of sheep], and a boozing stinker (or a stinking boozer).  Could anyone bring a defamation lawsuit against the owner of Wikipedia's server (which, it so happens, is JimboWales), against the defamer of JimboWales, or against anyone else?  Well, sure, but could anyone be taken seriously for doing so?  Could anyone ''win'' such a lawsuit?
------
RhodeIsland|980450744
1c1
< The best little state in the USA! Miles of white ocean beaches, great ethnic food, friendly natives, and home of Rhode Island Reds!
---
> The best little state in the USA! Miles of white ocean beaches, great ethnic food, friendly natives, and home of Rhode Island Reds!----Smithfield, R.I. is home of Bryant College, a prestigious business school
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980454936
15a16,23
> 
> ----
> Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
> 
> [http://www.lclark.edu/~alr Alexa'sPageOfWonder]
> [http://www.lclark.edu/~theatre LewisAndClarkCollegeTheatre] Find out all about upcoming plays and events at Lewis & Clark!
> 
> ----
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980454972
20a21
> 
23c24
< ----
---
> ----
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980455019
20c20
< [http://www.lclark.edu/~alr Alexa'sPageOfWonder]
---
> [http://www.lclark.edu/~alr Alexa'sPageOfWonder] Okay, so it's not that exciting, but I put a lot into it. :)
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980455123
23a24,25
> [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.
> 
------
TheaTer|980455290
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Come now, everyone!  There must be people out there interested in theatre in its many wonderous forms!  To start you out, here's a link to the Lewis & Clark College Theater website:
> 
> [http://www.lclark.edu/~theatre Click me!]
> 
> ----
> Let's get that ball rolling!
------
TheaTer|980455404
1,6c1
< Come now, everyone!  There must be people out there interested in theatre in its many wonderous forms!  To start you out, here's a link to the Lewis & Clark College Theater website:
< 
< [http://www.lclark.edu/~theatre Click me!]
< 
< ----
< Let's get that ball rolling!
---
> 
------
HisTory|980456340
1c1,3
< That which happened.
---
> That which happened.
> ----
> That which happened and was recorded.  The record of that which happened.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980457607
3c3
< Your task, <i>(If you choose to accept it)</i> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
---
> Your </B>assignment</B> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
18c18
< Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
---
> <I>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
24c24
< [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.
---
> [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.</I>
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980457641
3c3
< Your </B>assignment</B> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
---
> Your <b>assignment</b> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
18c18
< <I>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
---
> <i>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
24c24
< [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.</I>
---
> [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.</i>
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980457674
18c18
< <i>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!
---
> <i>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!</i>
24c24
< [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.</i>
---
> [http://www.storypeople.com StoryPeople] A beautiful site with amazingly creative, very short stories by Brian Andreas.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980458668
3c3
< Your <b>assignment</b> is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
---
> Your '''assignment''' is to add some interesting stuff to this site in a rather anarchic way!!  Bonus points if you figure out how to add images, links to outside sites and pretty formatting.
18c18
< <i>Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!</i>
---
> ''Here are some interesting links contributed by members of the class.  Please add your own as you find them!''
------
ALittleLuck|980459435
1c1,3
< Come-on, try to figure out who I am.
---
> Come-on, try to figure out who I am.
> 
> I am guessing that you are a psy 320 student at L & C!
------
ALittleLuck|980459675
1c1
< Come-on, try to figure out who I am.
---
> Come-on, try to figure out who I am. <s>ALEXA!!</s>
------
ALittleLuck|980459692
1c1
< Come-on, try to figure out who I am. <s>ALEXA!!</s>
---
> Come-on, try to figure out who I am. <b>ALEXA!!</b>
------
ChristianIty|980461585
1c1
< Simply and most generally, Christianity comprises the group of religions who believe that JesusChrist is the Savior of the world.
---
> Simply and most generally, Christianity comprises the group of religions who believe that JesusChrist is the Savior of the world. In some more moderate sects he was simply someone who was had new insights and somthing to teach.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980462692
26a27,29
> 
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.  
> 
------
AustriA|980462993
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Austria¥pop© ca© 7©5m¤ is a small landlocked country in Central Europe© It is a federation of 9 states©
> 
> Capital: Vienna ¥pop© ca© 1©8m¤
> 
> Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein© Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic©
> 
> 
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980463739
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.  
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|980464159
9c9
< A)  Perception
---
> '''A)  Perception'''
11c11
< B)  Knowledge Base
---
> '''B)  Knowledge Base'''
13c13
< C)  Logic
---
> '''C)  Logic'''
23c23
< Here's how:
---
> '''Here's how:'''
38c38
< What does all this have to do with philosophy?
---
> '''What does all this have to do with philosophy?'''
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|980464293
1c1
< Sherlock Holmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?
---
> ''Sherlock Holmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?''
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980468330
29a30,31
> Hello, this is a test.
> 
------
TheRecorder|980468364
3c3,6
< The instrument went into decline after the 18th century, being used for about the last time as an other-wordly sound by Gluck in his opera Orfeo ed Euridice.  It was revived at the end of the 19th century by the English researcher into earlier music, Arnold Dolmetsch.  Subsequently it became very popular in schools, since in its initial stages it is relatively easy to play ... though that does not remain the case in more advanced music.
---
> The instrument went into decline after the 18th century, being used for about the last time as an other-wordly sound by Gluck in his opera Orfeo ed Euridice.  It was revived at the end of the 19th century by the English researcher into earlier music, Arnold Dolmetsch.  Subsequently it became very popular in schools, since in its initial stages it is relatively easy to play ... though that does not remain the case in more advanced music.
> 
> I played the Recorder when i was in 6th grade
> -Zed 
------
HomePage|980468487
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- SnowBOARDING--CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
------
CopperAge|980468513
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The used copper tools here
------
SnowBOARDING|980468537
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
> [skihood.com]
------
SnowBOARDING|980468561
2c2
< [skihood.com]
---
> [skihood.com]
------
HistoryOfEurope|980468562
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 1400's advent of the printing press
------
ALittleLuck|980468575
3a4,5
> 
> You are too!! Oh my God, so are we!!!!
------
ALittleLuck|980468610
1,5c1
< Come-on, try to figure out who I am. <b>ALEXA!!</b>
< 
< I am guessing that you are a psy 320 student at L & C!
< 
< You are too!! Oh my God, so are we!!!!
---
> STOP MESSING WITH ME
------
HistoryOfEurope|980468624
1c1,2
< 1400's advent of the printing press
---
> 1400's advent of the printing press
> Not the copperage
------
HistoryOfEurope|980468676
2c2
< Not the copperage
---
> Not the CopperAge 
------
GeekSpeak|980468688
21a22
> '''Novice''' - a computer user that actually knows nothing, but boasts that they can figure it out.
------
ALittleLuck|980468710
1c1
< STOP MESSING WITH ME
---
> (content edited)
------
HistoryOfEurope|980468712
2c2,4
< Not the CopperAge 
---
> Not the CopperAge
> 
> History of Germany
------
SnowBOARDING|980468748
2c2,3
< [skihood.com]
---
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!!
> 
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980468767
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif  <-Annoying This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
ThomasEdison|980468832
3c3,5
< I have read that, similarly, the credit traditionally given to ThomasEdison for the invention of the LightBulb is misplaced.  I am not competent to assess this claim.
---
> I have read that, similarly, the credit traditionally given to ThomasEdison for the invention of the LightBulb is misplaced.  I am not competent to assess this claim.
> 
> He did invent the filament for the light bulb...I know that.
------
SnowBOARDING|980468849
1,2c1
< Describe the new page here.
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!!
---
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  Here are some cool links if you need to get some basic info.  Where to go?:  [http://www.skihood.com]
------
SnowBOARDING|980468875
1c1
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  Here are some cool links if you need to get some basic info.  Where to go?:  [http://www.skihood.com]
---
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  Here are some cool links if you need to get some basic info.  Where to go?:  [http://www.skihood.com MtHoodMeadows]
------
HistoryOfEurope|980468915
4c4
< History of Germany
---
> HistoryGermany
------
SnowBOARDING|980468953
2c2
< 
---
> Where to get some dope gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
------
HistoryGermany|980468961
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> NationalSocialism
> Berlin
------
HistoryGermany|980468981
2c2,3
< Berlin
---
> 
> CityBerlin
------
CityBerlin|980469003
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Berlin is the capital of Germany.
------
SnowBOARDING|980469016
2c2,5
< Where to get some dope gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
---
> Where to get some dope gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
> 
> 
> this sucks
------
SnowBOARDING|980469054
4,5c4
< 
< this sucks
---
> the season hasnt been that good this year in the north west.  
------
SnowBOARDING|980469085
4c4
< the season hasnt been that good this year in the north west.  
---
> the season hasnt been that good this year in the north west.  
------
NationalSocialism|980469088
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> national socialism is called a close dictatorial period in german history from 1933 to 1945.
------
SnowBOARDING|980469145
4a5,6
> 
> Advice for everybody(free) don't listen to big ZED
------
HomePage|980469191
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- SnowBOARDING--CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
---
>  -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- SnowBOARDING--CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment- MathematicsAndStatistics
------
PoLitics|980469210
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Politics comes from the root word poly meaning many and tics meaning bloodsucking insects. 
------
TheaTer|980469224
1c1
< 
---
> Text
------
TheaTer|980469310
1c1,8
< Text
---
> 
> Showing revision 1
> Come now, everyone! There must be people out there interested in theatre in its many wonderous forms! To start you out, here's a link to the Lewis & Clark College Theater website: 
> 
> [Click me!] 
> 
> 
> Let's get that ball rolling! 
------
SnowBOARDING|980469365
2a3
> Just in case you need something soothing for the eardrums on the way up go to [http://wwww.pantera.com PANTERA]
6c7
< Advice for everybody(free) don't listen to big ZED
---
> Advice for everybody(free) don't listen to big ZED
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980471440
14c14
< Just like this picture (added by ALittleLuck )
---
> 
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif  <-Annoying This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
ALittleLuck|980471679
1c1,3
< (content edited)
---
> Do you know who I am yet?  
> 
> I'll be around.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980471785
15c15
< http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg EricNilsen and family.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980471816
15c15
< http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg EricNilsen and family.
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg ErikNilsen and family.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980471933
15c15
< http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg ErikNilsen and family.
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg Erik Nilsen and family.
------
ALittleLuck|980471993
2a3
> 
------
DanCe|980472771
1d0
< 
4c3
< BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance
---
> BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance - TableDance - SquareDance - LapDance - StVitusDance
------
DanCe|980473283
3c3
< BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance - TableDance - SquareDance - LapDance - StVitusDance
---
> BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance - TableDance - SquareDance - TapDance - LapDance - StVitusDance - 
------
HomePage|980474558
3c3
<  -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- SnowBOARDING--CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment- MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment- MathematicsAndStatistics
------
SportS|980474626
50c50,51
< * Snowboarding?
---
> * SnowBoarding
> 
------
SnowBoarding|980474736
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here are some cool links if you need to get some basic info.  Where to go:  [http://www.skihood.com MtHoodMeadows]
> 
> Where to get some gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
> ----
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
> ----
> The season hasn't been that good this year in the northwest.
> ----
> Advice for everybody (free): don't listen to big ZED.
------
SnowBoarding|980474752
3c3
< Where to get some gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
---
> Where to get some gear: [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
------
SnowBOARDING|980474782
1,7c1
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  Here are some cool links if you need to get some basic info.  Where to go?:  [http://www.skihood.com MtHoodMeadows]
< Where to get some dope gear [http://www.forum-snowboards.com forumsnowboards]
< Just in case you need something soothing for the eardrums on the way up go to [http://wwww.pantera.com PANTERA]
< 
< the season hasnt been that good this year in the north west.  
< 
< Advice for everybody(free) don't listen to big ZED
---
> See SnowBoarding.
------
NewTopics|980474908
5c5
< EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd -- WikiPediaAnnouncements -- WikipediaL
---
> EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd -- WikiPediaAnnouncements -- WikipediaL -- DanCe
------
DanCe|980474930
3,5c3
< BallroomDance - JazzDance - ModernDance - FolkDance - BalletDance - TableDance - SquareDance - TapDance - LapDance - StVitusDance - 
< 
< 
---
> BallroomDance -- JazzDance -- ModernDance -- FolkDance -- BalletDance -- SquareDance -- TapDance
------
ALittleLuck|980475088
4a5,6
> ----
> The prof.
------
HomePage|980476123
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment- MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
------
TopOlogy|980480103
28a29,32
> I don't know what you mean by "different topological shapes in 3-space", but I can't imagine a meaning for which there would only be 6 of them.  Even if we restrict ourselves to nice objects such as compact surfaces (which seems to be what you have in mind) there are infinitely many pairs that are non-homeomorphic. There is a representation theorem that characterizes them in very simple terms, however.
> 
> ----
> 
37a42,45
> 
> ----
> 
> 3-D Euclidean space itself is as much a "theoretical object" as a Mobius strip, and the physical analogues we build of Mobius strips are certainly closer to actual Mobius strips than to tori. Tori are ''not'' three dimensional objects -- they are two dimensional objects -- compact connected 2-manifolds.   That is, a torus is not the topological equivalent of a donut, for it is hollow.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980486882
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most intersting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most interesting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
HistoryOfEurope|980489306
1,2c1
< 1400's advent of the printing press
< Not the CopperAge
---
> ''In brief:''
4c3,11
< HistoryGermany
---
> Europe emerged as the site of a distinct civilization after the fall of the RomanEmpire (c. 400-500 AD), separated from the rest of the Meditteranean by the Byzantine and Islamic cultures.  Huge amounts of technology and learning were lost, and people returned to local agragarian communities.
> 
> The first substantial new development was the appearance of the HolyRomanEmpire around 800 AD.  The subsequent period saw the growth of FeudalIsm, the development of the CatholicChurch as a major power, and the first signs of new learning began to appear.  By the end of the MiddleAges, powerful NationStates had appeared and began conquering wide portions of the world.
> 
> Philosophy, science and technology developed rapidly throughout.  The church broke up and semi-secular governments started developing.  In the FrenchRevolution, people made a significant attempt to create a new government based on freedom and equality, instead launching the NapoleonicEra.  Napoleon also destroyed the HolyRomanEmpire, leaving Germany and Italy to develop into nation-states by 1900.
> 
> The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of Europe.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of AmericA and the SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
> 
> See also: HistoryGermany
------
HistoryOfEurope|980489436
9c9
< The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of Europe.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of AmericA and the SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
---
> The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of Europe.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of the UnitedStates and SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
------
HistoryGermany|980489550
0a1,2
> GerMany
> 
------
HistoryGermany|980490563
1c1
< GerMany
---
> GermanY
------
CopperAge|980491698
1c1,9
< The used copper tools here
---
> Around 4000-3500 BC the first cities appeared among the SumerianPeoples of Mesopotamia.  With these came a new societal structure.  Ties of kinship no longer sufficed to hold communities together, and were replaced by religion.  Each CityState had a patron god, to whom a massive central temple (ziggurat) was dedicated, and was ruled by a priest-king (''ishakku'').
> 
> The development of cities led to increased specialization and enabled people to take on bigger projects.  Kings were responsible for coordinating efforts like irrigation and warfare, which increased considerably in scale.  By around 2500 BC cities had begun to dominate each other, and by accomodating their subject's gods began to become slightly more secular in character, and eventually Mesopotamia was united under the empires of Akkad, Ur, and OldBabylonia.
> 
> Meanwhile parallel developments had occured in Africa and India.  Egypt was united to form the old kingdom around 3100 BC, the country that left us the pyramids, and after a brief interlude became the middle kingdom centered at Thebes.  And a relatively poorly known, but nevertheless highly advanced, urban civilization grew up at centers like Harappa in the IndusValley.
> 
> The urban societies of this era emerged along with many new advances, most notably writing.  However, in terms of tools things did not progress technologically to any great degree.  Copper smelting developed, but the metal is fairly expensive and brittle, and most implements remained tipped with stone, and farming remained restricted to the fertile river valleys where these civilizations had developed.
> 
> Things started changing around 2000 BC.  Civilization began to spread to the surrounding hills where agriculture necessarily depended upon rainwater, and new civilization centers began to develop around the older ones: the HittitePeoples arrived in Anatolia (Turkey), and cities developed among the CanaanitePeoples of Syria-Palestine.  This process intensified around 1700 BC, when new immigrants with bronze technology overtook the older civilization centers.
------
ComputerSoftware|980493813
6a7
> ** PootPoot
------
PootPoot|980493865
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Poot poot [http://www.pootpoot.com/poot/pootify?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.com&options=none Pootpoot], poot.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980493908
6a7,8
> PootPoot.
> 
17c19
< Wikipedia-L (see WikipediaL), a new mailing list for Wikipedia, now exists!
---
> Wikipedia-L (see WikipediaL), a new mailing list for Wikipedia, now exists!
------
BronzeAge|980494347
1c1
< Around 2000-1600 BC new groups started appearing around the peripheries of civilization.  These are associated with bronze (copper+tin) implements, chariot archers, warrior nobilities, and generally speaking IndoEuropean languages.  They probably fanned out from a homeland around the CaspianSea.  Around the end of the period this process intensified, and most of the older civilizations were overrun.
---
> Around 2000-1800 BC various new groups started appearing all around the periphery of civilization, armed with powerful new technologies: bronze implements, horses, and the light two-wheeled chariot.  These weapons were used to good advantage, and by around 1600 BC all the older civilization centers had been overrun.
3c3
< In the west, the first Greeks - the Achaeans - entered the country and founded the MycenaeanCivilization.  This was partially derivative from the older MinoanCivilization on Crete, but soon came to dominate it.  Further west, various groups - mostly notably the CelticPeoples - spread over Europe, almost entirely displacing the original cultures.
---
> Of particular importance were the Iranian groups who spread off the plateau into neighboring regions.  The KassitePeoples conquered Babylonia and the IndoAryans more or less annihilated the declining foreign civilization they found in the IndusValley.  A related group, the Mitanni, set up a kingdom over much of Syria and Assyria.
5c5,7
< Various Iranian groups appeared across the MiddleEast, including the nomadic Scythians, the Kassites who conquered Babylonia, the Mitanni who pushed the Hurrians into northern Mesopotamia, and the IndoAryans who destroyed the civilization of Harappa.  The HittiteKingdom was established in Anatolia (modern Tukey), and the semitic Hyskos adopted the new technology and overran Egypt, though they were ejected soon after.  
---
> Egypt was temporarily occupied by the Semitic Hyskos, but these were ejected and the NewKingdomOfEgypt - its first empire - grew up in their wake.  The HittitePeoples also developed into an empire at this time.  All of these were continually at war for domination of the middle east.
> 
> Horses and chariots require a lot of time and upkeep, and so their use was restricted mainly to warrior nobilities.  These are the feudal "heroic" societies vaguely familiar to us from epics like the ''Iliad'' and ''Ramayana''.  They are often associated with IndoEuropean languages, which probably spread out from a homeland on the caspian sea along with bronze working.
7d8
< Around this time, too, the first civilization in China - the ShangDynasty - appears.  This probably was influenced by yet another group of IE migrants, the Tocharians, but not enough work has been done to confirm this hypothesis.
------
BronzeAge|980495332
3c3
< Of particular importance were the Iranian groups who spread off the plateau into neighboring regions.  The KassitePeoples conquered Babylonia and the IndoAryans more or less annihilated the declining foreign civilization they found in the IndusValley.  A related group, the Mitanni, set up a kingdom over much of Syria and Assyria.
---
> Egypt was temporarily occupied by the Semitic Hyskos, but these were ejected and the NewKingdomOfEgypt - its first empire - grew up in their wake.  Babylonia was conquered by the KassitePeoples, and the IndoAryans more or less annihilated the civilization they found in the IndusValley.  A related group, the Mitanni, set up a kingdom over much of Syria and Assyria.
5c5
< Egypt was temporarily occupied by the Semitic Hyskos, but these were ejected and the NewKingdomOfEgypt - its first empire - grew up in their wake.  The HittitePeoples also developed into an empire at this time.  All of these were continually at war for domination of the middle east.
---
> Some of these groups also spread to new areas, e.g. the CelticPeoples.  Greece was overrun by the AchaeanPeoples, who set up the first Greek-speaking kingdoms (notably Mycenae) and came to dominate the older MinoanPeoples.  The first civilization in China, the ShangDynasty, may have developed under the influence of the TocharianPeoples who spread eastward.
9,10c9
< 
< Around 1200 BC most of the bronze age kingdoms collapsed and urban centers all across the eastern meditteranean were sacked by raiders, all within a few decades.  The following few centuries were dark ages for Greece and the Near East.  By the time civilization had recovered, iron tools had become common, and a new era had begun.
---
> Around 1200 BC ''something'' happened that dramatically shifted power away from these kingdoms.  Within a few decades city centers all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked and the kingdoms swept away.  Only Egypt, power broken, and Assyria escaped destruction.  This issues in a dark age for the west, and by the time civilization had recovered, the iron age had begun.
------
CopperAge|980495432
9c9
< Things started changing around 2000 BC.  Civilization began to spread to the surrounding hills where agriculture necessarily depended upon rainwater, and new civilization centers began to develop around the older ones: the HittitePeoples arrived in Anatolia (Turkey), and cities developed among the CanaanitePeoples of Syria-Palestine.  This process intensified around 1700 BC, when new immigrants with bronze technology overtook the older civilization centers.
---
> Things started changing around 2000 BC.  Civilization began to spread to the surrounding hills where agriculture necessarily depended upon rainwater, and new civilization centers began to develop around the older ones: the HittitePeoples arrived in Anatolia (Turkey), cities developed among the CanaanitePeoples of Syria-Palestine and the MinoanPeoples of Crete.  This process intensified around 1600 BC, when new immigrants with bronze technology overtook the older civilization centers.
------
DisRuption|980496146
1a2,5
> 
> We might end up with people posting silly quotes, but that's to be expected...
> 
> "Share your knowledge. It is a way to achieve immortality." -The Dalai Lama
------
PartialOrder|980496212
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A partial order <= on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X, 
> 
>     a <= a                              (reflexive property)
>     If a <= b, b <= a, then a = b       (antisymmetric property)
>     If a <= b, b <= c, then a <= c      (transitive property)
> 
> A set with a partial order on it is called a partial ordered set, or poset.  A poset where any two elements have both a greatest lower bound and a least upper bound forms an algebraic structure called a LatticE.
> 
> Given any a,b in X, we define the OpenInterval (a,b) = {x in X : a < x < b}.  Arbitrary unions of OpenInterval''s'' define a topology on the poset, called the OrderTopology.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
------
PartialOrder|980496309
7c7
< A set with a partial order on it is called a partial ordered set, or poset.  A poset where any two elements have both a greatest lower bound and a least upper bound forms an algebraic structure called a LatticE.
---
> A set with a partial order on it is called a partial ordered set, or poset.  A poset where any two elements have both a greatest lower bound and a least upper bound forms an algebraic structure called a LatticE.  Every poset (X,<=) has a unique dual poset (X,>=).
9c9,11
< Given any a,b in X, we define the OpenInterval (a,b) = {x in X : a < x < b}.  Arbitrary unions of OpenInterval''s'' define a topology on the poset, called the OrderTopology.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
---
> Given any a,b in X, we define the OpenInterval (a,b) = {x in X : a < x < b}.  Arbitrary unions of OpenInterval''s'' define a topology on the poset, called the OrderTopology.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
> 
> Examples of partial orders include implications and inclusions ("is a subset of" and the more general "is a subobject of").
------
PartialOrder|980496347
9c9
< Given any a,b in X, we define the OpenInterval (a,b) = {x in X : a < x < b}.  Arbitrary unions of OpenInterval''s'' define a topology on the poset, called the OrderTopology.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
---
> Given any a,b in X, we define the OpenInterval (a,b) = {x in X : a < x < b}.  Arbitrary unions of OpenInterval''s'' define a TopOlogy on the poset, called the OrderTopology.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
------
PartialOrderedSet|980496412
1,11c1
< A partial order <= on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
< 
<     a <= a                              (reflexive property)
<     If a <= b, b <= a, then a = b       (antisymmetric property)
<     If a <= b, b <= c, then a <= c      (transitive property)
< 
< PartialOrderedSet''s'' ("posets") where every two elements have both a GreatestLowerBound and a LeastUpperBound are called LatticEs, and include things like sets, groups, or the like under the partial ordering of inclusion.  Posets which satisfy trichotomy (for all a,b, a<=b or b<=a) are called TotalOrderedSet''s'', and include sets of OrdinalNumbers.
< 
< We write a < b if a <= b and the two are not equal.  Given any two a,b in X, the OpenInterval (a,b) is defined to be the set of all x in X such that a < x < b.  Arbitrary unions of OpenIntervals define the order-TopOlogy of the poset.  Most familiar topologies are built up from objects of this sort, e.g. the RealNumbers.
< 
< A map f:X->Y from one poset to another is called an order-HomoMorphism if f(x)<=f(y) when x<=y; if it is bijective, it is called an order-IsoMorphism.  Any order-based property a poset has will also be true in any poset isomorphic to it.  Every poset (X,<=) has a unique dual poset (X,>=).
---
> deleted in favor of PartialOrder
------
LatticEs|980496461
8c8
< If avb=b, or equivalently a^b=a, we say that a<=b.  Thus defined, (L,<=) is a PartialOrderedSet, and moreover (L,v,^) is the unique lattice associated therewith.  TotalOrderedSet''s'' and BooleanAlgebra''e'' are two important types of lattice.
---
> If avb=b, or equivalently a^b=a, we say that a<=b.  Thus defined, <= forms a PartialOrder on L, and moreover (L,v,^) is the unique lattice associated therewith.  TotalOrderedSet''s'' and BooleanAlgebra''e'' are two important types of lattice.
------
AbstractAlgebra|980496546
7c7
< * LatticEs
---
> * LatticE
9,11c9
< A subalgebra of a given algebra is a subset thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  The subalgebrae of given algebrae usually form LatticEs under inclusion.
< 
< A map between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
---
> A subalgebra of a given algebra is a subset thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  A map between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
------
LatticE|980496605
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A lattice is a set L, together with two binary operations v,^, such that for any a,b,c in L, 
> 
>     ava=a                   a^a=a                   (idempotency laws)
>     avb=bva                 a^b=b^a                 (commutativity laws)
>     av(bvc)=(avb)vc         a^(b^c)=(a^b)^c         (associativity laws)
>     av(a^b)=a               a^(bvc)=a               (absorption laws)
> 
> If avb=b, or equivalently a^b=a, we say that a<=b. Thus defined, <= forms a PartialOrder on L, and moreover (L,v,^) is the unique lattice associated therewith. TotalOrderedSet''s'' and BooleanAlgebra''e'' are two important types of lattice. 
------
LatticEs|980496639
1,9c1
< A lattice is a set L, together with two binary operations v,^, such that for any a,b,c in L,
< 
<     ava=a                   a^a=a                   (idempotency laws)
<     avb=bva                 a^b=b^a                 (commutativity laws)
<     av(bvc)=(avb)vc         a^(b^c)=(a^b)^c         (associativity laws)
<     av(a^b)=a               a^(bvc)=a               (absorption laws)
< 
< If avb=b, or equivalently a^b=a, we say that a<=b.  Thus defined, <= forms a PartialOrder on L, and moreover (L,v,^) is the unique lattice associated therewith.  TotalOrderedSet''s'' and BooleanAlgebra''e'' are two important types of lattice.
< 
---
> deleted in favor of LatticE
------
AbstractAlgebra|980496755
3,7c3,7
< * MathematicalGrouP
< * RinGs and ModulEs
< * FielDs and VectorSpaces
< * AssociativeAlgebrae
< * LatticE
---
> * MathematicalGrouP''s''
> * RinG''s'' and ModulE''s''
> * FielD''s'' and VectorSpace''s''
> * AssociativeAlgebra''e''
> * LatticE''s''
9a10,14
> 
> ----
> Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles? Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger 
> 
> I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :)  But fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though. -JG
------
RinG|980496870
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +, together with a second operation * s.t.
> 
>    a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
>    a*(b+c) = (a*b)+(a*c), (a+b)*c = (a*c)+(b*c)
> 
> Very often the definition of a ring is taken to require a multiplicative identity, or unity, denoted 1.  Nearly all important rings actually satisfy this.  It has the disadvantage, however, of making ring ideals not subrings, as compared with their group-analog, the normal subgroups.  It has the advantage of adding a lot more structure to 
> 
> Sets of commutative group HomoMorphism''s'' form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulE''s''.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
> 
> A subring (not necessarily with identity) closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary ring'' elements is called an ideal.  These relate to the kernels of ring HomoMorphism''s'' the same way NormalSubGroups relate to those of GroupHomomorphism''s''.
> 
> A ring where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero is called an IntegralDomain.  In such rings, multiplicative cancellation is possible.  Of particular interest are FielD''s'', IntegralDomain''s'' where every non-zero element has a muliplicative inverse.
> 
> Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
------
RinGs|980496897
1,22c1
< A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +, together with a second operation * s.t.
< 
< * a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
< * a*(b+c) = (a*b)+(a*c), (a+b)*c = (a*c)+(b*c)
< 
< Very often the definition of a ring is taken to require a multiplicative identity, or unity, denoted 1.  Nearly all important rings actually satisfy this.  It has the disadvantage, however, of making ring ideals not subrings, as compared with their group-analog, the normal subgroups.  It has the advantage of adding a lot more structure to 
< 
< Sets of commutative group HomoMorphisms form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulEs.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
< 
< A subring (not necessarily with identity) closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary ring'' elements is called an ideal.  These relate to the kernels of ring HomoMorphisms the same way NormalSubGroups relate to those of GroupHomomorphisms.
< 
< A ring where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero is called an IntegralDomain.  In such rings, multiplicative cancellation is possible.  Of particular interest are FielDs, IntegralDomain''''s where every non-zero element has a muliplicative inverse.
< 
< Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
< ----
< Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles?  Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger
< 
< I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :) -JG
< 
< Except for the terms you use to define 'ring'; those are more primitive than 'ring', I hope! -- LarrySanger
< 
< Fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though.  Once there's pages enough to at least be able to properly define the RealNumbers, I'll go back and sort things out.  Sound 'K?
---
> deleted in favor of RinG
------
MathematicalGrouP|980496938
17c17
< Some important concepts: SubGroup''s'', PermutationGroup''s''.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinGs and ModulEs.
---
> Some important concepts: SubGroup''s'', PermutationGroup''s''.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinG''s'' and ModulE''s''.
81c81
< Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinGs, IdeaLs and FielDs.
---
> Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinG''s'', IdeaL''s'' and FielD''s''.
------
SubGroup|980497013
13c13
< The normal subgroups of any group G form a lattice under inclusion.  The minimal and maximal elements are {e} and G, the glb of two subgroup is their intersection and their lub is a ProductGroup.  If the subgroups are not normal then the lub needn't exist.
---
> The normal subgroups of any group G form a LatticE under inclusion.  The minimal and maximal elements are {e} and G, the glb of two subgroup is their intersection and their lub is a ProductGroup.  If the subgroups are not normal then the lub needn't exist.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980497082
1c1
< A boolean algebra is a lattice (see LatticEs) which satisfies the following properties:
---
> A boolean algebra is a LatticE which satisfies the following properties:
------
TotalOrderedSet|980497215
1,4c1
< A total-ordered set is a PoSet (T,<) where for any a,b in T, exactly one of the following hold:
< * a=b
< * a<b
< * a>b
---
> A total-ordered set is a LatticE (T,v,^) where for any a,b in T, either avb=a and a^b=b, or avb=b and a^b=a.  A PartialOrder <= on a set T defines a total order if and only for every a,b in T, exactly one of the following hold:
6c3,7
< The set of all OrdinalNumbers less than a given one form a total-ordered set.  In particular, the finite ordinals (NaturalNumbers) form the unique smallest total-ordered set with no upper bound.  The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor a lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.
---
>    a=b
>    a<b
>    a>b
> 
> The set of all OrdinalNumbers less than any given one form a total-ordered set.  In particular, the finite ordinals (NaturalNumbers) form the unique smallest total-ordered set with no upper bound.  The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor a lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980497422
10c10
< The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.
---
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets.  If it turns out to be closed under arbitrary unions of sets, as opposed to just finite ones, it is called a TopOlogy.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980497464
10c10
< The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets.  If it turns out to be closed under arbitrary unions of sets, as opposed to just finite ones, it is called a TopOlogy.
---
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets.
------
NamingConventions|980498198
40c40,42
< Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a tool on each page helping us to find names with incorrect or missing links. My suggestion is to modify the preview page to include a list of all words or combination of words present in the text that have entries (independant of capitalization) in wikipedia. In that way it would be simple to pin-point errors in capitalization and the need for rules diminishes.  --LinusTolke
---
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a tool on each page helping us to find names with incorrect or missing links. My suggestion is to modify the preview page to include a list of all words or combination of words present in the text that have entries (independant of capitalization) in wikipedia. In that way it would be simple to pin-point errors in capitalization and the need for rules diminishes.  --LinusTolke
> ----
> The first and last letter approach requires the least thinking to apply, for single word topics.  In any case, it seems kinda plain that we ought to try to standardize a bit here, since otherwise "accidental linking" is going to be a lot less accidental.  ;-)  -- Bryce
------
SovietUnion|980498262
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Soviet Union was a CommunisT country.
------
SovietUnion|980498347
1c1,3
< The Soviet Union was a CommunisT country.
---
> The Soviet Union was founded on the principles of CommunisM.  
> General concensus is it didn't work too well, so the union
> splintered into its various constituent RepubliC s.
------
BronzeAge|980498420
9c9,11
< Around 1200 BC ''something'' happened that dramatically shifted power away from these kingdoms.  Within a few decades city centers all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked and the kingdoms swept away.  Only Egypt, power broken, and Assyria escaped destruction.  This issues in a dark age for the west, and by the time civilization had recovered, the iron age had begun.
---
> Around 1200 BC ''something'' happened that dramatically shifted power away from these kingdoms.  Within a few decades city centers all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked and the kingdoms swept away.  Only Egypt, power broken, and Assyria escaped destruction.  This issues in a dark age for the west, and by the time civilization had recovered, the iron age had begun.
> ----
> See also: CopperAge, IronAge
------
HistoryOfEurope|980498443
5c5
< The first substantial new development was the appearance of the HolyRomanEmpire around 800 AD.  The subsequent period saw the growth of FeudalIsm, the development of the CatholicChurch as a major power, and the first signs of new learning began to appear.  By the end of the MiddleAges, powerful NationStates had appeared and began conquering wide portions of the world.
---
> The first substantial new development was the appearance of the HolyRomanEmpire around 800 AD.  The subsequent period saw the growth of FeudalsM, the development of the CatholicChurch as a major power, and the first signs of new learning began to appear.  By the end of the MiddleAges, powerful NationStates had appeared and began conquering wide portions of the world.
------
CopperAge|980498454
9a10,12
> 
> ----
> See also: NeolithicPeriod, BronzeAge
------
FeudalsM|980498478
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Political organization based on hierarchical fealty.
> 
------
PoLitics|980498564
1a2,12
> 
> * RepubliC
> 
> * CommunisM
> * FeudalisM
> * FederalisM
> * SocialisM
> * DemocracY
> * AnarchY
> * PlutocracY
> * OligarchY
------
CopperAge|980498585
5c5
< Meanwhile parallel developments had occured in Africa and India.  Egypt was united to form the old kingdom around 3100 BC, the country that left us the pyramids, and after a brief interlude became the middle kingdom centered at Thebes.  And a relatively poorly known, but nevertheless highly advanced, urban civilization grew up at centers like Harappa in the IndusValley.
---
> Meanwhile parallel developments had occured in Africa and India.  The OldKingdomOfEgypt was unified around 3100 BC, the country that left us the pyramids, and after a brief interlude became the MiddleKingdomOfEgypt centered at Thebes.  And a relatively poorly known, but nevertheless highly advanced, urban civilization grew up at centers like Harappa in the IndusValley.
12c12
< See also: NeolithicPeriod, BronzeAge
---
> See also: NeolithicPeriod, BronzeAge
------
PoLitics|980498915
3c3
< * RepubliC
---
> Topics to expound on...
6a7
> * Capitalism
8a10
> * SyndicalisM
12a15,19
> * Authoritarian
> * RepubliC
> * CityState
> * NationState
> * WorldState
------
SyndicalisM|980499037
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The syndicalism political theory places control of both industry and government to labor union federations.
> It often choses to use DirectAction, such as general strikes and sabotage to achieve its objectives.
> 
------
PoLitics|980499266
15c15
< * Authoritarian
---
> * AuthoritariaN
19c19
< * WorldState
---
> * WorldState
------
HowCanIExploreWikiPedia|980499881
7a8,14
> 
> ----
> I'd like to see...
> * Alphabetical listing of all topics in the Wiki
> * Listing of all topics edited by a given individual (if possible)
> 
> -- Bryce
------
CommunisM|980500178
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> 
> 
> * Marxism
> * Lenninism
> * Stalinism
> * Maoism
------
PoLitics|980500414
19a20,24
> 
> * TechnoDemocracy
> * TechnoAnarchy
> * TechnoCapitalism
> * TechnoOligarchy
------
IndoEuropean|980500421
1c1
< It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared during the BronzeAge, around 2000-1600 BC.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of NaziGermany.
---
> It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared around the beginning of the BronzeAge.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of German NationalSocialism.
5,19c5,27
< CelticLanguages
< 
< GermanicLanguages
< 
< ItalicLanguages, including Latin and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages
< 
< IllyrianLanguages (now restricted to AlbanianLanguage)
< 
< GreekLanguage
< 
< SlavicLanguages
< 
< AnatolianLanguages (extinct)
< 
< IndoIranianLanguages, e.g. SanskritLanguage
---
>    IndoIranianLanguages (e.g. SanskritLanguage, HindiLanguage, PersianLanguage)
>    ItalicLanguages (including Latin and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages)
>    GermanicLanguages (e.g. EnglishLanguage, GermanLanguage, DutchLanguage, SwedishLanguage)
>    CelticLanguages (e.g. IrishLanguage, WelshLanguage)
>    BalticLanguages (e.g. OldPrussian, LatvianLanguage, LithuanianLanguage)
>    SlavicLanguages (e.g. OldSlavonic, RussianLanguage, PolishLanguage, CzechLanguage, SerboCroatianLanguage)
>    IllyrianLanguages (AlbanianLanguage and extinct cousins)
>    AnatolianLanguages (extinct, most notable was the language of the HittitePeoples)
>    TocharianLanguages (extinct tongues of TocharianPeoples)
>    GreekLanguage
>    ArmenianLanguage
>    
> These are all InflectedLanguages unlike, say, ChineseLanguages.  Some work indicates they may belong to a hypothetical language superfamily called the NostraticLanguages.  For those interested in such things, the original sounds appear to be
> 
>    p   t   ky  k   kw                   Voiceless stops
>    b   d   gy  g   gw                   Voiced stops
>    bh  dh  ghy gh  ghw                  Voiced aspirated stops
> 
>    s   z   H1  H2  H3                   Spirants, laryngeals (quality unknown)
>    r   l   y   w   m   n                Semi-vowels, nasals
>    
>    a   e   i   o   u                    Short vowels
>    a^  e^  i^  o^? u^?                  Long vowels
------
SwedeN|980500464
1c1
< CountrY in Northern EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken i SwedisH. CapitaL is StockholM.
---
> CountrY in Northern EuropE. Inhabitants are called SwedeS. Language spoken is SwedishLanguage. CapitaL is StockholM.
------
SwedisH|980500504
1,4c1
< Language spoken in SwedeN and FinlanD.
< One of the GermanicLanguages.
< 
< Defined by the SwedishAcademy.
---
> deleted in favor of SwedishLanguage, which does not have the race/language ambiguity
------
SwedishLanguage|980500521
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Language spoken in SwedeN and FinlanD. One of the GermanicLanguages.
> 
> Defined by the SwedishAcademy. 
------
GermanicLanguages|980500541
5c5
< North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage / SwedisH -- NorwegianLanguage
---
> North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage -- NorwegianLanguage
------
HistoryOfEurope|980500608
5c5
< The first substantial new development was the appearance of the HolyRomanEmpire around 800 AD.  The subsequent period saw the growth of FeudalsM, the development of the CatholicChurch as a major power, and the first signs of new learning began to appear.  By the end of the MiddleAges, powerful NationStates had appeared and began conquering wide portions of the world.
---
> The first substantial new development was the appearance of the HolyRomanEmpire around 800 AD.  The subsequent period saw the growth of FeudalisM, the development of the CatholicChurch as a major power, and the first signs of new learning began to appear.  By the end of the MiddleAges, powerful NationStates had appeared and began conquering wide portions of the world.
------
FeudalsM|980500649
1c1
< Political organization based on hierarchical fealty.
---
> deleted; typo on my part, should have been FeudalisM.  Darn, darn, darn.
------
FeudalisM|980500695
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A society based on a notion of hierchial fealty, in exchange for which one receives grants of land (BeneFices).
------
TechnoDemocracy|980500773
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Direct DemocracY requires that all citizens participate in the decision making process.
> Yet as a practical matter, until the latter half of the 20th century this has simply
> not been possible on a large scale, due to the logistical nightmare of gathering all
> of the people together for deliberation and voting.
> 
> TechnoDemocracy is a movement that seeks to leverage use of technology (including computers
> and the internet) to help eliminate the geographical limitation of direct democracy, in
> the belief that by doing so, it will allow DemocraticRepublic s to become more democratic
> and avoid the troubles of OligarchY.
> 
------
OligarchY|980501097
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> When power is effectively vested in a segment of the governed society 
> (typically the richest segment), the result is a government of the few
> against the many.  Often, these oligarchies are organized into powerful
> families, where the children are raised and groomed simply to propagate
> and advance the power of the oligarchy, usually at the expense of the 
> governed.  Oligarchies often arise as a natural course of 
> maturing of a republic, and often devolve into AuthoritariaN governments, 
> as one family gains supremacy over all of the others.
> 
> -- BryceHarrington
------
HistoryOfEurope|980504322
2a3,26
> Europe has been human-occupied since the dawn of mankind.  NeanderthaL man settled Europe long before the emergence
> of modern man, HomoSapiens.  
> 
> The CelticPeople formed the first well-known, widespread civilization in Europe.  As they did not practice a 
> written language, knowledge of them is piecemeal.  The Romans encountered them and recorded a great deal
> about them; these records and the results of archaeological digs form our primary understanding of this extremely
> influential culture.  The Celts posed a formidable, if disorganized, competitor to the RomanEmpire, that had
> colonized and conquered much of the southern portion of Europe.
> 
> While much of the early prehistory of Europe is shrouded in mystery, one of the first solid, very well-documented 
> cultures is that of the Greeks.  The GreekCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
> vastly differing types of government and cultures.  While it is likely that many other civilizations around the
> world experimented with the various governmental forms, because of the thorough analysis and documentation (and
> the careful preservation of this "classical" data by first the Romans and later the CatholicChurch), these researchings
> have come down to present day, influencing political thinking around the world.  The Greeks (and the Athenian's 
> especially) were well known for their erudite philosophical ponderings on a great many matters, and are often 
> accredited with the founding of Western Philosophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
> 
> AlexanderTheGreat, a Macedonian, conquered Greece, and much of the (Western) civilized world of the time,
> extending almost as far as India.  A brilliant strategitian, backed by some of the best minds produced
> by the GreekCivilization, Alexander's exploits laid the foundations of western military strategy.
> 
> The Roman Empire emerged from Italy, originally governed by kings, then by an oligarchical republic made up of senators.  These families fought and schemed against one another, using the vast and powerful Roman armies as tools of power.  After a series of military successes, Julius Ceasar declared himself ruler of the empire.  His assasination led to a civil war, the result of which was a succession of AuthoritariaN emperors.
> 
------
EuroCurrency|980511276
1c1,8
< The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries. The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries in relation to the Euro were fixed on Januar 1st, 1999 using the value of the ECU (European Currency Unit) at that time. This means that from that date the Euro is the currency that takes part in the world economy, with a changing exchange rate (actually its value decreased steadily since January 1st, 1999). The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries are then simply calculated using the fixed value that was determined on January 1st, 1999 and the exchange rate of the Euro.
---
> The Euro is the new currency in Europe. After January 1st, 2002 Euro bills and coins will be available and a few months later you will have to pay in Euro in the participating countries.
> 
>  The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. 
> 
> The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries in relation to the Euro were fixed on Januar 1st, 1999 using the value of the ECU (European Currency Unit) at that time. This means that from that date the Euro is the currency that takes part in the world economy, with a changing exchange rate (actually its value decreased steadily since January 1st, 1999).
> 
>  
> The exchange rates of the currencies of the participating countries are then simply calculated using the fixed value that was determined on January 1st, 1999 and the exchange rate of the Euro.
------
EuroCurrency|980511297
3c3
<  The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. 
---
> The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. 
------
WikiPediaFaq|980511809
0a1,3
> '''Q. Which languages are -from the technical or from the social point of view- desirable. '''
> 
> ----
------
CountriesE|980512577
1c1,2
< EstoniA
---
> EstoniA
> EsperantujO
------
CountriesE|980512593
2c2,3
< EsperantujO
---
> 
> EsperantujO
------
EsperantujO|980513011
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Esperantujo isn't a country at all.
> 
> But when two people are speaking EsperantO (the international language) they are in Esperantujo. Although geographicaly they are in spain, russia, or canada.
> 
> Esperantujo may have two inhabitants or 500 and it is everywhere.
> Maybe even in your local town.
> 
> See also: http://www.esperanto.org
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|980513323
4a5,6
> -----
> but why  they do not simply use <em>html</em> --NormanWerner
------
NormanWerner|980513419
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> that's me.
> 
> you want to complain: norvan@web.de
> 
> you are a young sexy girl: norvan@web.de
> 
> you want to know who i am: norvan@web.de
------
GermanY|980513917
3c3,5
< Germany measures about 800 km (about 500 mi) from north to south; the country extends about 600 km (about 400 mi) from west to east and has is with a total area of 356 970 km² the fourth largest country in Europe. G. is an union  of 16 states ("Bundesländer"), from north to south: SchleswigHolstein, MecklenburgVorpommern, NiederSachsen, HamburG, BremeN, NordrheinWestfalen, HesseN, SachsenAnhalt, BrandenburG, BerliN, Hessen, ThüringeN, Sachsen, RheinlandPfalz, SaarlanD, BadenWürtemberg, BayerN. It's adjacent in the north to the NorthSea, DenmarK, BalticSea, in the east to PolanD, CzechRepublic, in the south to the SwitzerlanD and AustriA  and in the West to the NetherlandS, FrancE, LuxembourG and BelgiuM.
---
> Germany measures about 800 km (about 500 mi) from north to south; the country extends about 600 km (about 400 mi) from west to east and has is with a total area of 356 970 km² the fourth largest country in Europe. G. is an union  of 16 states ("Bundesländer"), from north to south: SchleswigHolstein, MecklenburgVorpommern, NiederSachsen, HamburG, BremeN, NordrheinWestfalen, HesseN, SachsenAnhalt, BrandenburG, BerliN, Hessen, ThüringeN, Sachsen, RheinlandPfalz, SaarlanD, BadenWürtemberg, BayerN. 
> 
> It's adjacent in the north to the NorthSea, DenmarK, BalticSea, in the east to PolanD, CzechRepublic, in the south to the SwitzerlanD and AustriA  and in the West to the NetherlandS, FrancE, LuxembourG and BelgiuM.
9c11
< Before G. was unified under OttoVonBismarck in 1871 there had been many little states, principalities and kingdoms, after then Germany experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth.
---
> Before G. was unified under OttoVonBismarck (after three bloody wars) in 1871 there had been many little states, principalities and kingdoms, after then Germany experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth.
13c15
< The worldwide depression of the 1930s plunged the country once more into disaster. Millions of unemployed Germans, disillusioned by capitalist democracy, turned either to the Communist Party or to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), the fascist party of NationalSocialism. By 1930 the Nazis were the second largest party in the Reichstag. 1933 the Nazis got the power and formed an terrible regime under the dictatorship from AdolfHitler. All people, which are not conform with the Nazis, had been threatened, many of them there murdered. The Nazis and their accomplice murdered some millions Jews (HolocausT), communists, pastors, democrats, gypsies, gays, lesbians and many other. To get "Lebensraum" (living space) they started WorldWarTwo by occupying PolanD 1939. 
---
> The worldwide depression of the 1930s plunged the country once more into disaster. Millions of unemployed Germans, disillusioned by capitalist democracy, turned either to the Communist Party(KPD) or to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), the fascist party of NationalSocialism. By 1930 the Nazis were the second largest party in the Reichstag (the german parliament). 1933 the Nazis got the power and formed an terrible regime under the dictatorship from AdolfHitler. All people, which are not conform with the Nazis, had been threatened, many of them were murdered. The Nazis and their accomplice murdered  millions Jews (HolocausT), communists, pastors, democrats, gypsies, gays, lesbians and many other. To get "Lebensraum" (living space) they started WorldWarTwo by occupying PolanD 1939. 
15c17
< At the PotsdamConference 1945, after the loss of World War II the Allies had divided the soon-to-be-defeated Germany into four military occupation zones—French in the southwest, British in the northwest, American in the south, and Soviet in the east. Berlin, in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four zones. As part of the ColdWar the zones developed 1949 in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a western capitalistic country with a so called Social Market Economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc. Berlin was divided in the to parts West-Berlin (capitalistic) and "Berlin, capital of the DDR". West-Berlin was surrounded by the BerlinWall from August, 13th 1961until 1989.
---
> At the PotsdamConference 1945, after the loss of World War II the Allies had divided the soon-to-be-defeated Germany into four military occupation zones-French in the southwest, British in the northwest, American in the south, and Soviet in the east. Berlin, in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four zones. As part of the ColdWar the zones developed 1949 in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aka WestGermany) and the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, aka EastGermany). WestGermany was allied with the United States of America, UK and France. It was a western capitalistic country with a so called Social Market Economy. EastGermany was at first occupied and later allied with and controlled by the UnionOfSovietSocialistRepublics (Russia). It was a fairly unfree country (for example, its citizens were generally unable to leave) with a USSR-style communist economy. EastGermany was probably the richest, most advanced country in the Soviet bloc. Berlin was divided in the to parts West-Berlin (capitalistic) and "Berlin, capital of the DDR". West-Berlin was surrounded by the BerlinWall from August, 13th 1961until 1989.
17c19
< In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.) Citizens from each side were not necessarily unanimously behind this move that was orchestrated by HelmutKohl, then the Federal Chancellor of the BRD. This was illustrated by a clever spray-paint slogan I saw on a wall in Jena (a university town in EastGermany) ca. 1992: "Lasst euch nicht BRD-igen!" = "Don't let yourselves be West Germanized!" But also "Don't let yourselves be buried!" by a play on homonyms. Overall, most were very excited about reunification until the reality of extra taxes, unemployment in the East, etc. set in in the mid 1990s.
---
> In 1989 EastGermany opened its borders again and in 1990 the two Germanys were reunified, which in actuality meant that EastGermany was annexed by WestGermany, as the new country kept the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland, used the West German "Deutsche Mark" for currency, and the capital remained at Bonn. (Around 1994 it was moved back to Berlin, where it had been before World War II.)
19c21
< Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
---
> Today Germany is doing fairly well economically, being one of the economicaly stronger countries in Europe and the world. It's among the top 5 countries in Internet access worldwide. Many Germans speak English and/or French, in addition to German and their local dialect of German (of which there are many).
------
SportS|980514072
54a55,58
> 
> brain-sports (where you have to think):
> * ChesS
> * GO
------
SportS|980514092
58c58
< * GO
---
> * GoO
------
ChesS|980514497
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Is a game which is some thousend years old.
> It is especially popular for it's complexity.
> 
> the world organization of chess players is the [http://www.fide.org FIDE] 
> 
> all you need is:
> * two players
> * chessboard with figures
> * optional watch
> 
> unfortunatly the rules are to complicated to describe here
> a lot of more-fun-more-beer-less-thinking variants emerged. 
> but i don't know the english terms
------
ChesS|980514524
12,13c12,13
< a lot of more-fun-more-beer-less-thinking variants emerged. 
< but i don't know the english terms
---
> . A lot of more-fun-more-beer-less-thinking variants emerged. 
> but i don't know the english terms
------
AustriA|980517415
1c1
< Austria¥pop© ca© 7©5m¤ is a small landlocked country in Central Europe© It is a federation of 9 states©
---
> Austria (pop. ca. 7.5m) is a small landlocked country in Central Europe. It is a federation of 9 states.
3c3
< Capital: Vienna ¥pop© ca© 1©8m¤
---
> Capital: Vienna (pop. ca. 1.8m)
5c5,7
< Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein© Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic©
---
> Language Spoken: German (and a large number of dialects)
> 
> Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic.
------
FootBall|980517721
19c19
< I was very much aware of this conflict when I wrote this entry. I just wanted to stir up something. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has probably spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
---
> I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
21,23c21,31
< Do the following comparison:
< * American sites: http://www.football.com/ http://www.soccer.com/
< * British sites: http://www.football.co.uk/ http://www.soccer.co.uk/
---
> Do the following investigation yourself:
> * British site: http://www.football.co.uk/
> * French site: http://www.football.fr/
> * Italian site: http://www.football.it/
> * South africa: http://www.safa.org.za/misstat.html
> * Mexico: http://www.terceradivision.com.mx/
> * Argentina: http://www.afa.org.ar/home.htm
> * Brasil: http://www.brasilfutebol.com/select_language.sps
> * India: http://www.indianfootball.8m.com/
> 
> A quick Internet-investigation leads me to believe that UnitedStates, CanadA, AustraliA and NewZeeland use the word Soccer and the rest of the world uses the word FootBall.
------
FootBall|980517840
19c19
< I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
---
> I have never heard of a SportS called EuropeanFootball. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
------
FootBall|980517989
31c31
< A quick Internet-investigation leads me to believe that UnitedStates, CanadA, AustraliA and NewZeeland use the word Soccer and the rest of the world uses the word FootBall.
---
> A quick Internet-investigation leads me to believe that UnitedStates, CanadA, AustraliA and NewZealand use the word Soccer and the rest of the world uses the word FootBall.
------
PolanD|980518278
1a2,5
> 
> Population: ca. 40m.
> 
> Capital: Warsaw (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
------
PopularMusic|980518363
30a31
> * MetallicA
------
MetallicA|980518570
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the greatest Metal bands ever.
> 
> First Album: Kill 'Em All
> Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra.
> 
> Members:
> Lars Ulrich, drums
> Jason Newsted, bass
> Kirk Hammet, guitar
> James Hetfield, throat, guitar
------
MetallicA|980518622
3a4
> 
6a8
> 
7a10
> 
8a12
> 
9a14
> 
------
LarrySanger|980518723
13a14,15
> ----
> Why are all Siberian Husky''''s named Sheba?  I've had 3 different friends with them so far, and they are all named the same....
------
LarrySanger|980518756
15c15
< Why are all Siberian Husky''''s named Sheba?  I've had 3 different friends with them so far, and they are all named the same....
---
> Why are all SiberianHusky''''s named Sheba?  I've had 3 different friends with them so far, and they are all named the same....
------
KurtCobain|980518788
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanA.
> He commited suicide in 1994 by shooting himself in the face with a shotgun.
------
NirvanA|980518913
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A grunge band from Seattle (late 80's early 90's). They split up after lead singer KurtCobain commited suicide in 1994.
> 
> Members: KurtCobain, ChrisNovoselic, DaveGrohl
------
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki|980519038
6c6,18
< but why  they do not simply use <em>html</em> --NormanWerner
---
> '''Wiki Formatting:'''
> 
> But why  they do not simply use <em>html</em>? --NormanWerner
> 
> :They do use <i>some</i> html, but not all of it.  One reason is for simplicity when typing--for instance this text is indented because I typed a : character at the start of the line.  In order to do that in HTML, I would have to type much more.  The wiki syntax also prevents many common errors, like not closing a bold-tag and making all the following text be bold.
> 
> :Another reason for not using raw html is security--several old versions of popular browsers have security problems that can be triggered by arbitrary "malicious HTML".  Even without considering security, malicious users could do things like Javascript popup windows or page redirects if they had full HTML ability.  Several "experimental" sites that allowed full-HTML editing have suffered such attacks, including a couple other wikis that allowed arbitrary HTML.
> 
> :There is a "raw-HTML" option in the wiki code, but it is defaulted to "off" for the public release.  I <b>strongly</b> recommend leaving it off for public wikis.  (If that option was enabled, you could type "<html><h1>Header</h1></html>" to create a header.)  See the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RawHtmlWiki Meatball Wiki RawHtmlWiki page] for earlier discussion of these issues.
> 
> :The HTML tags directly supported in the current version are i, b, tt, and pre.  There is also a pseudo-tag "nowiki" which you can use to prevent the wiki from formatting your text (like <nowiki>NotALink</nowiki>--edit to see the tags).  The next release will add a code tag (like tt, but also suppresses wiki formatting) and a new wiki-syntax for h1-h6 (h1 is =text=, h2 is ==text==, etc...).  I might also add em and strong tags to the next release--there are only a few people who seem to like them, but they ''really'' like them.
> 
> :The WikiPedia may have different needs than the typical wiki.  The formatting rules are easy to change, and I am willing to try new things for this wiki if the maintainers of this site want changes.  --CliffordAdams
------
PythagoreanTheorem|980519068
62a63,66
> ----
> 
> Poser:  (3,4,5) is a pythagorean triplet since 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.  Which positive integers are not part of a pythagorean triplet?
> 
------
CountriesP|980519512
1,7c1,7
< PolanD
< PortugaL
< ParaguaY
< PitcairnIsland
< PanamA
< PakistaN
< Papua New GineA
---
> * PolanD
> * PortugaL
> * ParaguaY
> * PitcairnIsland
> * PanamA
> * PakistaN
> * Papua New GineA
------
CountriesP|980519548
7c7
< * Papua New GineA
---
> * PapuaNewGuineA
------
FootBall|980519716
5c5
< Each team has a goal keeper that is allowed to touch the ball with his arms and shoulders when he is standing within the marked area around the home goal.
---
> Each team has a goal keeper that is allowed to touch the ball with his arms and shoulders when he is standing within the marked area around the home goal, which is called the PenaltyArea aka the "box").
------
DoubleStops|980519732
1c1,7
< Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.  This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.  American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.  In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the (very old) DonegalFiddleTradition--and DoneGal is in northwest Ireland (not to say NorthernIreland, the political region partly controlled by the UK, however).
---
> Playing "double stops," on a bowed instrument, means playing on two strings at once.
> 
> This technique is used to play chords in ClassicalMusic, and is used, to varying degrees, in FidDle playing.
> 
> American OldTime fiddling, for example, is famous for using copious double stops; according to one hypothesis, this tendency might have its roots a similar tendency found in NorthernIreland, which is where many of the ScotchIrish ancestors of current OldTime players originated.
> 
> In IrishTraditionalMusic, double stops are most commonly used in the (very old) DonegalFiddleTradition--and DoneGal is in northwest Ireland (not to say NorthernIreland, the political region partly controlled by the UK, however).
------
FootBall|980519747
5c5
< Each team has a goal keeper that is allowed to touch the ball with his arms and shoulders when he is standing within the marked area around the home goal, which is called the PenaltyArea aka the "box").
---
> Each team has a goal keeper that is allowed to touch the ball with his arms and shoulders when he is standing within the marked area around the home goal, which is called the PenaltyArea (aka the "box").
------
PolanD|980520160
5c5,12
< Capital: Warsaw (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
---
> Capital: Warsaw (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
> 
> 
> :From an Englishman's diary:
> * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
> * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
> * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
> * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
------
PoleS|980520308
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> General name for people living in PolanD.
------
CountriesR|980520412
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Russia
------
CountriesR|980520428
1c1
< * Russia
---
> * RussiA
------
GeorgeWBush|980521933
7c7
< Rants might be fun, but maybe we can be more encyclopedic here?
---
> Recently elected president of the United States who broke records for the number of prisoners put to death during his tenure as Govenor of Texas.
------
ReCreation|980522056
7a8,9
> 
> In EuropE BeeR is very important.
------
BeeR|980522293
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An alcoholic drink (typically 5-6% alcohol, about 3.5 to 4% in the US), which is consumed in large quantities by males and females of all ages (16 to 99+). Mostly drank at home, in pubs and at FootBall games.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980522476
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most interesting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar desgine.   |S|c|a|r|e|
---
> http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most interesting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar design.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
LikeThis|980522693
2c2,4
< And like this is not LikeThis.
---
> And like this is not LikeThis.
> ----
> How about LikeThat
------
LikeThat|980522717
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Or try LikeThis.
------
ScienCe|980523109
17a18,22
> 
> ComputerScience
> * ArtificialIntelligence
> * DistributedComputing
> * ProgramMing
------
HowCanIExploreWikiPedia|980523563
7a8
> * To see an alphabetical list of all entries type A* into the search box and press search.
11d11
< * Alphabetical listing of all topics in the Wiki
14c14
< -- Bryce
---
> -- Bryce
------
HowCanIExploreWikiPedia|980523889
8c8
< * To see an alphabetical list of all entries type A* into the search box and press search.
---
> * To see an alphabetical list of all entries follow [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=index this link].
------
KurtCobain|980523986
1,2c1,2
< Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanA.
< He commited suicide in 1994 by shooting himself in the face with a shotgun.
---
> Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanA (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
> He commited suicide in 1994 by shooting himself in the face with a shotgun.
------
DaveGrohl|980526368
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> DaveGrohl was the drummer of the cult band NirvanA until the band split up in 1994 after KurtCobain commited suicide. His latest project is a band called the FooFighters
------
NirvanA|980526467
3a4,9
> 
> 
> Best known albums:
> * Nevermind
> * MTV unplugged
> * From the Muddy Banks of Wishkah
------
HomePage|980528910
9d8
< * HowCanIExploreWikiPedia?
------
HareKrishna|980528955
17c17,20
< Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
---
> Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
> 
> 
> FORGET WHAT I WROTE! IM STONED!!
------
AustriA|980529113
9c9
< 
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. One of the greatest ist called "Clemens Schwaighofer".
------
AustriA|980529146
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. One of the greatest ist called "Clemens Schwaighofer".
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. One of the greatest is called "Clemens Schwaighofer".
------
AllSaints|980529392
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Lock them up seperatly for about two months, then get all of them nude and bodyshaved and bring them to me. Then All Saints makes sense.
------
AustriA|980529429
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. One of the greatest is called "Clemens Schwaighofer".
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
------
ScienCe|980529674
16a17
> * Fucking
------
ScienCe|980529745
17c17
< * Fucking
---
> 
------
HareKrishna|980530350
17,20c17
< Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
< 
< 
< FORGET WHAT I WROTE! IM STONED!!
---
> Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
------
AllSaints|980530529
1c1
< Lock them up seperatly for about two months, then get all of them nude and bodyshaved and bring them to me. Then All Saints makes sense.
---
> (content edited)
------
NirvanA|980530595
9c9,11
< * From the Muddy Banks of Wishkah
---
> * From the Muddy Banks of Wishkah
> ----
> Also an English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
------
LikeThat|980531086
1c1
< Or try LikeThis.
---
> Like, that is not LikeThis.
------
LikeThis|980531099
4c4
< How about LikeThat
---
> How about LikeThat.
------
HomePage|980531337
9a10
> * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
------
EuropE|980531376
41a42
>     SanMarino,
------
WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited|980531464
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Why aren't these pages copyedited?
> 
> The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because ''you,'' who know the correct spellings, grammar, etc., have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them.  That's right, you could have corrected them simply by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link and making a quick change, but no.  You'd rather just complain, instead of doing something about it!
> 
> You disgust me.  Now go out there and do that copyediting!
> 
> Uh, ;-).
------
TopOlogy|980531564
46a47,48
> ----
> Fair enough.  My point initially was that such theoretical shapes as Moebius strips and Klein bottles '''can''' be '''modeled''' after a fashion but not ''actually literally'' '''built''' in our three-dimensional space.  The fact that we can model a Moebius strip is instructive, and serves to get students thinking in new ways, but the 3-dimensionality of the materials used should not ultimately be ignored.  Yes, of course a torus is a two-dimensional object, deformed through a third dimension.  I referred to the surfaces of these objects, not their "guts."  As was pointed out earlier, the nature of matter, being charged particles with space between them, means we can't actually '''build''' any of these theoretical mathematical objects which consist of sets of points with no space between them.  Here is a new thought - do you suppose that faster-than-light travel will be invented by the same guy who figures out how to construct a real Klein bottle?  Or better still, figures out how to deform our three-dimensional space through an additional dimension?
------
WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited|980531689
7c7,11
< Uh, ;-).
---
> Uh, ;-).
> 
> ----
> 
> Uhmmm, actually, I copyedit these pages all the time...
------
FootBall|980531905
19c19
< I have never heard of a SportS called EuropeanFootball. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what americans call Soccer.
---
> I have never heard of a SportS called EuropeanFootball. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what Americans call Soccer.
33a34,35
> ----
> Americans, when for whatever reason we speak about soccer as "football," in order to avoid confusion with the sport we call "football," call soccer "European football."  Even [http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ital/t/inte/ Yahoo! UK] is determined to annoy you by calling it this.
------
PolanD|980532092
6,12c6,7
< 
< 
< :From an Englishman's diary:
< * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
< * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
< * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
< * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
---
> ----
> Text deleted, sent to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980532153
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace.  So, here it is!
> ----
> From the PolanD page:
> 
> :From an Englishman's diary:
> * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
> * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
> * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
> * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
> ----
------
PatentNonsense|980532222
4a5
> This should be sent to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.
11,19c12
< * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.  So improve it.)
< ----
< Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
< 
< A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
< 
< Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
< 
< A. Go figure!
---
> * Incompetent and/or immature stuff.  (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved.  So improve it.)
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980532261
3c3
< From the PolanD page:
---
> From PolanD:
10a11,20
> From PatentNonsense:
> 
> Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
> 
> A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
> 
> Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
> 
> A. Go figure!
> ----
------
WikiPediaFaq|980532359
18a19,20
> 
> And make use of the BadJokesAndDeletedNonsense page.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980532523
20c20
< And make use of the BadJokesAndDeletedNonsense page.
---
> And make use of the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980532898
1,3d0
< '''Q. Which languages are -from the technical or from the social point of view- desirable. '''
< 
< ----
15a13,16
> '''Q. Which languages are--from a technical or asocial point of view--desirable?'''
> 
> A. From a technical point of view, wiki doesn't care what language the page is in.  But since English is the language we started with, if you start writing in other languages, there are apt to be competing versions of the same content in different languages.  So, for example, perhaps you could add "De" to the end of any page, with a link to it at the bottom of the page, for a German translation.  So at the bottom of my ThomasReid page you could put a link to ThomasReidDe, and include a German translation.  Just a thought.
> ----
20c21
< And make use of the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.
---
> And make use of the BadJokesAndDeletedNonsense page.
38c39,41
< '''Q. Yeah, but why? I read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section.  I understand that I have to use uncommon capitalizations to create a link.  Whats the purpose?'''
---
> '''Q. Yeah, but why? I read the HowDoesOneEditaPage section.  I understand that I have to use uncommon capitalizations to create a link.  What's the purpose?'''
> 
> A. You got me.  I think it was Ward Cunningham's invention as part of his original wiki.  It's part of the software, for which we aren't responsible.  We might, of course, change this (obligating us to relabel zillions of links, but no matter).
48c51,53
< '''Q. Whats the point of getting a user number?'''
---
> '''Q. What's the point of getting a user number?'''
> 
> A. It's not required, but it allows you to tell wiki to save your settings and thereby have Wikipedia be displayed in the same way each time you return.  It also credits you with changes you make, instead of a meaningless IP number.
50c55
< '''Q. Is the words/articles/items OpenContent? What is the license agreements on the contents of WikiPedia?'''
---
> '''Q. Is the words/articles/items OpenContent? What is the license agreement on the contents of WikiPedia?'''
52c57
< A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980532923
13c13
< '''Q. Which languages are--from a technical or asocial point of view--desirable?'''
---
> '''Q. Which languages are--from a technical or a social point of view--desirable?'''
------
FootBall|980533216
35c35,37
< Americans, when for whatever reason we speak about soccer as "football," in order to avoid confusion with the sport we call "football," call soccer "European football."  Even [http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ital/t/inte/ Yahoo! UK] is determined to annoy you by calling it this.
---
> Americans, when for whatever reason we speak about soccer as "football," in order to avoid confusion with the sport we call "football," call soccer "European football."  Even [http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ital/t/inte/ Yahoo! UK] is determined to annoy you by calling it this.
> ----
> Yahoo! UK - just as any other decent sports site - calls it European FootBall in order to distinguish between FootBall played in Europe and FootBall played on other continents, eg. South America. I would like to remind my fellow Americans that FootBall, by definition is played using one's feet, and not by holding on to it with your hands and running around like a headless chicken.
------
PootPoot|980534325
1c1
< Poot poot [http://www.pootpoot.com/poot/pootify?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.com&options=none Pootpoot], poot.
---
> Poot poot [http://www.pootpoot.com/poot/pootify?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.com&options=none Pootpoot], poot.  Poot [http://www.80s.com/cgi-bin/valley.cgi?url=http://www.wikipedia.com/ Valley Poot]!
------
TopOlogy|980534476
39c39
< OK - fair enough, but the generally, the purpose of this whole exercise is to use a mathematical model to further understand something that exists, not bring into existance things have the exact characteristics of any given mathematical model.  The Klein bottle is interesting because there is nothing physical that it is modelling, but we can analyze it anyway.
---
> OK - fair enough, but generally, the purpose of this whole exercise is to use a mathematical model to further understand something that exists, not bring into existance things have the exact characteristics of any given mathematical model.  The Klein bottle is interesting because there is nothing physical that it is modelling, but we can analyze it anyway.
------
PolanD|980534832
1c1
< Poland is a country in central Europe that lies between GermanY and RussiA.
---
> Poland is a medium sized country in Central Europe. It's neighbours are: GermanY, RussiA, LithuaniA, BelaruS, UkrainE, SlovakiA, and the CzechRepublic.
3c3
< Population: ca. 40m.
---
> Population: ca. 40m PoleS.
6,7c6,7
< ----
< Text deleted, sent to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.
---
> 
> 
------
PolanD|980535034
7c7
< 
---
> Language spoken: Polish
------
NamingConventions|980535332
42c42,44
< The first and last letter approach requires the least thinking to apply, for single word topics.  In any case, it seems kinda plain that we ought to try to standardize a bit here, since otherwise "accidental linking" is going to be a lot less accidental.  ;-)  -- Bryce
---
> The first and last letter approach requires the least thinking to apply, for single word topics.  In any case, it seems kinda plain that we ought to try to standardize a bit here, since otherwise "accidental linking" is going to be a lot less accidental.  ;-)  -- Bryce
> ----
> Thank you, Bryce.  I, too, would be fine with the "first and last" rule on single word topics, to go along with the "first letter of every word" rule on multiple word topics. All the rest, what say ye? -- AyeSpy
------
AyeSpy|980535707
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ayespy has over 3900 classroom and field hours in investigative and intelligence training - the equivalent of more than a master's degree in his field.  He has 21 years as a private 
> investigator for law firms.
> 
> He writes science fiction.
> 
> He has worked professionally in 30 different fields, from horse husbandry, auto mechanics and home construction to photography, marketing, personnel management and counseling.
> 
> He is a vocalist, guitarist, and song writer.
> 
> His last IQ test came in at 154. (as though anyone cares)
> 
> He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative 
> religion.
> 
> To see the actual list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
------
EastGermany|980535818
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> After WW2, in 1949 at the potsdamconference the winning countries france, england, america and russia decided to divide germany in 2 parts. Each country got one part of the former germany, being an area it controls.
> While soon the three areas controlled by america, england and france did kind of reunite and formed the "federal republic of germany", the russian part was made a own country too, the "german democratic republic". It was also called eastern germany.
> Eastern germany was under heavy influence of Russia and became a communistic country very soon until the only link to democracy was the part in its name.
> Eastern germany soon started to seperate itself from western germany (which became more and more democratic and capitalistic, with help from england, france and most of all, america) by closing the open borders by fences, turrets dogs and most of all huge walls.
> A very interesting thing about the whole situation : Just like germany got divided after the war, also Berlin, former capital of germany got divided. Since Berlin was inside the russian part of germany, the areas of Berlin being held under the control of the three western countries soon got "westberlin".
> So when Eastern germany closed the border it also literally sorrounded westberlin by a huge wall, the "berlin wall".
> Anyway, there is to much historical stuff to talk about, kennedy visiting westberlin and saying "I am a Berliner !" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw), eastern and western germany used as outpost and ground for the "cold war" by eastern and western spys and much more.
> 1989 the berlin wall fell and with it the whole communistic system of eastern germany, both parts got re-united and became "Germany" again.
> But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
> 
------
AyeSpy|980536333
15c15,132
< To see the actual list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
---
> What on earth does AyeSpy do with himself all day?
> 
> AyeSpy
> Investigator
> 
> Job Duties:
> 
> Photos of plaintiff vehicle damages
> 
> Photos of defendant vehicle damages
> 
> Photos of client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities
> 
> Photos of scene, taken in a fashion so as to clarify liability or fact issues
> 
> Scale diagraming of accident scenes
> 	
> 	Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos, 
> 
> Obtaining of recorded witness statements, 
> 
> Sitting in on (to observe and regulate) recorded statements of clients by insurance reps
> 
> Obtaining and preservation of physical evidence
> 	
> Inspection and analysis of physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:
> 		failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
> 	
> 	Investigation to determine the manufacturers and distributors of products when not clearly stated on same
> 
> Obtaining of exemplar products for comparison and testing
> 	
> 	Inspection and analysis of premises (including plumbing, wiring, framing, glazing, roofing, masonry, stairs, floors, railings, drywall) in order to determine code compliance and to determine accident causation facts and liability.  
> 
> Premises illumination analysis
> 
> 	Investigation and analysis of job safety factors and plant operation to determine when ordinary negligence is exceeded or third party liability enters in.
> 
> Analysis of potential toxic exposure and causes for environmental illness
> 
> Analysis of compliance or lack thereof with safe animal restraint and handling practices
> 
> Investigation of company compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws
> 
> 	Inspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
> 
> Photos of physical evidence
> 
> Micro-photography of evidence
> 
> Photos of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
> 
> Accident reconstruction from physical evidence and witness accounts including:
> 	vehicle movement, speed from skid, speed from crush, speed from roll, vehicle attitude, occupant impact, elapsed time between events, avoidance factors, braking performance, visibility and vehicle illumination, use or non-use of restraint, etc.
> 
> Obtaining of outside reports from police, coroner, other jurisdictions, etc.
> 
> Videotape scenes, client activities, impairments, other evidence
> 
> Obtain police and television and other public-source videos
> 
> Video copying and editing
> 
> Find and hire consulting and testifying experts
> 
> Liaise with and supervise consulting and testifying experts
> 
> Unsnarl difficult property damage issues and P/D value disputes
> 
> Investigate to locate insurance and analyze insurance exposure under case facts
> 
> Evaluate questionable incoming cases as to worth and sufficiency.
> 
> Locate missing persons including defendants, witnesses and clients.
> 
> 	Identify and locate defendants and their agents for purposes of service and correctly naming in complaint
> 
> Secure, preserve and regulate access to accident vehicles as appropriate
> 
> 	Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
> 
> Attend and record salient facts of plaintiff and defendant traffic trials
> 
> Police, fire, coroner, prosecutor liaison to assist prosecution and conviction of defendants
> 
> 	Review of medical and coroner records to determine causation of injury or death.  Liaison with  coroner to get erroneous causation corrected on official report
> 
> Back-up prospective case interviewing
> 
> Prospective case interviewing in hospital or home setting
> 
> Rapid service of process on friendly witnesses
> 
> Surveillance
> 
> 	Public records research to determine history of accident site, and identities and zones of responsibility of potential defendants
> 
> 	Defendant asset and criminal and civil record searches - background investigation for credibility purposes
> 
> Legal research and statutory and case citation to assist attorney in case analysis
> 
> Writing of some pleadings in state and federal court.
> 
> Determination of relevant discovery issues as requested
> 
> Assisting clients in response to discovery if necessary
> 
> 	American Trial Lawyers Association research of current and past similar cases against same or similar defendant or product
> 
> Premises security plan and execution analysis
> 
> Area crime trend analysis
> 
> Travel as necessary to conduct any and all of above out of town and/or out of state.
> 
> 	Represent firm to other firms, public agencies, witnesses and to potential clients in the most capable and professional light possible
> 
> To see the actual list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
------
EastGermany|980536355
1,9c1,9
< After WW2, in 1949 at the potsdamconference the winning countries france, england, america and russia decided to divide germany in 2 parts. Each country got one part of the former germany, being an area it controls.
< While soon the three areas controlled by america, england and france did kind of reunite and formed the "federal republic of germany", the russian part was made a own country too, the "german democratic republic". It was also called eastern germany.
< Eastern germany was under heavy influence of Russia and became a communistic country very soon until the only link to democracy was the part in its name.
< Eastern germany soon started to seperate itself from western germany (which became more and more democratic and capitalistic, with help from england, france and most of all, america) by closing the open borders by fences, turrets dogs and most of all huge walls.
< A very interesting thing about the whole situation : Just like germany got divided after the war, also Berlin, former capital of germany got divided. Since Berlin was inside the russian part of germany, the areas of Berlin being held under the control of the three western countries soon got "westberlin".
< So when Eastern germany closed the border it also literally sorrounded westberlin by a huge wall, the "berlin wall".
< Anyway, there is to much historical stuff to talk about, kennedy visiting westberlin and saying "I am a Berliner !" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw), eastern and western germany used as outpost and ground for the "cold war" by eastern and western spys and much more.
< 1989 the berlin wall fell and with it the whole communistic system of eastern germany, both parts got re-united and became "Germany" again.
< But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
---
> After WW2, in 1949 at the potsdamconference the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, AmericA and RussiA decided to divide germany in 2 parts. Each country got to control a part former GermanY.
> While soon the three areas controlled by AmericA, EnglanD and FrancE reunited and formed the "Federal Republic of GermanY", the Russian part was made a own country too, the "German Democratic Republic". It was also called EastGermany.
> EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a communist country very soon until the only link to democracy was the part in its name.
> EastGermany soon started to seperate itself from western germany (which became more and more democratic and capitalistic, with help from EnglanD, FrancE and most of all, AmericA) by closing the open borders by fences, turrets, dogs and most of all huge walls.
> A very interesting thing about the whole situation : Just like GermanY got divided after the war, also BerliN, former capital of GermanY got divided. Since BerliN was inside the Russian part of GermanY, the areas of BerliN being held under the control of the three western countries soon was known as WestBerlin.
> So when EastGermany closed the border it also literally sorrounded WestBerlin by a huge wall, the BerlinWall.
> Anyway, there is to much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner !" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West GermanY used WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the ColdWar.
> 1989 the BerlinWall fell and with it the whole Communist system of EastGermany, both parts got re-united and became "GermanY" again.
> But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of GermanY (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
------
AyeSpy|980536520
32c32
< 	Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos, 
---
> Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos, 
40,41c40
< Inspection and analysis of physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:
< 		failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
---
> Inspection and analysis of physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:  failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
43c42
< 	Investigation to determine the manufacturers and distributors of products when not clearly stated on same
---
> Investigation to determine the manufacturers and distributors of products when not clearly stated on same
47c46
< 	Inspection and analysis of premises (including plumbing, wiring, framing, glazing, roofing, masonry, stairs, floors, railings, drywall) in order to determine code compliance and to determine accident causation facts and liability.  
---
> Inspection and analysis of premises (including plumbing, wiring, framing, glazing, roofing, masonry, stairs, floors, railings, drywall) in order to determine code compliance and to determine accident causation facts and liability.  
51c50
< 	Investigation and analysis of job safety factors and plant operation to determine when ordinary negligence is exceeded or third party liability enters in.
---
> Investigation and analysis of job safety factors and plant operation to determine when ordinary negligence is exceeded or third party liability enters in.
59c58
< 	Inspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
---
> nspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
67,68c66
< Accident reconstruction from physical evidence and witness accounts including:
< 	vehicle movement, speed from skid, speed from crush, speed from roll, vehicle attitude, occupant impact, elapsed time between events, avoidance factors, braking performance, visibility and vehicle illumination, use or non-use of restraint, etc.
---
> Accident reconstruction from physical evidence and witness accounts including:  vehicle movement, speed from skid, speed from crush, speed from roll, vehicle attitude, occupant impact, elapsed time between events, avoidance factors, braking performance, visibility and vehicle illumination, use or non-use of restraint, etc.
90c88
< 	Identify and locate defendants and their agents for purposes of service and correctly naming in complaint
---
> Identify and locate defendants and their agents for purposes of service and correctly naming in complaint
94c92
< 	Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
---
> Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
96c94
< Attend and record salient facts of plaintiff and defendant traffic trials
---
> Attend and record salient facts of plaintiff and defendant traffic trials.  Prepare plaintiff for traffic trial.
100c98
< 	Review of medical and coroner records to determine causation of injury or death.  Liaison with  coroner to get erroneous causation corrected on official report
---
> Review of medical and coroner records to determine causation of injury or death.  Liaison with  coroner to get erroneous causation corrected on official report
110c108
< 	Public records research to determine history of accident site, and identities and zones of responsibility of potential defendants
---
> Public records research to determine history of accident site, and identities and zones of responsibility of potential defendants
112c110
< 	Defendant asset and criminal and civil record searches - background investigation for credibility purposes
---
> Defendant asset and criminal and civil record searches - background investigation for credibility purposes
122c120
< 	American Trial Lawyers Association research of current and past similar cases against same or similar defendant or product
---
> American Trial Lawyers Association research of current and past similar cases against same or similar defendant or product
130c128
< 	Represent firm to other firms, public agencies, witnesses and to potential clients in the most capable and professional light possible
---
> Represent firm to other firms, public agencies, witnesses and to potential clients in the most capable and professional light possible
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980536634
58a59,67
> 
> :Multi-word links with spaces would require some more effort than single-word links.  I would ''really'' like to implement a system which allows nearly arbitrary text in a link, even including characters like / or ! which may not be allowed in filenames.  On the other hand, I could quickly add something like TWiki's [[Some Phrase Here]] links, which would link to a page SomePageHere.
> 
> :I agree that search tools to find potential links would be very useful.  One possibility would be to make a list of pages in date order (newest first), with all the potential links listed next to the name of the page.  Editors could then watch the most recent edits for potential links.  If this wiki moves in that direction, I'm willing to work on better search tools.  --CliffordAdams
> 
> ----
> I'm planning to add [[word]]-style links as an ''optional'' feature in UseModWiki very soon (hopefully by the end of January 2001 (CE :-).  I also think it wouldn't be hard to write a conversion-helper script to semi-automatically fix the current strange capitalizations.  The script would first look for all wikinames and create one large list.  A human editor would go through the list and delete any of the "good" multi-word names (like PopularMusic), which would end up with a list of "strange" wiki-names (like PolanD or TopOlogy).  The second part of the script would take take the edited list of one-word names and replace them with [[word]] links.  Those one-word names which already have defined pages could also be moved/changed automatically, along with the RecentChanges database file.
> 
> The whole conversion would probably take only a couple hours, much of which would be editing the list.  I'm willing to write the conversion scripts and even do the editing if the maintainers of WikiPedia approve.  --CliffordAdams
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980536847
67a68,69
> ----
> This sounds good to me, but JimboWales is the Wikipedia programmer. -- LarrySanger
------
NamingConventions|980536863
44a45,46
> ----
> On the other hand, it wouldn't be too hard to change the wiki to allow links like [[word]] for single-word topics.  See WhichWikiShouldWeUse for further discussion of this idea.  Otherwise, the last-letter capital is probably the best idea that fits within the wiki conventions. --CliffordAdams
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980537039
69c69
< This sounds good to me, but JimboWales is the Wikipedia programmer. -- LarrySanger
---
> This sounds good to me, but JimboWales is the Wikipedia programmer.  Feature request: make it possible for a link written [[like this [[Jimbo Wales]]]] to be displayed with just the words "like this" linked, and pointing to the "Jimbo Wales" page.  However you do it, it would be dandy to be able to link to a page without using the page name.  On the other hand...maybe we don't want to make that possible! -- LarrySanger
------
CantorSet|980537086
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Cantor Set is a remarkable construction involving only the real numbers between zero and one.  The concept is simple, you take the interval (0,1) and remove the "middle third" of this interval.  Then you take what is left (0, 1/3) U  (2/3, 1) and remove the "middle thirds" from these two intervals.  Continue this process ad infinitum.  Pictorially, the process would look something like this:
> 
>    0                 1/3                  2/3                 1
>    ============================================================
>    ====================                    ====================
>    =======      =======                    =======      =======
>    ==   ==      ==   ==                    ==   ==      ==   ==
> 
> The question becomes, what is left when you are done?  If you add up the length of segments removed, it would calculate out to be:
> 
>     1/3 + 2/9 + 4/27 + 8/81 + ... + 2^n/3^(n+1) = (1/3) SUM [n=1,infinity] (2^n/3^n)
>                                                 = (1/3) (1 / (1- 2/3))
>                                                 = (1/3) (1 / (1/3))
>                                                 = (1/3) (3)
>                                                 = 1
> 
> Using this calculation, you may be surprised if there were anything left - after all, the sum of the lengths of the removed intervals is equal to the length of the original interval.  However a closer look at the process reveals that we must have something left, since removing the "middle-thirds" of an interval involved removing open sets (sets that do not include their endpoints).  So removing the line segment (1/3, 2/3) from the original (0,1) interval leaves behind the points 1/3 and 2/3.  A little reflection will convince you quickly that they will never be removed, in fact none of the enpoints of any of the intervals at any stage in the process will ever be removed.  So we know for certainty that the Cantor set is not empty.
> 
> In fact, it can be shown that there as many points left behind in this process as there were those that were removed.  To see this, consider the points in the (0,1) interval in terms of base-three notation.  In this notation, 1/3 can be written as 0.1 and 2/3 can be written as 0.2.  If we remove everything from 1/3 and 2/3 we are really removing everything between 0.1 and 0.2, or in other words, '''everything with a 1 in the first position after the point''' (except for .1 itself).  The next step examines the intervals (0, 0.1] and [0.2, 1) and removes their middle thirds.  In this case we are removing everything between 0.01 and 0.02 in the first interval and between 0.21 and 0.22 in the second interval.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980537262
21c21
< And make use of the BadJokesAndDeletedNonsense page.
---
> And make use of the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.
57c57
< A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> A. The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980537316
2a3,6
> '''January 26, 2001'''
> 
> Exciting developments are happening on the NamingConventions and BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense pages.
> 
------
WikiPediaProcess|980537488
3c3
< I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."] -- LarrySanger
---
> I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."] -- LarrySanger
27c27
< You were very right to do so.  I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- LarrySanger
---
> You were very right to do so.  I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaFaq|980537599
15c15
< A. From a technical point of view, wiki doesn't care what language the page is in.  But since English is the language we started with, if you start writing in other languages, there are apt to be competing versions of the same content in different languages.  So, for example, perhaps you could add "De" to the end of any page, with a link to it at the bottom of the page, for a German translation.  So at the bottom of my ThomasReid page you could put a link to ThomasReidDe, and include a German translation.  Just a thought.
---
> A. From a technical point of view, wiki doesn't care what language the page is in.  But since English is the language we started with, if you start writing in other languages, there are apt to be competing versions of the same content in different languages.  But, for example, perhaps at the bottom of my ThomasReid page you could put a link to ThomasReidDe, and include a German translation of the page.  Just a thought.  (Might not be worth it!)
------
PaulaAbdul|980538590
1c1,3
< Bio:
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
------
AllSaints|980538607
1c1,11
< (content edited)
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
ToriAmos|980538633
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
FionaApple|980538647
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
TinaArena|980538656
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
SherrieAustin|980538665
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
BackstreetBoys|980538674
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
BjorK|980538682
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
TracyBonham|980538691
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Band Members:
> 
> Bio(s):
> 
> Musical Style:
> 
> Influence & Influences:
> 
> Discography:
> 
> 
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980538809
44d43
< P.S.  The "Please notice" text on the edit page is missing a closing </b> tag.  This makes any previews show up completely in bold text.  [Please delete this note when the bug is fixed.]
69c68
< This sounds good to me, but JimboWales is the Wikipedia programmer.  Feature request: make it possible for a link written [[like this [[Jimbo Wales]]]] to be displayed with just the words "like this" linked, and pointing to the "Jimbo Wales" page.  However you do it, it would be dandy to be able to link to a page without using the page name.  On the other hand...maybe we don't want to make that possible! -- LarrySanger
---
> This sounds good to me, but JimboWales is the Wikipedia programmer.  Feature request: make it possible for a link written [[like this [[Jimbo Wales]]]] to be displayed with just the words "like this" linked, and pointing to the "Jimbo Wales" page.  However you do it, it would be dandy to be able to link to a page without using the page name.  On the other hand...maybe we don't want to make that possible! -- LarrySanger
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980538862
66a67,68
> 
> (I think this sounds great -- JimboWales)
------
BjorK|980538901
1,2d0
< Band Members:
< 
9a8
> 
------
RecentChanges|980539050
1c1
< '''Recent changes to this wiki, added automatically.'''
---
> Are you addicted to RecentChanges?  I know I am. :-) --JimboWales
------
EastGermany|980539436
1,9c1,24
< After WW2, in 1949 at the potsdamconference the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, AmericA and RussiA decided to divide germany in 2 parts. Each country got to control a part former GermanY.
< While soon the three areas controlled by AmericA, EnglanD and FrancE reunited and formed the "Federal Republic of GermanY", the Russian part was made a own country too, the "German Democratic Republic". It was also called EastGermany.
< EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a communist country very soon until the only link to democracy was the part in its name.
< EastGermany soon started to seperate itself from western germany (which became more and more democratic and capitalistic, with help from EnglanD, FrancE and most of all, AmericA) by closing the open borders by fences, turrets, dogs and most of all huge walls.
< A very interesting thing about the whole situation : Just like GermanY got divided after the war, also BerliN, former capital of GermanY got divided. Since BerliN was inside the Russian part of GermanY, the areas of BerliN being held under the control of the three western countries soon was known as WestBerlin.
< So when EastGermany closed the border it also literally sorrounded WestBerlin by a huge wall, the BerlinWall.
< Anyway, there is to much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner !" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West GermanY used WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the ColdWar.
< 1989 the BerlinWall fell and with it the whole Communist system of EastGermany, both parts got re-united and became "GermanY" again.
< But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of GermanY (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
---
> '''History'''
> 
> After WW2, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
> decided to divide GermanY in 4 parts.  Each country controlled a part former GermanY.
> 
> While soon the three areas controlled by the UnitedStates, EnglanD and FrancE reunited and formed the 
> FederalRepublicOfGerman, the Soviet part was made a own country too, the "German Democratic Republic". 
> It was also called EastGermany.  EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a CommunisT
> country very soon until the only link to DemocracY was the part in its name.
> 
> EastGermany soon started to seperate itself from WestGermany (which became more and more democratic and 
> capitalistic, with help from EnglanD, FrancE and most of all, the UnitedStates) by closing the open borders by 
> fences, turrets, dogs and most of all huge walls.  A very interesting thing about the whole situation : Just like 
> GermanY got divided after the war, also BerlinGermany, former capital of Germany got divided. Since Berlin was 
> inside the Soviet part of Germany, the areas of Berlin being held under the control of the three western countries 
> soon was known as WestBerlin.
> 
> So when EastGermany closed the border it also literally surrounded WestBerlin by a huge wall, the BerlinWall.
> Anyway, there is too much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner!" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West Germany used WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the ColdWar.
> 
> In 1989 the BerlinWall fell and with it the whole CommunisT system of EastGermany, both parts got re-united and 
> became "GermanY" again.
> 
> But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
------
AlbaniaGovernment|980539439
1c1,62
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Country name: conventional long form: Republic of Albania conventional short form: Albania local long form: Republika e
> Shqiperise local short form: Shqiperia former: People's Socialist Republic of Albania 
> 
> Data code: AL 
> 
> Government type: emerging democracy 
> 
> Capital: Tirana 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 36 districts (rrethe, singular - rreth) and 1 municipality* (bashki); Berat, Bulqize, Delvine, Devoll
> (Bilisht), Diber (Peshkopi), Durres, Elbasan, Fier, Gjirokaster, Gramsh, Has (Krume), Kavaje, Kolonje (Erseke), Korce, Kruje,
> Kucove, Kukes, Kurbin, Lezhe, Librazhd, Lushnje, Malesi e Madhe (Koplik), Mallakaster (Ballsh), Mat (Burrel), Mirdite (Rreshen),
> Peqin, Permet, Pogradec, Puke, Sarande, Shkoder, Skrapar (Corovode), Tepelene, Tirane (Tirana), Tirane* (Tirana), Tropoje
> (Bajram Curri), Vlore note: administrative divisions have the same names as their administrative centers (exceptions have the
> administrative center name following in parentheses) 
> 
> Independence: 28 November 1912 (from Ottoman Empire) 
> 
> National holiday: Independence Day, 28 November (1912) 
> 
> Constitution: a new constitution was adopted by popular referendum on 28 November 1998; note - the opposition Democratic Party
> boycotted the vote 
> 
> Legal system: has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal and compulsory 
> 
> Executive branch: chief of state: President of the Republic Rexhep MEIDANI (since 24 July 1997) head of government: Prime
> Minister Ilir META (since 29 October 1999) cabinet: Council of Ministers nominated by the prime minister and approved by the
> president elections: president elected by the People's Assembly for a five-year term; election last held 24 July 1997 (next to be held
> NA 2002); prime minister appointed by the president election results: Rexhep MEIDANI elected president; People's Assembly vote
> by number - total votes 122, for 110, against 3, abstained 2, invalid 7 
> 
> Legislative branch: unicameral People's Assembly or Kuvendi Popullor (155 seats; most members are elected by direct popular vote
> and some by proportional vote for four-year terms) elections: last held 29 June 1997 (next to be held NA 2001) election results:
> percent of vote by party - PS 53.36%, PD 25.33%, PSD 2.5%, PBDNJ 2.78%, PBK 2.36%, PAD 2.85%, PR 2.25%, PLL 3.09%, PDK
> 1.00%, PBSD 0.84%; seats by party - PS 101, PD 27, PSD 8, PBDNJ 4, PBK 3, PAD 2, PR 2, PLL 2, PDK 1, PBSD 1, PUK 1,
> independents 3 
> 
> Judicial branch: Supreme Court, chairman of the Supreme Court is elected by the People's Assembly for a four-year term 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Albanian Republican Party or PR [Fatmir MEHDIU]; Albanian Socialist Party or PS (formerly the
> Albania Workers Party) [Fatos NANO, chairman]; Albanian United Right or DBSH (includes PBK, Albanian Republican Party or
> PRS, AND PDD) [Abaz ERMENJI]; Christian Democratic Party or PDK [Zef BUSHATI]; Democratic Alliance or PAD [Neritan
> CEKA]; Democratic Party or PD [Sali BERISHA]; Democratic Party of the Right or PDD [Petrit KALAKULA]; Liberal Union Party
> [Teodor LACO]; Movement of Legality Party or PLL [Ekrem SPAHIA]; National Front (Balli Kombetar) or PBK [Abaz ERMENJI];
> Party of National Unity or PUK [Idajet BEQIRI]; Right National Front [Hysni SELFO]; Social Democratic Party or PSD [Skender
> GJINUSHI]; Unity for Human Rights Party or PBDNJ [Vasil MELO, chairman]; note - Teodar LACO of the Liberal Union Party was
> leader of the Social Democratic Union of Albania or PBSD 
> 
> International organization participation: BSEC, CCC, CE, CEI, EAPC, EBRD, ECE, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA, IDB,
> IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, IMO, Intelsat (nonsignatory user), Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, OIC, OPCW, OSCE, PFP, UN,
> UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNOMIG, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO?, WTrO? (applicant) 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: chief of mission: Ambassador Petrit BUSHATI chancery: 2100 S Street NW, Washington, DC
> 20008 telephone: [1] (202) 223-4942 FAX: [1] (202) 628-7342 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: chief of mission: Ambassador Joseph LIMPRECHT embassy: Rruga Elbasanit 103, Tirana
> mailing address: American Embassy, Tirana, Department of State, Washington, DC 20521-9510 telephone: [355] (42) 47285
> through 47289 FAX: [355] (42) 32222 
> 
> Flag description: red with a black two-headed eagle in the center 
------
AlbaniaEconomy|980539469
1c1,72
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Economy - overview: An extremely poor country by European standards, Albania is making the difficult transition to a more
> open-market economy. The economy rebounded in 1993-95 after a severe depression accompanying the collapse of the previous
> centrally planned system in 1990 and 1991. However, a weakening of government resolve to maintain stabilization policies in the
> election year of 1996 contributed to renewal of inflationary pressures, spurred by the budget deficit which exceeded 12%. The collapse
> of financial pyramid schemes in early 1997 - which had attracted deposits from a substantial portion of Albania's population -
> triggered severe social unrest which led to more than 1,500 deaths, widespread destruction of property, and an 8% drop in GDP. The
> new government, installed in July 1997, has taken strong measures to restore public order and to revive economic activity and trade.
> The economy continues to be bolstered by remittances of some 20% of the labor force that works abroad, mostly in Greece and Italy.
> These remittances supplement GDP and help offset the large foreign trade deficit. Most agricultural land was privatized in 1992,
> substantially improving peasant incomes. In 1998, Albania recovered the 8% drop in GDP of 1997 and pushed ahead by 7% in 1999.
> International aid has helped defray the high costs of receiving and returning refugees from the Kosovo conflict. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $5.6 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: 8% (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $1,650 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 54% industry: 25% services: 21% (1998) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: 19.6% (1996 est.) 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: NA% highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): 0.5% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Labor force: 1.692 million (including 352,000 emigrant workers and 261,000 domestically unemployed) (1994 est.) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 49.5%, industry and services 50.5% 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 14% (October 1997) officially, but may be as high as 28% 
> 
> Budget: revenues: $393 million expenditures: $676 million, including capital expenditures of $NA (1997 est.) 
> 
> Industries: food processing, textiles and clothing; lumber, oil, cement, chemicals, mining, basic metals, hydropower 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: 7% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Electricity - production: 5.15 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: fossil fuel: 2.91% hydro: 97.09% nuclear: 0% other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 5.29 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 500 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: wheat, corn, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, sugar beets, grapes; meat, dairy products 
> 
> Exports: $242 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: textiles and footwear; asphalt, metals and metallic ores, crude oil; vegetables, fruits, tobacco 
> 
> Exports - partners: Italy 63%, Greece 12%, Germany 6%, Netherlands, Belgium, US (1998) 
> 
> Imports: $925 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, foodstuffs, textiles, chemicals 
> 
> Imports - partners: Italy 43%, Greece 29%, Turkey 4%, Germany 4%, Bulgaria, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1998) 
> 
> Debt - external: $820 million (1998) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: EU pledged $100 million to share with The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1999) 
> 
> Currency: 1 lek (L) = 100 qintars 
> 
> Exchange rates: leke (L) per US$1 - 135.31 (December 1999), 137.69 (1999), 150.63 (1998), 148.93 (1997), 104.50 (1996), 92.70
> (1995) 
> 
> Fiscal year: calendar year 
------
AlbaniA|980539538
19,244d18
< Albania
< 
<                                            People
<  
< 
< Population: 3,490,435 (July 2000 est.) 
< 
< Age structure: 
< 0-14 years: 30% (male 545,329; female 507,589) 
< 15-64 years: 63% (male 1,056,583; female 1,141,664) 
< 65 years and over: 7% (male 104,086; female 135,184) (2000 est.) 
< 
< Population growth rate: 0.26% (2000 est.) 
< 
< Birth rate: 19.47 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Death rate: 6.5 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Net migration rate: -10.36 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
< 
< Sex ratio: 
< at birth: 1.08 male(s)/female 
< under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female 
< 15-64 years: 0.93 male(s)/female 
< 65 years and over: 0.77 male(s)/female 
< total population: 0.96 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
< 
< Infant mortality rate: 41.33 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
< 
< Life expectancy at birth: 
< total population: 71.57 years 
< male: 68.75 years 
< female: 74.59 years (2000 est.) 
< 
< Total fertility rate: 2.37 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
< 
< Nationality: 
< noun: Albanian(s) 
< adjective: Albanian 
< 
< Ethnic groups: Albanian 95%, Greeks 3%, other 2% (Vlachs, Gypsies, Serbs, and Bulgarians) (1989 est.) 
< note: in 1989, other estimates of the Greek population ranged from 1% (official Albanian statistics) to 12% (from a Greek
< organization) 
< 
< Religions: Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10% 
< note: all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing
< private religious practice 
< 
< Languages: Albanian (Tosk is the official dialect), Greek 
< 
< Literacy: 
< definition: age 9 and over can read and write 
< total population: 93% (1997 est.) 
< male: NA% 
< female: NA% 
< 
<                                         Government
< 
< 
< 
< Country name: 
< conventional long form: Republic of Albania 
< conventional short form: Albania 
< local long form: Republika e Shqiperise 
< local short form: Shqiperia 
< former: People's Socialist Republic of Albania 
< 
< Data code: AL 
< 
< Government type: emerging democracy 
< 
< Capital: Tirana 
< 
< Administrative divisions: 36 districts (rrethe, singular - rreth) and 1 municipality* (bashki); Berat, Bulqize, Delvine, Devoll
< (Bilisht), Diber (Peshkopi), Durres, Elbasan, Fier, Gjirokaster, Gramsh, Has (Krume), Kavaje, Kolonje (Erseke), Korce, Kruje,
< Kucove, Kukes, Kurbin, Lezhe, Librazhd, Lushnje, Malesi e Madhe (Koplik), Mallakaster (Ballsh), Mat (Burrel), Mirdite (Rreshen),
< Peqin, Permet, Pogradec, Puke, Sarande, Shkoder, Skrapar (Corovode), Tepelene, Tirane (Tirana), Tirane* (Tirana), Tropoje
< (Bajram Curri), Vlore 
< note: administrative divisions have the same names as their administrative centers (exceptions have the administrative center name
< following in parentheses) 
< 
< Independence: 28 November 1912 (from Ottoman Empire) 
< 
< National holiday: Independence Day, 28 November (1912) 
< 
< Constitution: a new constitution was adopted by popular referendum on 28 November 1998; note - the opposition Democratic Party
< boycotted the vote 
< 
< Legal system: has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction 
< 
< Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal and compulsory 
< 
< Executive branch: 
< chief of state: President of the Republic Rexhep MEIDANI (since 24 July 1997) 
< head of government: Prime Minister Ilir META (since 29 October 1999) 
< cabinet: Council of Ministers nominated by the prime minister and approved by the president 
< elections: president elected by the People's Assembly for a five-year term; election last held 24 July 1997 (next to be held NA 2002);
< prime minister appointed by the president 
< election results: Rexhep MEIDANI elected president; People's Assembly vote by number - total votes 122, for 110, against 3,
< abstained 2, invalid 7 
< 
< Legislative branch: unicameral People's Assembly or Kuvendi Popullor (155 seats; most members are elected by direct popular vote
< and some by proportional vote for four-year terms) 
< elections: last held 29 June 1997 (next to be held NA 2001) 
< election results: percent of vote by party - PS 53.36%, PD 25.33%, PSD 2.5%, PBDNJ 2.78%, PBK 2.36%, PAD 2.85%, PR 2.25%,
< PLL 3.09%, PDK 1.00%, PBSD 0.84%; seats by party - PS 101, PD 27, PSD 8, PBDNJ 4, PBK 3, PAD 2, PR 2, PLL 2, PDK 1, PBSD 1,
< PUK 1, independents 3 
< 
< Judicial branch: Supreme Court, chairman of the Supreme Court is elected by the People's Assembly for a four-year term 
< 
< Political parties and leaders: Albanian Republican Party or PR [Fatmir MEHDIU]; Albanian Socialist Party or PS (formerly the
< Albania Workers Party) [Fatos NANO, chairman]; Albanian United Right or DBSH (includes PBK, Albanian Republican Party or
< PRS, AND PDD) [Abaz ERMENJI]; Christian Democratic Party or PDK [Zef BUSHATI]; Democratic Alliance or PAD [Neritan
< CEKA]; Democratic Party or PD [Sali BERISHA]; Democratic Party of the Right or PDD [Petrit KALAKULA]; Liberal Union Party
< [Teodor LACO]; Movement of Legality Party or PLL [Ekrem SPAHIA]; National Front (Balli Kombetar) or PBK [Abaz ERMENJI];
< Party of National Unity or PUK [Idajet BEQIRI]; Right National Front [Hysni SELFO]; Social Democratic Party or PSD [Skender
< GJINUSHI]; Unity for Human Rights Party or PBDNJ [Vasil MELO, chairman]; note - Teodar LACO of the Liberal Union Party was
< leader of the Social Democratic Union of Albania or PBSD 
< 
< International organization participation: BSEC, CCC, CE, CEI, EAPC, EBRD, ECE, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICRM, IDA,
< IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, ILO, IMF, IMO, Intelsat (nonsignatory user), Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, OIC, OPCW, OSCE, PFP, UN,
< UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNOMIG, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTrO (applicant) 
< 
< Diplomatic representation in the US: 
< chief of mission: Ambassador Petrit BUSHATI 
< chancery: 2100 S Street NW, Washington, DC 20008 
< telephone: [1] (202) 223-4942 
< FAX: [1] (202) 628-7342 
< 
< Diplomatic representation from the US: 
< chief of mission: Ambassador Joseph LIMPRECHT 
< embassy: Rruga Elbasanit 103, Tirana 
< mailing address: American Embassy, Tirana, Department of State, Washington, DC 20521-9510 
< telephone: [355] (42) 47285 through 47289 
< FAX: [355] (42) 32222 
< 
< Flag description: red with a black two-headed eagle in the center 
< 
<                                           Economy
< 
< 
< 
< Economy - overview: An extremely poor country by European standards, Albania is making the difficult transition to a more
< open-market economy. The economy rebounded in 1993-95 after a severe depression accompanying the collapse of the previous
< centrally planned system in 1990 and 1991. However, a weakening of government resolve to maintain stabilization policies in the
< election year of 1996 contributed to renewal of inflationary pressures, spurred by the budget deficit which exceeded 12%. The collapse
< of financial pyramid schemes in early 1997 - which had attracted deposits from a substantial portion of Albania's population -
< triggered severe social unrest which led to more than 1,500 deaths, widespread destruction of property, and an 8% drop in GDP. The
< new government, installed in July 1997, has taken strong measures to restore public order and to revive economic activity and trade.
< The economy continues to be bolstered by remittances of some 20% of the labor force that works abroad, mostly in Greece and Italy.
< These remittances supplement GDP and help offset the large foreign trade deficit. Most agricultural land was privatized in 1992,
< substantially improving peasant incomes. In 1998, Albania recovered the 8% drop in GDP of 1997 and pushed ahead by 7% in 1999.
< International aid has helped defray the high costs of receiving and returning refugees from the Kosovo conflict. 
< 
< GDP: purchasing power parity - $5.6 billion (1999 est.) 
< 
< GDP - real growth rate: 8% (1999 est.) 
< 
< GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $1,650 (1999 est.) 
< 
< GDP - composition by sector: 
< agriculture: 54% 
< industry: 25% 
< services: 21% (1998) 
< 
< Population below poverty line: 19.6% (1996 est.) 
< 
< Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
< lowest 10%: NA% 
< highest 10%: NA% 
< 
< Inflation rate (consumer prices): 0.5% (1999 est.) 
< 
< Labor force: 1.692 million (including 352,000 emigrant workers and 261,000 domestically unemployed) (1994 est.) 
< 
< Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 49.5%, industry and services 50.5% 
< 
< Unemployment rate: 14% (October 1997) officially, but may be as high as 28% 
< 
< Budget: 
< revenues: $393 million 
< expenditures: $676 million, including capital expenditures of $NA (1997 est.) 
< 
< Industries: food processing, textiles and clothing; lumber, oil, cement, chemicals, mining, basic metals, hydropower 
< 
< Industrial production growth rate: 7% (1999 est.) 
< 
< Electricity - production: 5.15 billion kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - production by source: 
< fossil fuel: 2.91% 
< hydro: 97.09% 
< nuclear: 0% 
< other: 0% (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - consumption: 5.29 billion kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
< 
< Electricity - imports: 500 million kWh (1998) 
< 
< Agriculture - products: wheat, corn, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, sugar beets, grapes; meat, dairy products 
< 
< Exports: $242 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
< 
< Exports - commodities: textiles and footwear; asphalt, metals and metallic ores, crude oil; vegetables, fruits, tobacco 
< 
< Exports - partners: Italy 63%, Greece 12%, Germany 6%, Netherlands, Belgium, US (1998) 
< 
< Imports: $925 million (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
< 
< Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, foodstuffs, textiles, chemicals 
< 
< Imports - partners: Italy 43%, Greece 29%, Turkey 4%, Germany 4%, Bulgaria, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
< (1998) 
< 
< Debt - external: $820 million (1998) 
< 
< Economic aid - recipient: EU pledged $100 million to share with The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1999) 
< 
< Currency: 1 lek (L) = 100 qintars 
< 
< Exchange rates: leke (L) per US$1 - 135.31 (December 1999), 137.69 (1999), 150.63 (1998), 148.93 (1997), 104.50 (1996), 92.70
< (1995) 
< 
< Fiscal year: calendar year 
------
AyeSpyList|980539581
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Did professionally:
> Landscaping, newspaper delivery, typist, transcritionist, personnel trainer, investigator, paralegal, maintenance engineer, plumber, drywall, childcare, electrician, carpenter, painter, glazer, carpet layer, tile, linoleum, wallpaper, automobile mechanic, excavation, PBX operator, hotel front desk, room attendant, vocalist, horse breeder, horse trainer, laborer, vending machine operator, upholstery, locksmith, counselor, human resources director, data analyst, public relations, opinion poll drafting and interpretation, marketing director, security officer, statistical analyst, loan broker, home designer, real estate development, pool maintenance, barback, A/C repair, runner, business consultant, IT recruiter, dispute mediator, photographer, videographer, author.
> 
> Did without pay:
> Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in “don’t fence me in”), tournament fencing (as in, “touche’”), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.a
------
HomePage|980539729
4a5,6
> BritannicaPublicDomain
> 
------
OregoN|980539904
10a11,13
> Other cities in Oregon include:  PortlandOregon, SalemOregon, EugeneOregon,
> AstoriaOregon, BeavertonOregon, LakeOswegoOregon, and GladstoneOregon.
> 
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980539951
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> As I understand it, ProjectGutenberg has published what they call the "Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia".  What this actually is, is the classic 11th edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica.  However, because 'Britannica' is a trademark, even though the text is now public domain (because it is so old), they were unable to call it EncyclopediaBritannica.
> 
> Call it what you will, it is available, and we should consider putting the entire text here, in the Wikipedia.  This may be a lot of work (like my own pet project, which is cutting and pasting all of the public domain CIAWorldFactbook over in CountriesOfTheWorld -- please help me!), but it sure would be a fun thing to have in here.  People could start updating/replacing the articles with ProjectGutenbergEncyclopedia as the foundation.
> 
> Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together.
------
AyeSpyList|980539999
5c5,8
< Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in “don’t fence me in”), tournament fencing (as in, “touche’”), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.a
---
> Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in ?don?t fence me in?), tournament fencing (as in, ?touche??), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.a
> ----
> 
> You forgot: Wrote an encyclopedia.  :-) --JimboWales
------
MathOfTheWesternMusicalScale|980540291
94c94
< So what's a keyboard manufacturer to do?  Tha answer is simple: make one
---
> So what's a keyboard manufacturer to do?  The answer is simple: make one
136a137,139
> ---
> 
> [ one thing i neglected to mention in the original article was that many classical composers wrote compositions for just-intonated instruments (wind instruments in particular).  however, since these instruments couldn't re-tune to a new tonic, modulating the key of the piece created a tension; it sounded like you were still playing in the original key and wanted to return to it.  at least, that's what some people say, and they're usually quite insistent that playing the piece on a JI instrument is the only way to truly hear what the composer intended.  i personally don't believe that, but judge for yourself. { ajax } ]
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980540784
68a69,70
> 
> :Ok then, this will be my big project for the weekend.  Hopefully I'll have something ready in a few days.  (I'll test it first using a sample wiki with some pages copied from WikiPedia.) --CliffordAdams
70a73,78
> 
> :I was leaning toward a simpler syntax like [[Jimbo Wales|like this]], which would also be closer to the regular URL format <nowiki>[URL description].  Trying to parse nested pairs of brackets would get pretty ugly coding-wise.  Of course, this feature would be trivial to disable if desired.
> 
> :For spaces in links, I'm leaning toward translating them into _ (underline) characters in the title and URL.  I could then translate _ back to a space when displaying the link.  This would allow you to type [[Jimbo Wales]], which would be displayed like "Jimbo Wales" (as a link).  If you wanted to link to the page (from outside the wiki) you could use a nice URL with an underline, rather than an ugly one with a + or %20 for each space character.
> 
> :Hmmm...  If one handles spaces like that, perhaps this wiki could completely dispense with the strange capitalization rules and just use [[word or phrase]]-style links.  There would be less AccidentalLinking, but this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  (I'd certainly want to create link-helping tools, however, to find appropriate links.)  --CliffordAdams (soon to be [[Clifford Adams]]?)
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980540888
74c74
< :I was leaning toward a simpler syntax like [[Jimbo Wales|like this]], which would also be closer to the regular URL format <nowiki>[URL description].  Trying to parse nested pairs of brackets would get pretty ugly coding-wise.  Of course, this feature would be trivial to disable if desired.
---
> :I was leaning toward a simpler syntax like [[Jimbo Wales|like this]], which would also be closer to the regular URL format: [URL description].  Trying to parse nested pairs of brackets would get pretty ugly coding-wise.  Of course, this feature would be trivial to disable if desired.
78c78
< :Hmmm...  If one handles spaces like that, perhaps this wiki could completely dispense with the strange capitalization rules and just use [[word or phrase]]-style links.  There would be less AccidentalLinking, but this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  (I'd certainly want to create link-helping tools, however, to find appropriate links.)  --CliffordAdams (soon to be [[Clifford Adams]]?)
---
> :Hmmm...  If one handles spaces like that, perhaps this wiki could completely dispense with the strange capitalization rules and just use [[word or phrase]]-style links.  There would be less "accidental linking", but this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  (I'd certainly want to create link-helping tools, however, to find appropriate links.)  --CliffordAdams (soon to be [[Clifford Adams]]?)
------
CantorSet|980541036
19c19,24
< In fact, it can be shown that there as many points left behind in this process as there were those that were removed.  To see this, consider the points in the (0,1) interval in terms of base-three notation.  In this notation, 1/3 can be written as 0.1 and 2/3 can be written as 0.2.  If we remove everything from 1/3 and 2/3 we are really removing everything between 0.1 and 0.2, or in other words, '''everything with a 1 in the first position after the point''' (except for .1 itself).  The next step examines the intervals (0, 0.1] and [0.2, 1) and removes their middle thirds.  In this case we are removing everything between 0.01 and 0.02 in the first interval and between 0.21 and 0.22 in the second interval.
---
> In fact, it can be shown that there as many points left behind in this process as there were those that were removed.  To see this, consider the points in the (0,1) interval in terms of base 3 (or ternial) notation.  In this notation, 1/3 can be written as 0.1 and 2/3 can be written as 0.2.  If we remove everything from 1/3 and 2/3 we are really removing everything between 0.1 and 0.2, or in other words, '''everything with a 1 in the first position after the point''' (except for .1 itself, but since .1 = 0.02222222..., we can represent it without using a one in any position).  The next step examines the intervals (0, 0.1] and [0.2, 1) and removes their middle thirds.  In this case we are removing everything between 0.01 and 0.02 in the first interval and between 0.21 and 0.22 in the second interval, or in other words, '''everything with a 1 in the second position after the point'''.
> 
> By the time you are done, the net result is that the only numbers removed from the interval are the numbers with ternary representations containing a '1' somewhere after the point.  So the numbers that remain are the ones that can be represented in ternary (base 3) notation with no '1' in any decimal (or ternial, if you prefer) place.  Stated another way the cantor set consists of all the numbers between 0 and 1 that can be represented using only 0's and 2's in ternary notation.  However, and here is the kicker, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the numbers left in the Cantor set, and the all the real numbers between 0 and 1.
> 
> To see this, represent the real numbers in binary (instead of ternary) notation.  Then each number can be represented by a string of 0's and 1's (e.g. 0.101 = 5/8).  Now consider each number in the cantor set.  You can map each one to a number in the interval (0,1) by representing it as a ternary number, changing all 2's to 1's and considering it a base 2 number.  Likewise, each number in the interval (0,1) maps to a number in the Cantor set by representing the number in binary notation, changing all 1's to 2's and considering it a base 3 number.  Thus there is a 1-1 correspondance between the CantorSet and the real numbers in the interval (0,1).
> 
------
CantorSet|980541284
17c17
< Using this calculation, you may be surprised if there were anything left - after all, the sum of the lengths of the removed intervals is equal to the length of the original interval.  However a closer look at the process reveals that we must have something left, since removing the "middle-thirds" of an interval involved removing open sets (sets that do not include their endpoints).  So removing the line segment (1/3, 2/3) from the original (0,1) interval leaves behind the points 1/3 and 2/3.  A little reflection will convince you quickly that they will never be removed, in fact none of the enpoints of any of the intervals at any stage in the process will ever be removed.  So we know for certainty that the Cantor set is not empty.
---
> Using this calculation, you may be surprised if there were anything left - after all, the sum of the lengths of the removed intervals is equal to the length of the original interval.  However a closer look at the process reveals that we must have something left, since removing the "middle-thirds" of an interval involved removing open sets (sets that do not include their endpoints).  So removing the line segment (1/3, 2/3) from the original (0,1) interval leaves behind the points 1/3 and 2/3.  A little reflection will convince you quickly that they will never be removed, in fact none of the endpoints of any of the intervals at any stage in the process will ever be removed.  So we know for certainty that the Cantor set is not empty.
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980541620
5c5,21
< Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together.
---
> Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together.
> 
> ----
> 
> Whoa, WhatACoincidence.  I just now was downloading vol#1 from it and seeing what it'd take to put it in.  :-)
> 
> The license says it's in the public domain and we can do whatever we please with it...  
> 
> I will volunteer to work on chopping out all of the articles from volume 1 and posting them in the appropriate
> places.  Other than really basic stuff, I'm not going to fiddle with the formatting nor update any inaccuracies
> contained in them, so anyone seeing things to change, correct, or update should lay into it.
> 
> The two MAJOR concerns I have in doing this is a) the information may be WAY out of date in some cases, maybe even
> to the point of uselessness, and b) the articles may be too long for the average wikitizen to get into - they may
> feel too intimidated by the length and tone of the article to add or correct as we'll need.  
> 
> But, I guess we'll never know unless we try, so here goes...  ;-)
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980541654
6c6
< 
---
> -- JimboWales
21a22
> -- BryceHarrington
------
CantorSet|980541751
11c11
<     1/3 + 2/9 + 4/27 + 8/81 + ... + 2^n/3^(n+1) = (1/3) SUM [n=1,infinity] (2^n/3^n)
---
>     1/3 + 2/9 + 4/27 + 8/81 + ... + 2^n/3^(n+1) = (1/3) SUM [n=0,infinity] (2^n/3^n)
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980542134
22c22,24
< -- BryceHarrington
---
> -- BryceHarrington
> ----
> I would suggest adding "PG" or "EB" or "11" at the end of the name of any page that is taken from EB.  Then we could edit versions of that, while the original is preserved. -- LarrySanger
------
GladstoneOregon|980542146
1c1,80
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Introduction'''
> 
> Gladstone is a four square mile suburban community twelve miles south of Portland at the confluence of the Clackamas River into the Willamette. It has a population of about 11,000. To the south, across the Clackamas, is Oregon City; across the Willamette is West Linn; to the north lies the city of Milwaukie. In the higher areas one can easily see Mt. Hood in the distance to the northeast, and in some places Mt. Adams and Mt. St. Helens can also be seen. The Portland International Airport is only about 15 minutes north by way of the I-205 freeway.
> 
> While there are still a few building sites in some of the isolated corners, the city is essentially fully developed. There is a grade school, middle school, and high school, numerous churches, two supermarkets, and a number of other small stores scattered throughout.
> 
> The population of Gladstone is approximately 10152 and the approximate number of families is 3745 . The amount of land area in Gladstone is 6.34 sq. kilometers and the amount of surface water is 0.123 sq. kilometers. The distance from Gladstone to Washington DC is 2450 statute miles. The distance to the Oregon state capital is 38 statute miles.  Gladstone is positioned 45.38 degrees north of the equator and 122.59 degrees west of the prime meridian.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Clackamas Indians'''
> 
> There were several indian groups living in the area to become Gladstone. Lewis and Clark did not visit the
> Gladstone-Oregon City region but did have it described to them by the native people. Later explorers and traders
> brought diseases and epidemics that took a very heavy toll on the native population and the size of the tribes dwindled
> to near extinction.
> 
> When Oregon City was founded and people began moving to the area, they complained to their government about the lazy,
> drunk, and theiving indians. The government responded by forcibly rounding up the indians and forcing them to leave
> their lands for a reservation.
> With the natives removed from the scene, the Gladstone area was ripe for settling. Today the only visible remains of
> the native presence is a large tree called "The Pow Wow Tree." An indian burial ground near that area is now covered
> over by a street and a number of houses.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Early Homesteaders'''
> 
> Rhinearson and Cason each claimed 640 acre lots in the area to be known as Gladstone. The Rhinearson house can still be
> found on a golf course near the Willamette river, and his descendants were still involved with the city in the 1950's.
> 
> '''Failed Starts'''
> 
> Several small towns were established in this period, but only a few remained to become the cities of today. Floods and
> fires were the primary villains, and one can imagine the heart ache these disasters must have evoked.
> 
> Linn City was settled in the 1840's by Robert Moore who built four flour and lumber mills along the bank of the
> Willamette. Warehouses, homes, and mills were added until 1857 when a fire destroyed several of the buildings. Efforts
> at rebuilding the small town ceased when a flood came later that year and wiped out the rest of the buildings.
> 
> '''Founding of the City'''
> 
> Gladstone was founded in by a man named ?? Cross in the late 1800's. He laid out the town's first streets and had his home built in a prominant location. It is now a mortuary, but the building is still very well kept. There is also a small park named after him, ironically located at the same place one of the indian tribes made its camp.
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Today'''
> 
> Gladstone is well known for its excellent school system, low crime rate, and close proximity to Oregon City and Portland.
> 
> The town can be divided into four catagories. The old section is laid out on a grid of streets bordered by the Clackamas on the south, McGloughlin Blvd. on the west, Webster on the east, and the foothills to the north. The river section of town is the strip of land between McGloughlin and the Willamette. On the east side of town is a large park
> at one time owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. The fourth section of town is the remaining hilly area north of the old section.
> 
> '''Old Gladstone'''
> 
> The old section is laid out on a grid of streets running north/south and east/west. North-south streets are named for colleges, while east-west streets are named after universities (Dartmouth, Exeter, Fairfield, Gloucester, and Harvard, for instance).
> 
> '''Along the River'''
> 
> The river area has a number of very nice homes. Earlier in Gladstone's history this was a very "ritzy" area, though the age of the houses makes this less true today. Several parks and a golf course also occupy the area.
> 
> '''The Seventh Day Adventist Camp'''
> 
> At some point in the past, this large area came under the ownership of the Seventh Day Adventist religious organization. The campsite would sit virtually empty for nearly 50 weeks. Then for two weeks Gladstone would be invaded by a horde of fanatics in tents, trailers, and moble homes.
> 
> A large chain fence and a dense hedge prevented access to the camp by Gladstonians except for the more brave and venturesome. But in 1990 it all changed when possession of the land changed hands. The camp was left open for anyone to explore freely. Now ownership of the camp is in question, but hopefully it will remain open to all.
> 
> '''The Hills'''
> 
> On the north side of town are rocky hills that were virtually uninhabitable until late in this century. In the 1960's and 1970's the area came under development and was laid out with streets and houses. One street running around the base of the easternmost hill is known throughout the state for its beautiful Christmas lights display every year. Several
> churches, the city's middle school, a few convenience stores, and a couple care centers are the only exceptions to the area's all-residential nature.
> 
> '''Geography'''
> 
> Being borderd by rivers on two sides, there are only two primary thoroughfares to and from the town. The I-205 freeway runs along the eastern edge of the city running south into Historic Oregon City. McGloughlin Blvd. also runs north-south, but through the western side of the city.
> 
> Inside the town the main streets are Portland Avenue, which runs from the high school through the middle of the Old Gladstone, to the river, Webster, which runs along the eastern edge of Old Gladstone from the freeway and the river north into the hills. Oatfield Road winds its way through the hills and drops down into Milwaukie.
> 
> -- Written by BryceHarrington
> 
------
CantorSet|980542215
21c21
< By the time you are done, the net result is that the only numbers removed from the interval are the numbers with ternary representations containing a '1' somewhere after the point.  So the numbers that remain are the ones that can be represented in ternary (base 3) notation with no '1' in any decimal (or ternial, if you prefer) place.  Stated another way the cantor set consists of all the numbers between 0 and 1 that can be represented using only 0's and 2's in ternary notation.  However, and here is the kicker, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the numbers left in the Cantor set, and the all the real numbers between 0 and 1.
---
> By the time you are done, the net result is that the only numbers removed from the interval are the numbers with ternary representations containing a '1' somewhere after the point.  So the numbers that remain are the ones that can be represented in ternary (base 3) notation with no '1' in any decimal (or ternial, if you prefer) place.  Stated another way the cantor set consists of all the numbers between 0 and 1 that can be represented using only 0's and 2's in ternary notation.  However, and here is the kicker, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the numbers left in the CantorSet, and the all the real numbers between 0 and 1.
23a24,31
> 
> ----
> 
> Some topographically interesting facts about the Cantor set.
>     * Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
>     * Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
>     * Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
> 
------
CantorSet|980542245
28,30c28,30
<     * Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
<     * Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
<     * Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
---
>     o Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
>     o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
>     o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
------
CantorSet|980542266
28,30c28,30
<     o Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
<     o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
<     o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
---
> o Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
> o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
> o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
------
CantorSet|980542288
27a28
> 
29,30d29
< o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
< o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
31a31
> o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
32a33
> o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
------
CantorSet|980542307
29c29
< o Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
---
> Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
31c31
< o Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
---
> Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
33c33
< o Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
---
> Again, pick any point in the CantorSet (which is itself a subset of the unit interval).  Any arbitrarily small neighborhood around that point contains an open set in the unit interval that is disjoint from the CantorSet.  Thus the CantorSet is NowhereDense.
------
CantorSet|980542333
29c29
< Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is closed.
---
> Since it is the complement of a union of disjoint open sets, it itself is a ClosedSet.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980542363
5c5
< Exciting developments are happening on the NamingConventions and BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense pages.
---
> Exciting developments are happening on the BritannicaPublicDomain, NamingConventions, and BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense pages.
------
CantorSet|980542423
31c31,33
< Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point, and the set is a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
---
> Pick any point in the CantorSet.  In any arbitrarily small neighborhood, there is some other number that can be represented as a ternary number with only 0's and 2's.  Hence every point in the CantorSet is an accumulation point.
> 
> The last two statements combine to make the CantorSet a PerfectSet in the topological sense.
------
WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited|980542526
3c3
< The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because ''you,'' who know the correct spellings, grammar, etc., have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them.  That's right, you could have corrected them simply by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link and making a quick change, but no.  You'd rather just complain, instead of doing something about it!
---
> The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because ''you,'' who know the correct spellings, grammar, etc., have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them.  That's right, you could have corrected them simply by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link and making a quick change, but noooo.  You'd rather just complain, instead of doing something about it!
8d7
< 
10,11c9
< 
< Uhmmm, actually, I copyedit these pages all the time...
---
> Uhmmm, actually, I copyedit these pages all the time...
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|980542664
1c1
< Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, make that language precise, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
---
> Wikis don't work if people aren't '''bold'''.  You've got to get out there and make those changes, correct that grammar, add those facts, make that language precise, etc., etc.  It's OK.  It's what everyone expects.  So you should never ask, "WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?"  Amazingly, it all works out.  It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.  You'll see.
3c3
< OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright PatentNonsense, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it with BrilliantProse!  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
---
> OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright PatentNonsense, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it with BrilliantProse (and relegate the deletions to BadJokesAndOtherDeleted Nonsense).  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
------
OregoN|980542846
82c82,83
< 
---
> ----
> Very impressive.  Did you copy this from somewhere?  What's the source?  If it's public domain, direct us to the source, please, so we may swipe other public domain material from there as well...  -- LarrySanger
------
OregoN|980542885
83c83
< Very impressive.  Did you copy this from somewhere?  What's the source?  If it's public domain, direct us to the source, please, so we may swipe other public domain material from there as well...  -- LarrySanger
---
> Very impressive.  Did you copy this from somewhere?  What's the source?  If it's public domain, direct us to the source, please, so we may swipe other PublicDomainResources from that place as well...  -- LarrySanger
------
BrilliantProse|980543558
3c3
< TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- PythagoreanTheorem -- SabBath -- TaoTehChing -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TheRecorder
---
> TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- PythagoreanTheorem -- SabBath -- TaoTehChing -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TheRecorder -- GladstoneOregon
9a10,11
> ----
> Say, I can't keep this page updated by myself.  Will others please add links to this page? -- LarrySanger
------
LarrySanger|980543606
15a16,17
> ----
> I don't know! -- Larry
------
MiddleAges|980544212
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Science and religion were mixed up into the philosophy of AlchemY.
------
AlchemY|980544307
1c1,446
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Who were the alchemists of the Middle Ages and what did they believe in?'''
> 
> This question defies a simple answer, as the alchemists were different
> things at different times.  Also, different historians have postulated
> different interpretations of these ancient scientists.  By carefully
> examining these different perspectives in relation to their historical
> contexts it will be possible to identify the alchemists as they existed
> in the Middle Ages.
> 
> To gain a thorough understanding of the alchemists, this paper will
> first briefly look at the origins of alchemy in Egypt and Greece, then
> trace its development in the Middle East.  Once this background has been
> laid out, a systematic examination of the medieval development of the
> alchemical art will be commenced, emphasizing the role of individuals and
> identifying the changing characteristics that defined alchemy.  For sake
> of continuity, a brief look at alchemy's degeneration and death in the
> Renaissance will be taken.  But first, a general overview of the
> prevalent ideas about the alchemists should be addressed.
> 
> Asked the common man of the street what the alchemists were, and one
> will hear that they were pseudo-scientists who attempted to turn lead
> into gold, believed everything was composed of the four elements earth,
> air, fire, and water, and who believed in mystical-magical nonsense.
> This is about the limit of most people's understanding of the art, but
> for a single sentence definition it is not too incorrect.
> 
> For a deeper understanding of alchemy, one might turn to a chemistry
> textbook.  But according to a college textbook used at the University of
> Southern California, "By about 400 B.C. [the Greeks] had proposed that
> all matter was composed of four fundamental substances:  fire, earth,
> water, and air...  The next 2000 years of chemical history were
> dominated by a pseudo-science called alchemy.  Alchemists were often
> mystics and fakes who were obsessed with the idea of turning cheap
> metals into gold."  (Zumdahl pg. 38)  So much for a deeper
> understanding.
> 
> Historians of a more occultists bent look at the alchemists as true
> magicians who actually accomplished the work of transforming lead into
> gold.  beyond this, occultists saw th e alchemists as religious mystics
> who tried to discover the secret to purifying man's soul through
> learning about the workings of nature.  (Edwards, p. 17; Gettings,
> p. 13)
> 
> Another view looks at the alchemists in a more philosophical way,
> alchemists were religious reformers who worked in secret and used
> chemical terms in a secret code that really referred to theological and
> philosophical beliefs to escape persecution from the church of their
> day.  (Hitchcock, pp. iii-x; Burckhard, pp 28-31)
> 
> Of course it should be possible to use bits and pieces of each of these
> theories to assemble a realistic idea of what the alchemists were, but
> before this is done a question arising from these theories must be
> addressed:  Where do these diverse theories come from?  The answer lies
> in the writings put forth by the alchemists themselves.  The best way to
> describe how confusion should arise is to give an example taken from an
> alchemical writer:
> 
>     Concerning the Nature and Properties of Mercury.
> 
>     ALL THINGS ARE concealed in all.  One of them all is the concealer
>     of the rest- their corporeal vessel, external, visible, and
>     movable.  All liquifactions are manifested in that vessel.  For
>     the vessel is a living and corporeal spirit, and so all coagulations
>     or congelations enclosed in it, when prevented from flowing and
>     surrounded, are not therewith content.  (Paracelsus, p. 415)
> 
> One can understand how confusion can arise.  This writer was said to
> have been fairly clear in his writings.  This passage was not really
> about mercury, but about the human body.  In any case, the alchemists
> intentionally wrote cryptically, it seams to have been a hallmark of
> their art.  Artiphius, a medieval alchemist, refers to this by writing,
> "Is it not recognized that [alchemy] is... passed on orally, and is full
> of secrets?...  Are you so simple as to believe that we would clearly
> and openly teach the greatest and most important of all secrets, with
> the result that you would take our words literally?" (Burckhardt, p28)
> This is only one of many examples in which alchemical writers refer to
> the cryptical phrasings of their works.  It is almost a tradition among
> the alchemists and can be traced back to the Greek founders of the Art.
> The "cipher" was passed on from teacher to student orally, and
> unfortunately the "code" to decipher these texts has been lost.  Modern
> historical interpretations invariably differ as to exactly what the
> alchemists were writing about.   (Burckhardt, pp.30-3)
> 
> 
> '''History and Development of Alchemy'''
> 
> Alchemy's origins are shrouded in the mists of time, but can be traced
> clear back to the ancient Egyptians.  Metallurgy and mysticism were
> inexorably tied together in the ancient world, as the techniques of
> turning ugly ores into an almost holy metal seemed to be a priestly
> art.  In fact, alchemy in Egypt was the domain of the priest class.
> (Burckhardt, p.15)
> 
> Legend has it that the founder of alchemy was a man named Thoth or
> Hermes.  According to these Egyptian legends, Thoth wrote forty-two
> books on knowledge, covering law, medicine, alchemy, etc.  Over time,
> Thoth, if he even existed at all, came to be regarded as a god by the
> Egyptians.  Even later, as Egyptian knowledge passed to the Greeks,
> Thoth was called Hermes Trismegistus, or Hermes the thrice-greatest.
> (Lindsay, pp. 160-9)  The work of Hermes, often referred to in early
> alchemical texts is, sadly, completely lost to modern scholars.
> However, Hermes' "Emerald Table" has been transmitted through Arab
> sources.  It is generally understood that the twelve principles
> expounded in the manuscript formed the basis for alchemy, called the
> heremitical philosophy by the early alchemists.
> 
> The first point of the "Emerald Tablet" tells the purpose of heremitical
> science:  "in truth certainly and without doubt, whatever is below is
> like that which is above, and whatever is above is like that which is
> below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing."  (Burckhardt, p. 196-7)
>  This is the macrocosm-microcosm belief central to the hermetic
> philosophy.  IN other words, the human body (the microcosm) is affected
> by the exterior world (the macrocosm), which includes the heavens
> through astrology, and the earth through the elements.  (Burckhardt,
> p. 34-42)
> 
> The Greeks appropriated the heremitical beliefs and added
> pythagoreanism, ionianism, and gnosticism.  Pythagorean philosophy is
> basically the belief that numbers rule the universe, originating from
> the observations of sound, stars, and geometric shapes like triangles.
> Ionian thought was based on the belief that the universe could be
> explained through concentration on natural phenomena; this philosophy
> was developed by Plato and Aristotle, whose works came to be an integral
> part of alchemy.  The third component introduced to heremitical
> philosophy by the Greeks was gnosticism, a belief prevalent in the
> pre-Christian and early post-Christian Roman Empire.  Gnosticism was the
> conviction that earthly matter is evil and by learning about the nature
> of matter will lead to salvation.  By the end of the Roman Empire these
> philosophies had been joined to the heremitical philosophies of the
> Egyptians.  (Lindsay)
> 
> At this point alchemy moved east to be taken up by the Arabs, but before
> moving on, Augustian views of science should be illustrated, as they had
> a profound impact on Western thought up until the retransmission of Arab
> philosophy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.  Saint Augustine was
> an early Christian philosopher who wrote of his beliefs shortly before
> the fall of the Roman Empire.  In essence, he felt that reason and faith
> could be used to understand God, but experimental philosophy was evil:
> "There is also present in the soul, by means of these same bodily sense,
> a kind of empty longing and curiosity which aims not at taking pleasure
> in the flesh but at acquiring experience through the flesh, and this
> empty curiosity is dignified by the names of learning and science."
> (Augustine, p. 245)  Augustinian ideas were decidedly
> anti-experimental, yet when Aristotelean experimental techniques were
> made available to the West they were not shunned.  Still Augustinian
> thought was well ingrained in medieval society and was used to show
> alchemy as being un-Godly.
> 
> Much work was done on the development of alchemy by the Arabs but it
> shall only be summarized here for the sake of brevity.  Much more is
> known about Islamic alchemy because more was written down.  In
> Alexandria, where much of the alchemical work was done in the Roman
> Empire, the art was mainly oral and little was committed to paper for
> the sake of secrecy.  (Lindsay, p. 155)  It is possible that some
> writing was done in Alexandria and was subsequently lost or destroyed in
> fires and the turbulent periods that followed.
> 
> In any case, most of the earliest writings that have come down through
> the years are Islamic texts.  (Burckhardt p. 46)
> 
> The Arab world was a melting pot for alchemy.  Platonic and Aristotelean
> thought, which had already been somewhat appropriated into heremitical
> science, continued to be assimilated.  One very important Aristotelean
> idea was that of the four elements: earth, air, water, and fire.
> According to Aristotle, each element had a sphere which it belonged to
> and would return to if left undisturbed.  (Lindsay, p. 16)  Alchemists
> adapted this a little:  The four elements were really qualitative
> aspects of matter, not quantitative, as our modern elements are.
> "...true alchemy never regarded earth, air, water, and fire as corporeal
> or chemical substances in the present-day sense of the word.  The four
> elements are simply the primary, and most general, qualities by means of
> which the amorphous and purely quantitative substance of all bodies
> first reveals itself in differentiated form."  (Hitchcock, p. 66)
> Platonic and neo-Platonic theories about universals and the omnipotence
> of god were also absorbed.
> 
> Of the many Arab heremitic philosophers, Jabir ibn-Hayyn of the eighth
> century was the most noteworthy.  To Aristotelean physics he added the
> four properties of hotness, coldness, dryness, and moistness.
> (Burkhardt, p. 29)  Each element was characterized by these qualities:
> Fire was both hot and dry, earth cold and dry, water cold and moist,
> and air hot and moist.  In metals two of these qualities were interior
> and two were exterior.  For example, lead was cold and dry and got was
> hot and moist.  Thus, Jabir, theorized, by rearranging the qualities of
> one metal, a different metal would result.  (Burckhardt, p. 29)
> 
> By this reasoning, the search for the philosopher's stone was introduced
> to the west.  The search for the stone, or grand elixir, had originated
> from China, most scholars believe, and was supposed to have the added
> effect of being able to make one immortal.  (Edwards, p. 38)  It is not
> known how much Chinese alchemy was added to the Islamic version of the
> Art, but that Chinese theories influenced Arabic scientists has been
> commonly accepted.  (Edwards pp. 33-59; Burckhardt, p. 10-22)
> 
> Likewise, Hindu learning was assimilated into Islamic alchemy, but again
> the extent and effects have not been researched to any worthwhile
> extent.  An eleventh century alchemist named Alberuni testified to the
> existence of Hindu alchemy saying that they "have a science similar to
> alchemy which is quite peculiar to them.  They call it Rasayana.  it
> means the art which is restricted to certain operations, drugs,
> compounds, and medicines, most of which are taken from plants.  its
> principles restored the health of those who were ill beyond hope and
> gave back youth to fading old age."  Islamic numerology was also taken
> by the Arabs, but assimilation of this into alchemy was left for the
> European alchemists of the Renaissance.  (Lindsay p. 87-8; Edwards,
> p. 28)
> 
> Arabic beliefs were intrinsically tied to Islamic alchemy, and when
> Europeans appropriated the philosophies of the Arabs, alchemy came along
> for the ride, so to speak.  Because these beliefs had originated from a
> Christian society they were not too difficult to adapt to Christian
> theology.  Gerbert of Arillac (d. 1003) was among the first to bring
> Islamic science to Europe from Spain.  Later men such as Adelard of Bath
> (d. 1144) brought additional learning.  But until the thirteenth century
> the moves were mainly assimilative.  (Hollister p. 124, 294)
> 
> There were some exceptions to this trend.  Saint Anselm (1033-1109) was
> an Augustinian who believed faith must precede rationalism, as Augustine
> and most theologians prior to Anselm had believed, but Anselm put forth
> the opinion that faith and rationalism were compatible and encouraged
> rationalism in a Christian context.  His views set the stage for the
> philosophical explosion to occur.  Saint Abelard followed in Anselm's
> work, laying the foundation Aristotelian thought before the first works
> of Aristotle reached the West.  His major influence on alchemy was his
> belief that Platonic universals did not have a separate existence
> outside of man's conscience.  Abelard also systematized the analysis of
> philosophical contradictions.  (Hollister, p. 287-8)
> 
> Robert Grosseteste (1170-1253) was a pioneer of the scientific theory
> that would later be used and refined by the alchemists.  he took
> Abelard's methods of analysis and added the use of observations,
> experimentation, and conclusions in making scientific evaluations.
> Grosseteste also did much work to bridge Platonic and Aristotelian
> thinking.  (Hollister pp. 294-5)
> 
> Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) and Thomas Aquinus (1225-
> 1274) were both Dominicans who studied Aristotle and
> worked at reconciling the differences between philosophy
> and Christianity.  Aquinas also did a great deal of work
> in developing the scientific method.  He even went so far
> as to claim that universals could only be discovered 
> through reasoning:  this ran contrary to the commonly held
> Platonic belief that universals were found through divine 
> illumination alone.  Magnus and Aquinas were among the 
> first to take up the examination of alchemical theory, and
> could be considered to be alchemists themselves, but for
> the fact that these two did little in the way of
> experimentation.  One major contribution of Aquinas was 
> the belief that since reason could not run in opposition 
> to God, reason must be compatible to theology.  (Hollister
> p. 290-4, 355)
> 
> The first true alchemist in Medieval Europe was Roger
> Bacon.  His work did as much for alchemy as Robert Boyle
> did for chemistry and Galileo did for astronomy and
> physics.  Bacon (121401294) was an Oxford Franciscan who
> explored optics, languages, and alchemy.  The Franciscan
> ideals of taking on the world rather than rejecting the
> world led to his conviction that experimentation was more
> important than reasoning:  "Of the three ways in which men
> think that they acquire knowledge of things - authority,
> reasoning, and experience - only the last is effective and
> able to bring peace to the intellect."  (Bacon p. 367)
> "Experimental Science controls the conclusions of all
> other sciences.  It reveals truths which reasoning from 
> general principles would never have discovered."
> (Hollister p. 294-5)  Roger Bacon has also been attributed
> with originating the search for the philosopher's stone
> and the elixir of life:  "That medicine which will remove
> all impurities and corruptibilities from the lesser metals
> will also, in the opinion of the wise, take off so much of
> the corruptibility of the body that human life may be
> prolonged for many centuries."  The idea of immortality
> was replaced with the notion of long life; after all,
> man's time on Earth was simply to wait and prepare for
> immortality in the world of God.  Immortality on Earth did
> not mesh with Christian theology.  (Edwards p. 37-8)
> 
> Bacon was not the only alchemist of the high middle
> ages, but he was the most significant.  His works were
> used by countless alchemists of the fifteenth through
> nineteenth centuries.  Other alchemists of Bacon's time
> shared several traits.  First, and most obviously, nearly
> all were members of the clergy.  This was simply because
> few people outside the secular schools had the education
> to examine the Arabic-derived works.  Also, alchemy at
> this time was sanctioned by the church as a good method
> of exploring and developing theology.  Alchemy was
> interesting to the wide variety of churchmen because it
> offered a rationalistic view of the universe when men were
> just beginning to learn about rationalism.  (Edwards
> p. 24-7)
> 
> So by the end of the thirteenth century, alchemy had 
> developed into a fairly structured system of belief.
> First and foremost, the alchemists were all true 
> Christians.  They believed in the macrocosm-microcosm 
> theories of Hermes, that is to say, they believed that
> processes that affect minerals and other substances could
> have an effect on the human body (i.e., if one could learn
> the secret of purifying gold, one could use the technique
> to purify the human soul.)  These men believed the 
> philosophers' stone was a substance that was capable of
> purifying base metals (and thereby transmuting them to
> gold) as well as purify the soul.  They believed in the
> four elements and the four qualities as described above,
> and they had a strong tradition of cloaking their written
> ideas in a labyrinth of coded jargon set with traps to
> mislead the uninitiated.  Finally, the alchemists
> practiced their art: they actively experimented with
> chemicals and made observations and theories about how the
> universe operated.  Their entire philosophy was based 
> around their belief that man's soul was divided within
> himself after the fall of Adam.  By purifying the two
> parts of man's soul, man could be reunited with God.
> (Burckhardt p. 149)
> 
> But in the fourteenth century, all this was to 
> change.  William of Ockham, an Oxford Franciscan who died
> in 1349, attacked the Thomist view of compatibility
> between faith and reason.  According to his view, widely
> accepted today, was that God must be accepted on faith
> alone, He could not be limited by human reason.  Of
> course, this view was not incorrect, but it virtually
> erased alchemy from practice in the fourteenth and 
> fifteenth centuries.  (Hollister p. 335)  Pope John XXII in 
> the early 1300's issued an edict against alchemy, which 
> effectively removed all church personnel from the practice of
> the Art (the inquisition didn't help, either.)  (Edwards, p.49)
> 
> Alchemy was kept alive by men such as Nicolas Flamel,
> who was not noteworthy except for the fact that he was one
> of the few alchemists writing in those times of war,
> plague, famine, and persecution.  Flamel lived from 1330
> to 1417 and was an alchemist in every sense of the word.
> He was not a religious scholar as were many of his 
> predecessors, and his entire interest in the subject
> revolved around the pursuit of the philosopher's stone,
> which he is reputed to have found; he spends a great deal 
> of time describing the processes and reactions, but never
> actually gives the formula for carrying out the
> transmutations.   Most of his work was aimed at gathering
> alchemical knowledge that had existed before him, 
> especially as regarded the philosophers' stone.
> (Burckhardt pp.170-181)
> 
> Through the high middle ages (1300-1500) alchemists
> were much like Nicolas Flamel:  they concentrated on looking
> for the philosophers' stone and the elixir of youth (now
> believed to be separate things.)  This had only one 
> possible consequence; the cryptic allusions and symbolism
> lead to a wide interpretation of the art and, while many
> "true", that is, inducted, alchemists existed, many new
> alchemists who interpreted the purification of the soul to
> mean the transmutation of lead into gold and pursued this
> track.  These men came to be viewed as magicians and
> sorcerers by the common people, and were often persecuted
> for their practices.  (Edwards pp. 50-75; Norton
> pp lxiii-lxvii)
> 
> One of these men who emerged at the beginning of the
> sixteenth century was named Cornelius Agrippa.  This
> alchemist believed himself to be a wizard and actually
> thought himself capable of summoning spirits.  his
> influences were negligible, but like Flamel, he produced
> writings which were referred back to by alchemists of
> later years.  Again like Flamel, he did much to change
> alchemy from a mystical philosophy to an occultist magic.
> He did keep alive the philosophies of the earlier
> alchemists, including experimental science, numerology,
> etc., but he added magic theory, which reinforced the idea
> of alchemy as an occultist belief.  In spite of all this,
> Agrippa was still a Christian, though his views often came
> into conflict with the church.  (Edwardes p56-9; Wilson 
> p.23-9)
> 
> Alchemy continued in this way through the opening
> scenes of the Renaissance.  Alchemist/con-artists
> abounded, who would use popular beliefs and slight of hand
> to convince a noteworthy person such as a professor or a
> minor noble that the secret of transmutation was possessed
> by the alchemist.  Invariably the "alchemist" was summoned
> to the local lord's court for a presentation.  When none
> was forthcoming, nasty things happened to the imposter.
> (Wilson p.31-44)
> 
> Then, in the early sixteenth century a man named
> Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus (1493-1541) remolded alchemy
> into a new form rejecting the accumulated occult
> paraphernalia that had accumulated over the years and
> calling for new observations and experiments.  Paracelsian
> dogma was the last "ism" to be latched onto alchemy before
> its death.  Paracelsus rejected Aristotelean traditions,
> but kept much of the Heremitical, neo-Platonic, and
> Pythagorean philosophies; however, Heremitical science had 
> so much Aristotelean theory that his rejection of it was
> meaningless for all intents and purposes.  Basically, what
> Paracelsus rejected was the magic theories of Agrippa and
> Flamel; Paracelsus did not think of himself as a magician 
> and deprecated those who did.  (Williams p.239-45)
> 
> Paracelsus pioneered the use of chemicals and
> minerals in medicine.  He coined the words "alcohol" and
> "zinc" and used experimentation in learning about the
> human body.  His heremitical views were that sickness and
> health in the body relied on the harmony of man the
> microcosm and Nature the macrocosm.  He took and approach 
> different than those before him, using this analogy not in
> the soul-purification manner but in the manner that humans
> must have certain balances of minerals in their bodies,
> and in the manner that certain illnesses of the body had
> chemical remedies that could cure the sicknesses.  (Debus &
> Multhauf, p.6-12)  His views were summarized by himself:
> "Many have said of Alchemy, that it is for the making of
> gold and silver.  For me such is not the aim, but to
> consider only what virtue and power may lie in medicines."
> (Edwardes, p.47)
> 
> While the Paracelsian interpretation led to the
> development of modern medicine, a different offshoot led
> to modern chemistry.  Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is well
> known for his studies of gases (i.e. Boyles law) But few
> realize the importance of this man to modern chemistry.
> In the early 1600's, alchemy was used synonymously for
> medicine and chemistry.  Alchemists had disposed of most 
> of the occultist beliefs that once plagued the Art, but
> still they clung to the heremitical beliefs that had been
> carried down through the millennia.  Boyle did away with
> this.  he assumed nothing in his experiments and compiled
> every piece of relevant data; in a typical experiment, 
> Boyle would collect data on the place in which the 
> experiment was carried out, the wind characteristics, the
> position of the sun and moon, and the barometer reading,
> all just in case they proved to be relevant.  (Pilkington
> p.11)
> 
> With the birth of modern chemistry, alchemy was made
> impotent.  As scientists began to discover and rationalize
> the clockwork of the universe, alchemical theories were
> thrown to the waste bucket, unneeded and forgotten.  it is
> hard to believe that alchemy, after having such a rich and
> colorful two thousand years of history could be so easily 
> and so totally ostracized by scientists and common
> citizens.
> 
> -- Written by BryceHarrington
------
AlchemY|980544375
111,112c111,113
<  This is the macrocosm-microcosm belief central to the hermetic
< philosophy.  IN other words, the human body (the microcosm) is affected
---
> 
> This is the macrocosm-microcosm belief central to the hermetic
> philosophy.  In other words, the human body (the microcosm) is affected
446c447
< -- Written by BryceHarrington
---
> -- Written by BryceHarrington
------
OregoN|980544563
83a84,85
> ----
> Thanks.  Nope, it's an original composition of mine I wrote yesterday.  The factual stuff I looked up on Britannica's site, and gathered background and facts from off the web.  -- BryceHarrington
------
OregoN|980544645
85a86,87
> ----
> So I guess you're saying the source is WikiPedia! -- LarrySanger
------
NewTopics|980545377
5c5,12
< EuroCurrency - GerMany - NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD -- NamesGivenToTheDivine -- WeekEnd -- WikiPediaAnnouncements -- WikipediaL -- DanCe
---
> GladstoneOregon -- Alchemy -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HIstoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD 
> 
> ---
> It'd sure be nice if this page could be autogenerated...  It list topics that fit the following criteria:
> * Newly created within the past week, and...
> * Contains at least 1k worth of text (a dozen lines or so, not just a "stub" entry), and...
> * Has fewer than 12 total edits (else it's already popular, and not really "new")
> -- Bryce
------
NewTopics|980545407
7,8c7,9
< ---
< It'd sure be nice if this page could be autogenerated...  It list topics that fit the following criteria:
---
> ----
> It'd sure be nice if this page could be autogenerated...  
> It ought to list topics that fit the following criteria:
------
NewTopics|980545510
5c5
< GladstoneOregon -- Alchemy -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HIstoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- PlatosRepublic -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- MouthOff -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- StandardPoodle -- GoD 
---
> GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD 
7,9c7,8
< ----
< It'd sure be nice if this page could be autogenerated...  
< It ought to list topics that fit the following criteria:
---
> ---
> It'd sure be nice if this page could be autogenerated...  It list topics that fit the following criteria:
------
ChristianIty|980547425
15a16,36
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Commentary:'''
> 
> Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstaning a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
> 
> In contrast, the oldest "eastern" disciplines anyone has been able to detect are still in practice within their original geographical regions today.
> 
> Why would that be?
> 
> A cursory glance immediately reveals a marked difference in the nature of the use of authority between "eastern" and "western" belief systems.  Where the Sons of Abraham, in all their various stripes, tend toward authoritarianism and exclusivity with regard to religious rites, the various eastern traditions tend toward democracy and inclusiveness.  One will not find in eastern religious thought a single threat of damnation, nor claim to sole possession of all and every religious truth.  Nor will one find in western traditional religious scripture the slightest hint that other belief than the one at issue could be be given the slightest credence.  Add to this the fact that Catholicism historically had government sanction, power of taxation, military might and punitive authority for a substantial block of time in history, and one can begin to see how an interesting paradox developed.
> 
> Western religionists, being authoritarian, exclusive, and having military might, tended to stamp out their competition through slaughter or threat thereof, while eastern religionists have enjoyed governmental favor from time to time, but have not historically converted their fellow man at sword point.  By geographic coincidence, mechanization and its resulting period of "enlightenment" proceeded more quickly and broadly in the west than in the east.  
> Inquiry in the physical sciences, fomented by the forces of mechanization, laid the groundwork for objective observation and its resulting egalitarian views, all the way back to early Greek philosophers.
> 
> As a result, democratic societies grew up in largely Christian areas, though Christianity is undemocratic; and totalitarian societies (save middle-east theocracies) tend to be anti-religious or to co-exist with the eastern observances which pre-dated them, though eastern religious thought and political democracy are a perfect match.  The devout eastern student has learned tolerance, non-resistance, cooperation, disavowal of material wealth; and such principles as that revenge is base and unseemly, given that evil and corruption contain their own punishment.  So he is more easily held down under an authoritarian scheme.  Western scripture contains exhortations to rise up and smite non-believers and the unjust, to convert others to the one proper faith, and that various misdeeds should be remedied by putting the miscreant to death.  Western believers, therefore, are able to justify their faith in forceful conversion and slaughter.
> 
> The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the American political landscape.  It is the Religious Right, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
> 
> Go figure.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980549102
5c5
< Exciting developments are happening on the BritannicaPublicDomain, NamingConventions, and BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense pages.
---
> Exciting developments are happening on the BritannicaPublicDomain, WhichWikiShouldWeUse, and BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense pages.
------
NewTopics|980549185
6,7c6
< 
< ---
---
> ----
12a12,13
> ----
> Great idea, although I'd favor only the first two criteria myself.
------
ChristianIty|980549291
16d15
< 
18,36c17
< 
< '''Commentary:'''
< 
< Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstaning a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
< 
< In contrast, the oldest "eastern" disciplines anyone has been able to detect are still in practice within their original geographical regions today.
< 
< Why would that be?
< 
< A cursory glance immediately reveals a marked difference in the nature of the use of authority between "eastern" and "western" belief systems.  Where the Sons of Abraham, in all their various stripes, tend toward authoritarianism and exclusivity with regard to religious rites, the various eastern traditions tend toward democracy and inclusiveness.  One will not find in eastern religious thought a single threat of damnation, nor claim to sole possession of all and every religious truth.  Nor will one find in western traditional religious scripture the slightest hint that other belief than the one at issue could be be given the slightest credence.  Add to this the fact that Catholicism historically had government sanction, power of taxation, military might and punitive authority for a substantial block of time in history, and one can begin to see how an interesting paradox developed.
< 
< Western religionists, being authoritarian, exclusive, and having military might, tended to stamp out their competition through slaughter or threat thereof, while eastern religionists have enjoyed governmental favor from time to time, but have not historically converted their fellow man at sword point.  By geographic coincidence, mechanization and its resulting period of "enlightenment" proceeded more quickly and broadly in the west than in the east.  
< Inquiry in the physical sciences, fomented by the forces of mechanization, laid the groundwork for objective observation and its resulting egalitarian views, all the way back to early Greek philosophers.
< 
< As a result, democratic societies grew up in largely Christian areas, though Christianity is undemocratic; and totalitarian societies (save middle-east theocracies) tend to be anti-religious or to co-exist with the eastern observances which pre-dated them, though eastern religious thought and political democracy are a perfect match.  The devout eastern student has learned tolerance, non-resistance, cooperation, disavowal of material wealth; and such principles as that revenge is base and unseemly, given that evil and corruption contain their own punishment.  So he is more easily held down under an authoritarian scheme.  Western scripture contains exhortations to rise up and smite non-believers and the unjust, to convert others to the one proper faith, and that various misdeeds should be remedied by putting the miscreant to death.  Western believers, therefore, are able to justify their faith in forceful conversion and slaughter.
< 
< The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the American political landscape.  It is the Religious Right, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
< 
< Go figure.
---
> Commentary moved to ChristianityTalk.  I think we should not advance our own idiosyncratic views about the subjects we write on on the pages we write on.  Save those for *Talk, *Discuss, or whatever.
------
ChristianityTalk|980549300
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Commentary:'''
> 
> Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstaning a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
> 
> In contrast, the oldest "eastern" disciplines anyone has been able to detect are still in practice within their original geographical regions today.
> 
> Why would that be?
> 
> A cursory glance immediately reveals a marked difference in the nature of the use of authority between "eastern" and "western" belief systems.  Where the Sons of Abraham, in all their various stripes, tend toward authoritarianism and exclusivity with regard to religious rites, the various eastern traditions tend toward democracy and inclusiveness.  One will not find in eastern religious thought a single threat of damnation, nor claim to sole possession of all and every religious truth.  Nor will one find in western traditional religious scripture the slightest hint that other belief than the one at issue could be be given the slightest credence.  Add to this the fact that Catholicism historically had government sanction, power of taxation, military might and punitive authority for a substantial block of time in history, and one can begin to see how an interesting paradox developed.
> 
> Western religionists, being authoritarian, exclusive, and having military might, tended to stamp out their competition through slaughter or threat thereof, while eastern religionists have enjoyed governmental favor from time to time, but have not historically converted their fellow man at sword point.  By geographic coincidence, mechanization and its resulting period of "enlightenment" proceeded more quickly and broadly in the west than in the east.  
> Inquiry in the physical sciences, fomented by the forces of mechanization, laid the groundwork for objective observation and its resulting egalitarian views, all the way back to early Greek philosophers.
> 
> As a result, democratic societies grew up in largely Christian areas, though Christianity is undemocratic; and totalitarian societies (save middle-east theocracies) tend to be anti-religious or to co-exist with the eastern observances which pre-dated them, though eastern religious thought and political democracy are a perfect match.  The devout eastern student has learned tolerance, non-resistance, cooperation, disavowal of material wealth; and such principles as that revenge is base and unseemly, given that evil and corruption contain their own punishment.  So he is more easily held down under an authoritarian scheme.  Western scripture contains exhortations to rise up and smite non-believers and the unjust, to convert others to the one proper faith, and that various misdeeds should be remedied by putting the miscreant to death.  Western believers, therefore, are able to justify their faith in forceful conversion and slaughter.
> 
> The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the American political landscape.  It is the Religious Right, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
> 
> Go figure.
------
AyeSpyList|980549344
2c2
< Landscaping, newspaper delivery, typist, transcritionist, personnel trainer, investigator, paralegal, maintenance engineer, plumber, drywall, childcare, electrician, carpenter, painter, glazer, carpet layer, tile, linoleum, wallpaper, automobile mechanic, excavation, PBX operator, hotel front desk, room attendant, vocalist, horse breeder, horse trainer, laborer, vending machine operator, upholstery, locksmith, counselor, human resources director, data analyst, public relations, opinion poll drafting and interpretation, marketing director, security officer, statistical analyst, loan broker, home designer, real estate development, pool maintenance, barback, A/C repair, runner, business consultant, IT recruiter, dispute mediator, photographer, videographer, author.
---
> Landscaping, newspaper delivery, typist, transcriptionist, personnel trainer, investigator, paralegal, maintenance engineer, plumber, drywall, childcare, electrician, carpenter, painter, glazer, carpet layer, tile, linoleum, wallpaper, automobile mechanic, excavation, PBX operator, hotel front desk, room attendant, vocalist, horse breeder, horse trainer, laborer, vending machine operator, upholstery, locksmith, counselor, human resources director, data analyst, public relations, opinion poll drafting and interpretation, marketing director, security officer, statistical analyst, loan broker, home designer, real estate development, pool maintenance, barback, A/C repair, runner, business consultant, IT recruiter, dispute mediator, photographer, videographer, author.
8c8,12
< You forgot: Wrote an encyclopedia.  :-) --JimboWales
---
> You forgot: Wrote an encyclopedia.  :-) --JimboWales
> 
> ----
> 
> Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (Tao Tech Ching - not the cursory version I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
------
ChristianIty|980549373
17c17
< Commentary moved to ChristianityTalk.  I think we should not advance our own idiosyncratic views about the subjects we write on on the pages we write on.  Save those for *Talk, *Discuss, or whatever.
---
> Commentary moved to ChristianityTalk.  Let's avoid stating idiosyncratic views on the main pages.  Put those for *Talk, *Discuss, or whatever.
------
ChristianityTalk|980549493
3c3
< Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstaning a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
---
> Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstanding a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
18c18,22
< Go figure.
---
> Go figure.
> 
> ----
> 
> The above is not to assign a value judgment one way or the other as to which type of system is "right" or even "best," but merely an observation from where I sit in the cheap seats...
------
ChristianIty|980549544
17a18,21
> 
> ----
> 
> Cool
------
CityBerlin|980549695
1c1
< Berlin is the capital of Germany.
---
> Berlin is the capital of Germany and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mio. inhabitants.
------
CityBerlin|980549721
1c1
< Berlin is the capital of Germany and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mio. inhabitants.
---
> Berlin is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mio. inhabitants.
------
WorldWarOne|980549837
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> World War I was the first war, that spanned nealry the whole world.
> It began 1914 and ended 1918. Nearly 20 mio. people died.
------
TopOlogy|980549931
40a41,42
> ''which exercise is that?  if this is the enclyopedia page on topology (the initial page, anyway, which should expand ultimately into many), the exercise is not primarily about modelling the physical world, but about doing mathematics''
> 
48a51,56
> 
> ----
> 
> When one is studying the topology of surfaces, there is no escaping the fact that surfaces are 2-dimensional.  A torus's surface is not 2-dimensional and a torus does not have ''guts'' as part of its identity, because a torus ''is'' a surface.  That we cannot build these objects in our physical 3-space because of physical limitations is irrelevant.  We cannot exhibit a straight line in our 3-space either, or a flat surface, or even a point for that matter.  These are all mathematical objects and this is an encyclopedia page about mathematics.  
> 
> However, it is useful to point out that we ''can'' build a Mobius strip ''exactly'' in 3-space.  That is, we can exhibit a set of points in 3-space which is homeomorphic to any and all Mobious strips.  That is a triviality.  However, we ''cannot'' build a Klein bottle in 3-space.  So there really ''is'' an significant and purely ''mathematical'' difference here. 
------
TopOlogy|980552715
17c17
< In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which are a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimensional space.
---
> In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which represent a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimensional space.
56c56,64
< However, it is useful to point out that we ''can'' build a Mobius strip ''exactly'' in 3-space.  That is, we can exhibit a set of points in 3-space which is homeomorphic to any and all Mobious strips.  That is a triviality.  However, we ''cannot'' build a Klein bottle in 3-space.  So there really ''is'' an significant and purely ''mathematical'' difference here. 
---
> However, it is useful to point out that we ''can'' build a Mobius strip ''exactly'' in 3-space.  That is, we can exhibit a set of points in 3-space which is homeomorphic to any and all Mobious strips.  That is a triviality.  However, we ''cannot'' build a Klein bottle in 3-space.  So there really ''is'' an significant and purely ''mathematical'' difference here.
> 
> ----
> 
> My last remark on the subject:  I did not write my comment for mathematicians, but for non-mathematicians.  I purposely avoided the technical precision of a mathematical statement, so that people who don't get trigonometric and quadratic equations could still appreciate the sense of what was said. When I say the "surface" I speak of the surface of the doughnut as representative of a torus, and of the torus itself '''as''' a "surface" (which it is not, under the dictionary definition of surface, since there is nothing, as a planar object, for it to be the surface "of" - it is more similar to a "membrane.").  When I refer to "guts," I speak of the area "within" and bounded by the torus, on which the equation which represents the torus is silent but which, from our three-dimensional viewpoint, our imaginations insist is "empty space."  So - I compared the doughnut to the teacup, as a torus can assume these apparent shapes from the outside, notwithstanding that it has no "inside" or "guts."  One of the activities that I have fun with is representing specialized knowledge to non-specialized minds so that outsiders can get a taste of what data insiders are dealing with, without having to pursue a masters in the subject.  When I describe law, I avoid legalistic terms.  When I describe religious interpretation, the term "hermeneutics" does not creep into my speech.  Will the average Joe in the street be able to puzzle out the meaning of a statement even though he never took college-level studies?  Yes?  Then I am happy.
> 
> Make a paper hoop without the twist.  Draw a spiral line from one side of it to the other, continuously, taking advantage of the thickness of the edge of the paper.  Keep the spiral going until the line meets itself.  A single, unbroken line on both sides of the paper.  Must be a Moebius strip, eh?  Better still, do the same with a doughnut.
> 
> As A.F. Moebius (1790-1860)was a real guy, you might spell his name right.  (sorry - being petty) But please don't attack my statements when, in order to make them transparent to regular folks, I have to abandon precision and specialized nomenclature.
------
WorldWarOne|980553352
1,2c1
< World War I was the first war, that spanned nealry the whole world.
< It began 1914 and ended 1918. Nearly 20 mio. people died.
---
> World War I was the first war that involved nations spanning more than half globe, hence "world" war. It began 1914 and ended 1918.  Nearly 20 million people died during the course of the war, including both military personnel and non-combatants.
------
ChristianityTalk|980553814
16c16
< The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the American political landscape.  It is the Religious Right, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
---
> The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the world political landscape.  It is the religious fundamentalists, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  For instance, they support prohibitory laws on moral grounds, harsh punishments for moral crimes, war to defend religious ideals and holy places, and sanction the institutional killing of human beings, in keeping with scripture.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
------
TopOlogy|980553958
64c64
< As A.F. Moebius (1790-1860)was a real guy, you might spell his name right.  (sorry - being petty) But please don't attack my statements when, in order to make them transparent to regular folks, I have to abandon precision and specialized nomenclature.
---
> As A.F. Moebius (1790-1860) was a real guy, you might spell his name right.  (sorry - being petty) But please don't attack my statements when, in order to make them transparent to regular folks, I have to abandon precision and specialized nomenclature.
------
TopOlogy|980554931
64a65,66
> 
> ''Side note: Mobius is actually spelt with an umlaut, two dots over the o.  The preferred anglicization is to change this to an oe, but sometimes people just drop the o.  It's not so much an incorrect spelling as a non-conventional one.''
------
PoLitics|980554941
4a5
> * LibertarianisM
24c25
< * TechnoOligarchy
---
> * TechnoOligarchy
------
ScienCe|980555115
18,19d17
< 
< 
23a22,23
> 
> ''Does ComputerScience actually belong here?  Science is typically the process of understanding how the mechanisms of the natural world work through empirical study.  ComputerScience is more building things, engineering, and a little theoretical mathematics.  It should get its own category, I think.  -JoshuaGrosse''
------
EuropE|980555202
3c3
< Perhaps The name Europe is derived from EuropA.
---
> Perhaps the name Europe is derived from EuropA, but probably things are the other way around or the explanation is based on a coincidence (as with the MyrmiDons).
6c6
< the ancient Greeks and Romans. From the 15th century European nations, particularly Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain, built large colonial empires, with vast holdings in AfricA, AmericA, and AsiA. The IndustrializatioN started in 18th century from here. After WorldWarTwo and in the ColdWar Europe was divided in two major political and economic blocs—CommunisT nations in EasternEurope and CapitalistiC countries in WesternEurope. Arround 1990 the Eastern bloc broke up. 
---
> the ancient Greeks and Romans. From the 15th century European nations, particularly Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain, built large colonial empires, with vast holdings in AfricA, AmericA, and AsiA. The IndustrializatioN started in 18th century from here. After WorldWarTwo and in the ColdWar Europe was divided in two major political and economic blocs—CommunisT nations in EasternEurope and CapitalistiC countries in WesternEurope. Arround 1990 the Eastern bloc broke up.   See HistoryOfEurope.
------
LibertarianisM|980555271
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Libertarianism is the political belief system.  That an individual is free to do anything they want, so long as they are do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want.  Government's role is to protect those rights.
> 
> You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, home page for the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates.
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980556166
24c24,36
< I would suggest adding "PG" or "EB" or "11" at the end of the name of any page that is taken from EB.  Then we could edit versions of that, while the original is preserved. -- LarrySanger
---
> I would suggest adding "PG" or "EB" or "11" at the end of the name of any page that is taken from EB.  Then we could edit versions of that, while the original is preserved. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> It appears that only the first volume of this encyclopedia was entered into PG...  
> It occurs to me that if people are interested in the original, then they can always just
> go to the project gutenberg site, and then be certain they're getting the straight stuff.
> Or they can trust my cut-and-paste skill and look at revision 0...
> 
> I think our purpose in using that material is just as a starting point for our own 
> encyclopedia...  Thus I think it'd be better if I just plugged them right into the
> topics, without putting 'EB' on the topicname.  So we'd have just one copy of each
> article, plus any commentary placed on top of them by subsequent editing.  Does that
> sound okay?
> -- BryceHarrington
------
BryceHarrington|980556314
2d1
< 
3a3,4
> 
> ''Bryce, about your notes on HistoryOfEurope...I didn't want to put these there, since it is a summary page.  I removed the bit about Alex great conquering Greece, since that was his father, and about other civilizations probably experimenting with governments, since all evidence suggests they did not.  But all in all, I was thinking such developments really belong on a HistoryOfTheMeditteranean page, since ''that'' is where the center of the action is, not Europe.  Didn't want to impose, 'course...thoughts?''
------
HistoryOfEurope|980556333
6,7c6
< The CelticPeople formed the first well-known, widespread civilization in Europe.  As they did not practice a 
< written language, knowledge of them is piecemeal.  The Romans encountered them and recorded a great deal
---
> The first well-known civilization in Europe was that of the MinoanPeoples and AchaeanPeoples in Greece.  Around the same time, the CelticPeoples spread over most of the interior as far as Spain and later Turkey.  As they did not practice a written language, knowledge of them is piecemeal.  The Romans encountered them and recorded a great deal
12,19c11,12
< While much of the early prehistory of Europe is shrouded in mystery, one of the first solid, very well-documented 
< cultures is that of the Greeks.  The GreekCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
< vastly differing types of government and cultures.  While it is likely that many other civilizations around the
< world experimented with the various governmental forms, because of the thorough analysis and documentation (and
< the careful preservation of this "classical" data by first the Romans and later the CatholicChurch), these researchings
< have come down to present day, influencing political thinking around the world.  The Greeks (and the Athenian's 
< especially) were well known for their erudite philosophical ponderings on a great many matters, and are often 
< accredited with the founding of Western Philosophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
---
> At the end of the bronze age the older Greek kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
> vastly differing types of government and cultures, including what are more or less unprescendented developments in various governmental forms, PhiloSophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
21,25c14
< AlexanderTheGreat, a Macedonian, conquered Greece, and much of the (Western) civilized world of the time,
< extending almost as far as India.  A brilliant strategitian, backed by some of the best minds produced
< by the GreekCivilization, Alexander's exploits laid the foundations of western military strategy.
< 
< The Roman Empire emerged from Italy, originally governed by kings, then by an oligarchical republic made up of senators.  These families fought and schemed against one another, using the vast and powerful Roman armies as tools of power.  After a series of military successes, Julius Ceasar declared himself ruler of the empire.  His assasination led to a civil war, the result of which was a succession of AuthoritariaN emperors.
---
> The campaigns of AlexanderTheGreat brought Greek culture into contact with the older learnings of Persia, Egypt, and India, opening up a new period of developments.  Much of this learning was assimilated by the nascent RomanEmpire as it expanded outward from Italy, taking advantage of its enemies inability to unite.  First governed by kings, then a senatorial republic, Rome finally became an empire under JuliusCaesar and his AuthoritariaN successors.
------
RationalChoiceTheory|980556902
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A model of human behavior that assumes people will alter their choices in response to changes in expected costs and benefits, and to changes in the availability of substitutes.
------
LibertarianisM|980556958
3a4,5
> 
> ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism.''
------
CityBerlin|980557318
1c1
< Berlin is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mio. inhabitants.
---
> BerliN is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3©5 mio© inhabitants©
------
CityBerlin|980557547
1a2,4
> 
> 
> during the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, diving the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
------
CityBerlin|980557580
4c4
< during the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, diving the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, divding the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
------
CityBerlin|980557821
4c4
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, divding the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
------
WojPob|980557965
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Wojtek Pobratyn©
> 
> A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration© He's got a huge amount of time to spare© http://www©pobratyn©com
------
MetallicA|980558424
1c1
< One of the greatest Metal bands ever.
---
> One of the greatest Metal bands ever©
5c5
< Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra.
---
> Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra©
7a8
> * LarsUlrich, drums
9c10
< Lars Ulrich, drums
---
> * JasonNewsted, bass
11c12
< Jason Newsted, bass
---
> * KirkHammet, guitar
13,15c14
< Kirk Hammet, guitar
< 
< James Hetfield, throat, guitar
---
> * JamesHetfield, throat, guitar©
------
TopOlogy|980558694
66c66
< ''Side note: Mobius is actually spelt with an umlaut, two dots over the o.  The preferred anglicization is to change this to an oe, but sometimes people just drop the o.  It's not so much an incorrect spelling as a non-conventional one.''
---
> ''Side note: Mobius is actually spelt with an umlaut, two dots over the o.  The preferred anglicization is to change this to an oe, but sometimes people just drop the o.  It's not so much an incorrect spelling as a non-conventional one. (Of course "Mobious" is not an accepted spelling under either scheme.)''
------
CityBerlin|980558769
4c4
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin©
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.
------
AustriA|980558931
1c1
< Austria (pop. ca. 7.5m) is a small landlocked country in Central Europe. It is a federation of 9 states.
---
> Austria ¥pop© ca© 7©5m¤ is a small landlocked country in Central Europe© It is a federation of 9 states©
3c3
< Capital: Vienna (pop. ca. 1.8m)
---
> Capital: Vienna ¥pop© ca© 1©8m¤
5c5
< Language Spoken: German (and a large number of dialects)
---
> Language Spoken: GermaN ¥and a large number of dialects¤
7c7
< Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic.
---
> Neighbours: GermanY, SwitzerlanD, LichtensteiN, ItalY, SloveniA, HungarY, SlovakiA, CzechRepublic©
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide©
------
ItalY|980559092
1,3c1,3
< Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
< south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
< MediterraneanSea.
---
> Italia ¥Italy¤ is a republic in the 
> south of EuropE© It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
> MediterraneanSea©
5c5
< It is one of the countries that uses EuroCurrency.
---
> It is one of the countries that uses EuroCurrency©
7c7
< The capital is Roma (Rome); the economic capital is Milano (Milan) in the north.
---
> The capital is Roma ¥Rome¤; the economic capital is Milano ¥Milan¤ in the north©
8a9,10
> 
> Italy has won the Football WorldCup several times© Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY© The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Turino and FiorentinA©
------
ItalY|980559114
10c10
< Italy has won the Football WorldCup several times© Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY© The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Turino and FiorentinA©
---
> Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times© Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY© The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Turino and FiorentinA©
------
WojPob|980559307
3c3,5
< A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration© He's got a huge amount of time to spare© http://www©pobratyn©com
---
> A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration© He's got a huge amount of time to spare© http://www©pobratyn©com©
> 
> Yeah;-¤
------
ChristianIty|980559408
17c17
< Commentary moved to ChristianityTalk.  Let's avoid stating idiosyncratic views on the main pages.  Put those for *Talk, *Discuss, or whatever.
---
> Commentary moved to ChristianityTalk.  Let's avoid stating IdiosyncratiC views on the main pages.  Put those for *Talk, *Discuss, or whatever.
------
LibertarianisM|980559461
1c1
< Libertarianism is the political belief system.  That an individual is free to do anything they want, so long as they are do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want.  Government's role is to protect those rights.
---
> Libertarianism is a political belief system© An individual is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want©  The government's role is to protect those rights©
3c3
< You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, home page for the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates.
---
> You can learn more at http://www©lp©org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates©
5c5
< ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism.''
---
> ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism©''
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980559787
1c1
< As I understand it, ProjectGutenberg has published what they call the "Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia".  What this actually is, is the classic 11th edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica.  However, because 'Britannica' is a trademark, even though the text is now public domain (because it is so old), they were unable to call it EncyclopediaBritannica.
---
> As I understand it, ProjectGutenberg has published what they call the "Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia"©  What this actually is, is the classic 11th edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica©  However, because 'Britannica' is a trademark, even though the text is now public domain ¥because it is so old¤, they were unable to call it EncyclopediaBritannica©
3c3
< Call it what you will, it is available, and we should consider putting the entire text here, in the Wikipedia.  This may be a lot of work (like my own pet project, which is cutting and pasting all of the public domain CIAWorldFactbook over in CountriesOfTheWorld -- please help me!), but it sure would be a fun thing to have in here.  People could start updating/replacing the articles with ProjectGutenbergEncyclopedia as the foundation.
---
> Call it what you will, it is available, and we should consider putting the entire text here, in the Wikipedia©  This may be a lot of work ¥like my own pet project, which is cutting and pasting all of the public domain CIAWorldFactbook over in CountriesOfTheWorld -- please help me!¤, but it sure would be a fun thing to have in here©  People could start updating/replacing the articles with ProjectGutenbergEncyclopedia as the foundation©
5c5
< Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together.
---
> Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together©
9c9
< Whoa, WhatACoincidence.  I just now was downloading vol#1 from it and seeing what it'd take to put it in.  :-)
---
> Whoa, WhatACoincidence©  I just now was downloading vol#1 from it and seeing what it'd take to put it in©  :-¤
11c11
< The license says it's in the public domain and we can do whatever we please with it...  
---
> The license says it's in the public domain and we can do whatever we please with it©©©  
14,15c14,15
< places.  Other than really basic stuff, I'm not going to fiddle with the formatting nor update any inaccuracies
< contained in them, so anyone seeing things to change, correct, or update should lay into it.
---
> places©  Other than really basic stuff, I'm not going to fiddle with the formatting nor update any inaccuracies
> contained in them, so anyone seeing things to change, correct, or update should lay into it©
17,19c17,19
< The two MAJOR concerns I have in doing this is a) the information may be WAY out of date in some cases, maybe even
< to the point of uselessness, and b) the articles may be too long for the average wikitizen to get into - they may
< feel too intimidated by the length and tone of the article to add or correct as we'll need.  
---
> The two MAJOR concerns I have in doing this is a¤ the information may be WAY out of date in some cases, maybe even
> to the point of uselessness, and b¤ the articles may be too long for the average wikitizen to get into - they may
> feel too intimidated by the length and tone of the article to add or correct as we'll need©  
21c21
< But, I guess we'll never know unless we try, so here goes...  ;-)
---
> But, I guess we'll never know unless we try, so here goes©©©  ;-¤
24c24
< I would suggest adding "PG" or "EB" or "11" at the end of the name of any page that is taken from EB.  Then we could edit versions of that, while the original is preserved. -- LarrySanger
---
> I would suggest adding "PG" or "EB" or "11" at the end of the name of any page that is taken from EB©  Then we could edit versions of that, while the original is preserved© -- LarrySanger
26c26
< It appears that only the first volume of this encyclopedia was entered into PG...  
---
> It appears that only the first volume of this encyclopedia was entered into PG©©©  
28,29c28,29
< go to the project gutenberg site, and then be certain they're getting the straight stuff.
< Or they can trust my cut-and-paste skill and look at revision 0...
---
> go to the project gutenberg site, and then be certain they're getting the straight stuff©
> Or they can trust my cut-and-paste skill and look at revision 0©©©
32,34c32,34
< encyclopedia...  Thus I think it'd be better if I just plugged them right into the
< topics, without putting 'EB' on the topicname.  So we'd have just one copy of each
< article, plus any commentary placed on top of them by subsequent editing.  Does that
---
> encyclopedia©©©  Thus I think it'd be better if I just plugged them right into the
> topics, without putting 'EB' on the topicname©  So we'd have just one copy of each
> article, plus any commentary placed on top of them by subsequent editing©  Does that
36c36,39
< -- BryceHarrington
---
> -- BryceHarrington
> 
> ----
> Sounds alright -- WojPob
------
IdiosyncratiC|980559839
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Peculiar or particular to an individual.  Possibly eccentric.  This is not to say PatentNonsense.  
> 
> Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  My dad knew him.
> 
> EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits. 
------
IdiosyncratiC|980559950
3c3
< Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  My dad knew him.
---
> Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible.  My dad knew him.
------
WojPob|980560258
5a6,10
> 
> ----
> Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols...  All of the pages you've edited have these
> funny (c) symbols in them now, where there should be newlines.  There are other symbols being
> sprinkled throughout...  
------
NewTopics|980560347
5c5
< GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD 
---
> GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism
13c13
< Great idea, although I'd favor only the first two criteria myself.
---
> Great idea, although I'd favor only the first two criteria myself.
------
BokoNonism|980560595
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Bokononism is the religion practiced by many of the characters of "Cat's Cradle," one of Kurt Vonnegut's best novels. It is based on living by the untruths that make one happy.  Bokononistic sex is a union of two souls achieved by placing the soles of two people's feet together. 
------
BokoNonism|980560723
1a2,3
> 
> See also WamPeters, FoMa, and GranfaloonS.
------
FoMa|980560814
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Foma are untruths that make one happy.  Bokononists live by foma.
> 
> See BokoNonism.
------
HareKrishna|980561170
5c5
< Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.  This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped in side the individual. 
---
> Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.  This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped inside the individual. 
14a15,16
> (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
> 
17c19
< Prabhupada had writted books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
---
> Prabhupada had written books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
------
WojPob|980561270
8,10c8,12
< Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols...  All of the pages you've edited have these
< funny (c) symbols in them now, where there should be newlines.  There are other symbols being
< sprinkled throughout...  
---
> Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols©©©  All of the pages you've edited have these
> funny ¥c¤ symbols in them now, where there should be newlines©  There are other symbols being
> sprinkled throughout©©©  
> ----
> Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki©©©© it's my bloody German language keyboard© I'll try to sort it out©
------
WojPob|980561514
12c12
< Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki©©©© it's my bloody German language keyboard© I'll try to sort it out©
---
> Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki©©©© it's my bloody German language keyboard© I'll try to sort it out.
------
PolanD|980561657
7c7
< Language spoken: Polish
---
> Language spoken: Polish.
------
TopOlogy|980561681
56c56
< However, it is useful to point out that we ''can'' build a Mobius strip ''exactly'' in 3-space.  That is, we can exhibit a set of points in 3-space which is homeomorphic to any and all Mobious strips.  That is a triviality.  However, we ''cannot'' build a Klein bottle in 3-space.  So there really ''is'' an significant and purely ''mathematical'' difference here.
---
> However, it is useful to point out that we ''can'' build a Mobius strip ''exactly'' in 3-space.  That is, we can exhibit a set of points in 3-space which is homeomorphic to any and all Mobius strips.  That is a triviality.  However, we ''cannot'' build a Klein bottle in 3-space.  So there really ''is'' an significant and purely ''mathematical'' difference here.
66a67,74
> 
> ----
> 
> "Mobious" was a typo.  Anything that is a typo in something unsigned can pretty safely be edited out. In fact, if this is to be a useful resource for anyone, the whole page should be radically edited.  Among possible pages of a similar length, the average Joe on the street (whose last IQ test came in around 100, not 154 (see AyeSpy)) would not get very much edification out of it. 
> 
> The discussion of the non-existence in our physical universe of Mobius strips (as well as lines, planes, and every other object studied in mathematics) should then be placed in a separate page that discusses mathematical ontology in relation to physical ontology, or something along those lines, since it comes up in discussion of more than one sub-discipline of mathematics, although not very much in the practice of mathematics proper. 
> 
> -- CalvinOstrum
------
CalvinOstrum|980561722
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> cbo@interlog.com
------
HolyTrinity|980561960
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Historically, as evidenced by the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds used by most of Christianity, the Holy Trinity refers to the three aspects of G-d, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The Father is the G-d who acts throughout the Old Testament and talks to Christ in the New Testament.
> 
> The Son is Jesus, whose sacrifice on the crucifix either ransomed souls from hell or opened the portal to heaven for whoever wants to go, depending on whom you ask.  He was both G-d and man, not considered to be some kind of phantasm or soulless possessed being, but was just like other humans except for also being G-d.
> 
> The Holy Spirit is the little angel sitting on cartoon characters' shoulders, telling them the proper way to deal with the universe.  It is within everyone, the part of G-d that communicates directly with humans.
> 
> All three parts are widely held to be coeternal, of the same substance, and yet inexplicably different.  All are considered to be present at each stage in history; the Trinity just shows the appropriate character at a given point.
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|980562640
5,6c5
< Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was
< the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, Him, He who is called "I am," AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
9c8
< [Please add to this list, and if you feel ambitious, give a brief gloss on each.]
---
> [Please add to this list, and if you feel ambitious, give a brief gloss on each.  Although, this could be dangerous.  There's an old SuPerstition that the world will end if ever all the names of G-d are written down.]
11c10
< The name of God is very important in Judaism; some Jewish believers hold that the name of God is not to be used except in certain special circumstances.  (Anyone know more about this?  Do tell.)
---
> The name of God is very important in Judaism; some Jewish believers hold that the name of God is not to be used except in certain special circumstances.  (Anyone know more about this?  Do tell.)  They generally write "G-d" to avoid blasphemy.  I think this stems from the Third Commandment in Exodus 20: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."  This basically means unless you are actually adressing Him, you should not say His name.
------
ScienCe|980562795
23c23,28
< ''Does ComputerScience actually belong here?  Science is typically the process of understanding how the mechanisms of the natural world work through empirical study.  ComputerScience is more building things, engineering, and a little theoretical mathematics.  It should get its own category, I think.  -JoshuaGrosse''
---
> ''Does ComputerScience actually belong here?  Science is typically the process of understanding how the mechanisms of the natural world work through empirical study.  ComputerScience is more building things, engineering, and a little theoretical mathematics.  It should get its own category, I think.  -JoshuaGrosse''
> 
> I am happy calling Computer Science a science.  Perhaps I am too liberal, since I see even greater lacunae above:  where are the social sciences? Psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science?  The fact is, in many ways the word "science" is more a word of ideology, the way it is often used.  A fairly top level page should somewhere explain this, and then perhaps deal instead not with science, or technology, or the humanities, but instead the concept of ''discipline''.   All of the above mentioned are at least that.  Then we can define breakdowns of disciplines, along at least three lines: science/humanities and theoretical/practical, empirical/conceptual and show the somewhat contentious and fuzzy classification of the disciplines. 
> 
> With this classification, computer science is a mixture dealing with the practical in many cases (software engineering), but in other cases the conceptual rather than the empirical (computability), and in still other cases with other parts of this division.  --CalvinOstrum
> 
------
BuddHa|980563178
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> At least in the Westernized version of Buddhism I have heard, Buddha is not a deity.  He is a man who achieved enlightenment in the Hindu sense in one lifetime instead of in many reincarnations in a state of self-awareness.  He achieved this by living many different lifestyles including that of a decaying waterfowl.  After enlightenment, he recognized his unity with the universal oneness, or atman.  He thus got to stop being reincarnated, just like many other people who had achieved enlightenment over many lifetimes.  Since the original Buddha, several other Buddhists have accomplished this feat and are thus called Buddha as well (i.e. the fat LaughingBuddha of China).  If anything, the name for the sole deity in the universe is "atman".
------
SiVa|980563832
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The primordial religion of India was polytheistic, as other early religions all over the world.  Many of the gods were animistic (associated with animals and objects), as in most early religions and in the semi-Catholic cult of saint-worshippers.  Hinduism developed from this as a semi-monotheistic religion believing in "atman," the universal oneness.  Siva, the god of destruction and creation and remover of boundaries, is, like all other gods, avatars, humans, rocks, and everything else, just a facet of atman.  Siva is no more a name for G-d than the Holy Spirit--Siva is a facet of atman just as the Spirit is a facet of the HolyTrinity.  BuddHa developed Buddhism from Hinduism in an analogous fashion to Christ developing Christianity from Judaism.
------
HareKrishna|980563939
7c7
< Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.
---
> Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.  (This guy reminds me of BuddHa.  Coincidence or plagiarism?)
------
BiJection|980564483
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A bijection is a mapping or function between two sets that is surjective (onto) and injective (one-to-one).
------
HiStory|980565156
18,19c18
< * HistoryOfGreece
< * HistoryOfRome
---
> * HistoryOfMeditteranean
------
EuroCurrency|980565721
3c3
< The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxemburG. 
---
> The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxembourG. 
------
BuddhIsm|980565734
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ReLigion based on the teachings of the BuddHa.
> 
> ----
> See the [http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Buddhism/ Google directory for Buddhism] for ''many'' other online resources.
------
SportS|980565897
46a47
> * FigureSkating
50a52
> * SkiIng
58c60
< * GoO
---
> * GoO ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)
------
SportS|980565914
60c60
< * GoO ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)
---
> * GoO ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
------
BuddHa|980566030
1a2,3
> 
> ''BuddhIsm has a whole bunch of branches, and some of the less-philosophical-more-ritualistic ones have him as a deity.''
------
BuddHa|980566232
0a1,6
> Founder of BuddhIsm who lived approximately 563-483 BCE.  The Buddha was born a prince, but at age 29 became dissatisfied and began practicing austere meditative practices.  After six years, he abandoned the severe practices, and soon afterwards realized complete awakening/enlightenment.  The Buddha taught followers for 45 years until his death (considered to be the complete ending of the Buddha).
> 
> See [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html A Sketch of the Buddha's Life] for an excellent overview of the Buddha's life and teachings.
> 
> ----
> '''Other views:'''
1a8,11
> 
> :Some versions of Buddhism emphasize the Hindu legends more than others.  The version you heard seems to be closer to the Hindu ideas of Buddhism.  Most other versions do not focus on atman or reincarnation.  Instead, the core of Buddhism is considered to be the teachings such as the NobleEightfoldPath and the FourNobleTruths.
> 
> :Also, while it is considered possible to achieve the same enlightenment as the historical Buddha, most Buddhists would not call those enlightened ones "Buddha"--that title is generally reserved only for the historical Buddha.
------
AlTruism|980567947
20c20
< Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in genral, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
---
> Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in general, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
------
BuddHa|980568398
1c1
< Founder of BuddhIsm who lived approximately 563-483 BCE.  The Buddha was born a prince, but at age 29 became dissatisfied and began practicing austere meditative practices.  After six years, he abandoned the severe practices, and soon afterwards realized complete awakening/enlightenment.  The Buddha taught followers for 45 years until his death (considered to be the complete ending of the Buddha).
---
> Founder of BuddhIsm who lived approximately 563-483 BCE.  The Buddha, born Gautama Siddhartha, was a prince by birth, but at age 29 became dissatisfied with what he observed as an unjustifiable disparity between the luxury of his life, and the abject poverty he had observed within the community in general, and began practicing austere meditative practices.  After six years, he abandoned the severe practices, and soon afterwards realized complete awakening/enlightenment.  That enlightnment is called a state of "Bodhi," and hence the name "Buddha," or "enlightened one."  The Buddha taught followers for 45 years until his death (considered to be the complete ending of the Buddha).
------
LibertarianisM|980568881
1c1
< Libertarianism is a political belief system© An individual is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want©  The government's role is to protect those rights©
---
> Libertarianism is a political belief system. An individual is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
3c3
< You can learn more at http://www©lp©org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates©
---
> You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates.
5c5
< ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism©''
---
> ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism.''
------
AyeSpyList|980569232
5c5
< Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in ?don?t fence me in?), tournament fencing (as in, ?touche??), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.a
---
> Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in ?don?t fence me in?), tournament fencing (as in, ?touche??), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.
------
AristotlE|980576487
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AristotlE was a GreeK PhilosopheR who live from 384 to 322 B.C.
> 
> AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopeRs in WesterN thought.
------
AristotlE|980576575
1c1
< AristotlE was a GreeK PhilosopheR who live from 384 to 322 B.C.
---
> AristotlE was a GreeK Philosopher who live from 384 to 322 B.C.
3c3
< AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopeRs in WesterN thought.
---
> AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopesSin WesterN thought.
------
AristotlE|980576844
3c3
< AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopesSin WesterN thought.
---
> AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopesS in WesterN thought.
------
PortlandOregon|980577144
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The largest city in the StatE of OregoN and the 26th largest city in the UnitedStates.
> 
> Portland has a population of 503,637 (est. 1999)
------
AdA|980577308
1a2,5
> 
> ----
> 
> Ada95 is ''not'' a compiler, it is a version of Ada, the most recent version, I believe.   I am also skeptical of the idea that Ada is "really only used anymore" in the US DOD.
------
SuperBowl|980577323
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The championship game in the NationalFootballLeague.  The SuperBowl is considered the premier annual sporting event in the UnitedStates.
------
NirvanA|980577393
0a1,2
> NirvanaBand - The grunge band from Seattle.
> 
------
NirvanaBand|980577404
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A grunge band from Seattle (late 80's early 90's). They split up after lead singer KurtCobain commited suicide in 1994.
> 
> Members: KurtCobain, ChrisNovoselic, DaveGrohl
> 
> 
> Best known albums:
> * Nevermind
> * MTV unplugged
> * From the Muddy Banks of Wishkah
------
NirvanA|980577544
1,3c1
< NirvanaBand - The grunge band from Seattle.
< 
< A grunge band from Seattle (late 80's early 90's). They split up after lead singer KurtCobain commited suicide in 1994.
---
> The term NirvanA refers to more than one thing:
5c3
< Members: KurtCobain, ChrisNovoselic, DaveGrohl
---
> NirvanaBand - The grunge band from Seattle.
6a5
> NirvanaBuddhism - The state of perfect harmony that results from ego-extinction.
8,11d6
< Best known albums:
< * Nevermind
< * MTV unplugged
< * From the Muddy Banks of Wishkah
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980577555
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Also an English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
------
NirvanaBand|980577597
1c1
< A grunge band from Seattle (late 80's early 90's). They split up after lead singer KurtCobain commited suicide in 1994.
---
> Nirvana was a GrungE band from SeattlE (late 80's early 90's). They split up after lead singer KurtCobain commited suicide in 1994.
8c8
< * MTV unplugged
---
> * MtV unplugged
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980577626
1c1
< Also an English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
---
> Nirvana is the English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
------
NirvanA|980577640
7,8c7
< ----
< Also an English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
---
> 
------
WikiPediaProcess|980578030
2a3,4
> The NirvanA page included two entries, one for the band NirvanA and one for the BuddhisT concept of NirvanA.  I created two new pages, one for each entry, and on the NirvanA page linked to both with a brief description of the contents of each page.  Because there are countless cases where we will have this problem (AlabamA is a state and a band, PaulSimon is a singer and a Senator from IllinoiS, et cetera ad infinitum) some solution will be necessary.  WikiPedians can check out my solution and comment.
> ----
------
WikiPediaProcess|980578341
4a5,6
> One fun way to WikiOff is to hit the RandomPage link, then search whatever page comes up for a topic that hasn't been edited yet.  Then you add something for that topic.
> ----
------
WikiOff|980578362
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> To engage in the editing of a wiki site.
------
RandomPage|980578444
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The RandomPage link is an optional link that appears in the tool bar at the top of every page on the WikiPedia.  You can turn this option on by editing the PreferenceS page.
------
RusSia|980578536
1c1
< Russia is large, cold, poor (currently), but full of a wealth of natural, cultural and human resources.
---
> RusSia is large, cold, poor (currently), but full of a wealth of natural, cultural and human resources.
3c3
< Quoth a Russian:
---
> Quoth a RussiaN:
7c7
< Funny enough, but all Russian websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
---
> Funny enough, but all RussiaN websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
------
RussiA|980578579
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> RusSia is large, cold, poor (currently), but full of a wealth of natural, cultural and human resources.
> ----
> Quoth a RussiaN:
> 
> The weather isn't cold today, everything's melting. If you were here you'd see yourself!----And, believe me, summers can be very hot!
> ----
> Funny enough, but all RussiaN websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
------
RusSia|980578646
1,3c1
< RusSia is large, cold, poor (currently), but full of a wealth of natural, cultural and human resources.
< ----
< Quoth a RussiaN:
---
> See RussiA.
5,7c3
< The weather isn't cold today, everything's melting. If you were here you'd see yourself!----And, believe me, summers can be very hot!
< ----
< Funny enough, but all RussiaN websites can be accessed from [http://www.lexa.ru:8101/lexa/black just one page].
---
> I moved the contents of this page (such as they were) to RussiA because that is the naming convention used in the CountriesOfTheWorld section of WikiPedia.
------
ZeuS|980578940
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
------
AlbaniaHistory|980579011
1,3c1
< In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobic communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition
< has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with severe unemployment, the collapse of a fraudulent nationwide
< investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring Kosovo. 
---
> In 1990 AlbaniA ended 44 years of xenophobic CommunisT rule and established a multiparty DemocracY. The transition has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with severe unemployment, the collapse of a fraudulent nationwide investment scheme, widespread gangsterism, and massive refugee influxes from neighboring KosovO. 
------
RhodeIsland|980579216
1c1
< The best little state in the USA! Miles of white ocean beaches, great ethnic food, friendly natives, and home of Rhode Island Reds!----Smithfield, R.I. is home of Bryant College, a prestigious business school
---
> The best little state in the UnitedStates! Miles of white ocean beaches, great ethnic food, friendly natives, and home of RhodeIslandReds!----SmithfielD, R.I. is home of BryantCollege, a prestigious BusinessSchool
------
HomePage|980580098
5c5
< BritannicaPublicDomain
---
> It's the WeekEnd again.  The SuperBowl is happening on Sunday, not that those of you in EuropE care about that.
21a22
> * BritannicaPublicDomain
------
SabBath|980580143
1c1
< "Day of rest", from the Hebrew word "shabbat", meaning rest. The seventh or last day of the week. The first sabbath was the "day" God rested after having completed the creation in six "days".
---
> "Day of rest", from the Hebrew word "shabbat", meaning rest. The seventh or last day of the week. The first sabbath was the "day" GoD rested after having completed the creation in six "days".
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|980580172
5c5
< Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, Him, He who is called "I am," AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeUs, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, Him, He who is called "I am," AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeuS, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
------
WeekEnd|980580631
1c1
< In the UnitedStates and other countries, the weekend--one or two days, typically Saturday and Sunday--are days on which most workers do not work.  This is a time for LeiSure and ReCreation.
---
> The weekend--one or two days, typically Saturday and Sunday--are days on which most workers do not work.  This is a time for LeiSure and ReCreation.
22c22
< I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
---
> I have many questions, but few answers...  -- LarrySanger
------
PreludeInGMajor|980580673
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The first part of JohannSebastianBach 's first CellO suite (BWV 1007), written in 1720.  The PreludeInGMajor is often performed on instruments other than the CellO, such as the PianO and the GuitaR.
------
HomePage|980580741
19a20
> Techie links:
22,23c23
< * BritannicaPublicDomain
< 
---
> * BritannicaPublicDomain
------
PreludeInGMajor|980580754
1c1
< The first part of JohannSebastianBach 's first CellO suite (BWV 1007), written in 1720.  The PreludeInGMajor is often performed on instruments other than the CellO, such as the PianO and the GuitaR.
---
> The first part of JohannSebastianBach 's first CellO suite (BWV 1007), written in 1720.  The PreludeInGMajor is often performed on instruments other than the CellO, such as the PianO and the GuitaR.  It is a damn good tune.
------
MuSic|980580863
13c13
< JohannSBach -- WolfgangMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- PiotrTchaikovsky
---
> JohannSebastianBach -- WolfgangMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- PiotrTchaikovsky
------
HomoSapiens|980580998
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In TaxonomY, the name used for the Human SpecieS.
------
HomoSapiens|980581013
1c1
< In TaxonomY, the name used for the Human SpecieS.
---
> In TaxonomY, the name used for the HumaN SpecieS.
------
StockholM|980581195
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The capital of largest city in SwedeN.  Stockholm has a population of around 700,000.  It is pronounced stok'hôlm .
> 
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|980581241
1c1
< ''Sherlock Holmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?''
---
> ''SherlockHolmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?''
------
WikiPedia|980581304
5,7c5
< Let's discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia on WikiPediaProcess.
< ----
< ''Some old text deleted, placed on WikiPediaProcess.''
---
> Let's discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia on WikiPediaProcess.
------
SandBox|980581382
3,23c3
< Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
< ----
< ''Some other discussion removed from WhatIsaWiki follows.''
< ----
< This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
< 
< Blah...
< ----
< Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
< 
< It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
< ----
< Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
< 
< Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
< ----
< Wow, This is kinda wierd
< 
<     -- Drachs
< ----
< Investigation of the Wiki concept...
---
> Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
------
SherlockHolmes|980581390
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A fictional characters created in the 19th century by British author ArthurConanDoyle.  SherlockHolmes was a amatuer detective who specialized in solving unusual cases using his extraordinary powers of observation and deduction.
> 
> See also InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
------
SherlockHolmes|980581405
1c1
< A fictional characters created in the 19th century by British author ArthurConanDoyle.  SherlockHolmes was a amatuer detective who specialized in solving unusual cases using his extraordinary powers of observation and deduction.
---
> A fictional characters created in the 19th century by British author ArthurConanDoyle.  SherlockHolmes was an amatuer detective who specialized in solving unusual cases using his extraordinary powers of observation and deduction.
3c3
< See also InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
---
> See also InvestigatorAsPhilosopher
------
SherlockHolmes|980581421
1c1
< A fictional characters created in the 19th century by British author ArthurConanDoyle.  SherlockHolmes was an amatuer detective who specialized in solving unusual cases using his extraordinary powers of observation and deduction.
---
> A fictional character created in the 19th century by British author ArthurConanDoyle.  SherlockHolmes was an amatuer detective who specialized in solving unusual cases using his extraordinary powers of observation and deduction.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980581428
7c7
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.  Other discussion removed to SandBox.''
---
> ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.  Other discussion removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.''
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980581501
19a20,39
> ----
> From WhatIsaWiki:
> 
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
> 
> Blah...
> ----
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
> 
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
> ----
> Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
> 
> Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
> ----
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
> 
>     -- Drachs
> ----
> Investigation of the Wiki concept...
------
HomePage|980581613
7,8d6
< We have a new WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
< 
16d13
< 
18c15
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> :We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
23c20,22
< * BritannicaPublicDomain
---
> * BritannicaPublicDomain
> ----
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
HomePage|980581626
15c15
< :We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
---
> We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
------
WolfgangMozart|980581639
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Mozart was a classical composer who lived from 1756 until 1791.  He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.
------
WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited|980581677
1,2d0
< Why aren't these pages copyedited?
< 
9c7
< Uhmmm, actually, I copyedit these pages all the time...
---
> Uhmmm, actually, I copyedit these pages all the time...
------
JohnnyCash|980581767
1c1
< The following seems to be a prose poem about the famous American country singer, Johnny Cash:
---
> The following seems to be a prose poem about the famous American country singer, JohnnyCash:
------
BoMis|980581851
1c1,3
< We're not sure what a [http://www.bomis.com/ Bomis] is, but it seems to have a distasteful desire to "steal your pants."  It also features many slogans.
---
> We're not sure what a [http://www.bomis.com/ Bomis] is, but it seems to have a distasteful desire to "steal your pants."  It also features many slogans.
> ----
> Bomis Inc. is an Internet company and the owner of the popular WebSite Bomis.Com.
------
CountriesK|980581923
1c1
< KingdomOfDenmark
---
> 
------
UtaH|980582079
3c3
< Capital: Salt Lake City
---
> Capital: SaltLakeCity
7c7
< One of Utah's most defining characteristics is the variety of its terrain.  From the Uinta Mountain range in the north (being the only east west running mountain range in North America) to the beautiful desert landscapes of Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks.
---
> One of Utah's most defining characteristics is the variety of its terrain.  From the UintaMountain range in the north (being the only east west running mountain range in NorthAmerica) to the beautiful desert landscapes of BryceCanyon and ZionNationalParks.
9c9
< Another notable fact about Utah is that the continental meeting of the railroads happened at Promontory Point, Utah.
---
> Another notable fact about Utah is that the continental meeting of the railroads happened at PromontoryPoint, Utah.
------
ChristianityTalk|980582247
22a23,40
> 
> ----
> 
> I should say that I'm not a very widely read student of faith, and I'm certainly anything but religious, 
> but I must say the above is one of the more profound insights I've read in a long time...  It makes me wonder:
> 
> Western society tends to be much less forgiving of immoral actions than of anti-authority ones.
> In eastern society, is this reversed?  For instance, that Clinton had sex out of wedlock was a 
> scandal, but that protestors heckled Bush's inauguration is kinda considered par for the course
> and essentially ignored since "it's normal."  In eastern society, would the reactions have been
> reversed?  Would sexual picadillos be considered a mild curiousity, but a public denouncement of
> the authority be considered the scandal?
> 
> Second, I wonder if the contrasting ways are, in a sense, required for the society to function?
> I.e., humans must have both fluid freedom and firm structure, and those can be in either politics
> or religion, but the situation is not stable if both are fluid or both are firm?
> 
> -- BryceHarrington
------
NationalSocialism|980582540
1c1
< national socialism is called a close dictatorial period in german history from 1933 to 1945.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWar2, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.
------
NationalSocialism|980582575
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWar2, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.
------
IdiosyncratiC|980582631
3c3
< Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible.  My dad knew him.
---
> Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible.
5c5
< EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits. 
---
> We would be remiss to mention that not only brilliant geniuses have idiosyncracies; blithering idiots quite frequently are as well.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980582698
40c40,43
< ----
---
> ----
> From IdiosyncratiC:
> 
> My dad knew him.
------
NewHampshire|980582929
1c1
< One of the original 13 colonies.
---
> A state in the UnitedStates, NewHampshire was one of the thirteen colonies that revolted against British rule in the AmericanRevolution.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980583027
1a2,5
> 
> [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the
> encyclopedia some lively color.  But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia
> of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page.  ;-) -- BryceHarrington ]
43c47
< My dad knew him.
---
> My dad knew him.
------
HomePage|980583155
13,15c13,15
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.
< ----
< We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikipediaProcess and WikipediaL.
> 
> We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.
22c22
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
HomePage|980583180
13c13
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikipediaProcess and WikipediaL.
---
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikiPediaProcess and WikipediaL.
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980583348
1a2,7
> 
> ----
> 
> This is confusing, since "nibbana" is not a Sanskrit word at all,
> but rather a Pali word.  Or, at least, it is the standard English transliteration of the Pali word transliterated as "nibbana", just as "nirvana" is the standard English transliteration of the Sanskrit word transliterated as "nirvana".   Do "nirvana" and "nibbana" actually denote the same thing?  In English, "nirvana" seems to have won out. But what about the words in other forms of Buddhist text in many other languages, in different alphabets yet again?  Do the standard transliterations of these terms in Chinese translations of earlier Pali and Sanskrit texts use the same transliteration for each, for example?  
> 
------
RockyMountains|980583563
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A mountain range in NorthAmerica, often called the RockieS.  The RockyMoutains stretch more than 3000 miles from MexicO, through the continental UnitedStates, into CanadA and AlaskA.  The highest peak is MtElbert, in ColoradO, which is 14,431 feet above SeaLevel.
> 
> Numerous rivers rise in the RockyMountains eventually draining into three of the worlds four OceanS: the AtlanticOcean, the PacificOcean, and the ArcticOcean.  These rivers include:
> * ArkansasRiver
> * AthabascaRiver
> * ColoradoRiver
> * ColumbiaRiver
> * FraserRiver
> * LiardRiver
> * MissouriRiver
> * PeaceRiver
> * PlatteRiver
> * RioGrandeRiver
> * SaskatchewanRiver
> * SnakeRiver
> * YellowstoneRiver
> * YukonRiver
------
RockyMountains|980584353
1c1
< A mountain range in NorthAmerica, often called the RockieS.  The RockyMoutains stretch more than 3000 miles from MexicO, through the continental UnitedStates, into CanadA and AlaskA.  The highest peak is MtElbert, in ColoradO, which is 14,431 feet above SeaLevel.
---
> A MountaiN range in NorthAmerica, often called the RockieS.  The RockyMountains stretch more than 3000 miles from MexicO, through the continental UnitedStates, into CanadA and AlaskA.  The highest peak is MtElbert, in ColoradO, which is 14,431 feet above SeaLevel.
17c17
< * YukonRiver
---
> * YukonRiver
------
RockyMountains|980584399
3c3
< Numerous rivers rise in the RockyMountains eventually draining into three of the worlds four OceanS: the AtlanticOcean, the PacificOcean, and the ArcticOcean.  These rivers include:
---
> The rivers that flow from the RockyMountains eventually drain into three of the worlds four OceanS: the AtlanticOcean, the PacificOcean, and the ArcticOcean.  These rivers include:
------
NationalSocialism|980584483
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
NationalSocialism|980584532
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party, and is often used interchangeable with FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
NationalSocialism|980584562
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party, and is often used interchangeable with FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
NationalSocialism|980584614
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NazI) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolphHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
NationalSocialism|980584719
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980584729
23a24,25
> 
> ''[Of all the text to end up being hauled into this detention centre... :)]''
------
ZeuS|980584939
1c1,3
< The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
---
> The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
> 
> ''Do we want to go through all the mythological characters here?  It would be cool filling them in if we do, but maybe it would be better to keep them concentrated on a couple pages like GreekMythology, GreekTheogony, IliaD, etc.''
------
CanadA|980585270
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A very nice country in NorthAmerica, second largest in the world in terms of land area but with a relatively small population.  One of the few developed countries with a primarily resource-based economy.  As one would expect immediately from the size, CanadA is very diverse, and has recently had some problems with the francophone majority in QuebeC.
------
KingdomAnimalia|980585709
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Includes HomoSapiens, and a whole lot of other stuff.  This really deserves to be expounded further.
------
HomoSapiens|980585778
1c1
< In TaxonomY, the name used for the HumaN SpecieS.
---
> In TaxonOmY, the name used for the HumaN SpecieS.  Latin for "thinking man."  People belong to the KingdomAnimalia, and it really is possible to classify them a lot more precisely, but for now this should be good enough.
------
PhiloSophy|980586864
8c8
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlAto -- ArisTotle -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
------
AustriA|980591383
1c1
< Austria ¥pop© ca© 7©5m¤ is a small landlocked country in Central Europe© It is a federation of 9 states©
---
> Austria pop. ca. 7.5m is a small landlocked country in Central Europe. It is a federation of 9 states.
3c3
< Capital: Vienna ¥pop© ca© 1©8m¤
---
> Capital: Vienna pop. ca. 1.8m
5c5
< Language Spoken: GermaN ¥and a large number of dialects¤
---
> Language Spoken: German and a large number of dialects
7c7
< Neighbours: GermanY, SwitzerlanD, LichtensteiN, ItalY, SloveniA, HungarY, SlovakiA, CzechRepublic©
---
> Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, CzechRepublic.
9c9,11
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide©
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
> 
> Currently rightwing fpoe, oevp coalition in the government. People who dislike this government still meet every Thursday at the "Ballhausplatz" in the inner city for the weekly demonstration.
------
EastGermany|980600119
3c3
< After WW2, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
---
> After WW2, in 1949 at the Potsdam Conference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
7,8c7,8
< FederalRepublicOfGerman, the Soviet part was made a own country too, the "German Democratic Republic". 
< It was also called EastGermany.  EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a CommunisT
---
> "Federal Republic Of Germany", the Soviet part was made a own country too, the "German Democratic Republic". 
> It was also called EastGermany.  EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a CommunisTic
14c14
< GermanY got divided after the war, also BerlinGermany, former capital of Germany got divided. Since Berlin was 
---
> GermanY got divided after the war, also Berlin, former capital of Germany got divided. Since Berlin was 
16c16
< soon was known as WestBerlin.
---
> soon got known as WestBerlin.
19c19
< Anyway, there is too much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner!" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West Germany used WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the ColdWar.
---
> Anyway, there is too much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner!" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West Germany using WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the Cold War, the cold war it self and all that.
------
ColdWar|980600522
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> the cold war describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars in korea, vietnam and afghanistan, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in a armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
> Also, the armys of the countries involved never had much participation in the cold war, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (USA), MI6 (Great Britain), BND (West Germany), STASI (East Germany) and the KGB(USSR).
> The cold war also inspired alot of movie-companys and writers, resulting in an enourmous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (james bond) some less.
------
GeorgeWBush|980601808
7a8,9
> 
> the first president of the united states who has not been elected by the voters but by courts. It not political (I am german), but a fact : He did gather less votes than Al Gore.
------
MariahCarey|980604187
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Chick with big t*ts and a hell of a voice (capable of spanning seven octaves). Still wonder why she uses her music to do such boring pop-music.
------
WikiPediaProcess|980604344
31a32,33
> ----
> Is there any link between WikiPedia/NuPedia and the announced GNUPedia project? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
------
WikiPediaProcess|980604450
33c33,35
< Is there any link between WikiPedia/NuPedia and the announced GNUPedia project? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
---
> Is there any link between WikiPedia/NuPedia and the announced GNUPedia project? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
> ----
> Is there any way to learn about changes to certain topics without having to go there from time to time? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
------
GeorgeWBush|980609336
1c1,5
< The current PresidentOfTheUnitedStates.
---
> The current [2001] PresidentOfTheUnitedStates.  Winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the US Supreme Court.
> 
> ----
> ----
> '''Discussion:'''
6a11,28
> ----
> '''Election controversy:'''  [Possibly to be moved elsewhere?]
> 
> The first president of the UnitedStates who has not been elected by the voters but by courts. It not political (I am german), but a fact : He did gather less votes than Al Gore.
> 
> :The US 2000 Presidential election was very controversial, but the statement above oversimplifies the controversy.  The UnitedStatesConstitution explicitly describes the procedure for electing the president.  The people do not elect a president directly, but instead elect people to the ElectoralCollege (which selects the president).  The ElectoralCollege system was originally seen as a means to prevent the excesses of a pure DemocracY.
> 
> :The 2000 election was ''not'' the first time that the US popular vote was different than the result of the ElectoralCollege.  Since states give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state election, small majorities in highly-populated states can beat larger majorities in less-populated states.
> 
> :The biggest election controversy was over the results from the state of FloridA, which was determined by less than 1000 votes out of over 6,000,000 votes cast.  The results were challenged, and a series of recounts, attempted recounts, and court cases began.  In some of the important legal cases the local courts ruled against recounts, but were overruled by the Florida Supreme Court.
> 
> :The US Supreme Court avoided ruling on the legal issues at first, but finally issued a ruling that overruled the Florida Supreme Court and effectively prohibited further recounts in Florida.  The final vote was 5-4, and was split by the apparent political alignment of the court.  Many people have claimed that the court's move was more political than legal.  (For instance, some who voted to overturn the Florida court have been strong advocates of "states rights" in other contexts.)
> 
> :Shortly after the Supreme Court's final ruling, Al Gore conceded the 2000 presidential election.
> 
> ----
> '''Controversy over issues:'''
> 
9d30
< the first president of the united states who has not been elected by the voters but by courts. It not political (I am german), but a fact : He did gather less votes than Al Gore.
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980613357
1c1,3
< Nirvana is the English spelling of the Sanskrit nibbana, meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
---
> Nirvana is an English transliteration/spelling of a Sanskrit term meaning extinction or "blowing out" (like a candle).  Nirvana is a frequently used term in BuddhIsm--very roughly it is the state of being when ego-centered/craving consciousness is extinguished.  See the EncyclopaediaBritannica [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,57318+1+55914,00.html?kw=nirvaunua entry for nirvana] for a more detailed definition.
> 
> Many of the Pali language Buddhist scriptures use a word translated as "nibbana", which appears to describe the same word/concept.
5,6c7
< This is confusing, since "nibbana" is not a Sanskrit word at all,
< but rather a Pali word.  Or, at least, it is the standard English transliteration of the Pali word transliterated as "nibbana", just as "nirvana" is the standard English transliteration of the Sanskrit word transliterated as "nirvana".   Do "nirvana" and "nibbana" actually denote the same thing?  In English, "nirvana" seems to have won out. But what about the words in other forms of Buddhist text in many other languages, in different alphabets yet again?  Do the standard transliterations of these terms in Chinese translations of earlier Pali and Sanskrit texts use the same transliteration for each, for example?  
---
> Do "nirvana" and "nibbana" actually denote the same thing?  In English, "nirvana" seems to have won out. But what about the words in other forms of Buddhist text in many other languages, in different alphabets yet again?  Do the standard transliterations of these terms in Chinese translations of earlier Pali and Sanskrit texts use the same transliteration for each, for example?  
7a9
> :Serious students of Buddhist texts seem to prefer "nibbana", although "nirvana" is often listed as a (transliteration of the) Sanskrit version.  A more detailed definition is [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#n here], with several uses of "nibbana" [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/nibbana.html here], and a talk on "nibbana" [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/nibbana.html here].  Finally, a Google search for [http://www.google.com/search?q=nirvana+nibbana+Pali+Sanskrit&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off nirvana nibbana Pali Sanskrit] found over a hundred links which seem to equate the two terms.
------
PhysIcs|980620841
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Physics is a very broad subject...
> 
> * PhotoElectricEffect (German)
------
PhotoElectricEffect|980621082
1c1,268
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Der Photoelektrische Effekt
> 
> erschienen am: 26. Januar 2001
> Autor:Norman Werner
> <H1><A NAME="SECTION00020000000000000000">
> Historisches</A>
> </H1>
> 1888 fand <SPAN  CLASS="textit">Hallwachs</SPAN> erstmals die Gesetzmäßigkeiten des
> photo-elektrischen Effektes, welcher zuvor schon von <SPAN  CLASS="textit">H. Hertz
> </SPAN>beobachtet worden war. Dabei standen die Ergebnisse des Experimentes
> in Widerspruch zur klassichen Mechanik und dem damaligen Verständnis
> von der Natur des Lichts. Erst 1905 wurden die Ergebnisse von
> <SPAN  CLASS="textit">A. Einstein</SPAN> im Rahmen der Lichtquantentheorie gedeutet. Das
> Experiment gilt als einer der deutlichsten Belege für die Quantelung
> der von Licht übertragenen Energie.
> 
> <P>
> 
> <H1><A NAME="SECTION00030000000000000000">
> Das Experiment</A>
> </H1>
> 
> <H2><A NAME="SECTION00031000000000000000">
> Das Wesentliche</A>
> </H2>
> Aus einem Metall, können unter optischer Anregungen Elektronen
> austreten. Dabei ist es möglich die maximale kinetische Energie der
> Elektronen nach dem Austritt zu bestimmen. Stellt man einen Zusammenhang zwischen dieser
> maximalen Energie und der Art des verwendeten Licht statt, so stellt
> man fest, daß die Intensität des Lichtes lediglich beeinflußt wieviele
> Elektronen auf eine gewisse kinetische Energie kommen. Währenddessen
> die Frage, ob überhaupt Elektronen austreten und eine bestimmte
> Energie erreichen lediglich von der Frequenz des verwendeten
> Lichtes abhängt. Dabei waren die Ergebnisse bei allen untersuchten
> Metallen im wesentlichen die selben. Im besonderen war auch der
> Anstieg 
> <!-- MATH
>  $tan(\alpha{})$
>  -->
> <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="58" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img1.gif"
>  ALT="$ tan(\alpha{})$"></SPAN> stets der gleiche. Allerdings lagen bei
> verschiedenen Metallen unterschiedliche Grenzfrequenzen <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img2.gif"
>  ALT="$ f_{gr}$"></SPAN> vor.
> 
> <P></P>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><A NAME="fig:dia"></A><A NAME="35"></A>
> <TABLE>
> <CAPTION ALIGN="BOTTOM"><STRONG>Figure 1:</STRONG>
> </CAPTION>
> <TR><TD>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
> 
> </DIV> 
>   
> <!-- MATH
>  $\includegraphics {phoe.eps}$
>  -->
> <IMG
>  WIDTH="498" HEIGHT="187" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img3.gif"
>  ALT="\includegraphics {phoe.eps}"></TD></TR>
> </TABLE>
> </DIV><P></P>
> 
> <P>
> In Abbildung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> sind die beiden angesprochenen
> Abhängigleiten dargestellt. Der nächste Abschnitt der den
> Versuchsaufbau genauer beschreibt, kann ruhig übersprungen werden. Es
> geht weiter in Absatz <A HREF="photoe.htm#sec:auswert">4</A>.
> 
> <H2><A NAME="SECTION00032000000000000000">
> Versuchsaufbau</A>
> </H2>
> Um aus dem Metall Elektronen lösen zu könne waren zweierlei
> Vorbereitungen notwendig. Zum einen wurde mit negativ geladenen
> Elektroden gearbeitet und zum anderen wurden diese durch eine Heizung
> erwärmt. Beide Maßnahmen senken die Austrittsarbeit. Um die kinetische
> Maximalenergie der Elektronen zu messen, wurde mit der
> Gegenfeldmethode<A NAME="tex2html2"
>  HREF="#foot41"><SUP><IMG  ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="1" ALT="[*]" SRC="foot_motif.gif"></SUP></A>gearbeitet. Zur Bestrahlung wird monochromatisches Licht verwendet.
> Das solche Versuche nur in nahezu luftleeren Raum
> durchgeführt werden konnten, is ja wohl klar.
> 
> <H1><A NAME="SECTION00040000000000000000"></A>
> <A NAME="sec:auswert"></A>
> <BR>
> Analyse
> </H1>
> Damit ein Elektron die Metalloberfläche verlassen kann muss eine
> bestimmte Austrittsarbeit <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img4.gif"
>  ALT="$ U_A$"></SPAN> aufgebracht werden. Da die Loslösung
> von Elektronen nur unter Lichteinfall geschieht, liegt die Vermutung
> nahe, daß das Licht die notwendige Energie einbringt. Gemäß der
> Lichtquantenhypothese wird jedoch die gesamte Energie eines
> Lichtteilchens - dem sog. "`Photons"' -
> mit einem Mal auf das Elektron übertragen. Liegt diese Energie
> unterhalb der Austrittsarbeit, so können keine Elektronen losgelöst
> werden. Aufgrund unterschiedlicher Bindungsverhältnisse in
> unterschiedlichen Metallen überrascht die Stoffabhängigkeit der
> Austrittarbeit keineswegs, was dann auch die Existenz einer
> stoffspezifischen Grenzfrequenz <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img2.gif"
>  ALT="$ f_{gr}$"></SPAN> erklärt. 
> <BR><P></P>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
> 
>   <TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Metall</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img4.gif"
>  ALT="$ U_A$"></SPAN> in [eV]</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">
> <!-- MATH
>  $\lambda{}_{gr}$
>  -->
> <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="29" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img5.gif"
>  ALT="$ \lambda{}_{gr} $"></SPAN> in [nm]</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Li</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2,46</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">504</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Na</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2,28</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">543</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">K</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2.25</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">551</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Rb</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2.13</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">582</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Cs</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">1.94</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">639</TD>
> </TR>
> <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Cu</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">4.48</TD>
> <TD ALIGN="LEFT">277</TD>
> </TR>
> </TABLE>
> 
> </DIV>
> <BR>
> Sollte das Photon mehr Energie haben, als an Austrittsarbeit nötig
> ist, so liegt der Verdacht nahe, daß das Elektron diese überschüssige
> Energie als kinetische Energie übernimmt. Es ist dies genau die
> Energie, die in der Darstellung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> dargestellt wird. 
> <P></P>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:enegieer"></A>
> <!-- MATH
>  \begin{equation}
> E_{photon}=U_{A}+E_{kin_{max}}
> \end{equation}
>  -->
> <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
> <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
> <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="191" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img6.gif"
>  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{photon}=U_{A}+E_{kin_{max}}$"></SPAN></TD>
> <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
> (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">1</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
> </TABLE></DIV>
> <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
> Da sich aus der Darstellung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> ein linearer Zusammenhang
> zwischen 
> <!-- MATH
>  $E_{kin_{max}}$
>  -->
> <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="63" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img7.gif"
>  ALT="$ E_{kin_{max}}$"></SPAN> und <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img8.gif"
>  ALT="$ f$"></SPAN> ergibt, so ist leicht einzusehen, daß
> gilt:
> <P></P>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:brosel"></A>
> <!-- MATH
>  \begin{equation}
> E_{kin_{max}}=\tan{(\alpha{})}\cdot{}f-U_{A}
> \text{ wobei $\alpha{}$\  der Anstiegswinkel ist.}
> \end{equation}
>  -->
> <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
> <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
> <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="217" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img9.gif"
>  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{kin_{max}}=\tan{(\alpha{})}\cdot{}f-U_{A}$">&nbsp; &nbsp; wobei <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="17" HEIGHT="17" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img10.gif"
>  ALT="$ \alpha{}$"></SPAN> der Anstiegswinkel ist.</SPAN></TD>
> <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
> (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">2</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
> </TABLE></DIV>
> <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
> Da der Anstiegswinkel bei allen Metallen gleich ist, Ist es glaubhaft,
> daß es sich dabei um eine Konstante handelt. Und dem ist auch 
> so. 
> <!-- MATH
>  $\tan{(\alpha{})}=h$
>  -->
> <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="96" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img11.gif"
>  ALT="$ \tan{(\alpha{})}=h$"></SPAN> und <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img12.gif"
>  ALT="$ h$"></SPAN> ist allgemein bekannt als
> "`Plancksches Wirkungsquantum"'.
> Nach Einsetzen von <A HREF="photoe.htm#eq:brosel">2</A> in <A HREF="photoe.htm#eq:enegieer">1</A> erhält man
> <P></P>
> <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:ehf"></A>
> <!-- MATH
>  \begin{equation}
> E_{photon}=h\cdot{}f
> \end{equation}
>  -->
> <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
> <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
> <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
>  WIDTH="120" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
>  SRC="img13.gif"
>  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{photon}=h\cdot{}f$"></SPAN></TD>
> <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
> (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">3</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
> </TABLE></DIV>
> <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
> <H2><A NAME="SECTION00041000000000000000">.</A>
> 
> </H2>
> Was wir hier als selbstverständlich angenommen haben, nämlich, daß ein
> Photon seine gesamte Energie an ein Elektron abgibt, daß es überhaupt
> sowas wie eine Teilchennatur des Lichtes gibt, und daß die Energie
> eines solchen von seiner Frequenz  (einem Wellencharakteristikum)
> abhängt, war zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts eine wissenschaftliche Sensation.
> <BR><HR><H4>Footnotes</H4>
> <DL>
> <DT><A NAME="foot41">...
> Gegenfeldmethode</A><A NAME="foot41"
>  HREF="photoe.htm#tex2html2"><SUP><IMG  ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="1" ALT="[*]" SRC="foot_motif.gif"></SUP></A>
> <DD>vielleicht woanders in gnupedia
> 
> </DL>
> <BR><HR>
> <h4>Kontakt mit dem Autor</h4>
> Bei Verbesserungsvorschl&auml;gen, Ermutigungen und anderen Zeichen von Anteilnahme, kann ich unter <a href="mailto:norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de">norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de</a> erreicht werden. Sollte diese Addresse mittlerweile nicht mehr aktuell sein, so kann man mich postalisch unter:
> <br>
> Norman Werner<br>
> Rembrandtstr.3<br>
> 15370 Fredersdorf<br>
> &ETH;eutschland<br>
> erreichen
------
HomePage|980621718
3c3
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment
---
> MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment -- LanguagE
------
LanguagE|980622099
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Languages of the world.  
> 
> * EnglishLanguage
> * EsperantoLanguage
> * FrenchLanguage
> * GaelicLanguage
> * GermaLanguage
> * RussianLanguage
> * SpanishLanguage
------
EsperantoLanguage|980622486
1c1,24
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Esperanto'''
> 
> <b>Esperanto</b> is a constructed language, created by Doctor Ludovic Lazarus (Ludwik Lejzer) Zamenhof in 1887 as a result of the ten years work. The first published book was <i>"D-ro Esperanto. Lingvo internacia. Anta&#365;parolo kaj plena lernolibro",</i> meaning <i>"Dr. Hopeful. International Language. Foreword And Complete Textbook".</i> Zamenhof's pseudonym <i>Esperanto</i> very soon became the name of the language itself.
> 
> Esperanto is intended to serve as a universal international language, the second language (after the parents' language) of every educated person. Most of its vocabulary is made up of Latin, Greek, English, French, German, and some other Indo-European roots. Esperanto has a regular grammar (sixteen rules without exceptions), phonetic alphabet (meaning that all words are pronounced as in written and vice versa), and very logical structure (the same words' ending for the same parts of speech, e.g. <i>-o</i> for nouns, <i>-a</i> for adjectives, etc.) All these features make Esperanto to be more easy-to-learn than the most world's languages, even for non-Europeans.
> 
> It's difficult to tell how many speakers of Esperanto there are. Most sources refer to the number of two million speakers worldwide. However it may be quite rough estimation. Every year there're hundreds of new titles (both translated and original) being published in Esperanto along with the music and even films. Some editions may exceed a number of a hundred thousand copies. Also there're great number of Esperanto-newspapers, magazines, and radio-stations broadcasting in Esperanto. Most <i>esperantists</i> (members of Esperanto-community or Esperanto-diaspora) are eager to international and intercultural contacts, many of them travel to conventions to meet their old friends and make new ones, have correspondents in different parts of the world, and quite often are ready to provide to travelling esperantist a housing for some days.
> 
> Esperanto is the most successful of all the artificial languages to day. In 1999 <i>Universala Esperanto-Asocio</i> <i>(The Worldwide Esperanto-Association)</i> had members in 119 countries of the world, and the annual <i>Universala Kongreso</i> <i>(World Congress)</i> usually gathers from three to six thousand esperantists.
> 
> '''See also:'''
> * LudovicLazarusZamenhof
> 
> '''Links:'''
> * [http://www.esperanto.net www.esperanto.net] -- information about Esperanto in 41 languages
> * [http://www.geocities.com/Oleg326756 Free email-based course of Esperanto]
> ----
> 
> Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
> 
> Updated: <i>24th of January 2001</i>
> 
> ----
> 
------
NationalFootballLeague|980622674
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An AmericaN SportS league, usually called the NfL.
> 
> The NfL is the largest and most popular AmericanFootball league in the world.  It consists of 31 teams who represent most major American cities except LosAngeles.
------
WikiPediaProcess|980622940
32a33,34
> These questions should go in the WikiPediaFaq, but actually they've already been answered.  Second question removed to the WikiPediaFaq.
> 
34,35c36,38
< ----
< Is there any way to learn about changes to certain topics without having to go there from time to time? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
---
> 
> See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia.
> ----
------
WikiPediaProcess|980622959
37,38c37
< See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia.
< ----
---
> See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia and GNUStufF.
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|980622978
1c1,24
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazarus (Ludwik Lejzer)'''
> 
> <b>Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof</b> (1859-1917) was the creator of the EsperantoLanguage – the most succesful of all the constructed international languages. He also was known as Dr. Esperanto – by this pseudonym he published in 1887 his work “Lingvo internacia”, which had the language's description and textbook.
> 
> Zamenhof was born the 15th of December 1859 in the Polish town BialystokPoland (then Poland was a part of RussianEmpire). The town's population was made-up of four major ethnic groups: Russians, Poles, Germans, and YiddishLanguage-speaking Jews. There were many quarrels between them, and that was making young Ludovic quite sad. He supposed that the main reason for the hate and prejudice lay in reciprocal misunderstanding, caused by the lack of one common language that would play role of the neutral communication tool between people of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds.
> 
> As a student of secondary school in Warsaw Zamenhof made attempts to create some kind of international language with a grammar that was very rich, but also very complex. When he studied EnglishLanguage (along with GermanLanguage, FrenchLanguage, LatinLanguage and GreekLanguage, he decided that the international language must have relatively simple grammar with a wide use of suffixes to make new forms of the words.
> 
> By the 1878 his project "Lingwe uniwersala" was almost finished. However Zamenhof was too young then to publish his work. Soon after graduation from the school he began to study medicine, first in MoscowRussia, and later in WarsawPoland. In 1885 Zamenhof graduated from the university and began his practice as oculist. While healing people he continued to work on his project of the international language.
> 
> For two years he tried to raise funds to publish a booklet with the language's description until he received the financial help from his future wife's father. In 1987 the book titled as "D-ro Esperanto. Lingvo internacia. Anta parolo kaj plena lernolibro" ("Dr. Hopeful. International Language. Foreword And Complete Textbook") was published. For Zamenhof this language wasn't a mere communication tool, but the mean of propagation. He wanted to preach the idea of peaceful co-existing of different people and cultures. Zamenhof even came up with the teaching "Homaranismo" in order to spread these ideas.
> 
> Zamenhof became informal leader of the new EsperantoMovement, though he never was striving to gain fame or power. Esperantists were calling him The Master, admiring him as a Teacher, but Zamenhof himself had a strong dislike for this title, and never took any official position inside the EsperantoMovement. He died in Warsaw the 14th of April 1917.
> 
> '''See also:'''
> * EsperantoLanguage
> 
> ----
> 
> Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
> 
> Updated: <i>25th of January 2001</i>
> 
> ----
------
WikiPediaFaq|980623023
57a58,61
> ----
> '''Q. Is there any way to learn about changes to certain topics without having to go there from time to time?'''
> 
> A. Yes, click on the RecentChanges link at the top and bottom of every page.
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|980623063
2a3,4
> http://www.geocities.com/Oleg326756/GNUPedia/zamenhof.jpg
> 
24c26
< ----
---
> ----
------
MariahCarey|980623094
1c1
< Chick with big t*ts and a hell of a voice (capable of spanning seven octaves). Still wonder why she uses her music to do such boring pop-music.
---
> Woman with a beautiful voice (capable of spanning seven octaves). Sings pop music.
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|980623111
26d25
< ----
------
GeorgeWBush|980623776
1c1,11
< The current [2001] PresidentOfTheUnitedStates.  Winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the US Supreme Court.
---
> George W. Bush is the current [2001] PresidentOfTheUnitedStates, the 43rd.  Formerly the Governor of the state of Texas.
> 
> Bush was born July 6, 1946, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas.  He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a Master's of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.  He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard before beginning his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975, working in the energy industry until 1986.  After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.
> 
> He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  We went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms.
> 
> Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have 18-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. 
> 
> Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and TommyThompson, USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
> 
> [edited from whitehouse.gov]
3d12
< ----
------
GeorgeWBush|980623830
2a3,4
> Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and TommyThompson, USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
> 
9,10d10
< Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and TommyThompson, USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
< 
13,39c13
< ----
< '''Discussion:'''
< 
< My thinking is that on this topic we should try to refrain from
< being political.  Some people like him, others don't.  The same
< thing is of course true for BillClinton.
< 
< ----
< '''Election controversy:'''  [Possibly to be moved elsewhere?]
< 
< The first president of the UnitedStates who has not been elected by the voters but by courts. It not political (I am german), but a fact : He did gather less votes than Al Gore.
< 
< :The US 2000 Presidential election was very controversial, but the statement above oversimplifies the controversy.  The UnitedStatesConstitution explicitly describes the procedure for electing the president.  The people do not elect a president directly, but instead elect people to the ElectoralCollege (which selects the president).  The ElectoralCollege system was originally seen as a means to prevent the excesses of a pure DemocracY.
< 
< :The 2000 election was ''not'' the first time that the US popular vote was different than the result of the ElectoralCollege.  Since states give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state election, small majorities in highly-populated states can beat larger majorities in less-populated states.
< 
< :The biggest election controversy was over the results from the state of FloridA, which was determined by less than 1000 votes out of over 6,000,000 votes cast.  The results were challenged, and a series of recounts, attempted recounts, and court cases began.  In some of the important legal cases the local courts ruled against recounts, but were overruled by the Florida Supreme Court.
< 
< :The US Supreme Court avoided ruling on the legal issues at first, but finally issued a ruling that overruled the Florida Supreme Court and effectively prohibited further recounts in Florida.  The final vote was 5-4, and was split by the apparent political alignment of the court.  Many people have claimed that the court's move was more political than legal.  (For instance, some who voted to overturn the Florida court have been strong advocates of "states rights" in other contexts.)
< 
< :Shortly after the Supreme Court's final ruling, Al Gore conceded the 2000 presidential election.
< 
< ----
< '''Controversy over issues:'''
< 
< Recently elected president of the United States who broke records for the number of prisoners put to death during his tenure as Govenor of Texas.
< 
---
> See also BushTalk.
------
BushTalk|980623844
1c1,25
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Discussion:'''
> 
> My thinking is that on this topic we should try to refrain from
> being political.  Some people like him, others don't.  The same
> thing is of course true for BillClinton.
> 
> ----
> '''Election controversy:'''  [Possibly to be moved elsewhere?]
> 
> The first president of the UnitedStates who has not been elected by the voters but by courts. It not political (I am german), but a fact : He did gather less votes than Al Gore.
> 
> :The US 2000 Presidential election was very controversial, but the statement above oversimplifies the controversy.  The UnitedStatesConstitution explicitly describes the procedure for electing the president.  The people do not elect a president directly, but instead elect people to the ElectoralCollege (which selects the president).  The ElectoralCollege system was originally seen as a means to prevent the excesses of a pure DemocracY.
> 
> :The 2000 election was ''not'' the first time that the US popular vote was different than the result of the ElectoralCollege.  Since states give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state election, small majorities in highly-populated states can beat larger majorities in less-populated states.
> 
> :The biggest election controversy was over the results from the state of FloridA, which was determined by less than 1000 votes out of over 6,000,000 votes cast.  The results were challenged, and a series of recounts, attempted recounts, and court cases began.  In some of the important legal cases the local courts ruled against recounts, but were overruled by the Florida Supreme Court.
> 
> :The US Supreme Court avoided ruling on the legal issues at first, but finally issued a ruling that overruled the Florida Supreme Court and effectively prohibited further recounts in Florida.  The final vote was 5-4, and was split by the apparent political alignment of the court.  Many people have claimed that the court's move was more political than legal.  (For instance, some who voted to overturn the Florida court have been strong advocates of "states rights" in other contexts.)
> 
> :Shortly after the Supreme Court's final ruling, Al Gore conceded the 2000 presidential election.
> 
> ----
> '''Controversy over issues:'''
> 
> Recently elected president of the United States who broke records for the number of prisoners put to death during his tenure as Govenor of Texas.
------
BushTalk|980623883
1,6c1
< '''Discussion:'''
< 
< My thinking is that on this topic we should try to refrain from
< being political.  Some people like him, others don't.  The same
< thing is of course true for BillClinton.
< 
---
> '''Discussion'''
8c3,4
< '''Election controversy:'''  [Possibly to be moved elsewhere?]
---
> ----
> '''Election controversy:'''
------
GeorgeWBush|980623926
3c3
< Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and TommyThompson, USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
---
> Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices, TommyThompson.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
------
GeorgeWBush|980623953
3c3
< Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices, TommyThompson.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
---
> Bush was the winner of a controversial election process which ended with a ruling by the USSupremeCourt.  Among his cabinet members/appointees are ColinPowell, USSecretaryOfState; SpencerAbraham, USSecretaryOfEnergy; GaleNorton, USSecretaryOfInterior; and TommyThompson, USSecretaryOfHealthAndHumanServices.  His appointee for the important and controversial USAttorneyGeneral post is JohnAshcroft, and CondoleezaRice is his USNationalSecurityAdvisor.
------
HistoryOfEurope|980624851
24c24,26
< See also: HistoryGermany
---
> See also:
>    HistoryGermany
>    ColdWar
------
IdiosyncratiC|980625117
5c5,11
< We would be remiss to mention that not only brilliant geniuses have idiosyncracies; blithering idiots quite frequently are as well.
---
> ----
> 
> We would be remiss to mention that not only brilliant geniuses have idiosyncracies; blithering idiots quite frequently do as well.
> 
> ----
> 
> ...as would be implicit in my remark that idiosyncracy may be fundamental or incidental to the SanitY of an idea...
------
LanguagE|980625460
7c7
< * GermaLanguage
---
> * GermanLanguage
9a10,21
> 
> Grouped by families:
> * IndoEuropean
> * UralicLanguages
> * AltaicLanguages
> * TurkicLanguages
> * SemiticLanguages
> * ChineseLanguages
> * AfroAsiaticLanguages
> * NigerCongoLanguages
> *  ...
> * ArtificalLanguages
------
IndoEuropean|980625523
5,15c5,15
<    IndoIranianLanguages (e.g. SanskritLanguage, HindiLanguage, PersianLanguage)
<    ItalicLanguages (including Latin and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages)
<    GermanicLanguages (e.g. EnglishLanguage, GermanLanguage, DutchLanguage, SwedishLanguage)
<    CelticLanguages (e.g. IrishLanguage, WelshLanguage)
<    BalticLanguages (e.g. OldPrussian, LatvianLanguage, LithuanianLanguage)
<    SlavicLanguages (e.g. OldSlavonic, RussianLanguage, PolishLanguage, CzechLanguage, SerboCroatianLanguage)
<    IllyrianLanguages (AlbanianLanguage and extinct cousins)
<    AnatolianLanguages (extinct, most notable was the language of the HittitePeoples)
<    TocharianLanguages (extinct tongues of TocharianPeoples)
<    GreekLanguage
<    ArmenianLanguage
---
> * IndoIranianLanguages (e.g. SanskritLanguage, HindiLanguage, PersianLanguage)
> * ItalicLanguages (including Latin and its descendants, the RomanceLanguages)
> * GermanicLanguages (e.g. EnglishLanguage, GermanLanguage, DutchLanguage, SwedishLanguage)
> * CelticLanguages (e.g. IrishLanguage, WelshLanguage)
> * BalticLanguages (e.g. OldPrussian, LatvianLanguage, LithuanianLanguage)
> * SlavicLanguages (e.g. OldSlavonic, RussianLanguage, PolishLanguage, CzechLanguage, SerboCroatianLanguage)
> * IllyrianLanguages (AlbanianLanguage and extinct cousins)
> * AnatolianLanguages (extinct, most notable was the language of the HittitePeoples)
> * TocharianLanguages (extinct tongues of TocharianPeoples)
> * GreekLanguage
> * ArmenianLanguage
------
LanguagE|980625729
15,17c15
< * TurkicLanguages
< * SemiticLanguages
< * ChineseLanguages
---
> * SinoTibetanLanguages
20c18
< *  ...
---
> * ...
------
IndoEuropean|980625803
5c5
< * IndoIranianLanguages (e.g. SanskritLanguage, HindiLanguage, PersianLanguage)
---
> * IndoIranianLanguages
7,10c7,10
< * GermanicLanguages (e.g. EnglishLanguage, GermanLanguage, DutchLanguage, SwedishLanguage)
< * CelticLanguages (e.g. IrishLanguage, WelshLanguage)
< * BalticLanguages (e.g. OldPrussian, LatvianLanguage, LithuanianLanguage)
< * SlavicLanguages (e.g. OldSlavonic, RussianLanguage, PolishLanguage, CzechLanguage, SerboCroatianLanguage)
---
> * GermanicLanguages
> * CelticLanguages
> * BalticLanguages
> * SlavicLanguages
------
IndoEuropean|980626042
24c24
<    r   l   y   w   m   n                Semi-vowels, nasals
---
>    r   l   y   w   m   n                Semi-vowels, nasals (all can be vocalic)
------
HareKrishna|980626125
15,16d14
< (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
< 
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980626250
49a50,53
> ----
> From HareKrishna:
> 
> (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
------
AyeSpy|980626592
6c6
< He has worked professionally in 30 different fields, from horse husbandry, auto mechanics and home construction to photography, marketing, personnel management and counseling.
---
> He has worked professionally in over 30 different fields, from horse husbandry, auto mechanics and home construction to photography, marketing, personnel management and counseling.
12,13c12
< He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative 
< religion.
---
> He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.
------
GermanicLanguages|980627062
1,10c1
< One of the branches of the IndoEuropean language family, spoken by the GermanicPeoples who were settled north and easy along the borders of the RomanEmpire.
< 
< West Germanic languages: LowGerman -- HighGerman -- DutchLanguage -- SwissLanguage -- EnglishLanguage
< 
< North Germanic languages: DanishLanguage -- SwedishLanguage -- NorwegianLanguage
< 
< East Germanic languages: GothicLanguage (extinct)
< 
< 
< 
---
> One of the branches of the IndoEuropean language family, spoken by the GermanicPeoples who were settled north and east along the borders of the RomanEmpire.
11a3,19
> West Germanic languages:
> * EnglishLanguage
> * FrisianLanguage
> * NetherlandicLanguage
> * AfrikaansLanguage
> * GermanLanguage
> * YiddishLanguage
> 
> East Germanic languages:
> Extinct, some records of GothicLanguage
> 
> North Germanic (Scandinavian) languages:
> * DanishLanguage
> * SwedishLanguage
> * IcelandicLanguage
> * FeroeseLanguage
> * NorwegianLanguage
------
RomanceLanguages|980627323
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> After the break-up of the RomanEmpire, the vulgar latin began to evolve differently in different areas.  The romance languages are the results of this process, and form a subfamily of the ItalicLanguages.
> 
> * SardinianLanguage
> * RomanianLanguage
> * ItalianLanguage
> * PortugueseLanguage
> * SpanishLanguage
> * CatalanLanguage
> * RhaetianLanguage
> * FrenchLanguage
> * OccitanLanguage
------
RomanceLanguages|980627403
11a12,13
> 
> And, of course, the classical LatinLanguage that was spoken conservatively as a ''lingua franca'' throughout the MiddleAges is still learned by some.
------
SlavicLanguages|980627734
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The languages of the SlavicPeoples, and the last of the major IndoEuropean groups to appear.
> 
> West Slavic Languages:
> * SorbianLanguage
> * PolishLanguage
> * PomeranianLanguage
> * CzechLanguage
> * SlovakLanguage
> 
> South Slavic Languages:
> * SloveneLanguage
> * SerboCroatianLanguage
> * MacedonianLanguage
> * BulgarianLanguage
> 
> East Slavic Languages:
> * BelorussianLanguage
> * UkrainianLanguage
> * RussianLanguage
------
GeorgeWBush|980627989
9c9
< Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have 18-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. 
---
> Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have 19-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. 
------
IndoIranianLanguages|980628362
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The eastern-most group of IndoEuropean languages, and some of which we have the oldest records of.  These originate around modern Afghanistan and early on split as some people went west and some went east.
> 
> IndoAryan Languages:
> * HindiLanguage
> * BengaliLanguage
> * ...
> 
> Iranian Languages:
> * PersianLanguage
> * PashtoLanguage
> * TajikLanguage
> * OsseticLanguage
> * KurdishLanguage
> * BalochiLanguage
> * ...
------
AustriA|980628877
1c1
< Austria pop. ca. 7.5m is a small landlocked country in Central Europe. It is a federation of 9 states.
---
> AustriA pop. ca. 7.5m is a small landlocked country in CentralEurope. It is a federation of 9 states.
3c3
< Capital: Vienna pop. ca. 1.8m
---
> Capital: ViennA pop. ca. 1.8m
5c5
< Language Spoken: German and a large number of dialects
---
> Language Spoken: GermaN and a large number of dialects
7c7
< Neighbours: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, CzechRepublic.
---
> Neighbours: GermanY, SwitzerlanD, LichtensteiN, ItalY, SloveniA, HungarY, SlovakiA, CzechRepublic.
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. (This point is widely contended outside of AustriA).
11c11
< Currently rightwing fpoe, oevp coalition in the government. People who dislike this government still meet every Thursday at the "Ballhausplatz" in the inner city for the weekly demonstration.
---
> Currently (2001) rightwing fpoe, oevp coalition in the government. People who dislike this government still meet every Thursday at the "BallhausplatZ" in the inner city for the weekly demonstration.
------
GeorgeWBush|980628955
7c7
< He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  We went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms.
---
> He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  He went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms.
------
GeorgeWBush|980630236
9c9
< Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have 19-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. 
---
> Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have 19-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.  Bush's brother Jeb is the governor of Florida.  His father George Bush was the 41st president, director of the CIA, and vice president during the Reagan administration.  The Bush family has been intimately involved in American and global politics and business throughout this century.
13c13,14
< See also BushTalk.
---
> '''See also:'''
> * BushTalk
------
CityBerlin|980630415
1c1
< BerliN is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3©5 mio© inhabitants©
---
> BerliN is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mil. inhabitants.
3,4c3,4
< 
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury BerliN was the capital of EastGermany© In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. 
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.
------
LanguagE|980630515
9a10,17
> * ItalianLanguage
> * GreekLanguage
> * JapaneseLanguage
> * ChineseLanguage
> * KoreanLanguage
> * BantuLanguage
> * ArabicLanguage
> * HebrewLanguage
------
LanguagE|980631581
1c1
< Languages of the world.  
---
> Some of the major languages of the world:
------
BryceHarrington|980632025
4c4,21
< ''Bryce, about your notes on HistoryOfEurope...I didn't want to put these there, since it is a summary page.  I removed the bit about Alex great conquering Greece, since that was his father, and about other civilizations probably experimenting with governments, since all evidence suggests they did not.  But all in all, I was thinking such developments really belong on a HistoryOfTheMeditteranean page, since ''that'' is where the center of the action is, not Europe.  Didn't want to impose, 'course...thoughts?''
---
> ----
> ''Bryce, about your notes on HistoryOfEurope...I didn't want to put these there, since it is a summary page.  I removed the bit about Alex great conquering Greece, since that was his father, and about other civilizations probably experimenting with governments, since all evidence suggests they did not.  But all in all, I was thinking such developments really belong on a HistoryOfTheMeditteranean page, since ''that'' is where the center of the action is, not Europe.  Didn't want to impose, 'course...thoughts?''  -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> ----
> I don't think Roman and Greek history should be isolated from European history, since they're obviously so
> intricately tied.  I'm not sure a HistoryOfTheMediterranean page would be exactly what we need, but 
> certainly something oriented to the ancient history of the western world would be good.  I believe the
> topics already listed under HiStory should cover that, though.  Good catch on Alexander's father conquering
> Greece - I should have caught that.  
> 
> Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point
> out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.  
> 
> Anyway, the current page looks much better.  The power of collaboration, ay?  ;-)
> 
> To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going 
> to get ''quite'' long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.
> -- BryceHarrington
------
AfroAsiaticLanguages|980632140
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Languages widespread throughout north africa and southwest asia.  Of particular note are Hebrew and Arabic, which have grown through their attachments to the major world religions of Judaism and IsLam.
> 
> The following language subfamilies are included:
> * SemiticLanguages
> * EgyptianLanguages
> * BerberLanguages
> * CushiticLanguages
> * ChadicLanguages
------
AfroAsiaticLanguages|980632155
1,3c1
< Languages widespread throughout north africa and southwest asia.  Of particular note are Hebrew and Arabic, which have grown through their attachments to the major world religions of Judaism and IsLam.
< 
< The following language subfamilies are included:
---
> Languages widespread throughout north africa and southwest asia.  Of particular note are Hebrew and Arabic, which have grown through their attachments to the major world religions of Judaism and IsLam.  The following language subfamilies are included:
------
BritannicaPublicDomain|980632310
1c1
< As I understand it, ProjectGutenberg has published what they call the "Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia"©  What this actually is, is the classic 11th edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica©  However, because 'Britannica' is a trademark, even though the text is now public domain ¥because it is so old¤, they were unable to call it EncyclopediaBritannica©
---
> As I understand it, ProjectGutenberg has published what they call the "Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia".  What this actually is, is the classic 11th edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica.  However, because 'Britannica' is a trademark, even though the text is now public domain (because it is so old), they were unable to call it EncyclopediaBritannica.
3c3
< Call it what you will, it is available, and we should consider putting the entire text here, in the Wikipedia©  This may be a lot of work ¥like my own pet project, which is cutting and pasting all of the public domain CIAWorldFactbook over in CountriesOfTheWorld -- please help me!¤, but it sure would be a fun thing to have in here©  People could start updating/replacing the articles with ProjectGutenbergEncyclopedia as the foundation©
---
> Call it what you will, it is available, and we should consider putting the entire text here, in the Wikipedia.  This may be a lot of work (like my own pet project, which is cutting and pasting all of the public domain CIAWorldFactbook over in CountriesOfTheWorld -- please help me!), but it sure would be a fun thing to have in here.  People could start updating/replacing the articles with ProjectGutenbergEncyclopedia as the foundation.
5c5
< Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together©
---
> Also, I bet there are a lot of instances where the text of the article could be wikified by cramming words together.
9c9
< Whoa, WhatACoincidence©  I just now was downloading vol#1 from it and seeing what it'd take to put it in©  :-¤
---
> Whoa, WhatACoincidence.  I just now was downloading vol#1 from it and seeing what it'd take to put it in.  :-)
11c11
< The license says it's in the public domain and we can do whatever we please with it©©©  
---
> The license says it's in the public domain and we can do whatever we please with it...
14,15c14,15
< places©  Other than really basic stuff, I'm not going to fiddle with the formatting nor update any inaccuracies
< contained in them, so anyone seeing things to change, correct, or update should lay into it©
---
> places.  Other than really basic stuff, I'm not going to fiddle with the formatting nor update any inaccuracies
> contained in them, so anyone seeing things to change, correct, or update should lay into it.
19c19
< feel too intimidated by the length and tone of the article to add or correct as we'll need©  
---
> feel too intimidated by the length and tone of the article to add or correct as we'll need. 
21c21
< But, I guess we'll never know unless we try, so here goes©©©  ;-¤
---
> But, I guess we'll never know unless we try, so here goes...  ;-)
26c26
< It appears that only the first volume of this encyclopedia was entered into PG©©©  
---
> It appears that only the first volume of this encyclopedia was entered into PG...
28,29c28,29
< go to the project gutenberg site, and then be certain they're getting the straight stuff©
< Or they can trust my cut-and-paste skill and look at revision 0©©©
---
> go to the project gutenberg site, and then be certain they're getting the straight stuff.
> Or they can trust my cut-and-paste skill and look at revision 0...
32,34c32,34
< encyclopedia©©©  Thus I think it'd be better if I just plugged them right into the
< topics, without putting 'EB' on the topicname©  So we'd have just one copy of each
< article, plus any commentary placed on top of them by subsequent editing©  Does that
---
> encyclopedia...  Thus I think it'd be better if I just plugged them right into the
> topics, without putting 'EB' on the topicname.  So we'd have just one copy of each
> article, plus any commentary placed on top of them by subsequent editing.  Does that
39a40,46
> ----
> In looking it over, there's two rules we'll have to follow.  First, we cannot use the
> name "Britannica" because that is a trademark.  Second, Project Gutenberg requires that
> NO mention is made of Project Gutenberg if the text is altered from what they supply.
> We are free to copy and reuse the text, and edit it as we wish, but can't claim it is
> from Encyclopedia Britannica nor from Project Gutenberg.  Weird, eh?  Anyway...  Correct
> me if I've misinterpreted the various bits of small text. -- BryceHarrington
------
IndoEuropean|980632349
1c1
< It turns out that most of the major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared around the beginning of the BronzeAge.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of German NationalSocialism.
---
> It turns out that most of the western major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared around the beginning of the BronzeAge.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of German NationalSocialism.
------
SigningYourWriting|980632556
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Some reasons why you might wish to sign your name to pages you work on, and set up a personal page:
> 
> * If it is a discussion page, then it is hard for readers to see who was saying what, unless names are included
> * If it is a good piece of writing, people may wish to know to give compliments or to check out other things you've worked on
> * If there is an error or question on what you've done, it helps people find and contact you about it.
> * And finally, on your personal page if you click on your name, it shows a list of links of all of "your" pages.  :-)
------
SinoTibetanLanguages|980632561
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A major language family of east Asia, in number of speakers worldwide second only to IndoEuropean.   These languages tend to be agglunative, monosyllabic and tonal.
> 
> * ChineseLanguage
> * TibetanLanguage
> * BurmeseLanguage
------
WojPob|980632663
1c1
< Wojtek Pobratyn©
---
> Wojtek Pobratyn.
3c3
< A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration© He's got a huge amount of time to spare© http://www©pobratyn©com©
---
> A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. http://www.pobratyn.com.
5c5
< Yeah;-¤
---
> Yeah;-)
8,10c8,10
< Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols©©©  All of the pages you've edited have these
< funny ¥c¤ symbols in them now, where there should be newlines©  There are other symbols being
< sprinkled throughout©©©  
---
> Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols...  All of the pages you've edited have these
> funny ¥c¤ symbols in them now, where there should be newlines.  There are other symbols being
> sprinkled throughout...
12c12,15
< Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki©©©© it's my bloody German language keyboard© I'll try to sort it out.
---
> Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki.... 
> it's my bloody German language keyboard.  I'll try to sort it out.
> ----
> Fixed up the broken periods.  -- BryceHarrington
------
PoLitics|980632865
21a22,23
> * NationalSocialism
> 
------
LanguagE|980633140
15d14
< * BantuLanguage
20c19
< * IndoEuropean
---
> * IndoEuropean (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic, Greek, etc.)
23,25c22,24
< * SinoTibetanLanguages
< * AfroAsiaticLanguages
< * NigerCongoLanguages
---
> * SinoTibetanLanguages (Chinese, etc.)
> * AfroAsiaticLanguages (Semitic, etc.)
> * NigerCongoLanguages (Bantu, etc.)
------
IndoEuropean|980633295
17c17
< These are all InflectedLanguages unlike, say, ChineseLanguages.  Some work indicates they may belong to a hypothetical language superfamily called the NostraticLanguages.  For those interested in such things, the original sounds appear to be
---
> These are all InflectedLanguages unlike, say, SinoTibetanLanguages.  Some work indicates they may belong to a hypothetical language superfamily called the NostraticLanguages.  For those interested in such things, the original sounds appear to be
------
WikiPediaProcess|980633444
37c37,40
< See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia and GNUStufF.
---
> See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia and GNUStufF.
> ----
> WikiPedia fulfils many of the principles (such as freedom from closed editorial controls) advocated by the GNUPedia project, however it is not directly derived from that project.  Note that GNUPedia has changed its name and focus; it is now known as "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia".  It is currently focused more on the development of new encyclopedia software than on actively gathering articles, however because of the common licensing approach taken by Nupedia and Wikipedia, articles posted here can be used in the GNE software when it eventually becomes available for public use, and/or can be submitted to Nupedia for formal peer review and inclusion in that project.  GNE is accepting article submissions, but is asking for some time to finish their software before displaying them publically.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
HomePage|980634396
3c3,5
< MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- ReLigion -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- PopularMusic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- TechnologY -- UnitedStates -- ScienCe -- HiStory -- HumanComputerInteraction -- ArtsandEntertainment -- LanguagE
---
> * '''Memory''' :  CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- QuoteS -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates
> * '''Reason''' :  HumanComputerInteraction -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY
> * '''Imagination''' :  ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
------
PapuaNewGuineA|980635068
1c1,340
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Introduction 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Background: The eastern half of the island of New Guinea - second largest in the world - was divided between Germany (north) and the UK (south) in 1885. The latter area was transferred to Australia in 1902, which occupied the northern portion during World War I and continued to administer the combined areas until independence in 1975. A nine-year secessionist revolt on the island of Bougainville ended in 1997, after claiming some 20,000 lives. 
> 
> 
> Geography 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Location: Southeastern Asia, group of islands including the eastern half of the island of New Guinea between the Coral Sea and the South Pacific Ocean, east of Indonesia 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 6 00 S, 147 00 E 
> 
> Map references: Oceania 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 462,840 sq km 
> land: 452,860 sq km 
> water: 9,980 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: slightly larger than California 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 820 km 
> border countries: Indonesia 820 km 
> 
> Coastline: 5,152 km 
> 
> Maritime claims: measured from claimed archipelagic baselines 
> continental shelf: 200-m depth or to the depth of exploitation 
> exclusive fishing zone: 200 nm 
> territorial sea: 12 nm 
> 
> Climate: tropical; northwest monsoon (December to March), southeast monsoon (May to October); slight seasonal temperature variation 
> 
> Terrain: mostly mountains with coastal lowlands and rolling foothills 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Pacific Ocean 0 m 
> highest point: Mount Wilhelm 4,509 m 
> 
> Natural resources: gold, copper, silver, natural gas, timber, oil, fisheries 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 0.1% 
> permanent crops: 1% 
> permanent pastures: 0% 
> forests and woodland: 92.9% 
> other: 6% (1993 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: NA sq km 
> 
> Natural hazards: active volcanism; situated along the Pacific "Rim of Fire"; the country is subject to frequent and sometimes severe earthquakes; mud slides; tsunamis 
> 
> Environment - current issues: rain forest subject to deforestation as a result of growing commercial demand for tropical timber; pollution from mining projects; severe drought 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands 
> signed, but not ratified: Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol 
> 
> Geography - note: shares island of New Guinea with Indonesia; one of world's largest swamps along southwest coast 
> 
> 
> People 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Population: 4,926,984 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 39% (male 972,289; female 940,049) 
> 15-64 years: 58% (male 1,470,158; female 1,365,523) 
> 65 years and over: 3% (male 84,942; female 94,023) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 2.47% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 32.68 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 8 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.03 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 1.08 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 0.9 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.05 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 59.89 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 63.1 years 
> male: 61.05 years 
> female: 65.26 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 4.38 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Papua New Guinean(s) 
> adjective: Papua New Guinean 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Melanesian, Papuan, Negrito, Micronesian, Polynesian 
> 
> Religions: Roman Catholic 22%, Lutheran 16%, Presbyterian/Methodist/London Missionary Society 8%, Anglican 5%, Evangelical Alliance 4%, Seventh-Day Adventist 1%, other Protestant 10%, indigenous beliefs 34% 
> 
> Languages: English spoken by 1%-2%, pidgin English widespread, Motu spoken in Papua region 
> note: 715 indigenous languages 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: age 15 and over can read and write 
> total population: 72.2% 
> male: 81% 
> female: 62.7% (1995 est.) 
> 
> 
> Government 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Independent State of Papua New Guinea 
> conventional short form: Papua New Guinea 
> abbreviation: PNG 
> 
> Data code: PP 
> 
> Government type: parliamentary democracy 
> 
> Capital: Port Moresby 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 20 provinces; Bougainville, Central, Chimbu, Eastern Highlands, East New Britain, East Sepik, Enga, Gulf, Madang, Manus, Milne Bay, Morobe, National Capital, New Ireland, Northern, Sandaun, Southern Highlands, Western, Western Highlands, West New Britain 
> 
> Independence: 16 September 1975 (from the Australian-administered UN trusteeship) 
> 
> National holiday: Independence Day, 16 September (1975) 
> 
> Constitution: 16 September 1975 
> 
> Legal system: based on English common law 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal 
> 
> Executive branch: 
> chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952), represented by Governor General Silas ATOPARE (since 13 November 1997) 
> head of government: Prime Minister Mekere MORAUTA (since NA August 1999); Deputy Prime Minister Mao ZEMING (since NA December 1999) 
> cabinet: National Executive Council appointed by the governor general on the recommendation of the prime minister 
> elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; governor general appointed by the National Executive Council; prime minister and deputy prime minister appointed by the governor general for up to five years on the basis of majority support in National Parliament 
> 
> Legislative branch: unicameral National Parliament - sometimes referred to as the House of Assembly (109 seats, 89 elected from open electorates and 20 from provincial electorates; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms) 
> elections: last held 14-28 June 1997 (next to be held NA June 2002) 
> election results: percent of vote by party - PPP 15%, Pangu Pati 14%, NA 14%, PDM 8%, PNC 6%, PAP 5%, UP 3%, NP 1%, PUP 1%, independents 33%; seats by party - PPP 16, Pangu Pati 15, NA 15, PDM 9, PNC 7, PAP 5, UP 3, NP 1, PUP 1, independents 37; note - association with political parties is very fluid 
> 
> Judicial branch: Supreme Court, the chief justice is appointed by the governor general on the proposal of the National Executive Council after consultation with the minister responsible for justice, other judges are appointed by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Black Action Party [Paul WANJIK]; Bougainville Unity Alliance or BUA [Samuel AKOITAI]; Christian Democratic Party [Dilu GOMA]; Hausman Party [Waim TOKAM]; League for National Advancement or LNA [leader NA]; Liberal Party [Rabbie SAMAI]; Melanesian Alliance or MA [Fr. John MOMIS]; Melanesian Labor Party [Paul MONDIA]; Milne Bay Party [Simon MUMURIK]; Movement for Greater Autonomy [Stephen POKAWIN]; National Alliance or NA [Michael SOMARE]; National Party or NP [Paul PORA]; Papua New Guinea First Party (includes People's National Congress or PNC [Simon KAUMI] and Christian Country Party [Avusi TANO]); Papua New Guinea United Party or Pangu Pati [Chris HAIVETA]; People's Action Party or PAP [Ted DIRO]; People's Democratic Movement or PDM [Iario LASARO]; People's National Alliance [leader NA]; People's Progress Party or PPP [Michael NALI]; People's Resources Awareness Party [leader NA]; People's Solidarity Party [Kala SWOKIM]; People's Unity Party or PUP [Alfred KAIABE]; United Party or UP [Rimbiuk PATO]; United Resource Party [Masket IANGALIO] 
> 
> International organization participation: ACP, APEC, AsDB, ASEAN (observer), C, CP, ESCAP, FAO, G-77, IBRD, ICAO, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Intelsat, Interpol, IOC, IOM (observer), ISO (correspondent), ITU, NAM, OPCW, Sparteca, SPC, SPF, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTrO 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Nagora Y. BOGAN 
> chancery: 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 
> telephone: [1] (202) 745-3680 
> FAX: [1] (202) 745-3679 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Arma Jane KARAER 
> embassy: Douglas Street, Port Moresby 
> mailing address: P. O. Box 1492, Port Moresby 
> telephone: [675] 321-1455 
> FAX: [675] 321-3423 
> 
> Flag description: divided diagonally from upper hoist-side corner; the upper triangle is red with a soaring yellow bird of paradise centered; the lower triangle is black with five white five-pointed stars of the Southern Cross constellation centered 
> 
> 
> Economy 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Economy - overview: Papua New Guinea is richly endowed with natural resources, but exploitation has been hampered by the rugged terrain and the high cost of developing infrastructure. Agriculture provides a subsistence livelihood for the bulk of the population. Mineral deposits, including oil, copper, and gold, account for 72% of export earnings. Budgetary support from Australia and development aid under World Bank auspices have helped sustain the economy. In 1995, Port Moresby reached agreement with the IMF and World Bank on a structural adjustment program, of which the first phase was successfully completed in 1996. In 1997, droughts caused by the El Nino weather pattern wreaked havoc on Papua New Guinea's coffee, cocoa, and coconut production, the mainstays of the agricultural-based economy and major sources of export earnings. The coffee crop was slashed by up to 50% in 1997. Despite problems with drought, the year 1998 saw a small recovery in GDP. Growth increased to 3.6% in 1999 and may be even higher in 2000, say 4.3%. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $11.6 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: 3.6% (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,500 (1999 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: 25% 
> industry: 35% 
> services: 40% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Population below poverty line: NA% 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: 1.7% 
> highest 10%: 40.5% (1996) 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): 16.5% (1999 est.) 
> 
> Labor force: 1.941 million 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture NA%, industry NA%, services NA% 
> 
> Unemployment rate: NA% 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $1.6 billion 
> expenditures: $1.9 billion, including capital expenditures of $NA (1998 est.) 
> 
> Industries: copra crushing, palm oil processing, plywood production, wood chip production; mining of gold, silver, and copper; crude oil production; construction, tourism 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: NA% 
> 
> Electricity - production: 1.74 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: 69.54% 
> hydro: 30.46% 
> nuclear: 0% 
> other: 0% (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: 1.618 billion kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - imports: 0 kWh (1998) 
> 
> Agriculture - products: coffee, cocoa, coconuts, palm kernels, tea, rubber, sweet potatoes, fruit, vegetables; poultry, pork 
> 
> Exports: $1.9 billion (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: oil, gold, copper ore, logs, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, crayfish and prawns 
> 
> Exports - partners: Australia 20%, Japan 13%, Germany 7%, South Korea 5%, Philippines 4%, UK 3% (1998) 
> 
> Imports: $1 billion (f.o.b., 1999 est.) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: machinery and transport equipment, manufactured goods, food, fuels, chemicals 
> 
> Imports - partners: Australia 51%, Singapore 10%, Japan 8%, US 5%, New Zealand 5%, Malaysia 3% (1998) 
> 
> Debt - external: $2.4 billion (1999 est.) 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: $400 million (1999 est.) 
> 
> Currency: 1 kina (K) = 100 toea 
> 
> Exchange rates: kina (K) per US$1 - 2.7624 (November 1999), 2.520 (1999), 2.058 (1998), 1.434 (1997), 1.318 (1996), 1.276 (1995) 
> 
> Fiscal year: calendar year 
> 
> 
> Communications 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Telephones - main lines in use: 44,000 (1995) 
> 
> Telephones - mobile cellular: 0 (1995) 
> 
> Telephone system: services are adequate and being improved; facilities provide radiotelephone and telegraph, coastal radio, aeronautical radio, and international radio communication services 
> domestic: mostly radiotelephone 
> international: submarine cables to Australia and Guam; satellite earth station - 1 Intelsat (Pacific Ocean); international radio communication service 
> 
> Radio broadcast stations: AM 8, FM 19, shortwave 28 (1998) 
> 
> Radios: 410,000 (1997) 
> 
> Television broadcast stations: 3 (1997) 
> 
> Televisions: 42,000 (1997) 
> 
> Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 2 (1999) 
> 
> 
> Transportation 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Railways: 0 km 
> 
> Highways: 
> total: 19,600 km 
> paved: 686 km 
> unpaved: 18,914 km (1996 est.) 
> 
> Waterways: 10,940 km 
> 
> Ports and harbors: Kieta, Lae, Madang, Port Moresby, Rabaul 
> 
> Merchant marine: 
> total: 21 ships (1,000 GRT or over) totaling 36,417 GRT/52,432 DWT 
> ships by type: bulk 2, cargo 10, chemical tanker 1, combination ore/oil 1, container 1, petroleum tanker 3, roll-on/roll-off 3 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports: 492 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with paved runways: 
> total: 19 
> 2,438 to 3,047 m: 1 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 14 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 3 
> under 914 m: 1 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Airports - with unpaved runways: 
> total: 473 
> 1,524 to 2,437 m: 13 
> 914 to 1,523 m: 58 
> under 914 m: 402 (1999 est.) 
> 
> Heliports: 2 (1999 est.) 
> 
> 
> Military 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Military branches: Papua New Guinea Defense Force (includes Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, and Special Forces Unit) 
> 
> Military manpower - availability: 
> males age 15-49: 1,274,818 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military manpower - fit for military service: 
> males age 15-49: 706,159 (2000 est.) 
> 
> Military expenditures - dollar figure: $42 million (FY98) 
> 
> Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1% (FY98) 
> 
> 
>                                          Transnational Issues 
> 
> [Top of Page] 
> 
> Disputes - international: none 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
PapuaNewGuineA|980635188
1,3c1
< Introduction 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Introduction 
7,10c5
< 
< Geography 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Geography 
16,17d10
< Map references: Oceania 
< 
66,68c59
< People 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    People 
118,121c109
< 
< Government 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Government 
178,180c166
< Economy 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Economy 
256,258c242
< Communications 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Communications 
279,281c263
< Transportation 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Transportation 
316,318c298
< Military 
< 
< [Top of Page] 
---
>                                    Military 
335,336d314
< [Top of Page] 
< 
339,340d316
< 
< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
HomePage|980637546
3,5c3,5
< * '''Memory''' :  CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- QuoteS -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates
< * '''Reason''' :  HumanComputerInteraction -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY
< * '''Imagination''' :  ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
---
> * CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- QuoteS -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates
> * HumanComputerInteraction -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY
> * ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
------
HomePage|980637601
5c5
< * ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
---
> * ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
------
HomePage|980637666
5a6
> * See other CategorySchemes
------
CategorySchemes|980637889
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> WikiPedia, arranged according NuPedia's supercategory scheme:
> 
> FoundationalDisciplines: PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics
> 
> NaturalSciences: ScienCe
> 
> SocialSciences: HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates
> 
> AppliedArtsAndSciences: TechnologY -- HumanComputerInteraction 
> 
> CulTure: ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ReLigion
> 
> TriVia: QuoteS
> 
> WikiWiki: [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
------
CategorySchemes|980637967
1c1
< WikiPedia, arranged according NuPedia's supercategory scheme:
---
> WikiPedia, arranged according NuPedia'''''s category scheme:
3c3
< FoundationalDisciplines: PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> '''FoundationalDisciplines:''' PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics
5c5
< NaturalSciences: ScienCe
---
> '''NaturalSciences:''' ScienCe
7c7
< SocialSciences: HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates
---
> '''SocialSciences:''' HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates
9c9
< AppliedArtsAndSciences: TechnologY -- HumanComputerInteraction 
---
> '''AppliedArtsAndSciences:''' TechnologY -- HumanComputerInteraction 
11c11
< CulTure: ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ReLigion
---
> '''CulTure:''' ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ReLigion
13c13
< TriVia: QuoteS
---
> '''OtheR:''' QuoteS
15c15
< WikiWiki: [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
---
> '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
------
FoundationalDisciplines|980638230
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A ''foundational discipline'' would be a DisCipline such that fundamental issues resolved in it have direct and indirect bearing primarily on secondary methodological (see MethodOlogy) issues in other disciplines, but the solution of the "fundamental issues" themselves does not depend on the resolution of issues in those other disciplines.
> 
> Obviously, it is philosophically tendentious (perhaps betraying a very controversial view in PhiloSophy, namely FoundationalIsm) to say that there are any foundational disciplines.  But for classificatory purposes, it can be useful to regard PhiloSophy and MathematicsAndStatistics--at least--as examples.
------
CategorySchemes|980638718
0a1,2
> [page in progress, please don't edit just now]
> 
5c7,9
< '''NaturalSciences:''' ScienCe
---
> '''NaturalSciences:''' PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy
> 
> '''SocialSciences:''' PsychOlogy  HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- AnomalousPhenomena
7c11,23
< '''SocialSciences:''' HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates
---
> ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA (0)
> ANTHROPOLOGY (0)
> ARCHAEOLOGY (1)
> ECONOMICS (0)
> GEOGRAPHY (0)
> HISTORY (0)
>     MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN HISTORY (2)
> HISTORY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0)
> LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGES (0)
> POLITICAL SCIENCE (0)
>     INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0)
> PSYCHOLOGY (2)
> SOCIOLOGY (0)
10a27,45
> AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE (0)
> ARCHITECTURE (0)
>     URBAN PLANNING (0)
> BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY (0)
> COMMUNICATION (0)
> COMPUTERS (25)
> EDUCATION (0)
>     EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY (0)
> ENGINEERING (4)
>     ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (0)
> FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES (0)
> HEALTH SCIENCES (2)
> LAW (0)
> LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE (0)
> OPHTHALMOLOGY (0)
> PUBLIC AFFAIRS (0)
> TRANSPORTATION (0)
>     AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY (0)
> 
12a48,68
> CLASSICS (35)
> CRITICAL THEORY (0)
> LITERATURE (0)
> PERFORMING ARTS (0)
>     DANCE (0)
>     FILM (0)
>     MUSIC (37)
>         LIVING COMPOSERS (0)
>     THEATER AND DRAMA (0)
> RECREATION (0)
>     SPORTS (0)
>     GAMES (0)
>     HOBBIES (0)
>     TOURISM (0)
> RELIGION (3)
> TEST CATEGORY (5)
> VISUAL ARTS (0)
>     PAINTING (0)
>     SCULPTURE (0)
> 
> 
15c71
< '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
---
> '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
------
CategorySchemes|980638934
2a3,4
> Evidently, it's becoming a bit pressing just how we should "carve up the universe" that is described by WikiPedia.  On this page, anyone may place any arrangement, or a link to an arrangement, of WikiPedia pages into various categories, supercategories, subcategories, etc.  Then I'd suggest discussing the different category schemes on CategorySchemesTalk.
> 
67d68
< 
------
BryceHarrington|980639380
14,15c14,20
< Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point
< out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.  
---
> ''I was thinking of Europe as a cultural centre, not as a continent, so that's why I left them off.  The other way is better, since it gives a home to topics like Celts and megaliths.  But I still think that the Romans and Greeks don't belong here.  Yes, Greece and Italy are located in Europe.  But the Greeks had much more to do with Persia than the interior, and the RomanEmpire was as much African and Asian is it was European.''
> 
> ''I really think the essential "region" these civs belong to is the Meditteranean.  At the very least, this would give the Carthaginians a home too.  Of course this has a lot of overlap with Europe, and they should refer a lot to each other; but anything said on Europe about Rome (and to a lesser extent Greece) is just going to be repeated in other regions.''
> 
> Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.
> 
> ''Ok.  Greece does deserve credit, though, for being completely unique in developing democratic governments, formal mathematics, empirical science (to the extent that they did), and so forth.  They also were unique in inventing vowels. :)''
19,20c24,26
< To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going 
< to get ''quite'' long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.
---
> ''Is very, very cool.  I've noticed you've been doing a lot of work building infrastructure, and that's really very praiseworthy.  Thanks for the help with this one.''
> 
> To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going to get ''quite'' long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.
21a28,29
> 
> ''How's this for a primary division?  AncientEurope (pre-Roman stuff), MedievalEurope, Rennaisance, and then a bunch of later stuff I'm less knowledgeable about.  Closely tied to these would be HellenicCivilization, RomanEmpire, ByzantineEmpire, and HistoryOfIslam.  A second split in terms of geographical regions - things like HolyRomanEmpire - probably wouldn't hurt, and then things can grow as the will.''
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980639412
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Talk about various WikiPedia CategoryScheme''''s here.
> ----
> As an example I've put WikiPedia pages into NuPedia'''''s category scheme on the CategoryScheme page.  A short history of this, then.  The Nupedia category scheme is really intended to be a way to organize ''review groups,'' not necessarily subject areas (i.e., it's intended to organize people, not content); but, as it turns out, it is also not a bad way to organize subject areas as well.
> 
> I devised the category scheme very roughly according to the way universities divide up academic departments.  I tried, above all, to be exhaustive; if there is some area of human knowledge that cannot be placed in this category scheme, I'd like to know.  The supercategories ("FoundationalDisciplines," "NaturalSciences," etc.) are all reasonably coherent concepts, and in most cases it's clear enough that a category definitely belongs in one supercategory rather than another.
> 
> On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategoryScheme page!
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980639423
7c7
< On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategoryScheme page!
---
> On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategorySchemes page!
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980639444
1c1
< Talk about various WikiPedia CategoryScheme''''s here.
---
> Talk about various WikiPedia CategorySchemes here.
------
HomoMorphism|980640131
5c5
< Any homomorphism f: X -> Y defines an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient X/~ can then be given an object-structure in a natural way, e.g. [x]*[y]=[x*y].  In that case the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.
---
> Any homomorphism f: X -> Y defines an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient X/~ can then be given an object-structure in a natural way, e.g. [x]*[y]=[x*y].  In that case the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.  Note in some cases (e.g. groups) a single equivalence class Y suffices to specify the structure of the quotient, so we write it X/Y.
------
CategorySchemes|980640175
7c7,8
< '''FoundationalDisciplines:''' PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> '''FoundationalDisciplines:'''
> :PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics
9c10,11
< '''NaturalSciences:''' PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy
---
> '''NaturalSciences:'''
> :(see SciencE) PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy 
11c13,17
< '''SocialSciences:''' PsychOlogy  HiStory -- LanguagE -- PoLitics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- AnomalousPhenomena
---
> '''SocialSciences:'''
> :AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- LinguisticsAndLanguages (see LanguagE) -- SociOlogy -- PoLitics -- EconOmics -- HiStory -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- GeoGraphy (see CountriesOfTheWorld and UnitedStates) -- AnomalousPhenomena
> 
> '''AppliedArtsAndSciences:'''
> :(see TechnologY) HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- BusinessAndIndustry -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- EngineerIng -- ArchitecturE -- TransportAtion -- CommunicAtion -- ComputinG -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- 
13,44d18
< ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA (0)
< ANTHROPOLOGY (0)
< ARCHAEOLOGY (1)
< ECONOMICS (0)
< GEOGRAPHY (0)
< HISTORY (0)
<     MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN HISTORY (2)
< HISTORY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0)
< LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGES (0)
< POLITICAL SCIENCE (0)
<     INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0)
< PSYCHOLOGY (2)
< SOCIOLOGY (0)
< 
< '''AppliedArtsAndSciences:''' TechnologY -- HumanComputerInteraction 
< 
< AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE (0)
< ARCHITECTURE (0)
<     URBAN PLANNING (0)
< BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY (0)
< COMMUNICATION (0)
< COMPUTERS (25)
< EDUCATION (0)
<     EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY (0)
< ENGINEERING (4)
<     ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (0)
< FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES (0)
< HEALTH SCIENCES (2)
< LAW (0)
< LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE (0)
< OPHTHALMOLOGY (0)
< PUBLIC AFFAIRS (0)
72c46
< '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here
---
> '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here]
------
IntegerNumbers|980640227
3c3
< The integers turn out to be order IsoMorphic to the set of their own order AutoMorphisms, allowing us to take their compositions to form a group operation (addition), and in turn to the set of its own group EndoMorphisms, allowing us to take ''their'' compositions to define a ring multiplication.  Thus Z has a natural ring structure, unique up to choice of zero and whether 0<1 or 1<0 (former by convention).
---
> The integers turn out to be order IsoMorphic to the set of their own order AutoMorphisms, allowing us to take their compositions to form a group operation (addition), and in turn to the set of its own group EndoMorphisms, allowing us to take ''their'' compositions to define a ring multiplication.  Thus Z has a natural RinG structure, unique up to choice of zero and whether 0<1 or 1<0 (former by convention).
5c5
< Labelled as such, Z = {... < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < ...}.  This is the unique infinite cyclic group/ring, and more over the finite ones are precisely the homomorphic images of Z, i.e. the ModularArithmetic''''s Z/(p*Z) for some p in Z.
---
> Labelled as such, Z = {... < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < ...}.  This is the unique infinite cyclic group/RinG, and more over the finite ones are precisely the homomorphic images of Z, i.e. the ModularArithmetic''''s Z/(p*Z) for some p in Z.
------
IntegerNumbers|980640241
5c5
< Labelled as such, Z = {... < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < ...}.  This is the unique infinite cyclic group/RinG, and more over the finite ones are precisely the homomorphic images of Z, i.e. the ModularArithmetic''''s Z/(p*Z) for some p in Z.
---
> Labelled as such, Z = {... < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < ...}.  This is the unique infinite cyclic group / RinG, and more over the finite ones are precisely the homomorphic images of Z, i.e. the ModularArithmetic''''s Z/(p*Z) for some p in Z.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980640398
10c10
< The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets.
---
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets, and in particular, an algebra of sets closed under countable unions is called a TopOlogy.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980640423
10c10
< The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets, and in particular, an algebra of sets closed under countable unions is called a TopOlogy.
---
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets, and in particular, an algebra of sets closed under arbitrary unions is called a TopOlogy.
------
CategorySchemes|980640519
17c17
< :(see TechnologY) HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- BusinessAndIndustry -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- EngineerIng -- ArchitecturE -- TransportAtion -- CommunicAtion -- ComputinG -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- 
---
> :(see TechnologY) HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- BusinessAndIndustry -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- EngineerIng -- ArchitecturE -- TransporT -- CommunicAtion -- ComputinG -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- 
19,42c19,20
< TRANSPORTATION (0)
<     AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY (0)
< 
< '''CulTure:''' ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ReLigion
< 
< CLASSICS (35)
< CRITICAL THEORY (0)
< LITERATURE (0)
< PERFORMING ARTS (0)
<     DANCE (0)
<     FILM (0)
<     MUSIC (37)
<         LIVING COMPOSERS (0)
<     THEATER AND DRAMA (0)
< RECREATION (0)
<     SPORTS (0)
<     GAMES (0)
<     HOBBIES (0)
<     TOURISM (0)
< RELIGION (3)
< TEST CATEGORY (5)
< VISUAL ARTS (0)
<     PAINTING (0)
<     SCULPTURE (0)
---
> '''CulTure:'''
> :(see ArtsandEntertainment) ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- Literature -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- MuSic -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- DanCe -- MuSic -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
------
CategorySchemes|980640606
1,5c1,4
< [page in progress, please don't edit just now]
< 
< Evidently, it's becoming a bit pressing just how we should "carve up the universe" that is described by WikiPedia.  On this page, anyone may place any arrangement, or a link to an arrangement, of WikiPedia pages into various categories, supercategories, subcategories, etc.  Then I'd suggest discussing the different category schemes on CategorySchemesTalk.
< 
< WikiPedia, arranged according NuPedia'''''s category scheme:
---
> Add your category scheme below!  Let's discuss the different category schemes on CategorySchemesTalk.
> ----
> ----
> '' '''NuPedia'''''s category scheme:''' ''
------
CategorySchemes|980640627
4c4
< '' '''NuPedia'''''s category scheme:''' ''
---
> '''NuPedia'''''s category scheme:'''
------
CategorySchemes|980640672
4c4,6
< '''NuPedia'''''s category scheme:'''
---
> '''The NuPedia category scheme'''
> 
> This is one way to carve up the world, not the only way.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980640747
3c3,8
< Ok, if you want me to have a HomePage...JoshuaGrosse is a student of pure mathematics with a distinct over-abundance of spare time.  He figured that it wouldn't hurt, therefore, to spend some of it just randomly smashing things he knows into WikiPedia.  Interests include maths, sciences, and histories.
---
> Ok, if you want me to have a HomePage...JoshuaGrosse is a student of pure mathematics with a distinct over-abundance of spare time.  He figured that it wouldn't hurt, therefore, to spend some of it just randomly smashing things he knows into WikiPedia.  Interests include maths, sciences, and histories.----
> 
> Hello, Joshua....I am the wikipedian from whose MathematicalGroups page you have taken off, mathematically speaking. I'd like to know more about you...
> 
> 
> '''Q.''' Why do you call what I call a "mapping" a "map"?--RoseParks
------
CategorySchemes|980640767
12c12,13
< :(see SciencE) PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy 
---
> :(see ScienCe)
> :PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy 
------
JoshuaGrosse|980640823
5c5
< Hello, Joshua....I am the wikipedian from whose MathematicalGroups page you have taken off, mathematically speaking. I'd like to know more about you...
---
> Hello, Joshua....I am the wikipedian from whose MathematicalGrouP page you have taken off, mathematically speaking. I'd like to know more about you...
------
CategorySchemes|980640867
12d11
< :(see ScienCe)
13a13
> :''see also ScienCe''
19c19,20
< :(see TechnologY) HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- BusinessAndIndustry -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- EngineerIng -- ArchitecturE -- TransporT -- CommunicAtion -- ComputinG -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- 
---
> :HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- BusinessAndIndustry -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- EngineerIng -- ArchitecturE -- TransporT -- CommunicAtion -- ComputinG -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- 
> :''see also TechnologY''
22c23,24
< :(see ArtsandEntertainment) ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- Literature -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- MuSic -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- DanCe -- MuSic -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
---
> :ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- Literature -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- MuSic -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- DanCe -- MuSic -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
> :''see also ArtsandEntertainment''
24c26,27
< '''OtheR:''' QuoteS
---
> '''OtheR:'''
> :QuoteS
26c29,30
< '''WikiWiki:''' [add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here]
---
> '''WikiWiki:'''
> :[add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here]
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980640905
7c7
< On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategorySchemes page!
---
> On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategorySchemes page! -- LarrySanger
------
HisTory|980641105
1,3c1
< That which happened.
< ----
< That which happened and was recorded.  The record of that which happened.
---
> That which happened.  ''Or,'' That which happened and was recorded.  The record of that which happened.  Please see HiStory instead.
------
NaturalSciences|980641135
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ''natural sciences'' study the physical, nonhuman aspects of the world.  As a group, the natural sciences are distinguished from the ''SocialSciences,'' on the one hand, as well as from ''CulTure'' (the arts and humanities) on the other.
------
EsperantoLanguage|980641243
5c5
< Esperanto is intended to serve as a universal international language, the second language (after the parents' language) of every educated person. Most of its vocabulary is made up of Latin, Greek, English, French, German, and some other Indo-European roots. Esperanto has a regular grammar (sixteen rules without exceptions), phonetic alphabet (meaning that all words are pronounced as in written and vice versa), and very logical structure (the same words' ending for the same parts of speech, e.g. <i>-o</i> for nouns, <i>-a</i> for adjectives, etc.) All these features make Esperanto to be more easy-to-learn than the most world's languages, even for non-Europeans.
---
> Esperanto is intended to serve as a universal international language, the second language (after the parents' language) of every educated person. Most of its vocabulary is made up of Latin, Greek, English, French, German, and some other IndoEuropean roots. Esperanto has a regular grammar (sixteen rules without exceptions), phonetic alphabet (meaning that all words are pronounced as in written and vice versa), and very logical structure (the same words' ending for the same parts of speech, e.g. <i>-o</i> for nouns, <i>-a</i> for adjectives, etc.) All these features make Esperanto to be more easy-to-learn than the most world's languages, even for non-Europeans.
------
SocialSciences|980641421
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ''social sciences'' are the scientific study of the human aspects of the world.  For example, PsychOlogy studies the human MinD, SociOlogy studies human society, HiStory studies human history, and so on.  Distinguished from CulTure in that the social sciences make an effort to apply the scientific method or other rigorous standards of evidence to the study of humanity.
------
SnowBOARDING|980641594
1c1,7
< See SnowBoarding.
---
> #REDIRECT SnowBoarding
> 
> ----
> BTW, I'm planning on adding a page-deletion feature ''soon'.  --CliffordAdams
> 
> ----
> See SnowBoarding.
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980645863
1c1,22
< The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view. 
---
> The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view. 
> 
> -----------------------
> 
>    Yet, in the 'best of all possible web pages' Monads can
> well afford not to have windows: They know anyway what
> is going on elsewhere, or atually, they have always 
> known it. (By means of that 'prestabilized harmony'
> Leibniz avoids the problem to explain how mind affects
> matter and vice versa.  "Car je  ne trouvois aucun moyen
> d'expliquer  comment le corps  fait passer quelque chose
> dans l'ame , ou vice versa, ny comment une substance 
> peut communiquer avec une autre substance creee."
> Systeme Nouveau de la Nature etc.(12).  Descartes' 
> followers had introduced the "Systeme des Causes 
> occasionelles" to solve the problem:  God creates
> movements according to our will to move, and 
> thoughts according to movements of exterior things.
> The idea of a God permanently busy to maintain 
> the harmony of the universe seemed much less
> attractive to Leibniz then the harmony established
> once for all. --- )
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980647610
8c8
< known it. (By means of that 'prestabilized harmony'
---
> known it. (By means of that 'PrestabilizedHarmony'
22c22,41
< once for all. --- )
---
> once for all. --- )
> 
>    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a
> philosopher, scientist, mathematician, diplomate
> and lawyer.  Independently of Isaac Newton he
> 'invented' the infinitesimal calculus (and also
> the notation df/dx still used.)  His philosophical
> contribution to metaphysics is based on the 
> Monadology, which introduces MonaDs as 'substancial
> forms of being. They are a kind of spiritual atoms, 
> eternal, indecomposable, individual.  In the way 
> sketched  above the notion of a monad solves the problem 
> of the interaction of mind and matter that arises
> in Descartes' system, as well as the individuation
> that seems problematic in Spinoza's system, which
> represents individual creatures as mere accidental
> modifications of the one and only substance.
> The "theodicee" claims to justify the
> apparent imperfections of the world by its
> being optimal among all possible worlds.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980648015
53a54,57
> 
> ----
> 
> Oh Wiki, you're so fine!...
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980648103
26a27,31
> 
> order arising out of chaos...
> 
> ====
> 
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980648149
30c30
< ====
---
> ----
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980648454
1c1
< The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view. 
---
> The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads? as well as Monads with a view. 
41c41
< being optimal among all possible worlds.
---
> being optimal among all possible worlds.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980648471
7c7
< 1)	G has CloSure, that is, if a and b belong to G, then a*b belongs to G.
---
> 1)	(G,*) has CloSure, that is, if a and b belong to (G,*), then a*b belongs to (G,*).
9d8
< 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to G, (a*b)*c=a*(b*c).
11c10,16
< 3)	G contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to G then e*a = a and a*e = a.  This turns out to be unique.
---
> 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to (G,*), (a*b)*c=a*(b*c).
> 
> 
> 3)     (G,*) contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to (G,*), then e*a = a and a*e = a.  This turns out to be unique.
> 
> 
> 4)	Every element in (G,*) has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to (G,*), there is an element b in (G*) such that a*b=e=b*a.  This turns out to be unique.
13d17
< 4)	Every element in G has an inverse, that is, if a belongs to G, there is an element b in G such that a*b=e=b*a.  This turns out to be unique.
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980648484
1c1
< The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads? as well as Monads with a view. 
---
> The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view. 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980648569
10c10
< 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to (G,*), (a*b)*c=a*(b*c).
---
> 2)	The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to (G,*), then (a*b)*c=a*(b*c).
------
AppliedArtsAndSciences|980649333
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Applied Arts and Sciences'' is a category pretty much invented out of whole cloth for NuPedia, corresponding very roughly to areas in which professional degrees of various sorts are obtainable.  There is a fairly coherent concept behind the category, however: the notion is that we ''use'' the natural and social sciences to shape our world.  Law and public affairs addresses what we learn from PhiloSophy, SociOlogy, and PoliticalScience; the HealthSciences study ways to apply our knowledge of the BiologicalScience''''s to improve human and animal health; AgriculturalScience applies knowledge of BotAny (and many other sciences, in fact) to improving the growing of crops; etc.
------
CulTure|980649464
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Culture,'' as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading.  What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other?
------
RidiCulous|980649496
1c1
< A misspelling, based on a mispronunciation, of "really clueless."----Or is it "really queueless" as in the model Registry of Motor Vehicles office?
---
> A misspelling, based on a mispronunciation, of "really clueless."----Or is it "really queueless" as in the model Registry of Motor Vehicles office?----Perhaps the surgical excision of a homonculous?
------
CategorySchemes|980649539
26c26
< '''OtheR:'''
---
> '''Other:'''
30c30
< :[add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here]
---
> :[add WikiPedia and other wiki-related links here]
------
RidiCulous|980649661
1c1
< A misspelling, based on a mispronunciation, of "really clueless."----Or is it "really queueless" as in the model Registry of Motor Vehicles office?----Perhaps the surgical excision of a homonculous?
---
> A misspelling, based on a mispronunciation, of "really clueless."----Or is it "really queueless" as in the model Registry of Motor Vehicles office?
------
CategorySchemes|980649696
30a31,36
> ----
> BryceHarrington'''''s three-part category scheme, attributed to Jefferson:
> 
> * '''Memory''' :  CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- QuoteS -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates
> * '''Reason''' :  HumanComputerInteraction -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY
> * '''Imagination''' :  ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
------
HomePage|980649891
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
3,6c3
< * CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- QuoteS -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates
< * HumanComputerInteraction -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY
< * ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
< * See other CategorySchemes
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction 
15a13
> * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia CategorySchemes?
25c23
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
HomePage|980649971
3c3
< CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PhiloSophy -- PoLitics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction 
---
> CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
------
TaoTehChing|980650226
7c7
< Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (Tao for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
---
> Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short)) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
------
TaoTehChing|980650262
7c7
< Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short)) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
---
> Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
------
WikiPedia|980650265
5c5
< Let's discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia on WikiPediaProcess.
---
> Let's discuss the mechanisms of Wiki''''''Pedia on WikiPediaProcess.  See the WikiPediaFaq for answers to many questions.
------
FeudalsM|980652111
1,2c1
< deleted; typo on my part, should have been FeudalisM.  Darn, darn, darn.
< 
---
> #REDIRECT FeudalisM
------
CulTure|980652734
1c1,3
< ''Culture,'' as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading.  What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other?
---
> ''Culture,'' as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading.  What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other?
> ----
> We could say culture refers to those things that exist in some form in every society, but which differ in particular expression from society to society. - TimShell
------
AlgorithmS|980652909
1a2,3
> ----
> What you have if you can dance like AlGore.
------
TimShell|980653483
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell is a founding partner og BoMis.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
------
TimShell|980653547
1c1,3
< TimShell is a founding partner og BoMis.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
---
> TimShell is a founding partner og BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
> 
> On Saturday, January 27, 2001, TimShell stayed at home and poached pears in MerloT.
------
TimShell|980653562
1c1
< TimShell is a founding partner og BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
---
> TimShell is a founding partner of BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
------
MerloT|980653925
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular varieties of red wine.
------
MerloT|980653945
1c1
< A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular varieties of red wine.
---
> A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.
------
MerloT|980654247
1c1
< A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.
---
> A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.  It is produced primarily in France and California, and on a lesser scale in Australia, Italy, and South Africa.
------
TaoTehChing|980657098
15c15,16
< In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower."
---
> In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower." -- AyeSpy
> 
------
MathematicalGrouP|980657785
24c24
< A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let Z be the set of integers={?-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4?} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (Z,+) is a GrouP.
---
> A Group that we are introduced to in elementary school is the integers under addition. Thus, let Z be the set of integers={...,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,...} and let the symbol "+" indicate the operation of addition. Then, (Z,+) is a GrouP.
------
NamingConventions|980658556
36c36
< One problem with LarrySanger'''''s proposal, for multi-syllabic words, is that people may not know whiat is the strongest syllable.
---
> One problem with LarrySanger'''''s proposal, for multi-syllabic words, is that people may not know what is the strongest syllable.
------
NamingConventions|980660865
46a47,52
> ----
> The discussion so far has left out a class of single words that I would like to bring attention to.  Those being the words that have something of a natural way of being broken up that reflects the structure, history, and/or root meaning of the word.  Like PhiloSophy, terms that end in -logy, -ory, etc.
> 
> I rather like the reminder of the roots of a term.  Sort of an antiNewSpeak type thing.  That having been said, seeing -ism capitalized all over the place has become a bit unnerving.  Further, many people don't want to bother learning the roots or be reminded of them.
> 
> However, I would like to offer this as an alternative (for some words) to the last-letter idea and read what others think of it.  Oh, and the [[word]] seems the best solution since it lets me play with roots and frees the wiki of an arbitrary constraint  --PhillipHankins
------
PhillipHankins|980661255
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I'm a graduate PhiloSophy student at Rutgers University.  However, I'm a bit more interested in CognitiveScience these days.
> 
> I can be reached at <3bu9nxi1qzgsmr001@sneakemail.com>.
------
GottfriedLeibniz|980661806
5c5
<    Yet, in the 'best of all possible web pages' Monads can
---
> Yet, in the 'best of all possible web pages' Monads can
24c24
<    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a
---
> Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a
------
ArtificalLanguages|980662635
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this catagory is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
> 
> ----
> Those Made for Humans to Speak:
> * EsperantoLanguage
> * LojbanLanguage
> ----
> ProgrammingLanguages
> ----
> Fictional Languages:
> :(those that have only been written about, not actually spoken)
> 
> * NewSpeak
------
NamingConventions|980662819
52a53,54
> 
> ''In most cases this can be codified fairly easily, and so applied without an etymological dictionary.  Usually the letter immediately preceding the first O would get capitalized: GeoMetry, DemoCracy, PhiloSophy, BioLogy.  Words that end in I stems would have the last I capitalized: MarxIsm, PolitIcs, ChristianIty, SkiIng.  Failing those, you could just look for some common stem words: Al-, -Lysis, -Archy, etc.''
------
ArtificalLanguages|980662963
5a6
> * LoglanLanguage
13a15,16
> * SindarinLanguage
> * KlingonLanguage
------
ArtificalLanguages|980662972
1c1
< Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this catagory is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
---
> Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this category is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
------
ScienCe|980663185
2,5c2,5
< * AnatOmy
< * PhysiolOgy
< * TaxonOmy
< * OntOgeny
---
> * AnaTomy
> * PhysioLogy
> * TaxoNomy
> * OntoGeny
15,16c15,16
< * AstronOmy
< * ChemisTry
---
> * AstroNomy
> * ChemiStry
------
TechnologY|980663261
1c1
< * Iron
---
> * MetalLurgy
5c5
< * SpacecraftPropulsion
---
> * SpacecraftPropulsion
------
LojbanLanguage|980663337
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> la lojban. po'u le logji bangu
> 
> An artifical language largely inspired by PredicateLogic.
> 
> A lot more information can be found [http://lojban.org/ here].
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|980663408
1c1
< :AbstractAlgebra -- AnalySis -- TopOlogy -- GeoMetry -- CombinaTorics -- SetTheory
---
> :AbstractAlgebra -- AnaLysis -- TopOlogy -- GeoMetry -- CombinaTorics -- SetTheory
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|980663509
2c2,3
< :PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld 
---
> :PythagoreanTheorem -- MathematicalGrouP -- TrigonometricFunctions -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld
> :PhilosophyOfMath
------
TopOlogy|980663697
32a33,36
> As far as 2-manifolds in three space go, you can embed any of them except for non-orientable surface without boundaries.  That leaves the sphere with any number of handles and holes, the MoebiusBand with any number of handles and extra holes, and a pair of Moebiusbands glued partway edge-to-edge with any number of handles and extra holes.  This sort of thing should go on ManiFold.
> 
> ----
> 
------
CulTure|980664215
3a4,5
> ----
> I would go off sounding like a dictionary to say:  'the pattern of knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends, in part, on the capacity to learn that enables members to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations' or 'the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize a group' or 'to grow in a prepared medium.'  (That last one being both off-topic and an interesting restatement of the first.)  --PhillipHankins
------
ManiFold|980664343
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A continuous n-ManiFold is a topological space where there is some open set around each point that is isomorphic to the ProductTopology R^n.  That is, the space looks locally Euclidean.  These isomorphisms are called charts, and the collection of all of them is called an atlas; by only including charts that relate smoothly to one another, we get a differentiable ManiFold.
> 
> One of the most important kinds of ManiFold is a LieGroup.  These can always be made differentiable.
> 
> The classification of all ManiFold''s'' is an open problem.  We know that every connected 1-D manifold is isomorphic either to R or the circle S.  Connected, compact 2-Manifolds can be divided into three infinite series:
> 
> * Orientable with characteristic 2-2n (spheres with n handles)
> * Non-orientable with characteristic 1-2n (projective planes with n handles)
> * Non-orientable with characteristic -2n (klein bottles with n handles)
> 
> Non-compact connected 2-manifolds are just these with one or more punctures (missing points).  A 2-manifold can be embedded in R^3 if it is orientable or if it has at least one puncture.  All can be embedded in R^4.
> 
------
ManiFold|980664437
1c1
< A continuous n-ManiFold is a topological space where there is some open set around each point that is isomorphic to the ProductTopology R^n.  That is, the space looks locally Euclidean.  These isomorphisms are called charts, and the collection of all of them is called an atlas; by only including charts that relate smoothly to one another, we get a differentiable ManiFold.
---
> A continuous n-ManiFold is a topological space where there is some open set around each point that is isomorphic to the ProductTopology R^n.  That is, the space looks locally Euclidean.  These isomorphisms are called charts, and the collection of all of them is called an atlas; by only including charts that relate smoothly to one another, we get an analytic manifold.  All differentiable manifolds can be made analytic.
------
LojbanLanguage|980664531
2,3c2
< 
< An artifical language largely inspired by PredicateLogic.
---
> An artifical language largely inspired by PredicateLogic, based upon LoglanLanguage.  The idea here is to explore the SapirWhorfHypothesis.
------
LanguagE|980664618
26a27,30
> 
> Theoretical work on languages:
> * ChomskysUniversalGrammar
> * SapirWhorfHypothesis
------
ArtificalLanguages|980664762
6,7c6
< * LoglanLanguage
< * LojbanLanguage
---
> * LojbanLanguage = Loglan
------
LojbanLanguage|980665066
2c2,3
< An artifical language largely inspired by PredicateLogic, based upon LoglanLanguage.  The idea here is to explore the SapirWhorfHypothesis.
---
> 
> An artifical language largely inspired by PredicateLogic, formerly called Loglan.  The idea here is to explore the SapirWhorfHypothesis.
------
ManiFold|980666699
11c11,23
< Non-compact connected 2-manifolds are just these with one or more punctures (missing points).  A 2-manifold can be embedded in R^3 if it is orientable or if it has at least one puncture.  All can be embedded in R^4.
---
> Non-compact connected 2-manifolds are just these with one or more punctures (missing points).  A 2-manifold can be embedded in R^3 if it is orientable or if it has at least one puncture.  All can be embedded in R^4.  If anyone want to make some models, attach the sides of these (and remove the corners to puncture)
> 
>        *              *                  B                B
>       v v            v ^              *>>>>>*          *>>>>>*
>      v   v          v   ^             v     v          v     v
>    A v   v A      A v   ^ A         A v     v A      A v     v A
>      v   v          v   ^             v     v          v     v
>       v v            v ^              *<<<<<*          *>>>>>*
>        *              *                  B                B
> 
>    Sphere      Projective plane     Klein bottle        Torus
>              (punct: MoebiusBand)                 (sphere w handle)
> 
------
IndoIranianLanguages|980667999
5a6,7
> * PunjabiLanguage
> * UrduLanguage
------
HistoryOfEurope|980669016
11c11
< At the end of the bronze age the older Greek kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
---
> At the end of the BronzeAge the older Greek kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980669346
3c3
< As an example I've put WikiPedia pages into NuPedia'''''s category scheme on the CategoryScheme page.  A short history of this, then.  The Nupedia category scheme is really intended to be a way to organize ''review groups,'' not necessarily subject areas (i.e., it's intended to organize people, not content); but, as it turns out, it is also not a bad way to organize subject areas as well.
---
> As an example I've put WikiPedia pages into NuPedia'''''s category scheme on the CategorySchemes page.  A short history of this, then.  The Nupedia category scheme is really intended to be a way to organize ''review groups,'' not necessarily subject areas (i.e., it's intended to organize people, not content); but, as it turns out, it is also not a bad way to organize subject areas as well.
7c7
< On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategorySchemes page! -- LarrySanger
---
> On the whole, I think that as a category scheme it is a lot more coherent than, say, the DeweyDecimalSystem or the LibraryOfCongressClassificationScheme.  But of course others may differ.  Feel free to devise your own category scheme and place it on the CategorySchemes page! -- LarrySanger
------
PhiloSophy|980669462
2c2
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism--Fun with ArthurSchopenhauer
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism
8c8
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980669556
2a3,6
> '''January 27, 2001'''
> 
> Some interesting activity has been happening on WikipediaL lately.  RequestedArticles page added.
> 
------
BrilliantProse|980669642
3c3
< TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- PythagoreanTheorem -- SabBath -- TaoTehChing -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TheRecorder -- GladstoneOregon
---
> TheCanonofScripture -- MathematicalGrouP -- NewZealand -- PythagoreanTheorem -- SabBath -- TaoTehChing -- TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld -- TheRecorder -- GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY
11c11
< Say, I can't keep this page updated by myself.  Will others please add links to this page? -- LarrySanger
---
> Say, I can't keep this page updated by myself.  Will others please add links to this page? -- LarrySanger
------
AristotlE|980669821
3c3
< AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopesS in WesterN thought.
---
> AristotlE, along with PlatO, is often considered to be one of the two most influential PhilosopherS in WesterN thought.
------
RequestedArticles|980670079
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Have an article request?  Add it to the list!'''
> 
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad
> 
> If you notice that a requested article has been written (i.e., it becomes a link), could you remove it from this page?  Thanks.  Let's see if this works!
------
HomePage|980670149
6a7,8
> Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
> 
23c25
< The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
---
> The contents of the WikiPedia is covered by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.
------
ReLigion|980671560
8c8
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- NamesGivenToTheDivine
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas
------
RequestedArticles|980671726
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad
---
> SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad -- InternalCombustionEngine
5c5
< If you notice that a requested article has been written (i.e., it becomes a link), could you remove it from this page?  Thanks.  Let's see if this works!
---
> If you notice that a requested article has been written (i.e., it becomes a link), could you remove it from this page?  Thanks.  Let's see if this works!
------
BryceHarrington|980672082
8c8
< I don't think Roman and Greek history should be isolated from European history, since they're obviously so
---
> '''I don't think Roman and Greek history should be isolated from European history, since they're obviously so
12c12
< Greece - I should have caught that.  
---
> Greece - I should have caught that.  ''' -- BryceHarrington
16c16
< ''I really think the essential "region" these civs belong to is the Meditteranean.  At the very least, this would give the Carthaginians a home too.  Of course this has a lot of overlap with Europe, and they should refer a lot to each other; but anything said on Europe about Rome (and to a lesser extent Greece) is just going to be repeated in other regions.''
---
> ''I really think the essential "region" these civs belong to is the Meditteranean.  At the very least, this would give the Carthaginians a home too.  Of course this has a lot of overlap with Europe, and they should refer a lot to each other; but anything said on Europe about Rome (and to a lesser extent Greece) is just going to be repeated in other regions.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
18c18
< Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.
---
> Hrm, well I'm just an American, but I did study a LOT of European history in school (bit of a passion of mine).  The Greeks and Romans had a _profound_ influence on European history, and while I do agree that they also had influence and interaction with other people on other continents as well, I still (strongly) think Greece and Rome deserve (even require) mention here.  Their impact goes far beyond mere influence; their civilization and culture is really the underpinnings of all that followed.  
20c20
< ''Ok.  Greece does deserve credit, though, for being completely unique in developing democratic governments, formal mathematics, empirical science (to the extent that they did), and so forth.  They also were unique in inventing vowels. :)''
---
> I could write a whole essay on this, but let me address just three specific areas; things that I think we can agree were critical aspects in the later history of Europe:  Religion, Governance, and Settlement.  I could also discuss things like science, theater, architecture, language, military, and sports, but hopefully you'll forgive me if I wave my hand at those as "obvious".  ;-)
21a22,38
> Christianity is of unquestionable influence on the history of Europe, but it's origins and early development is inextricably bound up not in Germanic or Celtic culture, but in Greek and Roman.  Jesus was martyred during
> the reign of the first emperor of Rome, smack in the middle of the most heavily studied period of "classical" Roman history.  The reason for his death was tied up largely in the political and economic behavior of the Romans; Israel was bound up in a struggle for freedom, that they eventually lost - the Jews were dispersed around the world (including Europe).  If not for the Roman Empire, one could wonder if Christianity could have emerged at all.  Many of the early Christians were killed in Roman gladatorial pits, giving the young religion many martyrs and many converts in Rome itself.  There is a vast network of catacombs beneath the city of Rome, where the early Christians buried there dead (and possibly even hid).  Of course, eventually Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and spread it even further, perhaps now with the help of the Roman sword?  But during this whole process, Christianity was absorbing culture and traditions from Rome, and theory from Greece.  Early forms of the Bible were written in Greek, and then later Latin.  Statues and imagery of older gods were reused (e.g., Mary from some of the pre-existing mother-goddess cults).  Roman holidays were recast into Christian holidays (Christmas, IIRC, had roots in the Mithras religion?)  Much cut-and-paste-and-tweak.
> 
> The Roman style of governance, with a dictatorial emperor, has had direct influence on many of Europe's most powerful leaders.  The Romans used the word "Ceasar" to indicate utmost authority.  From this we have gotten the words "Czar", "Tsar", "Kaiser", and even "King".  While dictatorship is certainly nothing unique to Europe, it is the Roman style of dictatorship that many of Europe's leaders ascribed to.  When Charlemagne built his empire, he placed "Roman" right in the middle of its name.  Napoleon and Hitler also both drew from Roman symbology to lend an air of ancient authority to their regimes.  "Heil Hitler" is an obvious allusion to and derivation from "Hail Ceasar".  The military organization and tactics similarly were taught to the "barbaric" tribes (we can imagine "military advisors" looking down on the anarchical locals, thinking "these guys will never learn...")  The skills and discipline taught by the Romans almost assuredly profoundly affected their ability to conquer Rome when it neared its end, and to take control over the lands it left behind.
> 
> The Roman Empire is also the primary force responsible for settlement of Europe, influencing even lands not under their direct control.  And through the Romans we find (important) underlying Greek origins.  At the height of their empire, the Romans directly controlled Gaul (later France), England, Spain, and all of Southern Europe.  Indirectly, they controlled or influenced most of the remainder of Europe.  Many European towns have Roman origins; some started as mere fortresses for the Roman garrisons.  When the Romans entered a land, they planned (and built) to stay.  Europe came to be crossed with a vast network of roads that were the best human-made land routes in Europe until the 20th century.  The archaeological evidence (even as far as Hadrian's wall in the far north of England) demonstrates that the Romans were not mere casual visitors clinging to the belly of Europe, but embraced it.  Yes, while their main involvement was to the East, the Romans were to Europe what the American Colonists were to North America - they carved civilization out of the forests.  The 'villa' style of agricultural settlement stood in mark contrast to the Celtic family oriented traditions, yet persisted well into the middle ages (and beyond, in the Hispanic culture).
> 
> Without the Roman Empire's influence, Europe would NOT be the place it is today and would have had a *far* different history than it did.  The pre-existing Celt/Germanic civilizations were drastically different from the Romans, and took the Greco-Roman style as a model for their own latter cultures.  Rome and Greece need to be looked at not as merely random civilizations that had their time and then died, to be replaced by unique new civilizations; rather, they had a *key* role in the formation of all that followed in Europe.  Leaving them out of the European History page would be akin to leaving England out of the history of the United States.  
> 
> ----
> '''Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.'''
> 
> ''Ok.  Greece does deserve credit, though, for being completely unique in developing democratic governments, formal mathematics, empirical science (to the extent that they did), and so forth.  They also were unique in inventing vowels. :)'' -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> Actually, I believe there were actually some native american tribes that had either semi-democratic or concensus-oriented styles of leadership.  I believe I ran into some references by Jefferson regarding this, which would have some rather exciting implications.  I agree that Greeks kicked butt with math and science, but archaeology has suggested that some of the new world civilizations had achieved some impressive discoveries themselves, independently.  I think Greece probably gets the bulk of the credit because a) their works were preserved and have come down to us through our own literary history.  Consider if we had only their pottery and ruins to judge them by, would we have any clue about their most impressive achievements?  -- BryceHarrington
> 
> ----
24c41,45
< ''Is very, very cool.  I've noticed you've been doing a lot of work building infrastructure, and that's really very praiseworthy.  Thanks for the help with this one.''
---
> ''Is very, very cool.  I've noticed you've been doing a lot of work building infrastructure, and that's really very praiseworthy.  Thanks for the help with this one.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> Thanks, I love what we're doing here, and think we're really making something that matters.  I gave a shot at reorganizing the homepage, 'cause the existing organization makes little sense to me (and ordering disorder is a dire habit of mine), but it looks like someone reverted the changes.  Ah well...
> 
> Btw, thank you muchly for commenting to me about the changes...  I like having had the change to give my opinion on it, even if ultimately we went a different way.
26c47,48
< To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going to get ''quite'' long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.
---
> ----
> '''To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going to get quite long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.'''
29c51,55
< ''How's this for a primary division?  AncientEurope (pre-Roman stuff), MedievalEurope, Rennaisance, and then a bunch of later stuff I'm less knowledgeable about.  Closely tied to these would be HellenicCivilization, RomanEmpire, ByzantineEmpire, and HistoryOfIslam.  A second split in terms of geographical regions - things like HolyRomanEmpire - probably wouldn't hurt, and then things can grow as the will.''
---
> ''How's this for a primary division?  AncientEurope (pre-Roman stuff), MedievalEurope, Rennaisance, and then a bunch of later stuff I'm less knowledgeable about.  Closely tied to these would be HellenicCivilization, RomanEmpire, ByzantineEmpire, and HistoryOfIslam.  A second split in terms of geographical regions - things like HolyRomanEmpire - probably wouldn't hurt, and then things can grow as the will.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> These all sound like good and viable topics.  Personally, I have too many negative experiences to trust a hierarchical structure...  Most real things rarely map well into a hierarchy.  As you say, the Roman Empire overlaps a lot more than just Europe.  Fortunately, Wiki allows organization broader than mere hierarchical, so we'll be okay.  
> 
> To add to your list...  We'll want a section for the DarkAges, FrenchRevolution and Napoleon, Colonialism, the SpanishEmpire, the BritishEmpire, the Crusades, and a whole heaping ton of CatholicChurchInEurope.  
------
BryceHarrington|980672343
3a4,5
> Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY, and it thrills me to be able to share these with you, and feel they represent my best work.  
> 
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980673140
7a8,10
> 
> ----
> I'm sorry, but the current organizational scheme that's been used on the homepage just makes me cringe every time I look at it.  It seems as if there's no sense - that they're merely random points into the database.  I tried to provide a simple three-grouping system to help at least organize it a little, but it appears to have been reverted out.  There are few clues as to how to fit new topics into the organizational scheme...  How can you tell if some technical topic belongs in TechnologY rather than ScienCe?  ArtsAndEntertainment is an extremely broad subject area; CountriesOfTheWorld extremely specific...  -- BryceSorryAndConfusedHarrington
------
CategorySchemes|980673386
36c36,43
< * '''Imagination''' :  ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
---
> * '''Imagination''' :  ArchitecturE -- ArtsandEntertainment -- DancE -- LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- ReCreation -- SportS
> 
> Not my scheme...  I found this while perusing the Library of Congress website:  http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/
> 
> ''Thomas Jefferson, whose personal library became the core of the Library of Congress, arranged his books into three types of knowledge, corresponding to Francis Bacon's three faculties of the mind: Memory (History), Reason (Philosophy),  and Imagination (Fine Arts).''
>              
> I'm not married to this particular scheme, but thought it'd be fun to use as an intermediary step as we grow.  
> (Btw, thanks for not just deleting this scheme suggestion; it took some time to research and implement it.) 
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980673590
78a79,80
> ----
> I don't understand why you want spaces to be converted to and from _ (underline). Isn't the space character good enough as it is? Is there some conceptual meaning of the space that I don't understand? --LinusTolke
------
RequestedArticles|980673823
3c3
< SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad -- InternalCombustionEngine
---
> SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
------
BryceSorryAndConfusedHarrington|980673839
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> BryceHarrington in a special state of mind. ;-)
------
LetterA|980674182
1c1,118
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A. This letter of ours corresponds to the first symbol in 
> the Phoenician alphabet and in almost all its descendants.  In 
> Phoenician, a, like the symbols for e and for o, did not 
> represent a vowel, but a breathing; the vowels originally were 
> not represented by any symbol.  When the alphabet was adopted by 
> the Greeks it was not very well fitted to represent the sounds 
> of their language.  The breathings which were not required in 
> Greek were accordingly employed to represent some of the vowel 
> sounds, other vowels, like i and u, being represented by 
> an adaptation of the symbols for the semi-vowels y and w. 
> The Phoenician name, which must have corresponded closely to 
> the Hebrew Aleph, was taken over by the Greeks in the form 
> Alpha (alpsa). The earliest authority for this, as for the 
> names of the other Greek letters, is the grammatical drama 
> (grammatike Ieoria) of Callias, an earlier contemporary of 
> Euripides, from whose works four trimeters, containing the names 
> of all the Greek letters, are preserved in Athenaeus x. 453 d. 
> 
> The form of the letter has varied considerably.  In the 
> earliest of the Phoenician, Aramaic and Greek inscriptions 
> (the oldest Phoenician dating about 1000 B.C., the oldest 
> Aramaic from the 8th, and the oldest Greek from the 8th 
> or 7th century B.C.) A rests upon its side thus--@.  In 
> the Greek alphabet of later times it generally resembles 
> the modern capital letter, but many local varieties can be 
> distinguished by the shortening of one leg, or by the angle 
> at which the cross line is set-- @, &c. From the Greeks of 
> the west the alphabet was borrowed by the Romans and from them 
> has passed to the other nations of western Europe.  In the 
> earliest Latin inscriptions, such as the inscription found 
> in the excavation of the Roman Forum in 1899, or that on a 
> golden fibula found at Praeneste in 1886 (see ALPHABET).  
> Fine letters are still identical in form with those of the 
> western Greeks.  Latin develops early various forms, which 
> are comparatively rare in Greek, as @, or unknown, as 
> @.  Except possibly Faliscan, the other dialects of Italy 
> did not borrow their alphabet directly from the western Greeks 
> as the Romans did, but received it at second hand through the 
> Etruscans.  In Oscan, where the writing of early inscriptions 
> is no less careful than in Latin, the A takes the form 
> @, to which the nearest parallels are found in north Greece 
> (Boeotia, Locris and Thessaly, and there only sporadically) . 
> 
> In Greek the symbol was used for both the long and the short 
> sound, as in English father (a) and German Ratte 
> a; English, except in dialects, has no sound corresponding 
> precisely to the Greek short a, which, so far as can be 
> ascertained, was a mid-back-wide sound, according to the 
> terminology of H. Sweet (Primer of Phonetics, p. 107).  
> Throughout the history of Greek the short sound remained practically 
> unchanged.  On the other hand, the long sound of a in the 
> Attic and Ionic dialects passed into an open e-sound, which 
> in the Ionic alphabet was represented by the same symbol as 
> the original e-sound (see ALPHABET: Greek). The vowel 
> sounds vary from language to language, and the a symbol has, 
> in consequence, to represent in many cases sounds which are 
> not identical with the Greek a whether long or short, and 
> also to represent several different vowel sounds in the same 
> language.  Thus the New English Dictionary distinguishes about 
> twelve separate vowel sounds, which are represented by a in 
> English.  In general it may be said that the chief changes 
> which affect the a-sound in different languages arise from 
> (1) rounding, (2) fronting, i.e. changing from a sound 
> produced far back in the mouth to a sound produced farther 
> forward.  The rounding is often produced by combination with 
> rounded consonants (as in English was, wall, &c.), the 
> rounding of the preceding consonant being continued into 
> the formation of the vowel sound.  Rounding has also been 
> produced by a following l-sound, as in the English fall, 
> small, bald, &c. (see Sweet's History of English Sounds, 
> 2nd ed., sec. sec.  906, 784).  The effect of fronting is seen in 
> the Ionic and Attic dialects of Greek, where the original 
> name of the Medes, Madoi, with a in the first syllable 
> (which survives in Cyprian Greek as Madoi), is changed 
> into Medoi (Medoi), with an open e-sound instead 
> of the earlier a.  In the later history of Greek this 
> sound is steadily narrowed till it becomes identical with 
> i (as in English seed). The first part of the process 
> has been almost repeated by literary English, a (ah) 
> passing into e (eh), though in present-day pronunciation 
> the sound has developed further into a diphthongal ei 
> except before r, as in hare (Sweet, op. cit. sec.  783). 
> 
> In English a represents unaccented forms of several 
> words, e.g. an (one), of, have, he, and or various 
> prefixes the history of which is given in detail in the New 
> English Dictionary (Oxford, 1888), vol. i. p. 4. (P. GI.) 
> 
> As a symbol the letter is used in various connexions 
> and for various technical purposes, e.g. for a note in 
> music, for the first of the seven dominical letters (this 
> use is derived from its being the first of the litterae 
> nundinales at Rome), and generally as a sign of priority. 
> 
> In Logic, the letter A is used as a symbol for the universal 
> affirmative proposition in the general form ``all x is y.'' 
> The letters I, E and O are used respectively for the particular 
> affirmative ``some x is y,'' the universal negative ``no x 
> is y,'' and the particular negative ``some x is not y.'' 
> The use of these letters is generally derived from the vowels 
> of the two Latin verbs AffIrmo (or AIo), ``I assert,'' and 
> nEgO, ``I deny.'' The use of the symbols dates from the 13th 
> century, though some authorities trace their origin to the Greek 
> logicians.  A is also used largely in abbreviations (q.v.). 
> 
> In Shipping, A1 is a symbol used to dennote quality of 
> construction and material.  In the various shipping registers 
> ships are classed and given a rating after an official 
> examination, and assigned a classification mark, which 
> appears in addition to other particulars in those registers 
> after the name of the ship.  See SHIPBUILDING. It is 
> popularly used to indicate the highest degree of excellence. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
> 
> -- BryceHarrington
------
AaRiver|980674269
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AA, the name of a large number of small European rivers.  
> The word is derived from the Old German aha, cognate to 
> the Latin aqua, water (cf. Ger.-ach; Scand. a, aa, 
> pronounced o).  The following are the more important 
> streams of this name:--Two rivers in the west of Russia, both 
> falling into the Gulf of Riga, near Riga, which is situated 
> between them; a river in the north of France, falling into 
> the sea below Gravelines, and navigable as far as St Omer; 
> and a river of Switzerland, in the cantons of Lucerne and 
> Aargau, which carries the waters of Lakes Baldegger and 
> Hallwiler into the Aar. In Germany there are the Westphalian 
> Aa, rising in the Teutoburger Wald, and joining the Werre at 
> Herford, the Munster Aa, a tributary of the Ems, and others. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
------
AardvarK|980674362
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AARD-VARK (meaning ``earth pig''), the Iyutch name for 
> the mammals of genus Orycteropus, confined to Africa (see 
> EDEN-TATAI. Several species have been named.  Among them 
> is the typical form, O. capensis, or Cape ant-bear from 
> South Africa, and the northern aard-vark (O. aethiopicus) 
> of north-eastern Africa, extending into Egypt.  In form 
> these animals are somewhat pig-like; the body is stout, 
> with arched back; the limbs are short and stout, armed with 
> strong, blunt claws; the ears disproportionately long; and 
> the tail very thick at the base and tapering gradually.  The 
> greatly elongated head is set on a short thick neck, and at 
> the extremity of the snout is a disk in which the nostrils 
> open.  The mouth is small and tubular, furnished with a long 
> extensile tongue.  The measurements of a female taken in the 
> flesh, were head and body 4 ft., tail 17 1/2 in.; but a large 
> individual measured 6 ft. 8 in. over all.  In colour the 
> Cape aard-vark is pale sandy or yellow, the hair being scanty 
> and allowing the skin to show; the northern aard-vark has 
> a still thinner coat, and is further distinguished by the 
> shorter tail and longer head and ears.  These animals are of 
> nocturnal and burrowing habits, and generally to be found near 
> ant-hills.  The strong claws make a hole in the side of the 
> ant-hill, and the insects are collected on the extensile 
> tongue.  Aard-varks are hunted for their skins; but the 
> flesh is valued for food, and often salted and smoked. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
> 
> 
------
AaroN|980674490
1c1,96
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AARON, the traditional founder and head of the Jewish 
> priesthood, who, in company with Moses, led the Israelites 
> out of Egypt (see EXODUS; MOSES) . The greater part of 
> his life-history is preserved in late Biblical narratives, 
> which carry back existing conditions and beliefs to the 
> time of the Exodus, and find a precedent for contemporary 
> hierarchical institutions in the events of that period.  
> Although Aaron was said to have been sent by Yahweh (Jehovah) 
> to meet Moses at the ``mount of God'' (Horeb, Ex.iv.27),he 
> plays only a secondary part in the incidents at Pharaoh's 
> court.  After the ``exodus'' from Egypt a striking account 
> is given of the vision of the God of Israel vouchsafed to 
> him and to his sons Nadab and Abihu on the same holy mount 
> (Ex. xxiv. 1 seq. 9-11), and together with Hur he was at the 
> side of Moses when the latter, by means of his wonder-working 
> rod, enabled Joshua to defeat the Amalekites (xvii. 8-16).  
> Hur and Aaron were left in charge of the Israelites when 
> Moses and Joshua ascended the mount to receive the Tables of 
> the Law (xxiv. 12-15), and when the people, in dismay at the 
> prolonged absence of their leader, demanded a god, it was at 
> the instigation of Aaron that the golden calf was made (see 
> CALF, GOLDEN). This was regarded as an act of apostasy 
> which, according to one tradition, led to the consecration 
> of the Levites, and almost cost Aaron his life (cp. Deut. 
> ix. 20). The incident paves the way for the account of the 
> preparation of the new tables of stone which contain a series 
> of laws quite distinct from the Decalogue (q.v.) (Ex. xxxiii. 
> seq.).  Kadesh, and not Sinai or Horeb, appears to have been 
> originally the scene of these incidents (Deut. xxxiii. 8 
> seq. compared with Ex. xxxii. 26 sqq.), and it was for some 
> obscure offence at this place that both Aaron and Moses were 
> prohibited from entering the Promised Land (Num. xx.).  In 
> what way they had not ``sanctified'' (an allusion in the 
> Hebrew to Kadesh ``holy'') Yahweh is quite uncertain, and 
> it would appear that it was for a similar offence that the 
> sons of Aaron mentioned above also met their death (Lev. x. 3; 
> cp.  Num. xx. 12, Deut. xxxii. 51). Aaron is said to have 
> died at Moserah (Deut. x. 6), or at Mt. Hor; the latter is 
> an unidentified site on the border of Edom (Num. xx. 23, 
> xxxiii. 37; for Moserah see ib. 30-31), and consequently 
> not in the neighbourhood of Petra, which has been the 
> traditional scene from the time of Josephus (Ant. iv. 4. 7). 
> 
> Several difficulties in the present Biblical text appear to 
> have arisen from the attempt of later tradition to find a 
> place for Aaron in certain incidents.  In the account of the 
> contention between Moses and his sister Miriam (Num. xii.), 
> Aaron occupies only a secondary position, and it is very doubtful 
> whether he was originally mentioned in the older surviving 
> narratives.  It is at least remarkable that he is only thrice 
> mentioned in Deuteronomy (ix. 20, x. 6, xxxii. 50). The 
> post-exilic narratives give him a greater share in the plagues of 
> Egypt, represent him as high-priest, and confirm his position 
> by the miraculous budding of his rod alone of all the rods of 
> the other tribes (Num. xvii.; for parallels see Gray comm. 
> ad loc., p. 217).  The latter story illustrates the growth 
> of the older exodus-tradition along with the development of 
> priestly ritual: the old account of Korah's revolt against the 
> authority of Moses has been expanded, and now describes (a) 
> the divine prerogatives of the Levites in general, and (b) 
> the confirmation of the superior privileges of the Aaronites 
> against the rest of the Levites, a development which can 
> scarcely be earlier than the time of Ezekiel (xliv. 15 seq.). 
> 
> Aaron's son Eleazar was buried in an Ephraimite locality 
> known after the grandson as the ``hill of Phinehas'' (Josh. 
> xxiv. 33). Little historical information has been preserved of 
> either.  The name Phinehas (apparently of Egyptian origin) 
> is better known as that of a son of Eli, a member of the 
> priesthood of Shiloh, and Eleazar is only another form of 
> Eliezer the son of Moses, to whose kin Eli is said to have 
> belonged.  The close relation between Aaronite and Levitical 
> names and those of clans related to Moses is very noteworthy, 
> and it is a curious coincidence that the name of Aaron's 
> sister Miriam appears in a genealogy of Caleb (1 Chron. iv. 
> 17) with Jether (cp. JETHRO) and Heber (cp. KENITES). In 
> view of the confusion of the traditions and the difficulty of 
> interpreting the details sketched above, the recovery of the 
> historical Aaron is a work of peculiar intricacy.  He may 
> well have been the traditional head of the priesthood, and 
> R. H. Kennett has argued in favour of the view that he was 
> the founder of the cult at Bethel (Journ. of Theol.  Stud., 
> 1905, pp. 161 sqq.), corresponding to the Mosaite founder 
> of Dan (q.v.). This throws no light upon the name, which 
> still remains quite obscure: and unless Aaron (Aharon) is 
> based upon Aron, ``ark'' (Redslob, R. P. A. Dozy, J. P. 
> N. Land), names associated with Moses and Aaron, which are, 
> apparently, of South Palestinian (or North-Arabian) origin. 
> 
> For the literature and a general account of the Jewish 
> priesthood, see the articles LEVTTES and PRIEST. . (S. A. C.) 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
> 
------
AbacuS|980674622
1c1,70
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABACUS (Gr. abax, a slab Fr. abaque, tailloir), in 
> architecture, the upper member of the capital of a column.  
> Its chief function is to provide a larger supporting surface 
> for the architrave or arch it has to carry.  In the Greek Doric 
> order the abacus is a plain square slab.  In the Roman and 
> Renaissance Doric orders it is crowned by a moulding.  In the 
> Archaic-Greek Ionic order, owing to the greater width of the 
> capital, the abacus is rectangular in plan, and consists of a 
> carved ovolo moulding.  In later examples the abacus is square, 
> except where there are angle volutes, when it is slightly 
> curved over the same.  In the Roman and Renaissance Ionic 
> capital, the abacus is square with a fillet On the top of an 
> ogee moulding, but curved over angle volutes.  In the Greek 
> Corinthian order the abacus is moulded, its sides are concave 
> and its angles canted (except in one or two exceptional Greek 
> capitals, where it is brought to a sharp angle); and the same 
> shape is adopted in the Roman and Renaissance Corinthian and 
> Composite capitals, in some cases with the ovolo moulding 
> carved.  In Romanesque architecture the abacus is square with 
> the lower edge splayed off and moulded or carved, and the 
> same was retained in France during the medieval period; but 
> in England,in Early English work, a circular deeply moulded 
> abacus was introduced, which in the 14th and 15th centuries 
> was transformed into an octagonal one.  The diminutive of 
> Abacus, ABACISCUS, is applied in architecture to the chequers 
> or squares of a tessellated pavement . ``Abacus'' is also the 
> name of an instrument employed by the ancients for arithmetical 
> calculations; pebbles, hits of bone or coins being used as 
> counters.  Fig. 1 shows a Roman abacus taken from an ancient 
> monument.  It contains seven long and seven shorter rods 
> or bars, the former having four perforated beads running 
> on them and the latter one.  The bar marked 1 indicates 
> units, X tens, and so on up to millions.  The beads on the 
> shorter bars denote fives,--five units, five tens, &c. The 
> rod O and corresponding short rod are for marking ounces; 
> and the short quarter rods for fractions of an ounce. 
> 
> The Swan-Pan of the Chinese (fig. 2) closely resembles 
> the Roman abacus in its construction and use.  Computations 
> are made with it by means of balls of bone or ivory running 
> on slender bamboo rods, similar to the simpler board, 
> fitted up with beads strung on wires, which is employed in 
> teaching the rudiments of arithmetic in English schools. 
> 
> FIG. 2.--Chinese Swan-Pan.  The name of ``abacus'' is also 
> given, in logic, to an instrument, often called the ``logical 
> machine,'' analogous to the mathematical abacus.  It is 
> constructed to show all the possible combinations of a set of 
> logical terms with their negatives, and, further, the way in which 
> these combinations are affected by the addition of attributes 
> or other limiting words, i.e. to simplify mechanically the 
> solution of logical problems.  These instruments are all more 
> or less elaborate developments of the ``logical slate,'' on 
> which were written in vertical columns all the combinations 
> of symbols or letters which could be made logically out of a 
> definite number of terms.  These were compared with any given 
> premises, and those which were incompatible were crossed 
> off.  In the abacus the combinations are inscribed each on a 
> single slip of wood or similar substance, which is moved by a 
> key; incompatible combinations can thus be mechanically removed 
> at will, in accordance with any given series of premises.  
> The principal examples of such machines are those of W. S. 
> Jevons (Element.  Lessons in Logic, C. xxiii.), John Venn 
> (see his Symbolic Logic, 2nd ed., 1894, p. 135), and Allan 
> Marquand (see American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1885, pp. 
> 303-7, and Johns Hopkins University Studies in Logic, 1883). 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
------
AbalonE|980674736
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABALONE, the Spanish name used in California for various 
> species of the shell-fish of the Haliotidae family, with a 
> richly coloured shell yielding mother-of-pearl.  This sort 
> of Haliotis is also commonly called ``ear-shell,'' and in 
> Guernsey ``ormer'' (Fr. ormier, for oreille de mer). 
> The abalone shell is found especially at Santa Barbara and 
> other places on the southern Californian coast, and when 
> polished makes a beautiful ornament.  The mollusc itself is 
> often eaten, and dried for consumption in China and Japan. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
> -- BryceHarrington
------
AbbadideS|980674863
1c1,98
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABBADIDES, a Mahommedan dynasty which arose in Spain on the 
> downfall of the western caliphate.  It lasted from about 1023 
> till 1091, but during the short period of its existence was 
> singularly active and typical of its time.  The founder of 
> the house was Abd-ul-Qasim Mahommed, the cadi of Seville in 
> 1023.  He was the chief of an Arab family settled in the city 
> from the first days of the conquest.  The Beni-abbad were not 
> of ancient descent, though the poets, whom they paid largely, 
> made an illustrious pedigree for them when they had become 
> powerful.  They were, however, very rich.  Abd-ul-Qasim gained 
> the confidence of the townsmen by organizing a successful 
> resistance to the Berber soldiers of fortune who were grasping 
> at the fragments of the caliphate.  At first he professed to 
> rule only with the advice of a council formed of the nobles, 
> but when his power became established he dispensed with this 
> show of republican government, and then gave himself the 
> appearance of a legitimate title by protecting an impostor 
> who professed to be the caliph Hisham II. When Abd-ul-Qasim 
> died in 1042 he had created a state which, though weak in 
> itself, was strong as compared to the little powers about 
> it.  He had made his family the recognized leaders of the 
> Mahommedans of Arab and native Spanish descent against 
> the Berber element, whose chief was the king of Granada.  
> Abbad, surnamed El Motaddid, his son and successor, is 
> one of the most remarkable figures in Spanish Mahommedan 
> history.  He had a striking resemblance to the Italian princes 
> of the later middle ages and the early renaissance, of the 
> stamp of Fiiipo Maria Visconti.  El Motaddid was a poet and 
> a lover of letters, who was also a poisoner, a drinker of 
> wine, a sceptic and treacherous to the utmost degree.  Though 
> he waged war all through his reign he very rarely appeared in 
> the field, but directed the generals, whom he never trusted, 
> from his ``lair'' in the fortified palace, the Alcazar of 
> Seville.  He killed with his own hand one of his sons who had 
> rebelled against him.  On one occasion he trapped a number 
> of his enemies, the Berber chiefs of the Ronda, into visiting 
> him, and got rid of them by smothering them in the hot room 
> of a bath.  It was his taste to preserve the skulls of the 
> enemies he had killed--those of the meaner men to be used as 
> flower-pots, while those of the princes were kept in special 
> chests.  His reign until his death on the 28th of February 
> 1069 was mainly spent in extending his power at the expense 
> of his smaller neighbours, and in conflicts with his chief 
> rival the king of Granada.  These incessant wars weakened the 
> Mahommedans, to the great advantage of the rising power of 
> the Christian kings of Leon and Castile, but they gave the 
> kingdom of Seville a certain superiority over the other little 
> states.  After 1063 he was assailed by Fernando El Magno of 
> Castile and Leon, who marched to the gates of Seville, and 
> forced him to pay tribute.  His son, Mahommed Abd-ul-Qasim 
> Abenebet---who reigned by the title of El Motamid--was the 
> third and last of the Abbadides, He was a no less remarkable 
> person than his father and much more amiable.  Like him he was 
> a poet, and a favourer of poets.  El Motamid went, however, 
> considerably further in patronage of literature than his father, 
> for he chose as his favourite and prime minister the poet Ibn 
> Ammar.  In the end the vanity and featherheadedness of Ibn 
> Ammar drove his master to kill him.  El Motamid was even 
> more influenced by his favourite wife, Romaica, than by his 
> vizir.  He had met her paddling in the Guadalquivir, purchased 
> her from her master, and made her his wife.  The caprices 
> of Romaica, and the lavish extravagance of Motamid in his 
> efforts to please her, form the subject of many stories.  
> In politics he carried on the feuds of his family with the 
> Berbers, and in his efforts to extend his dominions could be 
> as faithless as his father.  His wars and his extravagance 
> exhausted his treasury, and he oppressed his subjects by 
> taxes.  In 1080 he brought down upon himself the vengeance of 
> Alphonso VI. of Castile by a typical piece of flighty oriental 
> barbarity.  He had endeavoured to pay part of his tribute to the 
> Christian king with false money.  The fraud was detected by a 
> Jew, who was one of the envoys of Alphonso.  El Motamid, in 
> a moment of folly and rage, crucified the Jew and imprisoned 
> the Christian members of the mission.  Alphonso retaliated 
> by a destructive raid.  When Alphonso took Toledo in 1085, 
> El Motamid called in Yusef ibn Tashfin, the Almoravide (see 
> SPAIN, History, and ALMORAVIDES). During the six years 
> which preceded his deposition in 1091, El Motamid behaved 
> with valour on the field, but with much meanness and political 
> folly.  He endeavoured to curry favour with Yusef by betraying 
> the other Mahommedan princes to him, and intrigued to secure 
> the alliance of Alphonso against the Almoravide.  It was 
> probably during this period that he surrendered his beautiful 
> daughter Zaida to the Christian king, who made her his 
> concubine, and is said by some authorities to have married 
> her after she bore him a son, Sancho.  The vacillations and 
> submissions of El Motamid did not save him from the fate 
> which overtook his fellow-princes.  Their scepticism and 
> extortion had tired their subjects, and the mullahs gave Yusef 
> a ``fetva'' authorzing him to remove them in the interest of 
> religion.  In 1091 the Almoravides stormed Seville.  El 
> Motamid, who had fought bravely, was weak enough to order his 
> sons to surrender the fortresses they still held, in order 
> to save his own life.  He died in prison in Africa in 1095. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
RequestedArticles|980674878
5a6,7
> 
> ''I'm calling TheIliad, but it's awfully late here.''
------
AbbesS|980674970
1c1,38
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABBESS (Lat. abbatissa, fem. form of abbas, abbot), 
> the female superior of an abbey or convent of nuns.  The 
> mode of election, position, rights and authority of an abbess 
> correspond generally with those of an abbot (q.v.). The 
> office is elective, the choice being by the secret votes of the 
> sisters from their own body.  The abbess is solemnly admitted 
> to her office by episcopal benediction, together with the 
> conferring of a staff and pectoral cross, and holds for life, 
> though liable to be deprived for misconduct.  The council of 
> Trent fixed the qualifying age at forty, with eight years of 
> profession.  Abbesses have a right to demand absolute obedience 
> of their nuns, over whom they exercise discipline, extending 
> even to the power of expulsion, subject, however, to the 
> bishop.  As a female an abbess is incapable of performing the 
> spiritual functions of the priesthood belonging to an abbot.  
> She cannot ordain, confer the veil, nor excommunicate.  In 
> England abbesses attended ecclesiastical councils, e.g. that 
> of Becanfield in 694, where they signed before the presbyters. 
> 
> By Celtic usage abbesses presided over joint-houses of monks and 
> nuns.  This custom accompanied Celtic monastic missions to France 
> and Spain, and even to Rome itself.  At a later period, A.D. 
> 1115, Robert, the founder of Fontevraud, committed the government 
> of the whole order, men as well as women, to a female superior. 
> 
> In the German Evangelical church the title of abbess (Aebtissin) 
> has in some cases--e.g. Itzehoe--survived to designate the 
> heads of abbeys which since the Reformation have continued as 
> Stifte, i.e. collegiate foundations, which provide a home 
> and an income for unmarried ladies, generally of noble birth, 
> called canonesses (Kanonissinen) or more usually Stiftsdamen. 
> This office of abbess is of considerable social dignity, and 
> is sometimes filled by princesses of the reigning houses. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
AbbevilleFrance|980675044
1c1,42
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABBEVILLE, a town of northern France, capital of an 
> arrondissement in the department of Somme, on the Somme, 12 
> m. from its mouth in the English Channel, and 28 m.  N,W. of 
> Amiens on the Northern railway.  Pop. (1901) 18,519; (1906) 
> 18,971.  It lies in a pleasant and fertile valley, and is 
> built partly on an island and partly on both sides of the 
> river, which is canalized from this point to the estuary.  The 
> streets are narrow, and the houses are mostly picturesque old 
> structures, built of wood, with many quaint gables and dark 
> archways.  The most remarkable building is the church of St 
> Vulfran, erected in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.  The 
> original design was not completed.  The nave has only two bays 
> and the choir is insignificant.  The facade is a magnificent 
> specimen of the flamboyant Gothic style, flanked by two Gothic 
> towers.  Abbeville has several other old churches and an 
> hotel-de-ville, with a belfry of the 13th century.  Among 
> the numerous old houses, that known as the Maison de Francois 
> Ie, which is the most remarkable, dates from the 16th century.  
> There is a statue of Admiral Courbet (d. 1885) in the chief 
> square.  The public institutions include tribunals of first instance 
> and of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators, and a communal 
> college.  Abbeville is an important industrial centre; in addition 
> to its old-established manufacture of cloth, hemp-spinning, 
> sugar-making, ship-building and locksmiths' work are carried on; 
> there is active commerce in grain, but the port has little trade. 
> 
> Abbeville, the chief town of the district of Ponthieu, first 
> appears in history during the 9th century.  At that time 
> belonging to the abbey of St Riquier, it was afterwards 
> governed by the counts of Ponthieu.  Together with that county, 
> it came into the possession of the Alencon and other French 
> families, and afterwards into that of the house of Castillo, 
> from whom by marriage it fell in 1272 to Edward I., king of 
> England.  French and English were its masters by turns till 
> 1435 when, by the treaty of Arras, it was ceded to the duke of 
> Burgundy.  In 1477 it was annexed by Louis XI., king of France, 
> and was held by two illegitimate branches of the royal family in 
> the 16th and 17th centuries, being in 1696 reunited to the crown. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
AbbeY|980675226
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
------
AbbeY|980675568
1c1,1421
< 
---
> ABBEY (Lat. abbatia; from Syr. abba, father), a 
> monastery, or conventual establishment, under the government 
> of an ABBOT or an ABBESS. A priory only differed from 
> an abbey in that the superior bore the name of prior instead 
> of abbot. This was the case in all the English conventual 
> cathedrals, e.g. Canterbury, Ely, Norwich, &c., where the 
> archbishop or bishop occupied the abbot's place, the superior 
> of the monastery being termed prior.  Other priories were 
> originally offshoots from the larger abbeys, to the abbots 
> of which they continued subordinate; but in later times the 
> actual distinction between abbeys and priories was lost. 
> 
> The earliest Christian monastic communities (see MONASTICISM) 
> with which we are acquainted consisted of groups of cells or 
> huts collected about a common centre, which was usually the abode 
> of some anchorite celebrated for superior holiness or singular 
> asceticism, but without any attempt at orderly arrangement.  
> The formation of such communities in the East does not date 
> from the introduction of Christianity.  The example had been 
> already set by the Essenes in Judea and the Therapeutae in Egypt. 
> 
> In the earliest age of Christian monasticism the ascetics 
> were accustomed to live singly, independent of one another, 
> at no great distance from some village, supporting themselves 
> by the labour of their own hands, and distributing the 
> surplus after the supply of their own scanty wants to the 
> poor.  Increasing religious fervour, aided by persecution, 
> drove them farther and farther away from the abodes of men 
> into mountain solitudes or lonely deserts.  The deserts 
> of Egypt swarmed with the ``cells'' or huts of these 
> anchorites.  Anthony, who had retired to the Egyptian Thebaid 
> during the persecution of Maximin, A.D. 312, was the most 
> celebrated among them for his austerities, his sanctity, and 
> his power as an exorcist.  His fame collected round him a 
> host of followers, emulous of his sanctity.  The deeper he 
> withdrew into the wilderness, the more numerous his disciples 
> became.  They refused to be separated from him, and built 
> their ceils round that of their spiritual father.  Thus arose 
> the first monastic community, consisting of anchorites living 
> each in his own little dwelling, united together under one 
> superior.  Anthony, as Neander remarks (Church History, 
> vol. iii. p. 316, Clark's trans.), ``without any conscious 
> design of his own, had become the founder of a new mode 
> of living in common, Coenobitism.'' By degrees order was 
> introduced in the groups of huts.  They were arranged in 
> lines like the tents in an encampment, or the houses in a 
> street.  From this arrangement these lines of single cells 
> came to be known as Laurae, Laurai, "streets" or "lanes." 
> 
> The real founder of coenobian koinos, common, and bios, 
> life) monasteries in the modern sense was Pachomius, an Egyptian 
> of the beginning of the 4th century.  The first community 
> established by him was at Tabennae, an island of the Nile in Upper 
> Egypt.  Eight others were founded in his lifetime, numbering 3000 
> monks.  Within fifty years from his death his societies could 
> reckon 50,000 members.  These coenobia resembled vilIages, 
> peopled by a hard-working religious community, ail of one 
> sex.  The buildings were detached, small and of the humblest 
> character.  Each cell or hut, according to Sozomen (H.R. iii. 
> 14), contained three monks.  They took their chief meal in a 
> common refectory at 3 P.M., up to which hour they usually 
> fasted.  They ate in silence, with hoods so drawn over their 
> faces that they could see nothing but what was on the table 
> before them.  The monks spent all the time, not devoted to 
> religious services or study, in manual labour.  Palladius, 
> who visited the Egyptian monasteries about the close of the 
> 4th century, found among the 300 members of the coenobium of 
> Panopolis, under the Pachomian rule, 15 tailors, 7 smiths, 4 
> carpenters, 12 cameldrivers and 15 tanners.  Each separate 
> community had its own oeconomus or steward, who was subject 
> to a chief oeconomus stationed at the head establishment.  
> All the produce of the monks' labour was committed to him, and 
> by him shipped to Alexandria.  The money raised by the sale 
> was expended in the purchase of stores for the support of the 
> communities, and what was over was devoted to charity.  Twice 
> in the year the superiors of the several coenobia met at 
> the chief monastery, under the presidency of an archimandrite 
> (``the chief of the fold,'' from miandra, a fold), and at 
> the last meeting gave in reports of their administration for the 
> year.  The coenobia of Syria belonged to the Pachomian 
> institution.  We learn many details concerning those in the 
> vicinity of Antioch from Chrysostom's writings.  The monks 
> lived in separate huts, kalbbia, forming a religious hamlet 
> on the mountain side.  They were subject to an abbot, and 
> observed a common rule. (They had no refectory, but ate their 
> common meal, of bread and water only, when the day's labour 
> was over, reclining on strewn grass, sometimes out of doors,) 
> Four times in the day they joined in prayers and psalms. 
> 
> Santa Laura, Mount Athos. 
> 
> The necessity for defence from hostile attacks, economy of 
> space and convenience of access from one part of the community 
> to another, by degrees dictated a more compact and orderly 
> arrangement of the buildings of a monastic coenobium.  Large 
> piles of building were erected, with strong outside walls, 
> capable of resisting the assaults of an enemy, within which 
> all the necessary edifices were ranged round one or more 
> open courts, usually surrounded with cloisters.  The usual 
> Eastern arrangement is exemplified in the plan of the convent 
> of Santa Laura, Mount Athos (Laura, the designation of a 
> monastery generally, being converted into a female saint). 
> 
> This monastery, like the oriental monasteries generally, is 
> surrounded by a strong and lofty blank stone wall, enclosing 
> an area of between 3 and 4 acres.  The longer side extends to 
> a length of about 500 feet.  There is only one main entrance, 
> on the north side (A), defended by three separate iron 
> doors.  Near the entrance is a large tower (M), a constant 
> feature in the monasteries of the Levant.  There is a small 
> postern gate at L. The enceinte comprises two large open 
> courts, surrounded with buildings connected with cloister 
> galleries of wood or stone.  The outer court, which is much the 
> larger, contains the granaries and storehouses (K), and the 
> kitchen (H) and other offices connected with the refectory 
> (G). Immediately adjacent to the gateway is a two-storied 
> guest-house, opening from a cloister (C). The inner court is 
> surrounded by a cloister (EE), from which open the monks' cells 
> (II).  In the centre of this court stands the catholicon 
> or conventual church, a square building with an apse of 
> the cruciform domical Byzantine type, approached by a domed 
> narthex.  In front of the church stands a marble fountain 
> (F), covered by a dome supported on columns.  Opening from 
> the western side of the cloister, but actually standing in 
> the outer court, is the refectory (G), a large cruciform 
> building, about 100 feet each way, decorated within with 
> frescoes of saints.  At the upper end is a semicircular 
> recess, recalling the triclinium of the Lateran Palace 
> 
>                                                   A. Gateway. 
>                                                   B. Chapels.
>                                                   C. Guest-house.
>                                                   D. Church.
>                                                   E. Cloister.
>                                                   F. Fountain.
>                                                   G. Refectory.
>                                                   H. Kitchen.
>                                                   I. Cells.
>                                                   K. Storehouses.
>                                                   L. Postern gate.
>                                                   M. Tower.
> FIG. 1.---Monastery of Santa Laura, Mount Athos (Lenoir). 
> 
> at Rome, in which is placed the seat of the hegumenos or 
> abbot.  This apartment is chiefly used as a hall of meeting, the 
> oriental monks usually taking their meals in their separate cells. 
> 
> Vatopede 
> 
> St Laura is exceeded in magnitude by the convent of Vatopede 
> also on Mount Athos.  This enormous establishment covers at 
> least 4 acres of ground, and contains so many separate buildings 
> within its massive walls that it resembles a fortified town.  It 
> lodges above 300 monks, and the establishment of the hegumenos is 
> described as resembling the court of a petty sovereign prince.  
> The immense refectory, of the same cruciform shape as that of 
> St Laura, will accommodate 500 guests at its 24 marble tables. 
> 
> The annexed plan of a Coptic monastery, from Lenoir, 
> shows a church of three aisles, with cellular apses, and 
> two ranges of cells on either side of an oblong gallery. 
> 
> Benedictine. 
> 
> Monasticism in the West owes its extension and development 
> to Benedict of Nursia (born A.D. 480).  His rule was 
> diffused with miraculous rapidity from the parent foundation 
> on Monte Cassino through the whole of western Europe, and 
> every country witnessed the erection of monasteries far 
> exceeding anything that had yet been seen in spaciousness and 
> splendour.  Few great towns in Italy were without their 
> Benedictine convent, and they quickly rose in all the great 
> centres of population in England, France and Spain.  The number 
> of these monasteries founded between A.D. 520 and 700 is 
> amazing.  Before the Council of Constance, A.D. 1415, no 
> fewer than 15,070 abbeys had been established of this order 
> alone.  The buildings of a Benedictine abbey were uniformly 
> arranged ofter one plan, modified where necessary (as at 
> Durham and Worcester, where the monasteries stand close to the 
> steep bank of a river) to accommodate the arrangement to local 
> circumstances.  We have no existing examples of the earlier 
> monasteries of the Benedictine order.  They have all yielded 
> to the ravages of time and the violence of man.  But we 
> have fortunately preserved to us an elaborate plan of the 
> great Swiss monastery of St Gall, erected about A.D. 820, 
> which puts us in possession of the whole arrangements of a 
> monastery of the first class towards the early part of the 9th 
> century.  This curious and interesting plan has been made 
> the subject of a memoir both by Keller (Zurich, 1844) and by 
> Professor Robert Willis (Arch. Journal, 1848, vol. v. pp. 
> 86-117.  To the latter we are indebted for the substance of 
> the following description, as well as for the plan, reduced 
> from his elucidated transcript of the original preserved 
> 
>  FIG. 2.---Plan of Coptic Monastery. 
> A. Narthex. B. Church.
> C. Corridor, with cells on each side.
> D. Staircase.
> 
> in the archives of the convent.  The general apperance 
> of the convent is that of a town of isolated houses with 
> streets running between them.  It is evidently planned in 
> compliance with the Benedictine rule, which enjoined that, 
> if possible, the monastery should contain within itself 
> every necessary of life, as well as the buildings more 
> intimately connected with the religious and social life of its 
> inmates.  It should comprise a mill, a bakehouse, stables 
> and cow-houses, together with accommodation for carrying 
> on all necessary mechanical arts within the walls, so as to 
> obviate the necessity of the monks going outside its limits. 
> 
> The general distribution of the buildings may be thus 
> described:-The church, with its cloister to the south, occupies 
> the centre of a quadrangular area, about 430 feet square.  The 
> buildings, as in all great monasteries, are distributed into 
> groups.  The church forms the nucleus, as the centre of the 
> religious life of the community.  In closest connexion with 
> the church is the group of buildings appropriated to the 
> monastic line and its daily requirements---the refectory for 
> eating, the dormitory for sleeping, the common room for social 
> intercourse, the chapter-house for religious and disciplinary 
> conference.  These essential elements of monastic life 
> are ranged about a cloister court, surrounded by a covered 
> arcade, affording communication sheltered ftom the elements 
> between the various buildings.  The infirmary for sick monks, 
> with the physician's house and physic garden, lies to the 
> east.  In the same group with the infirmary is the school for 
> the novices.  The outer school, with its headmaster's house 
> against the opposite wall of the church, stands outside the 
> convent enclosure, in close proximity to the abbot's house, 
> that he might have a constant eye over them.  The buildings 
> devoted to hospitality are divided into three groups,--one 
> for the reception of distinguished guests, another for monks 
> visiting the monastery, a third for poor travellers and 
> pilgrims.  The first and third are placed to the right and 
> left of the common entrance of the monastery,---the hospitium 
> for distinguished guests being placed on the north side of the 
> church, not far from the abbot's house; that for the poor 
> on the south side next to the farm buildings.  The monks are 
> lodged in a guest-house built against the north wall of the 
> church.  The group of buildings connected with the material 
> wants of the establishment is placed to the south and west 
> of the church, and is distinctly separated from the monastic 
> buildings.  The kitchen, buttery and offices are reached by a 
> passage from the west end of the refectory, and are connected 
> with the bakehouse and brewhouse, which are placed still farther 
> away.  The whole of the southern and western sides is devoted to 
> workshops, stables and farm-buildings.  The buildings, with some 
> exceptions, seem to have been of one story only, and all but 
> the church were probably erected of wood.  The whole includes 
> thirty-three separate blocks.  The church (D) is cruciform, 
> with a nave of nine bays, and a semicircular apse at either 
> extremity.  That to the west is surrounded by a semicircular 
> colonnade, leaving an open ``paradise'' (E) between it and 
> the wall of the church.  The whole area is divided by screens 
> into various chapels.  The high altar (A) stands immediately 
> to the east of the transept, or ritual choir; the altar 
> of St Paul (B) in the eastern, and that of St Peter (C) in 
> the western apse.  A cylindrical campanile stands detached 
> from the church on either side of the western apse (FF). 
> 
> The ``cloister court', (G) on the south side of the nave of the 
> 
>  FIG. 3.--Ground-plan of St 
> 
>  
>   CHURCH.                          U. House for blood-letting.
>   A. High altar.                   V. School.
>   B. Altar of St Paul.             W. Schoolmaster's lodgings.
>   C. Altar of St Peter.            X1X1. Guest-house for those
>   D. Nave.                                  of superior rank
>   E. Paradise.                     X2X2. Guest-house for the poor.
>   FF. Towers.                      Y. Guest-chamber for strange monks.
>   MONASTIC BUILDINGS 
>   G. Cloister.                     MENIAL DEPARTMENT.
>   H. Calefactory, with             Z. Factory.
>      dormitory over.               a. Threshing-floor
>   I. Necessary.                    b. Workshops.
>   J. Abbot's house.                c, c. Mills.
>   K. Refectory.                    d. Kiln.
>   L. Kitchen.                      e. Stables.
>   M. Bakehouse and brewhouse.      f Cow-sheds.
>   N. Cellar.                       g. Goat-sheds.
>   O. Parlour.               (over. h. Pig-sties. i. Sheep-folds.
>   P1. Scriptorium with library  k, k, k. Servants' and workmen's
>   P2. Sacristy and vestry.                     sleeping-chambers.
>   Q. House of Novices--1.chapel;   l. Gardener's house
>     2. refectory; 3. calefactory;  m,m. Hen and duck house.
>     4. dormitory; 5. master's room n. Poultry-keeper's house.
>     6. chambers.                   o. Garden.
>   R. Infirmary--1--6 as above in   q. Bakehouse for sacramental
>      the house of novices.
>   S. Doctor's house.               s, s, s. Kitchens.
>   T. Physic garden.                t, t, t. Baths.
>  
> 
> church has on its east side the ``pisalis'' or ``calefactory', 
> (H), the common sitting-room of the brethren, warmed by 
> flues beneath the floor.  On this side in later monasteries 
> we invariably find the chapterhouse, the absence of 
> which in this plan is somewhat surprising.  It appears, 
> however, from the inscriptions on the plan itself, that the 
> north walk of the cloisters served for the purposes of a 
> chapter-house, and was fitted up with benches on the long 
> sides.  Above the calefactory is the ``dormitory'' opening 
> into the south transept of the church, to enable the monks 
> to attend the nocturnal services with readiness.  A passage 
> at the other end leads to the ``necessarium'' (I), a portion 
> of the monastic buildings always planned with extreme 
> care.  The southern side is occupied by the ``refectory'' 
> (K), from the west end of which by a vestibule the kitchen 
> (L) is reached.  This is separated from the main buildings 
> of the monastery, and is connected by a long passage with 
> a building containing the bake house and brewhouse (M), and 
> the sleeping-rooms of the servants.  The upper story of the 
> refectory is the ``vestiarium,'' where the ordinary clothes of 
> the brethren were kept.  On the western side of the cloister 
> is another two story building (N). The cellar is below, 
> and the larder and store-room above.  Between this building 
> and the church, opening by one door into the cloisters, and 
> by another to the outer part of the monastery area, is the 
> ``parlour'' for interviews with visitors from the external 
> world (O). On the eastern side of the north transept is the 
> ``scriptorium'' or writing-room (P1), with the library above. 
> 
> To the east of the church stands a group of buildings comprising 
> two miniature conventual establishments, each complete in 
> itself.  Each has a covered cloister surrounded by the usual 
> buildings, i.e. refectory, dormitory, &c., and a church or 
> chapel on one side, placed back to back.  A detached building 
> belonging to each contains a bath and a kitchen.  One of these 
> diminutive convents is appropriated to the ``oblati'' or novices 
> (Q), the other to the sick monks as an ``imfirmary'' (R). 
> 
> The ``residence of the physicians'' (S) stands contiguous to the 
> infirmary, and the physic garden (T) at the north-east corner of 
> the monastery.  Besides other rooms, it contains a drug store, 
> and a chamber for those who are dangerously ill.  The ``house 
> for bloodletting and purging'' adjoins it on the west (U). 
> 
> The ``outer school,'' to the north of the convent area, contains 
> a large schoolroom divided across the middle by a screen or 
> partition, and surrounded by fourteen little rooms, termed 
> the dwellings of the scholars.  The head-master's house (W) 
> is opposite, built against the side wall of the church.  The 
> two ``hospitia'' or `' guest-houses'' for the entertainment 
> of strangers of different degrees (X1 X2) comprise a large 
> common chamber or refectory in the centre, surrounded by 
> sleeping-apartments.  Each is provided with its own brewhouse 
> and bakehouse, and that for travellers of a superior order has 
> a kitchen and storeroom, with bedrooms for their servants and 
> stables for their horses.  There is also an ``hospitium'' for 
> strange monks, abutting on the north wall of the church (Y). 
> 
> Beyond the cloister, at the extreme verge of the convent 
> area to the south, stands the `factory'' (Z), containing 
> workshops for shoemakers, saddlers (or shoemakers, sellarii), 
> cutlers and grinders, trencher-makers, tanners, curriers, 
> fullers, smiths and goldsmiths, with their dwellings in the 
> rear.  On this side we also find the farmbuildings, the large 
> granary and threshing-floor (a), mills (c), malthouse 
> (d). Facing the west are the stables (e), ox-sheds 
> (f), goatstables (gl, piggeries (h), sheep-folds (i), 
> together with the servants' and labourers' quarters (k). 
> At the south-east corner we find the hen and duck house, and 
> poultry-yard (m), and the dwelling of the keeper (n). 
> Hard by is the kitchen garden (o), the beds bearing the 
> names of the vegetables growing in them, onions, garlic, 
> celery, lettuces, poppy, carrots, cabbages, &c., eighteen in 
> all.  In the same way the physic garden presents the names 
> of the medicinal herbs, and the cemetery (p) those of 
> the trees, apple, pear, plum, quince, &c., planted there. 
> 
> Canterbury Cathedral. 
> 
> A curious bird's-eye view of Canterbury Cathedral and its 
> annexed conventual buildings, taken about 1165, is preserved 
> in the Great Psalter in the library of Trinity College, 
> Cambridge.  As elucidated by Professor Willis,1 it exhibits 
> the plan of a great Benedictine monastery in the 12th century, 
> and enables us to compare it with that of the 9th as seen at St 
> Gall.  We see in both the same general principles of arrangement, 
> which indeed belong to all Benedictine monasteries, enabling 
> us to determine with precision the disposition of the various 
> buildings, when little more than fragments of the walls 
> exist.  From some local reasons, however, the cloister and 
> monastic buildings are placed on the north, instead, as is far 
> more commonly the case, on the south of the church.  There is 
> also a separate chapter-house, which is wanting at St Gall. 
> 
> The buildings at Canterbury, as at St Gall, form separate 
> groups.  The church forms the nucleus.  In immediate contact 
> with this, on the north side, lie the cloister and the 
> group of buildings devoted to the monastic life.  Outside of 
> these, to the west and east, are the ``halls and chambers 
> devoted to the exercise of hospitality, with which every 
> monastery was provided, for the purpose of receiving as 
> guests persons who visited it, whether clergy or laity, 
> travellers, pilgrims or paupers.'' To the north a large 
> open court divides the monastic from the menial buildings, 
> intentionally placed as remote as possible from the conventual 
> buildings proper, the stables, granaries, barn, bakehouse, 
> brewhouse, laundries, &c., inhabited by the lay servants of the 
> establishment.  At the greatest possible distance from the 
> church, beyond the precinct of the convent, is the eleemosynary 
> department.  The almonry for the relief of the poor, 
> with a great hall annexed, forms the paupers' hospitium. 
> 
> The most important group of buildings is naturally that devoted 
> to monastic life.  This includes two Cloisters, the great 
> cloister surrounded by the buildings essentially connected with 
> the daily life of the monks,---the church to the south, the 
> refectory or frater-house here as always on the side opposite 
> to the church, and farthest removed from it, that no sound or 
> smell of eating might penetrate its sacred precincts, to the 
> east the dormitory, raised on a vaulted undercroft, and the 
> chapter-house adjacent, and the lodgings of the cellarer to the 
> west.  To this officer was committed the provision of the 
> monks' daily food, as well as that of the guests.  He was, 
> therefore, appropriately lodged in the immediate vicinity of 
> the refectory and kitchen, and close to the guest-hall.  A 
> passage under the dormitory leads eastwards to the smaller 
> or infirmary cloister, appropriated to the sick and infirm 
> monks.  Eastward of this cloister extend the hall and chapel of 
> the infirmary, resembling in form and arrangement the nave and 
> chancel of an aisled church.  Beneath the dormitory, looking 
> out into the green court or herbarium, lies the ``pisalis'' 
> or ``calefactory,'' the common room of the monks.  At its 
> north-east corner access was given from the dormitory to the 
> necessarium, a portentous edifice in the form of a Norman 
> hall, 145 ft. long by 25 broad, containing fifty-five seats.  It 
> was, in common with all such offices in ancient monasteries, 
> constructed with the most careful regard to cleanliness and 
> health, a stream of water running through it from end to 
> end.  A second smaller dormitory runs from east to west for 
> the accommodation of the conventual officers, who were bound 
> to sleep in the dormitory.  Close to the refectory, but outside 
> the cloisters, are the domestic offices connected with it: 
> to the north, the kitchen, 47 ft. square, surmounted by a 
> lofty pyramidal roof, and the kitchen court; to the west, the 
> butteries, pantries, &c. The infirmary had a small kitchen of its 
> own.  Opposite the refectory door in the cloister are two 
> lavatories, an invariable adjunct to a monastic dining-hall, 
> at which the monks washed before and after taking food. 
> 
> The buildings devoted to hospitality were divided into three 
> groups.  The prior's group ``entered at the south-east angle 
> of the green court, placed near the most sacred part of the 
> cathedral, as befitting the distinguished ecclesiastics or 
> nobility who were assigned to him.'' The cellarer's buildings 
> were near the west end of the nave, in which ordinary visitors 
> of the middle class were hospitably entertained.  The inferior 
> pilgrims and paupers were relegated to the north hall or almonry, 
> just within the gate, as far as possible from the other two. 
> 
> Westminster Abbey. 
> 
> Westminster Abbey is another example of a great Benedictine 
> abbey, identical in its general arrangements, so far as they 
> can be traced, with those described above.  The cloister and 
> , monastic buildings lie to the south side of the church.  
> Parallel to the nave, on the south side of the cloister, 
> was the refectory, with its lavatory at the door.  On the 
> eastern side we find the remains of the dormitory, raised 
> on a vaulted substructure and communicating with the south 
> transept.  The chapter-house opens out of the same alley of the 
> cloister.  The small cloister lles to the south-east of 
> the larger cloister, and still farther to the east we have 
> the remains of the infirmary with the table hall, the 
> refectory of those who were able to leave their chambers.  The 
> abbot's house formed a small courtyard at the west entrance, 
> close to the inner gateway.  Considerable portions of this 
> remain, including the abbot's parlour. celebrated as ``the 
> Jerusalem Chamber,'' his hall, now used for the Westminster 
> King's Scholars, and the kitchen and butteries beyond. 
> 
> York. 
> 
> St Mary's Abbey, York, of which the ground-plan is annexed, 
> exhibits the usual Benedictine arrangements.  The precincts 
> are surrounded by a strong fortified wall on three sides, 
> the river Ouse being sufficient protection on the fourth 
> side.  The entrance was by a strong gateway (U) to the 
> north.  Close to the entrance was a chapel, where is now 
> the church of St Olaf (W), in which the new-comers paid 
> their devotions immediately on their arrival.  Near the 
> gate to the south was the guest-hall or hospitium (T). 
> The buildings are completely ruined, but enough remains to 
> enable us to identify the grand cruciform church (A), the 
> cloister-court with the chapterhouse (B), the refectory (I), 
> the kitchen-court with its offices (K, O, O) and the other 
> principal apartments.  The infirmary has perished completely. 
> 
> Some Benedictine houses display exceptional arrangements, 
> dependent upon local circumstances, e.g. the dormitory of 
> Worcester runs from east to west, from the west walk of the 
> cloister, and that of Durham is built over the west, instead of 
> 
>                              FIG. 4
> 
>  St Mary's Abbey, York (Benedictine).--Churton's Monnastic Ruins.
>  A. Church.                        O. Offices.
>  B. Chapter-house.                 P. Cellars.
>  C. Vestibule to ditto.            Q. Uncertain. 
>  E. Library or scriptorium.        R. Passage to abbot's house.
>  F. Calefactory.                   S. Passage to common house.
>  G. Necessary.                     T. Hospitium.
>  H. Parlour.                       U. Great gate.
>  I. Refectory.                     V. Porter's lodge.
>  K. Great kitchen and court.       W. Church of St Olaf.
>  L. Cellarer's office.             X. Tower.
>  M. Cellars.                       Y. Entrance from Bootham.
>  N. Passage to cloister.
>  
> 
> as usual, over the east walk; but, as a general rule, the arrangements 
> deduced from the examples described may be regarded as invariable. 
> 
> The history of monasticism is one of alternate periods of 
> decay and revival.  With growth in popular esteem came increase 
> in material wealth, leading to luxury and worldliness.  The 
> first religious ardour cooled, the strictness of the rule was 
> relaxed, until by the 10th century the decay of discipline 
> was so complete in France that the monks are said to have 
> been frequently unacquainted with the rule of St Benedict, 
> and even ignorant that they were bound by any rule at 
> all.  The reformation of abuses generally took the form of 
> the establishment of new monastic orders, with new and more 
> stringent rules, requiring a modification of the architectural 
> arrangements.  One of the earliest of these reformed orders 
> was the Cluniac. This order took its name from,the little 
> village of Cluny, 12 miles N.W. of Macon, near which, about 
> A.D. 909, a reformed Benedictine abbey was founded by William, 
> duke of Aquitaine and count of Auvergne, under Berno, abbot of 
> Beaume.  He was succeeded by Odo, who is often regarded as 
> the founder of the order.  The fame of Cluny spread far and 
> wide.  Its rigid rule was adopted by a vast number of the 
> old Benedictine abbeys, who placed themselves in affiliation 
> to the mother society, while new foundations sprang up in 
> large numbers, all owing allegiance to the ``archabbot,'' 
> established at Cluny.  By the end of the 12th century the 
> number of monasteries affiliated to Cluny in the various 
> countries of western Europe amounted to 2000.  The monastic 
> establishment of Cluny was one of the most extensive 
> and magnificent in France.  We may form some idea of its 
> enormous dimensions from the fact recorded, that when, A.D. 
> 1245, Pope Innocent IV., accompanied by twelve cardinals, 
> 
>          FIG. 5--Abbey of Cluny, from 
> 
>  
>  A. Gateway.        F. Tomb of St Hugh.  M. Bakehouse.
>  B. Narthex.        G. Nave.             N. Abbey buildings.
>  C. Choir.          H. Cloister.         O. Garden.
>  D. High-altar.     K. Abbot's house.    P. Refectory.
>  E. Retro-altar.    L. Guest-house.
>  
> 
> a patriarch, three archbishops, the two generals of the 
> Carthusians and Cistercians, the king (St Louis), and three 
> of his sons, the queen mother, Baldwin, count of Flanders 
> and emperor of Constantinople, the duke of Burgundy, and 
> six lords, visited the abbey, the whole party, with their 
> attendants, were lodged withn the monastery without disarranging 
> the monks, 400 in number.  Nearly the whole of the abbey 
> buildings, including the magnificent church, were swept away 
> at the close of the 18th century.  When the annexed ground-plan 
> was taken, shortly before its destruction, nearly all the 
> monastery, with the exception of the church, had been rebuilt. 
> 
> The church, the ground-plan of which bears a remarkable 
> resemblance to that of Lincoln Cathedral, was of vast 
> dimensions.  It was 656 ft. high.  The nave (G) had double 
> vaulted aisles on either side.  Like Lincoln, it had an 
> eastern as well as a western transept, each furnished with 
> apsidal chapels to the east.  The western transept was 213 
> ft. long, and the eastern 123 ft.  The choir terminated in 
> a semicircular apse (F), surrounded by five chapels, also 
> semicircular.  The western entrance was approached by an 
> ante-church, or narthex (B), itself an aisled church of 
> no mean dimensions, flanked by two towers, rising from a 
> stately flight of steps bearing a large stone cross.  To the 
> south of the church lay the cloister-court (H), of immense 
> size, placed much farther to the west than is usually the 
> case.  On the south side of the cloister stood the refectory 
> (P), an immense building, 100 ft. long and 60 ft. wide, 
> accommodating six longitudinal and three transverse rows of 
> tables.  It was adorned with the portraits of the chief 
> benefactors of the abbey, and with Scriptural subjects.  The 
> end wall displayed the Last Judgment.  We are unhappily unable 
> to identify any other of the principal buildings (N). The 
> abbot's residence (K), still partly standing, adjoined the 
> entrance-gate.  The guest-house (L) was close by.  The bakehouse 
> (M), also remaining, is a detached building of immense size. 
> 
> English Cluniac 
> 
> The first English house of the Cluniac order was that of 
> Lewes, founded by the earl of Warren, c. A.D. 1077.  Of 
> this only a few fragments of the domestic buildings exist.  
> The best preserved Cluniac houses in England are Castle Acre, 
> Norfolk, and Wenlock, Shropshire.  Ground-plans of both are 
> given in Britton's Architectural Antiquities. They show 
> several departures from the Benedictine arrangement.  In 
> each the prior's house is remarkably perfect.  All Cluniac 
> houses in England were French colonies, governed by priors 
> of that nation.  They did not secure their independence nor 
> become ``abbeys'' till the reign of Henry VI. The Cluniac 
> revival, with all its brilliancy, was but short-lived.  
> The celebrity of this, as of other orders, worked its moral 
> ruin.  With their growth in wealth and dignity the Cluniac 
> foundations became as worldly in life and as relaxed in 
> discipline as their predecessors, and a fresh reform was needed. 
> 
> Cistercian 
> 
> The next great monastic revival, the Cistercian, arising in 
> the last years of the 11th century, had a wider diffusion, 
> and a longer and more honourable existence.  Owing its real 
> origin, as a distinct foundation of reformed Benedictines, in 
> the year 1098, to Stephen Harding (a native of Dorsetshire, 
> educated in the monastery of Sherborne), and deriving its 
> name from Citeaux (Cistercium), a desolate and almost 
> inaccessible forest solitude, on the borders of Champagne and 
> Burgundy, the rapid growth and wide celebrity of the order 
> are undoubtedly to be attributed to the enthusiastic piety 
> of St Bernard, abbot of the first of the monastic colonies, 
> subsequently sent forth in such quick succession by the 
> first Cistercian houses, the far-famed abbey of Clairvaux 
> (de Clara Valle), A.D. 1116.  The rigid self-abnegation, 
> which was the ruling principle of this reformed congregation 
> of the Benedictine order, extended itself to the churches and 
> other buildings erected by them.  The characteristic of the 
> Cistercian abbeys was the extremest simplicity and a studied 
> plainness.  Only one tower--a central one --was permitted, and 
> that was to be very low.  Unnecessary pinnacles and turrets 
> were prohibited.  The triforium was omitted.  The windows 
> were to be plain and undivided, and it was forbidden to 
> decorate them with stained glass.  All needless ornament was 
> proscribed.  The crosses must be of wood; the candlesticks of 
> iron.  The renunciation of the world was to be evidenced 
> in all that met the eye.  The same spirit manifested itself 
> in the choice of the sites of their monasteries.  The more 
> dismal, the more savage, the more hopeless a spot appeared, 
> the more did it please their rigid mood.  But they came 
> not merely as ascetics, but as improvers.  The Cistercian 
> monasteries are, as a rule, found placed in deep well-watered 
> valleys.  They always stand on the border of a stream; not 
> rarely, as at Fountains, the buildings extend over it.  These 
> valleys, now so rich and productive, wore a very different 
> aspect when the brethren first chose them as the place of their 
> retirement.  Wide swamps, deep morasses, tangled thickets, 
> wild impassable forests, were their prevailing features.  The 
> ``bright valley,'' Clara Vallis of St Bernard, was known 
> as the ``valley of Wormwood,'' infamous as a den of robbers. 
> ``It was a savage dreary solitude, so utterly barren that 
> at first Bernard and his companions were reduced to live on 
> beech leaves.''-(Milman's Lat. Christ. vol. iii. p. 335.) 
> 
> Clairvaux 
> 
> All Cistercian monasteries, unless the circumstances of the 
> locality forbade it, were arranged according to one plan.  The 
> general arrangement and distribution of the various
> buildings, which went to make up one of these vast 
> establishments, may be gathered from that of St Bernard's own 
> abbey of Clairvaux, which is here given.  It will be observed 
> that the abbey precincts are surrounded by a strong wall, 
> furnished at intervals with watch-towers and other defensive 
> works.  The wall is nearly encircled by a stream of water, 
> artificially diverted from the small rivulets which flow 
> through the precincts, furnishing the establishment with 
> an abundant supply in every part, for the litigation of 
> the gardens and orchards, the sanitary requirements of the 
> brotherhood and for the use of the offices and workshops. 
> 
> The precincts are divided across the centre by a wall, 
> running from N. to S., into an outer and inner ward,--the 
> former containing the menial, the latter the monastic 
> buildings.  The precincts are entered by a gateway (P), at 
> the extreme western extremity, giving admission to the lower 
> ward.  Here the barns, granaries, stables, shambles, workshops 
> and workmen,s lodgings were placed, without any regard to 
> symmetry, convenience being the only consideration.  Advancing 
> eastwards, we have before us the wall separating the 
> 
>     FIG. 6.--.Clairvaux, No. 1 (Cistercian), General 
> 
>  
>   A. Cloisters.         I. Wine-press and       O. Public presse.
>   B. Ovens, and corn          hay-chamber       P. Gateway.
>        oil-mills        K. Parlour              R. Remains of old monastery
>   C. St Bernard's cell. L. Workshops and.
>   D. Chief entrance.         workmen's lodgings S. Oratory.
>   E. Tanks for fish.                            V. Tile-works.
>   F. Guest-house.       M. Slaughter-house.     X. Tile-kiln.
>   G. Abbot's house.     N. Barns and stables.   V. Water-courses.
>   H. Stables.
>  
> 
> outer and inner ward, and the gatehouse (D) affording communication 
> between the two.  On passing through the gateway, the outer 
> court of the inner ward was entered, with the western facade 
> of the monastic church in front.  Immediately on the right 
> of entrance was the abbot's house (G), in close proximity to 
> the guest-house (F). On the other side of the court were the 
> stables, for the accommodation of the horses of the guests 
> and their attendants (H). The church occupied a central 
> position.  To the south was the great cloister (A), 
> surrounded by the chief monastic buildings, and farther to 
> the east the smaller cloister, opening out of which were 
> the infirmary, novices' lodgings and quarters for the aged 
> monks.  Still farther to the east, divided from the monastic 
> buildings by a wall, were the vegetable gardens and orchards, 
> and tank for fish.  The large fish-ponds, an indispensable 
> adjunct to any ecclesiastical foundation, on the formation 
> of which the monks lavished extreme care and pains, and 
> which often remain as almost the only visible traces of these 
> vast establishments, were placed outside the abbey walls. 
> 
> Plan No. 2 furninshes the ichnography of the distinctly 
> monastic buildings on a larger scale.  The usually unvarying 
> arrangement of the Cistercian houses allows us to accept 
> this as a type of the monasteries of this order.  The church 
> (A) is the chief feature.  It consists of a vast nave of 
> eleven bays, entered by a narthex, with a transept and short 
> apsidal choir. (It may be remarked that the eastern limb in 
> all unaltered Cistercian churches is remarkably short, and 
> usually square.) To the east of each limb of the transept 
> are two square chapels, divided according to Cistercian 
> rule by solid walls.  Nine radiating chapels, similarly 
> divided, surround the apse.  The stalls of the monks, 
> forming the ritual choir, occupy the four eastern bays of the 
> nave.  There was a second range of stalls in the extreme 
> western bays of the nave for the fratres conversi, or lay 
> brothers.  To the south of the church, so as to secure as 
> much sun as possible, the cloister was invariably placed, 
> except when local reasons forbade it.  Round the cloister 
> (B) were ranged the buildings connected with the monks' daily 
> life.  The chapter-house (C) always opened out of the east 
> walk of the cloister in a line with the south transept. 
> 
>       FIG. 7.--Clairvaux, No. 2 (Cistercian), Monastic 
> 
>  
>   A. Church.            L. Lodgings of novices.   S. Cellars and storehouses.
>   B. Cloister. 
>   C. Chapter-house.     M. Old guest-house.       T. Water-course.
>   D. Monks' parlour.    N. Old abbot's lodgings.  U. Saw-mill and oil mill
>   E. Calefactory. 
>   F. Kitchen and court. O. Cloister of            V. Currier's shop.
>   G. Refectory.            supernumerary monks.
>   H. Cemetery.                                    X. Sacristy.
>   I. Little cloister.   P. Abbot's hall.          Y. Little library.
>   K. Infirmary.         Q. Cell of St Bernard.    Z. Undercroft of dormitory.
>                         R. Stables.
>  
> 
> In Cistercian houses this was quadrangular, and was divided 
> by pillars and arches into two or three aisles.  Between 
> it and the transept we find the sacristy (X), and a small 
> book-room (Y) armariolum, where the brothers deposited the 
> volumes borrowed from the library.  On the other side of the 
> chapter-house, to the south, is a passage (D) communicating 
> with the courts and buildings beyond.  This was sometimes 
> known as the parlour, colloquii locus, the monks having the 
> privilege of conversation here.  Here also, when iscipline 
> became relaxed, traders, who had the liberty of admission, 
> were allowed to display their goods.  Beyond this we often 
> find the calefactorium or day-room--an apartment warmed 
> by flues beneath the pavement, where the brethren, half 
> frozen during the night offices, betook themselves after 
> the conclusion of lauds, to gain a little warmth, grease 
> their sandals and get themselves ready for the work of the 
> day.  In the plan before us this apartment (E) opens from the 
> south cloister walk, adjoining the refectory.  The place usually 
> assigned to it is occupied by the vaulted substructure of the 
> dormitory (Z). The dormitory, as a rule, was placed on the 
> east side of the cloister, running over the calethetory and 
> chapter-house, and joined the south transept, where a flight 
> of steps admitted the brethren into the church for nocturnal 
> services.  Opening out of the dormitory was always the 
> necessarium, planned with the greatest regard to health and 
> cleanliness, a water-course invariably running from end to 
> end.  The refectory opens out of the south cloister at G. 
> The position of the refectory is usually a marked point of 
> difference between Benedictine and Cistercian abbeys.  In the 
> former, as at Canterbury, the refectory ran east and west 
> parallel to the nave of the church, on the side of the cloister 
> farthest removed from it.  In the Cistercian monasturies, to 
> keep the noise and smell of dinner still farther away from 
> the sacred building, the refectory was built north and south, 
> at right angles to the axis of the church.  It was often 
> divided, sometimes into two, sometimes, as here, into three 
> aisles.  Outside the refectory door, in the cloister, 
> was the lavatory, where the monks washed their hands at 
> dinner-time.  The buildings belonging to the material life of 
> the monks lay near the refectory, as far as possible from the 
> church, to the S.W. With a distinct entrance from the outer 
> court was the kitchen court (F), with its buttery, scullery 
> and larder, and the important adjunct of a stream of running 
> water.  Farther to the west, projecting beyond the line of 
> the west front of the church, were vast vaulted apartments 
> (SS), serving as cellars and storehouses, above which was 
> the dormitory of the conversi. Detached from these, and 
> separated entirely from the monastic buildings, were various 
> workshops, which convenience repuired to be banished to 
> the outer precincts, a saw-mill and oil-mill (UU) turned 
> by water, and a currier's shop (V), where the sandals 
> and leathern girdles of the monks were made and repaired. 
> 
> Returning to the cloister, a vaulted passage admitted to the small 
> cloister (l), opening from the north side of which were eight 
> small cells, assigned to the scribes employed in copying works 
> for the library, which was placed in the upper story, accessible 
> by a turret staircase.  To the south of the small cloister 
> a long hall will be noticed.  This was a lecture-hall, or 
> rather a hall for the religious disputations customary among the 
> Cistercians.  From this cloister opened the infirmary (K), 
> with its hall, chapel, cells, blood-letting house and other 
> dependencies.  At the eastern verge of the vast group of buildings 
> we find the novices' lodgings (L), with a third cloister 
> near the novices' quarters and the original guest-house (M). 
> Detached from the great mass of the monastic edifices was the 
> original abbot's house (N), with its dining-hall (P). Closely 
> adjoining to this, so that the eye of the father of the whole 
> establishment should be constantly over those who stood the 
> most in need of his watchful care,--those who were training 
> for the monastic life, and those who had worn themselves 
> out in its duties,--was a fourth cloister (O), with annexed 
> buildings, devoted to the aged and infirm members of the 
> establishment.  The cemetery, the last resting-place of the 
> brethren, lay to the north side of the nave of the church (H). 
> 
> It will be seen from the above account that the arrangement of 
> a Cistercian monastery was in accordance with a clearly defined 
> system, and admirably adapted to its purpose.  The base court 
> nearest to the outer wall contained the buildings belonging to 
> the functions of the body as agriculturists and employers of 
> labour.  Advancing into the inner court, the buildings`devoted 
> to hospitality are found close to the entrance; while those 
> connected with the supply of the material wants of the brethren, 
> --the kitchen, cellars, &c.,--form a court of themselves 
> outside the cloister and quite detached from the church.  
> The church refectory, dormitory and other buildings belonging 
> to the professional life of the brethren surround the great 
> cloister.  The small cloister beyond, with its scribes' cells, 
> library, hall for disputations, &c., is the centre of the 
> literary life of the community.  The requirements of sickness 
> and old age are carefully provided for in the infirmary 
> cloister and that for the aged and infirm members of the 
> establishment.  The same group contains the quarters of the novices. 
> 
> This stereotyped arrangement is further shown by the 
> illustration of the mother establishment of Citeaux. 
> 
> Citeaux. 
> 
> A cross (A), planted on the high road, directs travellers to 
> the gate of the monastery. reached by an avenue of trees.  On 
> one side of the gate-house (B) is a long building (C), probably 
> the almonry, with a dormitory above for the lower class of 
> guests.  On the other side is a chapel (D). As soon as the 
> porter heard a stranger knock at the gate, he rose, saying, 
> Deo gratias, the opportunity for the exercise of hospitality 
> being regarded as a cause for thankfulness.  On opening the 
> door he welcomed the new arrival with a blessing --Benedicite. 
> He fell on his knees before him, and then went to inform the 
> abbot.  However important the abbot's occupations might 
> be, he at once hastened to receive him whom heaven had 
> sent.  He also threw himself at his guest's feet, and 
> conducted him to the chapel (D) purposely built close to the 
> gate.  After a short prayer, the abbot committed the guest 
> to the care of the brother hospitaller, whose duty it was 
> to provide for his wants and conduct the beast on which he 
> might be riding to the stable (F), built adjacent to the inner 
> gatehouse (E). This inner gate conducted into the base court 
> (T), round which were placed the barns, stables, cow-sheds, &c. 
> On the eastern side stood the dormitory of the lay brothers, 
> fratres conversi (G), detached from the cloister, with 
> cellars and storehouses below.  At H, also outside the monastic 
> buildings proper, was the abbot's house, and annexed to it the 
> guest-house.  For these buildings there was a separate door 
> of entrance into the church (S). The large cloister, with its 
> surrounding arcades, is seen at V. On the south end projects 
> the refectory (K), with its kitchen at I, accessible from 
> the base court.  The long gabled building on the east side of 
> the cloister contained on the ground floor the chapter-house 
> and calefactory, with the monks' dormitory above (M), 
> communicating with the south transept of the church.  At L 
> was the staircase to the dormitory.  The small cloister is at 
> W, where were the carols or cells of the scribes, with the 
> library (P) over, reached by a turret staircase.  At R we see 
> a portion of the infirmary.  The whole precinct is surrounded 
> by a strong buttressed wall (XXX), pierced with arches, 
> 
>             FIG. 8.---Bird's-eye view of 
> 
>  
>  A. Cross.            H. Abbot's house.            R. Infirmary.
>  B. Gate-house.       I. Kitchen.                  S. Door to the church
>  C. Almonry.          K. Refectory.                   for the lay brothers.
>  D. Chapel.           L. Staircase to dormitory.
>  E. Inner gate-house.                              T. Base court.
>  F. Stable.           M. Dormitory.                V. Great cloister.
>  G. Dormitory of lay  N. Church.                   W. Small cloister.
>         brethren.     P. Library.                  X. Boundary wall.
>  
> 
> through which streams of water are introduced.  It will 
> be noticed that the choir of the church is short, and has 
> a square end instead of the usual apse.  The tower, in 
> accordance with the Cistercian rule, is very low.  The windows 
> throughout accord with the studied simplicity of the order. 
> 
> Kirkstall Abbey. 
> 
> The English Cistercian houses, of which there are such extensive 
> and beautiful remains at Fountains, Rievaulx, Kirkstall, 
> Tintern, Netley, &c., were mainly arranged after the same 
> plan, with slight local variations.  As an example, we give 
> the groundplan of Kirkstall Abbey. which is one of the best 
> preserved.  The church here is of the Cistercian type, with 
> a short chancel of two squares, and transepts with three 
> eastward chapels to each, divided by solid walls (2 2 2). 
> The whole is of the most studied plainness.  The windows 
> are unornamented, and the nave has no triforium.  The 
> cloister to the south (4) occupies the whole length of the 
> nave.  On the east side stands the two-aisled chapter-house 
> (5), between which and the south transept is a small 
> sacristy (3), and on the other side two small apartments, 
> one of which was probably the parlour (6). Beyond this 
> stretches southward the calefactory or day-room of the monks 
> (14).  Above this whole range of building runs the monks' 
> dormitory, opening by stairs into the south transept of the 
> church.  At the other end were the necessaries.  On thc south 
> side of the cloister we have the remains of the old refectory 
> (11), running, as in Benedictine houses, from east to west, 
> and the new refectory (12), which, with the increase of the 
> inmates of the house, superseded it, stretching, as is usual 
> in Cistercian houses, from north to south.  Adjacent to this 
> apartment are the remains of the kitchen, pantry and buttery.  
> The arches of the lavatory are to be seen near the refectory 
> entrance.  The western side of the cloister is, as usual, 
> occupied by vaulted cellars, supporting on the upper story 
> the dormitory of the lay brothers (8). Extending from the 
> 
>       FIG. 9 Kirkstall Abbey, Yorkshire 
> 
>  
>  1. Church.                         10. Common room.
>  2. Chapels.                        11. Old refectory.
>  3. Sacristy.                       12. New refectory.
>  4. Cloister.                       13. Kitchen court.
>  5. Chapter-house.                  14. Calefactory or day-room.
>  6. Parlour.                        15. Kitchen and offices.
>  7. Punishment cell (?).            16-19. Uncertain; perhaps offices
>  8. Cellars, with dormitories for            connected with the infirmary.
>       conversi over.
>  9. Guest-house.                    20. Infirmary or abbot's house.
>  
> 
> south-east angle of the main group of buildings are the 
> walls and foundations of a secondary group of considerable 
> extent.  These have been identified either with the hospitium 
> or with the abbot's house, but they occupy the position in 
> which the infirmary is more usually found.  The hall was 
> a very spacious apartment, measuring 83 ft. in length by 
> 48 ft. 9 in. in breadth, and was divided by two rows of 
> columns.  The fish-ponds lay between the monastery and 
> the river to the south.  The abbey mill was situated 
> about 80 yards to the north-west.  The millpool may be 
> distinctly traced, together with the gowt or mill stream. 
> 
> Fountains Abbey. 
> 
> Fountains Abbey, first founded A.D. 1132, is one of the 
> largest and best preserved Cistercian houses in England.  
> But the earlier buildings received considerable additions 
> and alterations in the later period of the order, causing 
> deviations from the strict Cistercian type.  The church 
> stands a short distance to the north of the river Skell, the 
> buildings of the abbey stretching down to and even across the 
> stream.  We have the cloister (H) to the south, with the 
> three-aisled chapter-house (I) and calefactory (L) opening from 
> its eastern walk, and the refectory (S), with the kitchen (Q) 
> and buttery (T) attached, at right angles to its southern walk. 
> 
>      FIG. 10.--Ground-plan of Fountains Abbey, 
> 
>  
>  A. Nave of the church.     N. Cellar.              Z. Gate-house.
>  B. Transept.               O. Brewhouse.              ABBOT'S HOUSE.
>  C. Chapels.                P. Prisons.                 1. Passage
>  D. Tower.                  Q. Kitchen.                 2. Great hall.
>  E. Sacristy.               R. Offices.                 3. Refectory.
>  F. Choir.                  S. Refectory.               4. Refectory.
>  G. Chapel of nine alters.  T. Buttery.                 5. Storehouse.
>  H. Cloister.               U. Cellars and storehouses. 6. Chapel.
>  I. Chapter-house.          V. Necessary.               7. Kitchen.
>  K. Base court.             W. Infirmary (?).           8. Ashpit.
>  L. Calefactory.            X. Guest-houses.            9. Yard.
>  M. Water-course.           Y. Mill bridge.            10. Kitchen tank.
>  
> 
> Parallel with the western walk is an immense vaulted substructure 
> (U), incorrectly styled the cloisters, serving as cellars and 
> store-rooms, and supporting the dormitory of the conversi 
> above.  This building extended across the river.  At its S.W. 
> corner were the necessaries (V), also built, as usual, above 
> the swiftly flowing stream.  The monks' dormitory was in its 
> usual position above the chapter-house, to the south of the 
> transept.  As peculiarities of arrangement may be noticed 
> the position of the kitchen (Q), between the refectory and 
> calefactory, and of the infirmary (W) (unless there is some 
> error in its designation) above the river to the west, adjoining 
> the guest-houses (XX).  We may also call attention to the 
> greatly lengthened choir, commenced by Abbot John of York, 
> 1203-1211, and carried on by his successor, terminating, like 
> Durham Cathedral, in an eastern transept, the work of Abbot 
> John of Kent, 1220-1247, and to the tower (D), added not long 
> before the dissolution by Abbot Huby, 1494-1526, in a very 
> unusual position at the northern end of the north transept.  
> The abbot's house, the largest and most remarkable example of 
> this class of buildings in the kingdom, stands south to the 
> east of the church and cloister, from which it is divided by 
> the kitchen court (R), surrounded by the ordinary domestic 
> offices.  A considerable portion of this house was erected on 
> arches over the Skell.  The size and character of this house, 
> probably, at the time of its erection, the most spacious 
> house of a subject in the kingdom, not a castle, bespeaks 
> the wide departure of the Cistercian order from the stern 
> simplicity of the original foundation.  The hall (2) was one 
> of the most spacious and magnificent apartments in medieval 
> times, measuring 170 ft. by 70 ft.  Like the hall in the 
> castle at Winchester, and Westminster Hall, as originally 
> built, it was divided by 18 pillars and arches, with 3 
> aisles.  Among other apartments, for the designation of which 
> we must refer to the ground-plan, was a domestic oratory or 
> chapel, 46 1/2 ft. by 23 ft. and a kitchen (7), 50 ft. by 38 
> ft.  The whole arrangements and character of the building 
> bespeak the rich and powerful feudal lord, not the humble 
> father of a body of hard-working brethren, bound by vows to a 
> life of poverty and self-denying toil.  In the words of Dean 
> Milman, ``the superior, once a man bowed to the earth with 
> humility, care-worn, pale, emaciated, with a coarse habit 
> bound with a cord, with naked feet, had become an abbot 
> on his curvetting palfrey, in rich attire, with his silver 
> cross before him, travelling to take his place amid the 
> lordliest of the realm.'' --(Lat. Christ. vol. iii. p. 330.) 
> 
> Austin Canons. 
> 
> The buildings of the Austin canons or Black canons (so 
> called from the colour of their habit) present few distinctive 
> peculiarities.  This order had its first seat in England at 
> Colchester, where a house for Austin canons was founded about 
> A.D. 1105, and it very soon spread widely.  As an order 
> of regular clergy, holding a middle position between monks 
> and secular canons, almost resembling a community of parish 
> priests living under rule, they adopted naves of great length 
> to accommodate large congregations.  The choir is usually 
> long, and is sometimes, as at Llanthony and Christ Church 
> (Twynham), shut off from the aisles, or, as at Bolton, Kirkham, 
> &c., is destitute of aisles altogether.  The nave in the northern 
> houses, not unfrequently, had only a north aisle, as at Bolton, 
> Brinkburn and Lanercost.  The arrangement of the monastic 
> buildings followed the ordinary type.  The prior's lodge was 
> almost invariably attached to the S.W. angle of the nave. 
> 
> Bristol Cathedral. 
> 
> The annexed plan of the Abbey of St Augustine's at Bristol, 
> now the cathedral church of that city, shows the arrangement 
> of the buildings, which departs very little from the 
> ordinary Benedictine type.  The Austin canons' house at 
> Thornton, in Lincolnshire, is remarkable for the size 
> and magnificence of its gate-house, the upper floors of 
> which formed the guest-house of the establishment, and for 
> possessing an octagonal chapter-house of Decorated date. 
> 
> Premonstratensians. 
> 
> The Premonstratensian regular canons, or White canons, had 
> as many as 35 houses in England, of which the most perfect 
> remaining are those of Easby.  Yorkshire, and Bayham, Kent.  
> The head house of the order in England was Welbeck.  This order 
> was a reformed branch of the Austin canons, founded, A.D. 
> 1119, by Norbert (born at Xanten, on the Lower Rhine, c. 
> 1080) at Premontre, a secluded marshy valley in the forest 
> of Coucy in the diocese of Laon.  The order spread widely.  
> Even in the founder's lifetime it possessed houses in Syria and 
> Palestine.  It long maintained its rigid austerity, till in 
> the course of years wealth impaired its discipline, and its 
> members sank into indolence and luxury.  The Premonstratensians 
> were brought to England shortly after A.D. 1140, and were 
> first settled at Newhouse, in Lincolnshire, near the Humber.  
> The ground-plan of Easby Abbey, owing to its situation on the 
> edge of the steeply sloping banks of a river, is singularly 
> irregular.  The cloister is duly placed on the south side of the 
> church, and the chief buildings occupy their usual positions 
> round it.  But the cloister garth, as at Chichester, is not 
> rectangular, and all the surrounding buildings are thus made 
> to sprawl in a very awkward fashion.  The church follows 
> the plan adopted by the Austin canons in their northern 
> abbeys, and has only one aisle to the nave--that to the 
> north; while the choir is long, narrow and aisleless.  Each 
> transept has an aisle to the east, forming three chapels. 
> 
> The church at Bayham was destitute of aisles either to nave or 
> choir.  The latter terminated in a three-sided apse.  This church 
> is remarkable for its exceeding narrowness in proportion to its 
> length.  Extending in longitudinal dimensions 257 ft., it is 
> 
>     FIG. 11.--St Augustine's Abbey, Bristol (Bristol 
> 
>  
>  A. Church.            H. Kitchen.         S. Friars' lodging.
>  B. Great cloister.    I. Kitchen court.   T. King's hall.
>  C. Little cloister.   K. Cellars.         V. Guest-house.
>  D. Chapter-house.     L. Abbot's hall.    W. Abbey gateway.
>  E. Calefactory.       P. Abbot's gateway. X. Barns, stables, &c
>  F. Refectory.         R. Infirmary.       Y. Lavatory.
>  G. Parlour.
>  
> 
> not more than 25 ft. broad.  Stern Premonstratensian canons 
> wanted no congregations, and cared for no possessions; 
> therefore they built their church like a long room. 
> 
> Carthusians. 
> 
> The Carthusian order, on its establishment by St Bruno, 
> about A.D. 1084, developed a greatly modified form and 
> arrangement of a monastic institution.  The principle of this 
> order, which combined the coenobitic with the solitary life, 
> demanded the erection of buildings on a novel plan.  This 
> plan, which was first adopted by St Bruno and his twelve 
> companions at the original institution at Chartreux, near 
> Grenoble, was maintained in all the Carthusian establishments 
> throughout Europe, even after the ascetic severity of the order 
> had been to some extent relaxed, and the primitive simplicity 
> of their buildings had been exchanged for the magnificence 
> of decoration which characterizes such foundations as the 
> Certosas of Pavia and Florence.  According to the rule of 
> St Bruno, all the members of a Carthusian brotherhood lived 
> in the most absolute solitude and silence.  Each occupied a 
> small detached cottage, standing by itself in a small garden 
> surrounded by high walls and connected by a common corridor or 
> cloister.  In these cottages or cells a Carthusian monk 
> passed his time in the strictest asceticism, only leaving 
> his solitary dwelling to attend the services of the Church, 
> except on certain days when the brotherhood assembled in the 
> refectory.  The peculiarity of the arrangements of a Carthusian 
> monastery, or charter-house, as it was called in England, 
> from a corruption of the French chartreux, is exhibited 
> in the plan of that of Clermont, from Viollet-le-Duc. 
> 
> Clermont. 
> 
> The whole establishment is surrounded hy a wall, furnished 
> at intervals with watch towers (R) . The enclosure is divided 
> into two courts, of which the eastern court, surrounded by a 
> cloister, from from which the cottages of the monks (I) open, 
> is musch the larger.  The two courts are divided by the main 
> buildings of the monastery, including the church, the sanctuary 
> (A), divided from B, the monks' choir, by a screen with two 
> altars, the smaller cloister to the south (S) surrounded by 
> the chapter-house (E), the refectory (X)---these buildings 
> occupying their normal position--and the chapel of Pontgibaud 
> (K). The kitchen with its offices (V) lies behind the 
> relectory, accessible ftom the outer court without entering the 
> cloister.  To the north of the church, beyond the sacristy 
> (L), and the side chapels (M), we find the cell of the sub-prior 
> (a), with its garden.  The lodgings of the prior (G) occupy 
> the centre of the outer court, immediately in front of the 
> west door of the church, and face the gateway of the convent 
> (O). A small raised court with a fountain (C) is before 
> it.  This outer court also contains the guest-chambers (P), 
> the stables and lodgings of the lay brothers (N), the barns 
> and granaries (Q), the dovecot (H) and the bakehouse (T). 
> At Z is the prison.  In this outer court, in all the earlier 
> foundations, as at Witham, there was a smaller church in 
> addition to the larger church of the monks.) The outer and 
> inner courts are connected by a long passage (F), wide enough 
> to admit a cart laden with wood to supply the cells of the 
> brethren with fuel.  The number of cells surrounding the great 
> 
>                                                 A. Church. 
>                                                 B. Monks' choir.
>                                                 C. Prior's garden.
>                                                 D. Great cloister.
>                                                 E. Chapter-house.
>                                                 F. Passage.
>                                                 G. Prior's lodgings.
>                                                 H. Dovecot.
>                                                 I. Cells.
>                                                 K. Chapel of Pontgibaud.
>                                                 L. Sacristy.
>                                                 M. Chapel.
>                                                 N. Stables.
>                                                 O. Gateway.
>                                                 P. Guest-chambers.
>                                                 Q. Barns and granaries.
>                                                 R. Watch-tower.
>                                                 S. Little cloister.
>                                                 T. Bakehouse.
>                                                 V. Kitchen.
>                                                 X. Refectory.
>                                                 Y. Cemetery.
>                                                 Z. Prison.
>                                                 a. Cell of subprior
>                                                 b. Garden of do.
>           FIG. 12.--Carthusian monastery of Clermont. 
> 
> cloister is 18. They are all arranged on a uniform plan.  
> Each little dwelling contains three rooms: a sitting-room 
> (C), warmed by a stove in winter; a sleeping-room (D), 
> furnished with a bed, a table, a bench, and a bookcase; and 
> a closet (E). Between the cell and the cloister gallery (A) 
> is a passage or corridor (B), cutting off the inmate of the 
> cell from all sound or movement which might interrupt his 
> meditations.  The superior had free access to this corridor, and 
> through open niches was able to inspect the garden without being 
> seen.  At I is the hatch or turn-table, in which the daily 
> allowance of food was deposited by a brother appointed for that 
> purpose, affording no view either inwards or outwards.  H is the 
> garden, cultivated by the occupant of the cell.  At K is the 
> wood-house.  F is a covered walk, with the necessary at the end. 
> 
> 
> The above arrangements are found with scarcely any variation 
> in all the charter-houses of western Europe.  The Yorkshire 
> Charter-house of Mount Grace, founded by Thomas Holland, the 
> young duke of Surrey, nephew of Richard II. and marshal of 
> England, during the revival of the popularity of the order, 
> about A.D. 1397, is the most perfect and best preserved English 
> example.  It is characterized by all the simplicity of the 
> order.  The church is a modest building, long, narrow and 
> aisleless.  Within the wall of enclosure are two courts.  
> The smaller of the two, the south, presents the usual 
> arrangement of church, refectory, &c., opening out of a 
> cloister.  The buildings are plain and solid.  The northern 
> court contains the cells, 14 in number.  It is surrotmded by a 
> double stone wall, the two walls being about 30 ft. or 40 ft. 
> apart.  Between these, each in its own garden, stand the cells; 
> low-built two-storied cottages, of two or three rooms on the 
> ground-floor, lighted by a larger and a smaller window to the 
> side, and provided with a doorway to the court, and one at the 
> back, opposite to one in the outer wall, through which the 
> monk may have conveyed the sweepings of his cell and the refuse 
> of his garden to the ``eremus'' beyond.  By the side of the 
> door to the court is a little hatch through which the daily 
> pittance of food was supplied, so contrived by turning at an 
> angle in the wall that no one could either look in or look 
> out.  A very perfect example of this hatch---an arrangement 
> belonging to all Carthusian houses--exists at Miraflores, near 
> Burgos, which remains nearly as it was completed in 1480. 
> 
>                                                 A. Cloister gallery. 
>                                                 B. Corridor.
>                                                 C. Living-room.
>                                                 D. Sleeping-room.
>                                                 E. Closets.
>                                                 F. Covered walk.
>                                                 G. Necessary.
>                                                 H. Garden.
>                                                 I. Hatch.
>                                                 K. Wood-house.
>              FIG. 13--Carthusian cell, Clermont. 
> 
> There were only nine Carthusian houses in England.  The 
> earliest was that at Witham in Somersetshire, founded 
> by Henry II., by whom the order was first brought into 
> England.  The wealthiest and most magnificent was that of 
> Sheen or Richmond in Surrey, founded by Henry V. about A.D. 
> 1414.  The, dimensions of the buildings at Sheen are stated 
> to have been remarkably large.  The great court measured 
> 300 ft. by 250 ft.; the cloisters were a square of 500 ft.; 
> the hall was 110 ft. in length by 60 ft. in breadth.  The 
> most celebrated historically is the Charter house of London, 
> founded by Sir Walter Manny A.D. 1371, the name of which 
> is preserved by the famous public school established on the 
> site by Thomas Sutton A.D. 1611, now removed to Godalming. 
> 
> Mendicant Friars. 
> 
> An article on monastic arrangements would be incomplete without 
> some account of the convents of the Mendicant or Preaching 
> Friars, including the Black Friars or Dominicans, the Grey 
> or Franciscans, the White or Carmelites, the Eremite or 
> Austin, Friars.  These orders arose at the beginning of the 
> 13th century, when the Benedictines, together with their 
> various reformed branches, had terminated their active 
> mission, and Christian Europe was ready for a new religious 
> revival.  Planting themselves, as a rule, in large towns, 
> and by preference in the poorest and most densely populated 
> districts, the Preaching Friars were obliged to adapt their 
> buildings to the requirements of the site.  Regularity of 
> arrangement, therefore, was not possible, even if they had 
> studied it.  Their churches, built for the reception of 
> large congregations of hearers rather than worshippers, form 
> a class by themselves, totally unlike those of the elder 
> orders in ground-plan and character.  They were usually long 
> parallelograms unbroken by transepts.  The nave very usually 
> consisted of two equal bodies, one containing the stalls 
> of the brotherhood, the other left entirely free for the 
> congregation.  The constructional choir is often wanting, 
> the whole church forming one uninterrupted structure, with 
> a continuous range of windows.  The east end was usually 
> square, but the Friars Church at Winchelsea had a polygonal 
> apse.  We not unfrequently find a single transept, sometimes of 
> great size, rivalling or exceeding the nave.  This arrangement 
> is frequent in Ireland, where the numerous small friaries 
> afford admirable exemplifications of these peculiarities of 
> ground-plan.  The friars' churches were at first destitute of 
> towers; but in the 14th and 15th centuries, tall, slender towers 
> were commonly inserted between the nave and the choir.  The 
> Grey Friars at Lynn, where the tower is hexagonal, is a good 
> example.  The arrangement of the monastic buildings is equally 
> peculiar and characteristic.  We miss entirely the regularity 
> of the buildings of the earlier orders.  At the Jacobins at 
> Paris, a cloister lay to the north of the long narrow church 
> of two parallel aisles, while the refectory--a room of immense 
> length, quite detached from the cloister--stretched across 
> the area before the west front of the church.  At Toulouse the 
> nave also has two parallel aisles, but the choir is apsidal, 
> with radiating chapel.  The refectory stretches northwards at 
> right angles to the cloister, which lies to the north of the 
> church, having the chapter-house and sacristy on the east. 
> 
> Norwich.  Gloucester. 
> 
> As examples of English friaries, the Dominican house at 
> Norwich, and those of the Dominicans and Franciscans at 
> Gloucester, may be mentioned.  The church of the Black 
> Friars of Norwich departs from the original type in the 
> nave (now St Andrew's Hall), in having regular aisles.  In 
> this it resembles the earlier examples of the Grey Friars at 
> Reading.  The choir is long and aisleless; an hexagonal tower 
> between the two, like that existing at Lynn, has perished.  Thc 
> cloister and monastic buildings remain tolerably perfect to the 
> north.  The Dominican convent at Gloucester still exhibits the 
> cloister-court, on the north side of which is the desecrated 
> church.  The refectory is on the west side and on the south 
> the dormitory of the 13th century.  This is a remarkably good 
> example.  There were 18 cells or cubicles on each side, divided 
> by partitions, the bases of which remain.  On the east side 
> was the prior's house, a building of later date.  At the Grey 
> or Franciscan Friars, the church followed the ordinary type in 
> having two equal bodies, each gabled, with a continuous range of 
> windows.  There was a slender tower between the nave and the choir. 
> 
> Hulne. 
> 
> Of the convents of the Carmelite or White Friars we have a 
> good example in the Abbey of Hulne, near Alnwick, the first 
> of the order in England, founded A.D. 1240.  The church 
> is a narrow oblong, destitute of aisles, 123 ft. long by 
> only 26 ft. wide.  The cloisters are to the south, with 
> the chapter-house, &c., to the east, with the dormitory 
> over.  The prior's lodge is placed to the west of the 
> cloister.  The guest-houses adjoin the entrance gateway, to 
> which a chapel was annexed on the south side of the conventual 
> area.  The nave of the church of the Austin Friars or Eremites 
> in London is still standing.  It is of Decorated date, and 
> has wide centre and side aisles, divided by a very light and 
> graceful arcade.  Some fragments of the south walk of the 
> cloister of the Grey Friars remained among the buildings of 
> Christ's Hospital (the Blue-Coat School), while they were still 
> standing.  Of the Black Friars all has perished but the 
> name.  Taken as a whole, the remains of the establishments of 
> the friars afford little warrant for the bitter invective of 
> the Benedictine of St Alban's, Matthew Paris:---``The friars 
> who have been founded hardly 40 years have built residences 
> as the palaces of kings.  These are they who, enlarging day 
> by day their sumptuous edifices, encircling them with lofty 
> walls, lay up in them their incalculable treasures, imprudently 
> transgressing the bounds of poverty and violating the very 
> fundamental rules of their profession.'' Allowance must here be 
> made for jealousy of a rival order just rising in popularity. 
> 
> Cells. 
> 
> Every large monastery had depending upon it one or more smaller 
> establishments known as cells. These cells were monastic 
> colonies, sent forth by the parent house, and planted on some 
> outlying estate.  As an example, we may refer to the small 
> religious house of St Mary Magdalene's, a cell of the great 
> Benedictine house of St Mary's, York, in the valley of the 
> Witham, to the south-east of the city of Lincoln.  This consists 
> of one long narrow range of building, of which the eastern part 
> formed the chapel and the western contained the apartments of 
> the handful of monks of which it was the home.  To the east 
> may be traced the site of the abbey mill, with its dam and 
> mill-lead.  These cells, when belonging to a Cluniac house, 
> were called Obedientiae. The plan given by Viollet-le-Duc 
> of the Priory of St Jean des Bons Hommes, a Cluniac cell, 
> situated between the town of Avallon and the village of 
> Savigny, shows that these diminutive establishments comprised 
> every essential feature of a monastery,---chapel, cloister, 
> chapter-room, refectory, dormitory, all grouped according to the 
> recognized arrangement.  These Cluniac obedientiae differed 
> from the ordinary Benedictine cells in being also places of 
> punishment, to which monks who had been guilty of any grave 
> infringement of the rules were relegated as to a kind of 
> penitentiary.  Here they were placed under the authority of a 
> prior, and were condemned to severe manual labour, fulfilling 
> the duties usually executed by the lay brothers, who acted as 
> farmservants.  The outlying farming establishments belonging to 
> the monastic foundations were known as villae or granges. 
> They gave employment to a body of conversi and labourers 
> under the management of a monk, who bore the title of Brother 
> Hospitaller ---the granges, like their parent institutions, 
> affording shelter and hospitality to belated travellers. 
> 
> AUTHORITIES.--Dugdale, Monasticon; Lenoir, 
> Architecture monastique (1852--1856); Veollet-le-Duc, 
> Dictionnaire raisonnee de l'architecture francaise; 
> Springer, Klosterleben und Klosterkunst (1886); Kraus, 
> Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (1896). (E. V.) 
------
AbboT|980675783
1c1,367
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABBOT (from the Hebrew ab, a father, through the Syriac 
> abba, Lat. abbas, gen. abbatis, O.E. abbad, fr. late 
> Lat. form abbad-em changed in 13th century under influence 
> of the Lat. form to abbat, used abternatively till the end 
> of the 17th century; Ger. Abt; Fr. abbe), the head and 
> chief governor of a community of monks, called also in the 
> East hegumenos or archimandrite.  The title had its origin 
> in the monasteries of Syria, whence it spread through the 
> East, and soon became accepted generally in all languages as 
> the designation of the head of a monastery.  At first it was 
> employed as a respectful title for any monk, as we learn from St 
> Jerome, who denounced the custom on the ground that Christ had 
> said, ``Call no man father on earth'' (in Epist. ad Gal. 
> iv. 6, in Matt. xxiii. 9), but it was soon restricted to the 
> superior.  The name ``abbot,'' though general in the West, 
> was never universal.  Among the Dominicans, Carmelites, 
> Augustinians, &c., the superior was called Praepositus, 
> ``provost,'' and Prior; among the Franciscans, Custos, 
> ``guardian''; and by the monks of Camaldoi, Major. 
> 
> In Egypt, the first home of monasticism, the jurisdiction 
> of the abbot, or archimandrite, was but loosely defined.  
> Sometimes he ruled over only one community, sometimes over 
> several, each of which had its own abbot as well.  Cassian 
> speaks of an abbot of the Thebaid who had 500 monks under 
> him, a number exceeded in other cases.  By the rule of St 
> Benedict, which, until the reform of Cluny, was the norm 
> in the West, the abbot has jurisdiction over only one 
> community.  The rule, as was inevitable, was subject to 
> frequent violations; but it was not until the foundation of 
> the Cluniac Order that the idea of a supreme abbot, exercising 
> jurisdiction over all the houses of an order, was definitely 
> recognized.  New styles were devised to express this new 
> relation; thus the abbot of Monte Cassino was called abbas 
> abbatum, while the chiefs of other orders had the tities 
> abbas generails, or magister or minister generalis. 
> 
> Monks, as a rule, were laymen, nor at the outset was the abbot 
> any exception.  All orders of clergy, therefore, even the 
> ``doorkeeper,', took precedence of him.  For the reception 
> of the sacraments, and for other religious offices, the 
> abbot and his monks were commanded to attend the nearest 
> church (Nocellae, 133, c. ii.).  This rule naturally proved 
> inconvenient when a monastery was situated in a desert or at 
> a distance from a city, and necessity compelled the ordination 
> of abbots.  This innovation was not introduced without a 
> struggle, ecclesiastical dignity being regarded as inconsistent 
> with the higher spiritual life, but, before the close of 
> the 5th century, at least in the East, abbots seem almost 
> universally to have become deacons, if not presbyters.  The 
> change spread more slowly in the West, where the office of 
> abbot was commonly filled by laymen till the end of the 7th 
> century, and partially so up to the 11th.  Ecclesiastical 
> councils were, however, attended by abbots.  Thus at that 
> held at Constantinople, A.D. 448, for the condemnation of 
> Eutyches, 23 archimandrites or abbots sign, with 30 bishops, 
> and, c A.D. 690, Archbishop Theodore promulgated a 
> canon, inhibiting bishops from compelling abbots to attend 
> councils.  Examples are not uncommon in Spain and in England 
> in Saxon times.  Abbots were permitted by the second council 
> of Nicaea, A.D. 787, to ordain their monks to the inferior 
> orders.  This rule was adopted in the West, and the strong 
> prejudice against clerical monks having gradually broken down, 
> eventually monks, almost without exception, took holy orders. 
> 
> Abbots were originally subject to episcopal jurisdiction, and 
> continued generally so, in fact, in the West till the 11th 
> century.  The Code of Justinian (lib. i. tit. iii. de Ep. leg. 
> xl.) expressly subordinates the abbot to episcopal oversight.  
> The first case recorded of the partial exemption of an abbot 
> from episcopal control is that of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, 
> at the council of Arles, A.D. 456; but the exorbitant claims 
> and exactions of bishops, to which this repugnance to episcopal 
> control is to be traced, far more than to the arrogance of 
> abbots, rendered it increasingly frequent, and, in the 6th 
> century, the practice of exempting religious houses partly or 
> altogether from episcopal control, and making them responsible 
> to the pope alone, received an impulse from Gregory the 
> Great.  These exceptions, introduced with a good object, had 
> grown into a widespread evil by the 12th century, virtually 
> creating an imperium in imperio, and depriving the bishop 
> of all authority over the chief centres of influence in his 
> diocese.  In the 12th century the abbots of Fulda claimed 
> precedence of the archbishop of Cologne.  Abbots more and 
> more assumed almost episcopal state, and in defiance of the 
> prohibition of early councils and the protests of St Bernard and 
> others, adopted the episcopal insignia of mitre, ring, gloves and 
> sandals.  It has been maintained that the right to wear mitres 
> was sometimes granted by the popes to abbots before the 11th 
> century, but the documents on which this claim is based are 
> not genuine (J. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung, p. 453).  The 
> first undoubted instance is the bull by which Alexander II. 
> in 1063 granted the use of the mitre to Egelsinus, abbot of 
> the monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury (see MITRE). The 
> mitred abbots in England were those of Abingdon, St Alban's, 
> Bardney, Battle, Bury St Edmund's, St Augustine's Canterbury, 
> Colchester, Croyland, Evesham, Glastonbury, Gloucester, 
> St Benet's Hulme, Hyde, Malmesbury, Peterborough, Ramsey, 
> Reading, Selby, Shrewsbury, Tavistock, Thorney, Westminster, 
> Winchcombe, St Mary's York.  Of these the precedence was 
> originally yielded to the abbot of Glastonbury, until in 
> A.D. 1154 Adrian IV. (Nicholas Breakspear) granted it to the 
> abbot of St Alban's, in which monastery he had been brought 
> up.  Next after the abbot of St Alban's ranked the abbot of 
> Westminster.  To distinguish abbots from bishops, it was ordained 
> that their mitre should be made of less costly materials, 
> and should not be ornamented with gold, a rule which was soon 
> entirely disregarded, and that the crook of their pastoral 
> staff should turn inwards instead of outwards, indicating 
> that their jurisdiction was limited to their own house. 
> 
> The adoption of episcopal insignia by abbots was followed 
> by an encroachment on episcopal functions, which had to be 
> specially but ineffectually guarded against by the Lateran 
> council, A.D. 1123.  In the East, abbots, if in priests' 
> orders, with the consent of the bishop, were, as we have 
> seen, permitted by the second Nicene council, A.D. 787, 
> to confer the tonsure and admit to the order of reader; but 
> gradually abbots, in the West also, advanced higher claims, 
> until we find them in A.D. 1489 permitted by Innocent 
> IV. to confer both the subdiaconate and diaconate.  Of 
> course, they always and everywhere had the power of admitting 
> their own monks and vesting them with the religious habit. 
> 
> When a vacancy occurred, the bishop of the diocese chose 
> the abbot out of the monks of the convent, but the right 
> of election was transferred by jurisdiction to the monks 
> themselves, reserving to the bishop the confirmation of the 
> election and the benediction of the new abbot.  In abbeys 
> exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, the confirmation and 
> benediction had to be conferred by the pope in person, the house 
> being taxed with the expenses of the new abbot's journey to 
> Rome.  By the rule of St Benedict, the consent of the laity 
> was in some undefined way required; but this seems never 
> to have been practically enforced.  It was necessary that 
> an abbot should be at least 25 years of age, of legitimate 
> birth, a monk of the house, unless it furnished no suitable 
> candidate, when a liberty was allowed of electing from another 
> convent, well instructed himself, and able to instruct others, 
> one also who had learned how to command by having practised 
> obedience.  In some exceptional cases an abbot was allowed 
> to name his own successor.  Cassian speaks of an abbot in 
> Egypt doing this; and in later times we have another example 
> in the case of St Bruno.  Popes and sovereigns gradually 
> encroached on the rights of the monks, until in Italy the 
> pope had usurped the nomination of all abbots, and the king in 
> France, with the exception of Cluny, Premontre and other 
> houses, chiefs of their order.  The election was for life, 
> unless the abbot was canonically deprived by the chiefs of 
> his order, or when he was directly subject to them, by the 
> pope or the bishop.  The ceremony of the formal admission of 
> a Benedictine abbot in medieval times is thus prescribed by 
> the consuetudinary of Abingdon.  The newly elected abbot was 
> to put off his shoes at the door of the church, and proceed 
> barefoot to meet the members of the house advancing in a 
> procession.  After proceeding up the nave, he was to kneel 
> and pray at the topmost step of the entrance of the choir, 
> into which he was to be introduced by the bishop or his 
> commissary, and placed in his stall.  The monks, then kneeling, 
> gave him the kiss of peace on the hand, and rising, on the 
> mouth, the abbot holding his staff of office.  He then put 
> on his shoes in the vestry, and a chapter was held, and 
> the bishop or his commissary preached a suitable sermon. 
> 
> The power of the abbot was paternal but absolute, limited, 
> however, by the canons of the church, and, until the general 
> establishment of exemptions, by episcopal control.  As a 
> rule, however, implicit obedience was enforced; to act 
> without his orders was culpable; while it was a sacred duty 
> to execute his orders, however unreasonable, until they were 
> withdrawn.  Examples among the Egyptian monks of this blind 
> submission to the commands of the superiors, exalted into 
> a virtue by those who regarded the entire crushing of the 
> individual will as the highest excellence, are detailed by 
> Cassian and others,--- e.g. a monk watering a dry stick, 
> day after day, for months, or endeavouring to remove a huge 
> rock immensely exceeding his powers.  St Jerome, indeed, lays 
> down, as the principle of the compact between the abbot and his 
> monks, that they should obey their superiors in all things, 
> and perform whatever they commanded (Ep. 2, ad Eustoch. de 
> custod. virgin.). So despotic did the tyranny become in the 
> West, that in the time of Charlemagne it was necessary to 
> restrain abbots by legal enactments from mutilating their 
> monks and putting out their eyes; while the rule of St 
> Columban ordained 100 lashes as the punishment for very slight 
> offences.  An abbot also had the power of excommunicating 
> refractory nuns, which he might use if desired by their abbess. 
> 
> The abbot was treated with the utmost submission and reverence 
> by the brethren of his house.  When he appeared either in 
> church or chapter all present rose and bowed.  His letters 
> were received kneeling, like those of the pope and the 
> king.  If he gave a command, the monk receiving it was also to 
> kneel.  No monk might sit in his presence, or leave it without his 
> permission.  The highest place was naturally assigned to him, 
> both in church and at table.  In the East he was commanded to 
> eat with the other monks.  In the West the rule of St Benedict 
> appointed him a separate table, at which he might entertain 
> guests and strangers.  This permission opening the door to 
> luxurious living, the council of Aix, A.D. 817, decreed that 
> the abbot should dine in the refectory, and be content with 
> the ordinary fare of the monks, unless he had to entertain a 
> guest.  These ordinances proved, however, generally ineffectual 
> to secure strictness of diet, and contemporaneous literature 
> abounds with satirical remarks and complaints concerning the 
> inordinate extravagance of the tables of the abbots.  When the 
> abbot condescended to dine in the refectory, his chaplains waited 
> upon him with the dishes, a servant, if necessary, assisting 
> them.  At St Alban's the abbot took the lord's seat, in the 
> centre of the high table, and was served on silver plate, and 
> sumptuously entertained noblemen, ambassadors and strangers of 
> quality.  When abbots dined in their own private hall, the rule 
> of St Benedict charged them to invite their monks to their table, 
> provided there was room, on which occasions the guests were 
> to abstain from quarrels, slanderous talk and idle gossiping. 
> 
> The ordinary attire of the abbot was according to rule to be 
> the same as that of the monks.  But by the 10th century the 
> rule was commonly set aside, and we find frequent complaints of 
> abbots dressing in silk, and adopting sumptuous attire.  They 
> sometimes even laid aside the monastic habit altogether, and 
> assumed a secular dress.1 This was a necessary consequence of 
> their following the chase, which was quite usual, and indeed at 
> that time only natural.  With the increase of wealth and power, 
> abbots had lost much of their special religious character, and 
> become great lords, chiefly distinguished from lay lords by 
> celibacy.  Thus we hear of abbots going out to sport, with 
> their men carrying bows and arrows; keeping horses, dogs and 
> huntsmen; and special mention is made of an abbot of Leicester, 
> c. 1360, who was the most skilled of all the nobility in 
> harehunting.  In magnificence of equipage and retinue the 
> abbots vied with the first nobles of the realm.  They rode 
> on mules with gilded bridles, rich saddles and housings, 
> carrying hawks on their wrist, followed by an immense train of 
> attendants.  The bells of the churches were rung as they 
> passed.  They associated on equal terms with laymen of the 
> highest distinction, and shared all their pleasures and 
> pursuits.  This rank and power was, however, often used most 
> beneficially.  For instance, we read of Whiting, the last 
> abbot of Glastonbury, judicially murdered by Henry VIII., 
> that his house was a kind of well-ordered court, where as 
> many as 300 sons of noblemen and gentlemen, who had been sent 
> to him for virtuous education, had been brought up, besides 
> others of a meaner rank, whom he fitted for the universities.  
> His table, attendance and officers were an honour to the 
> nation.  He would entertain as many as 500 persons of rank at 
> one time, besides relieving the poor of the vicinity twice a 
> week.  He had his country houses and fisheries, and when 
> he travelled to attend parliament his retinue amounted to 
> upwards of 100 persons.  The abbots of Cluny and Vendome 
> were, by virtue of their office, cardinals of the Roman church. 
> 
> In process of time the title abbot was improperly transferred 
> to clerics who had no connexion with the monastic system, 
> as to the principal of a body of parochial clergy; and 
> under the Carolingians to the chief chaplain of the king, 
> Abbas Curiae, or military chaplain of the emperor, Abbas 
> Castrensis. It even came to be adopted by purely secular 
> officials.  Thus the chief magistrate of the republic at Genoa 
> was called Abbas Populi. Du Cange, in his glossary, also gives 
> us Abbas Campanilis, Clocherii, Palatii, Scholaris, &c. 
> 
> Lay abbots (M. Lat. defensores, abbacomites, abbates laici, 
> abbates milites, abbates saeculares or irreligiosi, 
> abbatiarii, or sometimes simply abbates) were the outcome 
> of the growth of the feudal system from the 8th century 
> onwards.  The practice of commendation, by which---to meet 
> a contemporary emergency--the revenues of the community were 
> handed over to a lay lord, in return for his protection, 
> early suggested to the emperors and kings the expedient of 
> rewarding their warriors with rich abbeys held in commendam. 
> During the Carolingian epoch the custom grew up of granting 
> these as regular heritable fiefs or benefices, and by the 10th 
> century, before the great Cluniac reform, the system was firmly 
> established.  Even the abbey of St Denis was held in commendam 
> by Hugh Capet.  The example of the kings was followed by the 
> feudal nobles, sometimes by making a temporary concession 
> permanent, sometimes without any form of commendation 
> whatever.  In England the abuse was rife in the 8th 
> century, as may be gathered from the acts of the council of 
> Cloveshoe.  These lay abbacies were not merely a question of 
> overlordship, but implied the concentration in lay hands 
> of all the rights, immunities and jurisdiction of the 
> foundations, i.e. the more or less complete secularization of 
> 
> 
> 1 Walworth, the fourth abbot of St Alban's, c. 930, is 
> charged by Matthew Paris with adopting the attire of a sportsman. 
> 
> spiritual institutions.  The lay abbot took his recognized 
> rank in the feudal hierarchy, and was free to dispose of 
> his fief as in the case of any other.  The enfeoffment of 
> abbeys differed in form and degree.  Sometimes the monks were 
> directly subject to the lay abbot; sometimes he appointed a 
> substitute to perform the spirtual functions, known usually 
> as dean (decanus), but also as abbot (abbas legitimas, 
> monasticus, regularis). When the great reform of the 11th 
> century had put an end to the direct jurisdiction of the lay 
> abbots, the honorary title of abbot continued to be held by 
> certain of the great feudal famines, as late as the 13th century 
> and later, the actual head of the community retaining that of 
> dean.  The connexion of the lesser lay abbots with the 
> abbeys, especially in the south of France, lasted longer; 
> and certain feudal families retained the title of abbes 
> chevaliers (abbates milltes) for centuries, together with 
> certain rights over the abbey lands or revenues.  The abuse was 
> not confined to the West.  John, patriarch of Antioch, at the 
> beginning of the 12th Century, informs us that in his time most 
> monasteries had been handed over to laymen, bencficiarii, 
> for life, or for part of their lives, by the emperors. 
> 
> In conventual cathedrals, where the bishop occupied the 
> place of the abbot, the functions usually devolving on 
> the superior of the monastery were performed by a prior. 
> 
> The title abbe (Ital. abbate), as commonly used in the 
> Catholic church on the European continent, is the equivalent 
> of the English ``Father,'' being loosely applied to all who 
> have received the tonsure.  This use of the title is said to 
> have originated in the right conceded to the king of France, 
> by the concordat between Pope Leo X. and Francis I. (1516), 
> to appoint abbes commendataires to most of the abbeys in 
> France.  The expectation of obtaining these sinecures drew 
> young men towards the church in considerable numbers, and 
> the class of abbes so formed ---abbes de cour they were 
> sometimes called, and sometimes (ironically) abbes de sainte 
> esperance, abbes of St Hope---came to hold a recognized 
> position.  The connexion many of them had with the church 
> was of the slenderest kind, consisting mainly in adopting 
> the name of abbe, after a remarkably moderate course of 
> theological study, practising celibacy and wearing a distinctive 
> dress--a short dark-violet coat with narrow collar.  Being 
> men of presumed learning and undoubted leisure, many of the 
> class found admission to the houses of the French nobility 
> as tutors or advisers.  Nearly every great family had its 
> abbe.  The class did not survive the Revolution; but the 
> courtesy title of abbe, having long lost all connexion in 
> people's minds with any special ecclesiastical function, remained 
> as a convenient general term applicable to any clergyman. 
> 
> In the German Evangelical church the title of abbot (Abt) is 
> sometimes bestowed, like abbe, as an honorary distinction, 
> and sometimes survives to designate the heads of monasteries 
> converted at the Reformation into collegiate foundations.  Of 
> these the most noteworthy is the abbey of Lokkum in Hanover, 
> founded as a Cistercian house in 1163 by Count Wilbrand of 
> Hallermund, and reformed in 1593.  The abbot of Lokkum, who 
> still carries a pastoral staff, takes precedence of all the 
> clergy of Hanover, and is ex officio a member of the consistory 
> of the kingdom.  The governing body of the abbey consists of 
> abbot, prior and the ``convent'' of canons (Stiftsherren). 
> 
> See Joseph Bingham, Origines ecclesiasticae (1840); Du 
> Cange, Glossarium med. et inf.  Lat. (ed. 1883); J. Craigie 
> Robertson, Hist. of the Christian Church (1858-1873); Edmond 
> Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus (Venice, 1783); C. 
> F. R. de Montalembert, Les moines d'occident depuis S. Benoit 
> jusqu'a S. Bernard (1860--1877); Achille Luchaire, Manuel 
> des institutions francaises (Par. 1892). (E.V.; W.A.P.) 
> 
> 1 The Architectural History of the Conventual Buildings of 
> the Monastery of Christ Church in Canterbury. By the Rev. Robert 
> Willis.  Printed for the Kent Archaeological Society, 1869.
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
AlTruism|980675828
1c1
< Altruism.  Altruism doesn't really exist.  Even if you are doing something that is helpful or charitable for others, you will still reap the good of that action.  The idea that one should do things for altruistic purposes is wrong and can lead to the downfall of society, as Ayn Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged.  
---
> Altruism.  Altruism doesn't really exist.  Even if you are doing something that is helpful or charitable for others, you will still reap the good of that action.  The idea that one should do things for altruistic purposes is wrong and can lead to the downfall of society, as Ayn Rand wrote about in AtlasShrugged.  
------
BryceHarrington|980675926
32a33,34
> ''Well, the thing is that I ''would'' keep England's history separate from that of the US.  That's not to say that I would omit it, but that I would place it separately in the main hierarchy and then cross-reference a lot.  Otherwise England's history is going to be told as the history of England, retold as that of Scotland, retold as that of France, and so forth.  Same deal with Rome.  There should be one RomanEmpire page, and the history of Europe should say something along the lines of "most of south Europe was included in the RomanEmpire, under which urban centers spread and the catholic church was introduced and blah blah blah.  And then Egypt, Syria, and so forth can do the same sort of thing.''
> 
39a42,47
> ''I think most tribal societies start ought more-or-less democratically (I've also heard of English historians commenting about the "democratic genius of the GermanicPeoples).  What makes the Greeks exceptional is they brought the idea into an urban context.  At the time, all urban societies were pretty much top down - civilizations of slaves, as the Greeks put it.''
> 
> ''In math, again, I think the main contribution of the Greeks - rational and axiomatic reasoning rather than empirical and approximate - is unique.  That's not to say other civs didn't perform some wonderful math; the Babylonians could solve quadratic problems, and both the Hindus and Mayans invented zero.  But it's not the same when you're doing it for practical reasons.''
> 
> ''The Greeks also, btw, invented history (though that one isn't unique), and that's more or less guaranteed that they wouldn't be known just from their ruins.  Compare to Persia, which actually based a lot of its inscriptions on what the Greeks said.  Unfortunately the American civilizations got cheated in this respect, since most of their writings were slash-and-burnt along with the people.''
> 
57a66,67
> 
> ''Should the DarkAges as part of the MiddleAges, or as a separate time period?  I personally am all for the former, because a thousand years is a darn long time which is hard to summarize, but the latter is more conventional.''
------
AbbreviationS|980675949
1c1,650
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABBREVIATION (Lat. brevis, short), strictly a shortening; 
> more particularly, an ``abbreviation'' is a letter or group 
> of letters, taken from a word or words, and employed to 
> represent them for the sake of brevity.  Abbreviations, both 
> of single words and of phrases, having a meaning more or 
> less fixed and recognized, are common in ancient writings 
> and inscriptions (see PALAEOGRAPHY and DIPLOMATIC), and 
> very many are in use at the present time.  A distinction is 
> to be observed between abbreviations and the contractions 
> that are frequently to be met with in old manuscripts, and 
> even in early printed books, whereby letters are dropped 
> out here and there, or particular collocations of letters 
> represented by somewhat arbitrary symbols.  The commonest 
> form of abbreviation is the substitution for a word of its 
> initial letter; but, with a view to prevent ambiguity, one 
> or more of the other letters are frequently added.  Letters 
> are often doubled to indicate a plural or a superlative. 
> 
> I. CLASSICAL ABBREVIATIONS.---The following list 
> contains a selection from the abbreviations that occur 
> in the writings and inscriptions of the Romans:-- 
> 
> 
>  
>                                   A.
>  A.         Absolvo, Aedilis, Aes, Ager, Ago, Aio, Amicus, Annus, Antiquo,
>               Auctor, Auditor, Augustus, Aulus, Aurum, Aut.
>  A.A.       Aes alienum, Ante audita, Apud agrum, Aurum argentum.
>  AA.        Augusti. AAA. Augusti tres.
>  A.A.A.F.F. Auro argento acre flando feriundo.1
>  A.A.V.     Alter ambove.
>  A.C.       Acta causa, Alins civis.
>  A.D.       Ante diem; e.g. A.D.V. Ante diem quintum.
>  A.D.A.     Ad dandos agros.
>  AEO.       Aedes, Aedilis, Aedilitas.
>  AEM. and AIM.        Aemilius, Aemilia.
>  AER.       Aerarium. AER.P. Aere publico.
>  A.F.       Acture fide, Auli filius.
>  AG.        Ager, Ago, Agrippa.
>  A.G.       Ammo grato, Aulus Gellius.
>  A.L.AE. and A.L.E.  Arbitrium litis aestimandae.
>  A.M. and A.MILL.    Ad milliarium.
>  AN.        Aniensis, Annus, Ante.
>  ANN.       Annales, Anni, Annona.
>  ANT.       Ante, Antonius.
>  A.O.       Alii omnes, Amico optimo.
>  AP.        Atppius, Apud.
>  A.P.       Ad pedes, Aedilitia potestate.
>  A.P.F.     Auro (or argento) publico feriundo.
>  A.P.M.     Amico posuit monumentum, Annorum plus minus.
>  A.P.R.C.   Anno post Romam conditam.
>  ARG.       Argentum.
>  AR.V.V.D.D.Aram votam volens dedicavit, Arma votiva dono dedit.
>  AT         A tergo. Also A TE. and A TER.
>  A.T.M.D.O. Aio te mihi dare oportere.
>  AV.        Augur, Augustus, Aurelius.
>  A.V.       Annos vixit.
>  A.V.C.     Ab urbe condita.
>  AVG.       Augur, Augustus.
>  AVGG.      Augusti (generally of two). AVGGG. Augusti tres.
>  AVT.PR.R.  Auctoritas provinciae Romanorum.
>  
>                                   B.
>  B.         Balbius, Balbus, Beatus, Bene, Beneficiarius, Beneficium,
>             Bonus, Brutus, Bustum.
>  B.for V.      Berna Bivus, Bixit.
>  B.A.       Bixit anos, Bonis auguriis, Bonus amabilis.
>  BB.or B.B.    Bene bene, i.e. optime, Optimus.
>  B.D.       Bonae deae, Bonum datum.
>  B.DD.      Bonis deabus.
>  B.D.S.M. Bene de se merenti.
>  B.F.       Bona femina, Bona fides, Bona fortuna, Bonum factum.
>  B.F.       Bona femina, Bona filia.
>  B.H.       Bona hereditaria, Bonorum heres.
>  B.I.       Bonum judicium. B.I.I. Boni judicis judicium.
>  B.M.       Beatae memoriae, Bene merenti.
>  B.N.       Bona nostra, Bonum nomen.
>  BN.H.I.    Bona hic invenies.
>  B.P.       Bona paterna, Bonorum potestas, Bonum publicum.
>  B.Q.       Bene quiescat, Bona quaesita.
>  B.RP.N.    Boho reipublicae natus.
>  BRT.       Britannicus.
>  B.T.       Bonorum tutor, Brevi tempore.
>  B.V.       Bene vale, Bene vixit, Bonus vir.
>  B.V.V.     Balnea vina Venus.
>  BX.        Bixit, for vixit.
>  
>                                   C.
>  C.         Caesar, Cains, Caput, Causa, Censor, Civis, Conors, Colonia,
>                 Comitialis (dies), Condemno, Consul, Cum, Curo, Custos.
>  C.         Caia, Centuria, Cum, the prefix Con.
>  C.B.       Civis bonus, Commune bonum, Conjugi benemerenti, Cui bono.
>  C.C.       Calumniae causa, Causa cognita, Conjugi carissimae, Consilium
>                 cepit, Curiae consulto.
>  C.C.C.     Calumniae cavendae causa.
>  C.C.F.     Caesar (or Caius) curavit faciendum, Cains Caii filius.
>  CC.VV.     Clarissimi viri.
>  C.D.       Caesaris decreto, Cains Decius, Comitialibus diebus.
>  CES.       Censor, Censores. CESS. Censores.
>  C.F.       Causa fiduciae, Conjugi fecit, Curavit faciendum.
>  C.H.       Custos heredum, Custos hortorum.
>  C.I.       Caius Julius, Consul jussit, Curavit judex. .
>  CL.        Clarissimus, Claudius, Clodius, Colonia.
>  CL.V.      Clarissimus vir, Clypeum vovit.
>  C.M.       Caius Marius, Causa mortis.
>  CN.        Cnaeus.
>  COH.       Coheres, Conors.
>  COL.       Collega, Collegium, Colonia, Columna.
>  COLL.      Collega, Coloni, Coloniae.
>  COM.       Comes, Comitium, Comparatum.
>  CON.       Conjux, Consensus, Consiliarius, Consul, Consularis.
>  COR.       Cornelia (tribus), Cornelius, Corona, Corpus.
>  COS.       Consiliarius, Consul, Consulares. COSS. Consules.
>  C.P.       Carissimus or Clarissimus puer, Civis publicus, Curavit
>                 ponendum.
>  C.R.       Cains Rufus, Civis Romanus, Curavit reficiendum.
>  CS.        Caesar, Communis, Consul.
>  C.V.       Clarissimus or Consularis vir.
>  CVR.       Cura, Curator, Curavit, Curia.
>  
>                                   D.
>  D.         Dat, Dedit, &c., De, Decimus, Decius, Decretum, Decurio,
>                 Deus, Dicit, &c., Dies, Divus, Dominus, Domus, Donum.
>  D.C.       Decurio coloniae, Diebus comitialibus, Divus Caesar.
>  D.D.       Dea Dia, Decurionum decreto, Dedicavit, Deo dedit, Dono dedit.
>  D.D.D.     Datum decreto decurionum, Dono dedit dedicavit.
>  D.E.R.     De ea re.
>  DES.       Designatus.
>  D.I.       Dedit imperator, Diis immortalibus, Diis inferis.
>  D.l.M.     Deo invicto Mithrae, Diis inferis Manibus.
>  D.M.       Deo Magno, Dignus memoria, Diis Manibus, Dolo malo.
>  D.O.M.     Deo Optimo Maximo.
>  D.P.S.     Dedit proprio sumptu, Deo perpetuo sacrum, De pecunia
>                 sua.
>  
>                                   E.
>  E.         Ejus, Eques, Erexft, Ergo, Est, Et, Etiam, Ex.
>  EG.        Aeger, Egit, Egregius.
>  E.M.       Egregiae memoriae, Ejusmodi, Erexit monumentum.
>  EQ.M.      Equitum magister.
>  E.R.A.     Ea res agitur.
>  
>                                   F.
>  F.         Fabius, Facere, Fecit, &c., Familia, Fastus (dies), Felix,
>                 Femina, Fides, Filius, Flamen, Fortuna, Frater, Fuit, Functus.
>  F.C.       Faciendum curavit, Fidei commissume, Fiduciae causa.
>  F.D.       Fidem dedit, Flamen Dialis, Fraude donavit.
>  F.F.F.     Ferro flamma fame, Fortior fortuna fato.
>  FL.        Filius, Flamen, Flaminius, Flavius.
>  F.L.       Favete linguis, Fecit libens, Felix liber.
>  FR.        Forum, Fronte, Frumentarius.
>  F.R.       Forum Romanum.
>  
>                                   G.
>  G.         Gaius (=Caius), Gallia, Gaudium, Gellius, Gemma, Gens,
>                 Gesta, Gratia.
>  G.F.       Gemma fidelis (applied to a legion). So G.P.F. Gemma
>                 pia fidelis.
>  GL.        Gloria.
>  GN.        Genius, Gens, Genus, Gnaeus (=Cnaeus).
>  G.P.R.     Genro populi Romani.
>  
>  H.
>  H.         Habet, Heres, Hic, Homo, Honor, Hora.
>                 HER. Heres, Herennius. HER. and HERC. Hercules.
>  H.L.       Hac lege, Hoc loco, Honesto loco.
>  H.M.       Hoc monumentum, Honesta mulier, Hora mala.
>  H.S.E.     Hic sepultus est, Hic situs est.
>  H.V.       Haec urbs, Hic vivit, Honeste vixit, Honestus vir.
>  
>                                   I.
>  I.         Immortalis, Imperator, In, Infra, Inter, Invictus, Ipse, Isis,
>                 Judex, Julius, Junius, Jupiter, Justus.
>  IA.        Jam, Intra.
>  I.C.       Julius Caesar, Juris Consultum, Jus civile.
>  ID.        Idem, Idus, Interdum.
>  l.D.       Inferis diis, Jovi dedicatnm, Jus dicendum, Jussu Dei.
>  I.D.M.     Jovi deo magno.
>  I.F.       In foro, In fronte.
>  I.H.       Jacet hic, In honestatem, Justus homo.
>  IM.        Imago, Immortalis, Immunis, Impensa.
>  IMP.       Imperator, Imperium.
>  I.O.M.     Jovi optimo maximo.
>  I.P.       In publico, Intra provinciam, Justa persona.
>  I.S.V.P.   Impensa sua vivus posuit.
>  
>                                   K.
>  K.         Kaeso, Caia, Calumnia, Caput, Carus, Castra.
>  K., KAL. and KL.   Kalendae.
>  
>                                   L.
>  L.         Laelius, Legio, Lex, Libens, Liber, Libra, Locus, Lollius,
>                 Lucius, Ludus.
>  LB.        Libens, Liberi, Libertus.
>  L.D.D.D.   Locus datus decreto decurionum.
>  LEG.       Legatus, Legio.
>  LIB.       Liber, Liberalitas, Libertas, Libertus, Librarius.
>  LL.        Leges, Libentissime, Liberti.
>  L.M.       Libens merito, Locus monumenti.
>  L.S.       Laribus sacrum, Libens solvit, Locus sacer.
>  LVD.       Ludus.
>  LV.P.F.    Ludos publicos fecit.
>  
>                                   M.
>  M.         Magister, Magistratus, Magnus, Manes, Marcus, Marins,
>                 Marti, Mater, Memoria, Mensis, Miles, Monumentum, Mortuus,
>                 Mucius, Mulier.
>  M'.        Manius.
>  M.D.       Magno Deo, Manibus diis, Matri deum, Merenti dedit.
>  MES.       Mensis. MESS. Menses.
>  M.F.       Mala fides, Marci filius, Monumentum fecit.
>  M.I.       Matri Idaeae, Matii Isidi, Maximo Jovi.
>  MNT. and      MON. Moneta.
>  M.P.       Male positus, Monumentum posuit.
>  M.S.       Manibus sacrum, Memoriae sacrum, Manu scriptum.
>  MVN.       Municeps, or municipium; so also MN., MV. and MVNIC.
>  M.V.S.     Marti ultori sacrum, Merito votum solvit.
>  
>                                   N.
>  N.         Natio, Natus, Nefastus (dies), Nepos, Neptunus, Nero,
>                 Nomen, Non, Nonae, Noster, Novus, Numen, Numerius,
>                 Numerus, Nummus.
>  NEP.       Nepos, Neptunus.
>  N.F.C.     Nostrae fidei commissum.
>  N.L.       Non licet, Non liquet, Non longe.
>  N.M.V.     Nobilis memoriae vir.
>  NN.        Nostri. NN., NNO. and NNR. Nostrorum.
>  NOB.       Nobilis. NOB., NOBR. and NOV. Novembris.
>  N.P.       Nefastus primo (i.e. priore parto diei), Non potest.
>  
>                                   O.
>  O.         Ob, Officium, Omnis, Oportet, Optimus, Opus, Ossa.
>  OB.        Obiit, Obiter, Orbis.
>  O.C.S.     Ob cives servatos.
>  O.H.F.     Omnibus honoribus functus.
>  O.H.S.S.   Ossa hic sita sunt.
>  OR. Hora,  Ordo, Ornamentum.
>  O.T.B.Q.   Ossa tua bene quiescant.
>  
>                                   P.
>  P.         Pars, Passus, Pater, Patronus, Pax, Perpetuus, Pes, Pius,
>                 Plebs, Pondo, Populus, Post, Posuit, Praeses, Praetor,
>                 Primus, Pro, Provincia, Publicus, Publius, Puer.
>  P.C.       Pactum conventum, Patres conscripti, Pecunia constituta,
>  Ponendum curavit, Post consulatum, Potestate censoria.
>  P.F.       Pia fidelis, Pius felix, Promissa fides, Publii filius.
>  P.M.       Piae memoriae, Pius minus, Pontifex maximus.
>  P.P.       Pater patratus, Pater patriae, Pecunia publica, Praepositus,
>  Primipilus, Propraetor.
>  PR.        Praeses, Praetor, Pridie, Princeps.
>  P.R.       Permissu reipublicae, Populus Romanus.
>  P.R.C.     Post Romam conditam.
>  PR.PR.     Praefectus praetorii, Propraetor.
>  P.S.       Pecunia sua, Plebiscitum, Proprio sumptu, Publicae saluti.
>  P.V.       Pia victrix, praefectus urbi, Praestantissimus vir.
>  
>                                   Q.
>  Q.         Quaestor, Quando, Quantus, Que, Qui, Quinquennalis,
>                 Quintus, Quirites.
>  Q.D.R.     Qua de re.
>  Q.I.S.S.   Quae infra scripta sunt; so Q.S.S.S. Quae supra, &c.
>  QQ.        Quaecunque, Quinquennalis, Quoque.
>  Q.R.       Quaestor reipublicae.
>  
>                                   R.
>  R.         Recte, Res, Respublica, Retro, Rex, Ripa, Roma, Romanus,
>                 Rufus, Rursus.
>  R.C.       Romana civitas, Romanus civis.
>  RESP. and RP.       Respublica.
>  RET.P. and RP.      Retro pedes.
>  
>                                   S.
>  S.         Sacrum, Scriptus, Semis, Senatus, Sepultus, Servius,
>                 Servus, Sextus, Sibi, Sine, Situs, Solus, Solvit, Sub, Suus.
>  SAC.       Sacerdos, Sacrificium, Sacrum.
>  S.C.       Senatus consultum.
>  S.D.       Sacrum diis, Salutem dicit, Senatus decreto, Sententiam
>  S.D.M.       Sacrum diis Manibus, Sine dolo malo.
>  SER.       Servius, Servus.
>  S.E.T.L.   Sit ei terra levis.
>  SN.        Senatus, Sententia, Sine.
>  S.P.       Sacerdos perpetua, Sine pecunia, Sua pecunia.
>  S.P.Q.R.   Senatus populusque Romanus.
>  S.S.       Sanctissimus senatus, Supra scripture.
>  S.V.B.E.E.Q.V.          Si vales bene est, ego quidem valeo.
>  
>                                   T.
>  T.         Terminus, Testamentum, Titus, Tribunus, Tu, Turma, Tutor.
>  TB., TI. and TIB.   Tiberius.
>  TB., TR. and TRB.   Tribunus.
>  T.F.       Testamentum fecit, Titi filius, Titulum fecit, Titus Flavius.
>  TM.        Terminus, Testamentum, Thermae.
>  T.P.       Terminum posuit, Tribunicia potestate, Tribunus plebis.
>  TVL.       Tullius, Tunus.
>  
>                                   V.
>  V.         Urbs, Usus, Uxor, Vale, Verba, Vestalis, Vester, Vir, Vivus,
>                 Vixit, Volo, Votum.
>  VA.        Veterano assignatus, Vixit annos.
>  V.C.       Vale conjux, Vir clarissimus, Vir consularis.
>  V.E.       Verum etiam, Vir egregius, Visum est.
>  V.F.       Usus fructus, Verba fecit, Vivus fecit.
>  V.P.       Urbis praefectus, Vir perfectissimus, Vivus posuit.
>  V.R.       Urbs Roma, Uti rogas, Votum reddidit.
>  
>  II. MEDIEVAL ABBREVIATIONS.--Of the different kinds of
>  abbreviations in use in the middle ages, the following are
>  examples:--
>  A.M.       Ave Maria.
>  B.P.       Beatus Paulus, Beatus Petrus. .
>  CC.        Carissimus (atso plur. Carissimi), Clarissimus, Circum.
>  D.         Deus, Dominicus, Dux.
>  D.N.PP.    Dominus hoster Papa.
>  U.F.       Felicissimus, Fratres, Pandectae (prob. for Gr. II).
>  I.C. or I.X.    Jesus Christus.
>  I.D.N.     In Dei nomine.
>  KK.        Karissimus (or-mi).
>  MM.        Magistri, Martyres, Matrimonium, Meritissimus.
>  O.S.B.     Ordinis Sancti Benedicti.
>  PP.        Papa, Patres, Piissimus.
>  R.F.       Rex Francorum.
>  R.P.D.     Reverendissimus Pater Dominus.
>  S.C.M.     Sacra Caesarea Majestas.
>  S.M.E.     Sancta Mater Ecclesia.
>  S.M.M.     Sancta Mater Maria.
>  S.R.I.     Sanctum Romanum Imperium.
>  S.V.       Sanctitas Vestra, Sancta Virgo.
>  V.         Venerabilis, Venerandus. .
>  V.R.P.     Vestra Reverendissima Paternitas.
>  
>  III. ABBREVIATIONS NOW IN USE.--The import of these
>  will often be readily understood from the connexion in which
>  they occur. There is no occasion to explain here the common
>  abbreviations used for Christian names, books of Scripture,
>  months of the year, points of the compass, grammatical and
>  mathematical terms, or familiar titles, like ``Mr,'' &c.
>  
>  The ordinary abbreviations, now or recently in use, may
>  be conveniently classified under the following headings:-
>  
>  I. ABBREVIATED TITLES AND DESIGNATIONS.
>  A.A.       Associate of Arts.
>  A.B.       Able-bodied seaman; (in America) Bachelor of Arts.
>  A.D.C.     Aide-de-Camp.
>  A.M.       (Artium Magister), Master of Arts.
>  A.R.A.     Associate of the Royal Academy.
>  A.R.I.B.A. Associate of the Royal Institution of British Architects.
>  A.R.S.A.   Associate of the Royal Scottish Academy.
>  B.A.       Bachelor of Arts.
>  Bart.      Baronet.
>  B.C.L.     Bachelor of Civil Law.
>  B.D.       Bachelor of Divinty.
>  B.LL.      Bachelor of Laws.
>  B.Sc.      Bachelor of Science.
>  C.         Chairman.
>  C.A.       Chartered Accountant.
>  C.B.       Companion of the Bath.
>  C.E.       Civil Engineer.
>  C.I.E.     Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire.
>  C.M.       (Chirurgiae Magister), Master in Surgery.
>  C.M.G.     Companion of St Michael and St George.
>  C.S.I.     Companion of the Star of India.
>  D.C.L.     Doctor of Civil Law.
>  D.D.       Doctor of Divinity.
>  D.Lit. or Litt. D.   Doctor of Literature.
>  D.M.       Doctor of Medicine (Oxford).
>  D.Sc.      Doctor of Science.
>  D.S.O.     Distinguished Service Order.
>  Ebor.      (Eboracensis) of York.2
>  F.C.S.     Fellow of the Chemical Society.
>  F.D.       (Fidei Defensor), Defender of the Faith.
>  F.F.P.S.   Fellow of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons (Glasgow)
>  F.G.S.     Fellow of the Geological Society.
>  F.K.Q.C.P.I.             Fellow of King and Queen's College of Physicians
>  in Ireland.
>  F.L.S.     Fellow of the Linnaean Society.
>  F.M.       Field Marshal.
>  F.P.S.     Fellow of the Philological Society.
>  F.R.A.S.   Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.
>  F.R C.P.   Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.
>  F.R.C.P.E. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
>  F.R.C.S.   Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons.
>  F.R.G.S.   Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society.
>  F.R.H.S.   Fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society.
>  F.R.Hist.Soc.            Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
>  F.R.I.B.A. Fellow of the Royal Institution of British Architects.
>  F.R.S.     Fellow of the Royal Society.
>  F.R.S.E.   Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
>  F.R.S.L.   Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.
>  F.S.A.     Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.
>  F.S.S.     Fellow of the Statistical Society.
>  F.Z.S.     Fellow of the Zoological Society.
>  G.C.B.     Knight Grand Cross of the Bath.
>  G.C.H.     Knight Grand Cross of Hanover.
>  G.C.I.E.   Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian
>                 Empire.
>  G.C.M.G.   Knight Grand Cross of St Michael and St George.
>  G.C.S.I.   Knight Grand Commander of the Star of india.
>  G.C.V.O.   Knight Grand Commander of the Victorian Order.
>  H.H.       His or Her Highness.
>  H.I.H.     His or Her Imperial Highness.
>  H.I.M.     His or Her Imperial Majesty.
>  H.M.       His or Her Majesty.
>  H.R.H.     His or Her Royal Highness.
>  H.S.H.     His or Her Serene Highness.
>  J.         Judge.
>  J.C.D.     (Juris Canonici Doctor, or Juris Civilis Doctor),
>                 Doctor of Canon or Civil Law.
>  J.D.       (Juris utriusque Doctor), Doctor of Civil and Canon Law.
>  J.P.       Justice of the Peace.
>  K.C.       King's Counsel.
>  K.C.B.     Knight Commander of the Bath.
>  K.C.I.E.   Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire.
>  K.C.M.G.   Knight Commander of St Michael and St George.
>  K.C.S.I.   Knight Commander of the Star of India.
>  K.C.V.O.   Knight Commander of the Victorian Order.
>  K.G.       Knight of the Garter.
>  K.P.       Knight of St Patrick.
>  K.T.       Knight of the Thistle.
>  L.A.H.     Licentiate of the Apothecaries' Hall.
>  L.C.C.     London County Council, or Councillor.
>  L.C.J.     Lord Chief Justice
>  L.J.       Lord Justice.
>  L.L.A.     Lady Literate in Arts.
>  LL.B.      (Legum Baccalaureus), Bachelor of Laws.
>  LL.D.      (Legum Doctor), Doctor of Laws.
>  LL.M.      (Legum Magister), Master of Laws.
>  L.R.C.P.   Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.
>  L.R.C.S.   Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons.
>  L.S.A.     Licentiate of the Apothecaries' Society.
>  M.A.       Master of Arts.
>  M.B.       (Medicinae Baccalaureus), Bachelor of Medicine
>  M.C.       Member of Congress.
>  M.D.       (Medicinae Doctor), Doctor of Medicine.
>  M.Inst.C.E.             Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers.
>  M.P.       Member of Parliament.
>  M.R.       Master of the Rolls.
>  M.R.C.P.   Member of the Royal College of Physicians.
>  M.R.C.S.   Member of the Royal College of Surgeons.
>  M.R.I.A.   Member of the Royal Irish Academy.
>  Mus.B.     Bachelor of Music.
>  Mus.D.     Doctor of Music.
>  M.V.O.     Member of the Victorian Order.
>  N.P.       Notary Public.
>  O.M.       Order of Merit.
>  P.C.       Privy Councillor.
>  Ph.D.      (Philosophiae Doctor), Doctor of Philosophy.
>  P.P.       Parish Priest.
>  P.R.A.     President of the Royal Academy.
>  R.         (Rex, Regina), King, Queen.
>  R. & I.    Rex et Imperator.
>  R.A.       Royal Academician, Royal Artillery.
>  R.A.M.     Royal Academy of Music.
>  R.E.       Royal Engineers.
>  Reg. Prof. Regius Professor.
>  R.M.       Royal Marines, Resident Magistrate.
>  R.N.       Royal Navy.
>  S. or St.             Saint.
>  S.S.C.     Solicitor before the Supreme Courts of Scotland.
>  S.T.P.     (Sacrosanctae Theologiae Professor), Professor of Sacred
>                  Theology.
>  V.C.       Vice-Chancellor, Victoria Cross.
>  V.G.       Vicar-General.
>  V.S.       Veterinary Surgeon.
>  W.S.       Writer to the Signet [in Scotland]. Equivalent to Attorney
>  
>  2. ABBREVIATIONS DENOTING MONIES, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES.
>  ac.    acre.                  lb. or lb.  (libra), pound (weight).
>  bar.   barrel.                 m. or mi. mile, minute.
>  bus.   bushel.                 m. minim.
>  c.     cent.                  mo. month.
>  c. (or cub.) ft. &c. cubic foot,&c.   na. nail.
>  cwt.   hundredweight.         oz. ounce.
>  d.     (denarius), penny. pk. peck.
>  deg.   degree.                po. pole.
>  dr.    drachm or dram.    pt. pint.
>  dwt.   pennyweight.            q. (quadrans), farthing.
>  f.     franc.                 qr. quarter.
>  fl.    florin.                qt. quart.
>  ft.    foot.                  ro. rood.
>  fur.   furlong.               Rs.4 rupees.
>  gal.   gallon.                 s. or / (solidus), shilling.
>  gr.    grain.                  s. or sec. second.
>  h. or hr. hour.           sc. or scr. scruple.
>  hhd.   hogshead.          sq. ft. &c, square foot, &c.
>  in.    inch.                  st. stone.
>  kilo.  kilometre.             yd. yard.
>  L.,3 L. ,2 or l. (libra), pound (money).
>  
>  3. MISCELLANEOUS ABBREVIATIONS.
>  
>  A.         Accepted.
>  A.C.       (Ante Christum), Before Christ.
>  acc., a/c. or acct.        Account.
>  A.D.       (Anno Domini), In the year of our Lord.
>  A.E.I.O.U. Austriae est imperare orbi universo,5 or
>                 Alles Erdreich Ist Oesterreich Unterthan.
>  Aet. or Aetat.            (Aetatis, [anno]), In the year of his age.
>  A.H.       (Anno Hegirae), In the year of the Hegira (the Mohammedan
>                 era).
>  A.M.       (Anno Mundi), In the year of the world.
>  A.M.       (Ante meridiem), Forenoon.
>  Anon.      Anonymous.
>  A.U.C.     (Anno urbis conditae), In the year from the building
>                 of the city (i.e. Rome).
>  A.V.       Authorized version of the Bible.
>  b.         born.
>  B.V.M.     The Blessed Virgin Mary.
>  B.C.       Before Christ.
>  c.         circa, about.
>  C.         or Cap. (Caput), Chapter.
>  C.         Centigrade (or Celsius's) Thermometer.
>  cent.6 (Centnim), A hundred, frequently L. 100.
>  Cf. or cp.       (Confer), Compare.
>  Ch. or Chap.     Chapter.
>  C.M.S.     Church Missionary Society.
>  Co.        Company, County.
>  C.O.D.     Cash on Delivery.
>  Cr.        Creditor.
>  curt.      Current, the present month.
>  d.         died.
>  D.G.       (Dei gratia), By the grace of God.
>  Do.        Ditto, the same.
>  D.O.M.     (Deo Optimo Maximo), To God the Best and Greatest.
>  Dr.        Debtor.
>  D.V.       (Deo volente), God willing.
>  E.& O.E.   Errors and omissions excepted.
>  e.g.       (Exempti gratia), For example.
>  etc. or &c.     (Et caetera), And the rest; and so forth.
>  Ex.        Example.
>  F. or Fahr.     Fahrenheit's Thermometer.
>  
>  fec. (Fecit),   He made (or did) it.
>  fl.        Flourished.
>  Fo. or Fol.     Folio.
>  f.o.b.     Free on board.
>  G.P.O.     General Post Office.
>  H.M.S.     His Majesty's Ship, or Service.
>  Ib. or Ibid.    (Ibidem), In the same place.
>  Id.        (Idem), The same.
>  ie. (Id est),   That is.
>  I.H.S.     A symbol for ``Jesus,', derived from the first three letters
>                 of the Greek (I E S); the correct origin was lost
>                 sight of, and the Romanized letters were then interpreted
>                 erroneously as standing for Jesus, Hominum Salvator,
>                 the Latin ``h'' and Greek long ``e'' being confused.
>  I.M.D.G.   (In majorem Dei gloriam), To the greater glory of God.
>  Inf. (Infra),   Below.
>  Inst.      Instant, the present month.
>  I.O.U.     I owe you.
>  i.q.       (Idem quod), The same as.
>  k.t.l.      (gr kai ta loipa) Et caetera, and the rest.
>  L. or Lib. (Liber),      Book.
>  Lat.       Latitude.
>  l.c.       (Loco citato), In the place cited.
>  Lon. or Long.       Longitude.
>  L.S.       (Locus sigilli), The place of the seal.
>  Mem.       (Memento), Remember, Memorandum.
>  MS.        Manuscript. MSS. Manuscripts.
>  N.B.       (Nota bene), Mark well; take notice.
>  N.B.       North Britain (i.e. Scotland).
>  N.D.       No date.
>  nem. con.       (Nemine contradicente), No one contradicting.
>  No.        (Numero), Number.
>  N.S.       New Style.
>  N.T.       New Testament.
>  ob.        (Obiit), Died.
>  Obs.       Obsolete.
>  O.H.M.S.   On His Majesty's Service.
>  O.S.       Old Style.
>  O.S.B.     Ordo Sancti Benedicti (Benedictines).
>  O.T.       Old Testament.
>  P.         Page. Pp. Pages.
>  @        (Per), For; e.g. @ lb., For one pound.
>  Pinx.      (Pinxit), He painted it.
>  P.M.       (Post Meridiem), Afternoon.
>  P.O.       Post Office, Postal Order.
>  P.O.O.     Post Office Order.
>  P.P.C.     (Pour prendre conge), To take leave.
>  P.R.       Prize-ring.
>  prox.      (Proximo [mense]), Next month.
>  P.S.       Postscript.
>  Pt.        Part.
>  p.t. or pro tem.   (Pro tempore), For the time.
>  P.T.O.     Please turn over.
>  Q., Qu., or Qy.    Query; Question.
>  q.d.       (Quasi dicat), As if he should say: as much as to say.
>  Q.E.D.     (Quod erot demonstrandum), Which was to be demonstrated.
>  Q.E.F.     (Quod erat faciendum), Which was to be done.
>  q.s. or quant. suff.      (Quantum sufficit), As much as is
>                 sufficient.
>  q.v.       (Quod vide), Which see.
>  R. or @.      (Recipe), Take.
>  sqrt.  (=r. for radix), The sign of the square root.
>  R.I.P.     (Requiescat in pace!), May he rest in peace!
>  R.S.V.P.   (i Respondes s'il vous plait), please reply.
>  sc.        (Scilicet), Namely; that is to say.
>  Sc. or Sculp.  (Sculpsit), He engraved it.
>  S.D.U.K.   Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
>  seq. or sq., seqq. or sqq.   (Sequens, sequenitia), The following.
>  S.J.       Society of Jesus.
>  sp.        (Sine prole), Without offspring.
>  S.P.C.K.   Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge
>  S.P.G.     Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
>  S.T.D.    }
>  S.T.B.    }Doctor, Bachelor, Licentiate of Theology.
>  S.T.L.    }
>  Sup.       (Supra), Above.
>  s.v.       (Sub voce), Under the word (or heading).
>  T.C.D.     Trinity College, Dublin.
>  ult.       (Ultimo [mense]), Last month.
>  U.S.       United States.
>  U.S.A.     United States of America.
>  v.         (versus), Against.
>  v. or vid:      (Vide), See.
>  viz.       (Videlicet), Namely.
>  Xmas.      Christmas. This X is a Greek letter, corresponding to Ch.
>  
> 
> See also Graevius's Thesaurus Antiquitatum (1694, sqq.); 
> Nicolai's Tractatus de Sigils Veterum; Mommsen's Corpus 
> Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863, sqq.); Natalis de Wailly's 
> Paleographie (Paris, 1838); Alph.  Chassant's Paleographie 
> (1854), and Dictionnaire des Abreviations (3rd ed. 
> 1866); Campelli, Duzionario di Abbreviature (1899). 
> 
> 1 Describing the function of the triumviri monetales. 
> 
> 2 An archbishop or bishop, in writing his signature, substitutes 
> for his surname the name of his see; thus the prelates of 
> Canterbury, York, Oxford, London, &c., subscribe themselves 
> with their initials (Christian names only), followed by 
> Cantuar., Ebor., Oxon., Londin. (sometimes London.), &c. 
> 
> 3 Characters, not properly abbreviations, are used in the same 
> way; e.g. `` deg. '' for ``degrees, minutes, seconds'' (circular 
> measure); @, @, @ for ``ounces, drachms, scruples.'' @ is 
> probably to be traced to the written form of the z in ``oz.'' 
> 
> 4 These forms (as well as $, the symbol for the 
> American dollar) are placed before the amounts. 
> 
> 5It is given to Austria to rule the whole earth. 
> The device of Austria, first adopted by Frederick III. 
> 
> 6``Per cent.'' is often signified by %, a form traceable to "100." 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
RequestedArticles|980676058
7c7
< ''I'm calling TheIliad, but it's awfully late here.''
---
> ''I'm calling TheIliad, but it's awfully late here.  Also note that HelenOfTroy was from Sparta.''
------
BryceHarrington|980676760
67a68,72
> 
> Yes, the DarkAges preceded the MiddleAges and in a European context are worth separating out.  
> The Medieval period started around 1000-1100 and is marked by the growth of cities and nations.  During the Dark Ages, people lived in a very tribal/village oriented way.  Scholars have traditionally discounted the DarkAges as "without development", yet looking at civilization before the collapse of the Roman Empire, and what emerged in the middle ages, it's clear that some very interesting things must have happened.  
> 
> Also note that the middle ages could be split into pre-1300 and post-1300 fairly easily.  1300 is about when the Plague really set in and hit home, and the mid- and late-1300's saw a number of massive wars and political changes. (Not that I'm advocating splitting it up at the category level, but on its page, we could follow that path for header divisions.)
------
CategorySchemesTalk|980677346
10c10,17
< I'm sorry, but the current organizational scheme that's been used on the homepage just makes me cringe every time I look at it.  It seems as if there's no sense - that they're merely random points into the database.  I tried to provide a simple three-grouping system to help at least organize it a little, but it appears to have been reverted out.  There are few clues as to how to fit new topics into the organizational scheme...  How can you tell if some technical topic belongs in TechnologY rather than ScienCe?  ArtsAndEntertainment is an extremely broad subject area; CountriesOfTheWorld extremely specific...  -- BryceSorryAndConfusedHarrington
---
> I'm sorry, but the current organizational scheme that's been used on the homepage just makes me cringe every time I look at it.  It seems as if there's no sense - that they're merely random points into the database.  I tried to provide a simple three-grouping system to help at least organize it a little, but it appears to have been reverted out.  There are few clues as to how to fit new topics into the organizational scheme...  How can you tell if some technical topic belongs in TechnologY rather than ScienCe?  ArtsAndEntertainment is an extremely broad subject area; CountriesOfTheWorld extremely specific...  -- BryceSorryAndConfusedHarrington
> 
> Science includes the principles behind things, but technology includes their uses.  A lot of topics will straddle the two, but for a top-level classification I don't think there's a problem.  I do agree, though, that there are way to many top-level nodes.  Off the top of my head, I would propose a different system:
> 
> Understanding the way the world works - PhiloSophy, MathematicsAndStatistics, NaturalSciences
> Understanding what's actually in it - BiologicalSciences (?), HiStory, GeoGraphy
> Making stuff for practical use - TechnologY
> Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
------
AtlasShrugged|980677523
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A novel by AynRand, first published in 1957.
> 
> The theme of AtlasShrugged is the role of the mind in human society.  Rand argues that independent thinking, and the creativity and inventiveness that comes from this, is the motor that runs the world.  In AtlasShrugged she shows what she thinks would happen to the world if the "men of the mind" went on strike: the motor of the world would shut down, and civilization falls apart.  This is a direct assault on the MarxisT LaborTheoryOfValue, which was popular at the time of writing.
> 
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Since independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and since achievement is rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts, Rand advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
> 
> Rand also argues that, since independence and individual achievement drive the world, these things are virtues and should be central to a rational moral code.  She rejects the view that self-sacrifice is a virtue.  These ethical considerations are prominent in AtlasShrugged.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677554
3c3
< The theme of AtlasShrugged is the role of the mind in human society.  Rand argues that independent thinking, and the creativity and inventiveness that comes from this, is the motor that runs the world.  In AtlasShrugged she shows what she thinks would happen to the world if the "men of the mind" went on strike: the motor of the world would shut down, and civilization falls apart.  This is a direct assault on the MarxisT LaborTheoryOfValue, which was popular at the time of writing.
---
> The theme of AtlasShrugged is the role of the mind in human society.  Rand argues that independent thinking, and the creativity and inventiveness that comes from this, is the motor that runs the world.  In AtlasShrugged she shows what she thinks would happen to the world if the "men of the mind" went on strike: the motor of the world would shut down, and civilization would fall apart.  This is a direct assault on the MarxisT LaborTheoryOfValue, which was popular at the time of writing.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677609
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Since independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and since achievement is rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts, Rand advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Since independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and since achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts, Rand advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677695
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Since independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and since achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts, Rand advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677720
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies will become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677745
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, societies will become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677768
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as they allow, encourage, and reward independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677808
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She therefore advocated libertarian capitalism.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She advocated libertarian capitalism ast he political system consistent with these beliefs.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AtlasShrugged|980677831
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She advocated libertarian capitalism ast he political system consistent with these beliefs.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She advocated libertarian capitalism as the political system most consistent with these beliefs.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
AchillEus|980678924
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In GreekMythology, the greatest warrior in the TrojanWar, and the central character of TheIliad.  Also, and actually more commonly, "Achilles".
> 
> Achilleus was the son of Peleus, king of the Myrmidons in Thessaly and all-around hero, and the sea nymph Thetis.  Zeus and Poseidon had vied for her hand until an oracle was revealed that she would bear a son greater than its father, whence they wisely decided to give her to someone else.  According to the usual legend Thetis had tried to make Achilleus invincible by dipping him in the river Styx, but forgot to wet the heel she was holding him by, so he could be killed by a blow to that heel.  Homer, however, deliberately makes no mention of this; Achilleus can ''not'' be a hero if he is not at risk.
> 
> There was an oracle stating that if Achilleus fought at Troy, he would die there.  His mother thus hid him at the court of Lycurgus in Scyros, disguised as a woman.  There he had an affair with Deidamia resulting in a child, Neoptolemus.  He was found out, however, by OdyssEus, who arrived disguised as a peddler with trinkets and weaponry.  Achilleus was marked out from the other women by admiring the wrong goods.  Alternatively, he was found out by a blast of the trumpet, whence instead of cowering he grabbed a spear to ward off the attackers.  From there he needed little convincing to go to Troy.
> 
> Achilleus is one of the only two people described as "god-like" in the ''Iliad''.  This does not just refer to his supreme fighting ability, but also to his attitude.  He shows a complete and total devotion to the excellence of his craft and, like a god, has almost no regard for life.  Not his own - clearly he does not mind a swift death, so long as it is glorious - and not really of others.  The humanization of Achilleus by the events of the war is the main theme of TheIliad, and is best described on its page.
> 
> Shortly after the death of Hector, Achilleus defeated Memnon of Ethiopia and was very soon after killed by Paris - either by an arrow to the heel, or in an older version by a knife to the back while visiting a Trojan princess.  Both versions conspicuously deny the killer any sort of valor, and Achilleus remains undefeated on the battlefield.  His bones are mingled with those of Patroclus, and funeral games are held.  His armor leads to the death of Ajax.
> 
> In TheOdyssey, there is a passage where OddysEus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades.  One of these is AchillEus, who greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave then be dead.  This has been interpreted as a rejection of his warrior life, but also as indignity to his martyrdom being slighted.
> 
> The kings of Epirus claimed to be descended from AchillEus through his son.  Since AlexanderTheGreat's mother was an Epiran princess, he could also claim this descent, and in many ways strived to be like his great ancestor.  He is said to have visited his tomb while passing Troy.
------
RequestedArticles|980679034
3c3
< SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- HelenOfTroy -- AchillEus -- HecTor -- TheIliad -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
---
> SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
7d6
< ''I'm calling TheIliad, but it's awfully late here.  Also note that HelenOfTroy was from Sparta.''
------
AchillEus|980679149
7c7
< Achilleus is one of the only two people described as "god-like" in the ''Iliad''.  This does not just refer to his supreme fighting ability, but also to his attitude.  He shows a complete and total devotion to the excellence of his craft and, like a god, has almost no regard for life.  Not his own - clearly he does not mind a swift death, so long as it is glorious - and not really of others.  The humanization of Achilleus by the events of the war is the main theme of TheIliad, and is best described on its page.
---
> Achilleus is one of the only two people described as "god-like" in the ''Iliad''.  This does not just refer to his supreme fighting ability, but also to his attitude.  He shows a complete and total devotion to the excellence of his craft and, like a god, has almost no regard for life.  Not his own - clearly he does not mind a swift death, so long as it is glorious - and not really of others.  His anger is absolute.  The humanization of Achilleus by the events of the war is the main theme of TheIliad, and is best described on its page.
13c13
< The kings of Epirus claimed to be descended from AchillEus through his son.  Since AlexanderTheGreat's mother was an Epiran princess, he could also claim this descent, and in many ways strived to be like his great ancestor.  He is said to have visited his tomb while passing Troy.
---
> The kings of Epirus claimed to be descended from AchillEus through his son.  Since AlexanderTheGreat's mother was an Epiran princess, he could also claim this descent, and in many ways strived to be like his great ancestor.  He is said to have visited his tomb while passing Troy.
------
HecTor|980680431
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In GreekMythology, a Trojan prince and the second greatest fighter in the TrojanWar after AchillEus.
> 
> Hector provides a stark contrast for AchillEus, who is from first to last a man of war.  Hector is fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland.  Through him we see glimpses of what life might have been like in more peaceful times.  The scene where he bids a final fairwell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the most moving in the ''Iliad''.
> 
> Nonetheless, Hector's fate is never in doubt.  Achilleus, raging over the death of Patroclus, kills him and drags his body thrice round the city of Troy.  The final passage in the ''Iliad'' is his funeral, after which the doom of Troy is just a matter of time.  In the final sacking his father and brothers are killed, his son is hurled from the walls in fear that it would avenge him, and his wife carried off by Neoptolemus.
> 
------
HecTor|980680488
1c1
< In GreekMythology, a Trojan prince and the second greatest fighter in the TrojanWar after AchillEus.
---
> In GreekMythology, a Trojan prince and the second greatest fighter in the TrojanWar after AchillEus.  Eldest son of KingPriam and Hecuba, called "breaker of horses" though he never seems to do so.
------
HecTor|980680587
3c3
< Hector provides a stark contrast for AchillEus, who is from first to last a man of war.  Hector is fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland.  Through him we see glimpses of what life might have been like in more peaceful times.  The scene where he bids a final fairwell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the most moving in the ''Iliad''.
---
> Hector provides a stark contrast for AchillEus, who is from first to last a man of war.  Hector is fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland.  His words, "Fight for your country - that is the first and only omen" became a proverb for patriotic Greeks.  Through him we see glimpses of what life might have been like in more peaceful times.  The scene where he bids a final fairwell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the most moving in the ''Iliad''.
------
AchillEus|980680621
9c9
< Shortly after the death of Hector, Achilleus defeated Memnon of Ethiopia and was very soon after killed by Paris - either by an arrow to the heel, or in an older version by a knife to the back while visiting a Trojan princess.  Both versions conspicuously deny the killer any sort of valor, and Achilleus remains undefeated on the battlefield.  His bones are mingled with those of Patroclus, and funeral games are held.  His armor leads to the death of Ajax.
---
> Shortly after the death of HecTor, Achilleus defeated Memnon of Ethiopia and was very soon after killed by Paris - either by an arrow to the heel, or in an older version by a knife to the back while visiting a Trojan princess.  Both versions conspicuously deny the killer any sort of valor, and Achilleus remains undefeated on the battlefield.  His bones are mingled with those of Patroclus, and funeral games are held.  His armor leads to the death of Ajax.
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980684608
9a10,11
> 
> :: The sources listed above are all from a site that explicitly deals only with Theravada Buddhism, which is a very particular branch of Buddhism that is based on the Pali Canon.  That is why they use the phrase "nibbana"; it is not because "serious students of Buddhist texts seem to prefer" that word.  The question of whether "nibbana" and "nirvana" really denote the same thing is best considered as a question regarding the differing ''conceptions'' Theravada and other branches (Mahayana and Vajrayana, to name the main ones) posses of the single ''concept'' nirvana.   
------
HecTor|980685935
3c3
< Hector provides a stark contrast for AchillEus, who is from first to last a man of war.  Hector is fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland.  His words, "Fight for your country - that is the first and only omen" became a proverb for patriotic Greeks.  Through him we see glimpses of what life might have been like in more peaceful times.  The scene where he bids a final fairwell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the most moving in the ''Iliad''.
---
> Hector provides a stark contrast for AchillEus, who is from first to last a man of war.  Hector is fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland.  His words, "Fight for your country - that is the first and only omen" became a proverb to patriotic Greeks.  Through him we see glimpses of what life might have been like in more peaceful times.  The scene where he bids a final fairwell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the most moving in the ''Iliad''.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980687530
6a7
> ''Hi!  Unfortunately you picked someone on whom there's not to much to say.  What do you want to know?  I'm from Calgary, am currently at the UniversityOfWaterloo.  I've spent most of my life learning about things, but of course that doesn't mean I'm any good at writing about them.  Mathematics is an old interest, which springs out of the discovery of graphs on a summer vacation...I actually bothered to plot x^3+y^3=1 by hand just to see it...these are all very old memories.''
8a10,11
> 
> ''When you use a term all the time, you tend to pick the shortest version.  It never occured to me to use mapping, though now that I check that's the version most texts use.  They're either identical, or maybe a mapping has a definite codomain (as opposed to just anything that includes the range).  Feel free to change it.''
------
LanguagE|980687827
0a1,2
> Languages are, roughly speaking, ways of representing things.  In mathematics and computing we use things called FormalLanguages and ProgrammingLanguages.  Most often, though, the term refers to the languages we humans use in conversation and literature.
> 
30c32
< * SapirWhorfHypothesis
---
> * SapirWhorfHypothesis
------
ArtificalLanguages|980687950
3,4c3
< ----
< Those Made for Humans to Speak:
---
> Languages intented for general purposes (e.g. ''Lingua Francae'')
5a5,6
> 
> Languages intended to explore concepts
7,11d7
< ----
< ProgrammingLanguages
< ----
< Fictional Languages:
< :(those that have only been written about, not actually spoken)
12a9
> Languages of fictional worlds and peoples
------
LanguagE|980687981
28c28
< * ArtificalLanguages
---
> * ArtificialLanguages
------
ArtificialLanguages|980688018
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this category is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
> 
> Languages intented for general purposes (e.g. ''Lingua Francae'')
> * EsperantoLanguage
> 
> Languages intended to explore concepts
> * LojbanLanguage (=Loglan)
> 
> Languages of fictional worlds and peoples
> * NewSpeak
> * SindarinLanguage
> * KlingonLanguage
------
ArtificalLanguages|980688057
1,12c1
< Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this category is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
< 
< Languages intented for general purposes (e.g. ''Lingua Francae'')
< * EsperantoLanguage
< 
< Languages intended to explore concepts
< * LojbanLanguage = Loglan
< 
< Languages of fictional worlds and peoples
< * NewSpeak
< * SindarinLanguage
< * KlingonLanguage
---
> Man, you'd think someone would catch my typos!  Page moved to ArtificialLanguages. :(
------
LanguagE|980688207
21c21
< * IndoEuropean (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic, Greek, etc.)
---
> * IndoEuropean (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic, Celtic, Greek, etc.)
------
TheIliad|980688740
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Great Greek epic about the wrath of AchillEus.  Will say more later.
------
BronzeAge|980688792
7c7
< Horses and chariots require a lot of time and upkeep, and so their use was restricted mainly to warrior nobilities.  These are the feudal "heroic" societies vaguely familiar to us from epics like the ''Iliad'' and ''Ramayana''.  They are often associated with IndoEuropean languages, which probably spread out from a homeland on the caspian sea along with bronze working.
---
> Horses and chariots require a lot of time and upkeep, and so their use was restricted mainly to warrior nobilities.  These are the feudal "heroic" societies vaguely familiar to us from epics like TheIliad and the ''Ramayana''.  They are often associated with IndoEuropean languages, which probably spread out from a homeland on the caspian sea along with bronze working.
------
AchillEus|980689068
11c11
< In TheOdyssey, there is a passage where OddysEus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades.  One of these is AchillEus, who greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave then be dead.  This has been interpreted as a rejection of his warrior life, but also as indignity to his martyrdom being slighted.
---
> In TheOdyssey, there is a passage where OdysEus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades.  One of these is AchillEus, who greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave then be dead.  This has been interpreted as a rejection of his warrior life, but also as indignity to his martyrdom being slighted.
------
GreekMythology|980690412
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The legends and religion of the HellenicCivilization.  These stories were familiar to everyone, even if they did not believe them, and provided the people with both rituals and history.
> 
> The Greek gods are given human form, but are first and foremost personifications of the forces of the universe.  As such they are more or less unchanging, and while they sometimes have a sense of justice, they are often petty or vengeful.  The god's favors are bought by sacrifices and piety, but this does not guarantee them, and they are prone to frequent changes of mind.  Their anger is harsh and their love can be just as dangerous.
> 
> The world of Greek mythology is expectedly difficult.  It is full of monsters, wars, intrigue, and meddling gods.  And there are heroes to help overcome these problems.  Men and women were much greater in those days, of course, though the Greeks did not see any wide gulf between their history and their mythology.  All in all it makes for some wonderful stories.
> 
> So far these pages are devoted to GreekMythology...
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor
------
GreekMythology|980690429
7a8
> 
------
WojPob|980690729
3c3,6
< A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. http://www.pobratyn.com.
---
> A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. 
> 
> http://www.pobratyn.com.
> 
5d7
< Yeah;-)
7,15d8
< ----
< Woj, please be certain to use plain ASCII symbols...  All of the pages you've edited have these
< funny ¥c¤ symbols in them now, where there should be newlines.  There are other symbols being
< sprinkled throughout...
< ----
< Christ, I've had this problem before on the BoMis wiki.... 
< it's my bloody German language keyboard.  I'll try to sort it out.
< ----
< Fixed up the broken periods.  -- BryceHarrington
------
KurtCobain|980691376
1c1
< Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanA (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
---
> Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanBand (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
------
KurtCobain|980691390
1c1
< Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanBand (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
---
> Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanaBand (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
------
DaveGrohl|980691431
1c1
< DaveGrohl was the drummer of the cult band NirvanA until the band split up in 1994 after KurtCobain commited suicide. His latest project is a band called the FooFighters
---
> DaveGrohl was the drummer of the cult band NirvanaBand until the band split up in 1994 after KurtCobain commited suicide. His latest project is a band called the FooFighters
------
ZeuS|980691508
1,3c1
< The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
< 
< ''Do we want to go through all the mythological characters here?  It would be cool filling them in if we do, but maybe it would be better to keep them concentrated on a couple pages like GreekMythology, GreekTheogony, IliaD, etc.''
---
> The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
------
ArtificialLanguages|980691701
3c3
< Languages intented for general purposes (e.g. ''Lingua Francae'')
---
> Languages intented for general purposes (e.g. ''Linguae Francae'')
------
TheCanonofScripture|980692028
18c18
< 
---
> ----
19a20,21
> 
> ''Out of curiosity, do we know there were any?  Culture in the ancient world didn't normally encourage such exploits, but there are notably exceptions, like Hypatia and Sappho.  Have we found any woman-written apocrypha?''
------
BuddhIsm|980695712
3a4,8
> 
> Other related local pages include:
> * NirvanaBuddhism
> 
> ----
------
ViennA|980696210
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ViennA (lat. VindobonA) is the capital of AustriA. With a population of about 1.8 million, it is the largest city in the country.
> 
> 
>  
------
EuropA|980696414
1c1
< In GreekMythology a Phoenician princess. As ZeuS saw her he fell in love with her. He assumes the guise of a bull and kidnaped her to CretE. She bore him some childs, so MinoS and RhadamanthuS. 
---
> In GreekMythology a Phoenician princess. As ZeuS saw her he fell in love with her. He assumes the guise of a bull and kidnaped her to CretE. She bore him some childs, KingMinos and RhabdaManthus. 
------
BuddhIsm|980697044
2a3,4
> According to [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html statistics from adherents.com], estimates of the number of Buddhists vary between 230 and 500 million, with most around 350 million.
> 
9c11,13
< See the [http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Buddhism/ Google directory for Buddhism] for ''many'' other online resources.
---
> Notable online resources include:
> * [http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Buddhism/ Google directory for Buddhism]
> * [http://buddhism.about.com/religion/buddhism/ About.com entry for Buddhism]
------
SubRing|980697576
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Given a RinG (R,+,*), we say that a subset S of R is a subring thereof if it is a ring under the restriction of + and * thereto.  A subring is just a SubGroup of (R,+) closed under multiplication.
> 
> A subring with unity is a subring which includes, not just any unity, but the ''same'' unity as the parent ring.  Of course this is the only sort of subring we talk about if we define rings to have a unity by default.  Every ring has a unique smallest subring with unity, isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or some ModularArithmetic.
> 
> Subrings closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary'' ring elements are called ideals.  Clearly the only ideal which contains unity is the ring itself.  These play exactly the same role that normal SubGroups do for groups, being precisely the possible kernels of ring HomoMorphism''s''.
------
SubRing|980697590
5c5
< Subrings closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary'' ring elements are called ideals.  Clearly the only ideal which contains unity is the ring itself.  These play exactly the same role that normal SubGroups do for groups, being precisely the possible kernels of ring HomoMorphism''s''.
---
> Subrings closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary'' ring elements are called ideals.  Clearly the only ideal which contains unity is the ring itself.  These play exactly the same role that normal SubGroup''s'' do for groups, being precisely the possible kernels of ring HomoMorphism''s''.
------
RinG|980697696
6c6
< Very often the definition of a ring is taken to require a multiplicative identity, or unity, denoted 1.  Nearly all important rings actually satisfy this.  It has the disadvantage, however, of making ring ideals not subrings, as compared with their group-analog, the normal subgroups.  It has the advantage of adding a lot more structure to 
---
> Very often the definition of a ring is taken to require a multiplicative identity, or unity, denoted 1.  Nearly all important rings actually satisfy this.  It has the disadvantage, however, of making ring ideals not subrings, as compared with their group-analog, the normal subgroups.
8c8
< Sets of commutative group HomoMorphism''s'' form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulE''s''.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
---
> Some important concepts: SubRing''s'' (including ideals)
10c10
< A subring (not necessarily with identity) closed under multiplication by ''arbitrary ring'' elements is called an ideal.  These relate to the kernels of ring HomoMorphism''s'' the same way NormalSubGroups relate to those of GroupHomomorphism''s''.
---
> Sets of commutative group HomoMorphism''s'' form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulE''s''.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
14d13
< Every ring contains a unique smallest subring (with identity), isomorphic to either the IntegerNumbers or a ModularArithmetic.  Every field containing the IntegerNumbers contains a unique smallest field isomorphic to the RationalNumbers.
------
ModularArithmetic|980697739
1c1
< The ModularArithmetics are the images of the IntegerNumbers under group/ring HomoMorphisms.  Such an operation is going to zero out some NormalSubgroup/Ideal, and these turn out to be precisely the sets of the form pZ for some integer p; the resulting group/ring is denoted Zp.
---
> The ModularArithmetics are the images of the IntegerNumbers under group/ring HomoMorphism''s''.  Such an operation is going to zero out some NormalSubgroup/Ideal, and these turn out to be precisely the sets of the form pZ for some integer p; the resulting group/ring is denoted Zp.
5,7c5,7
< 0+0=0    1+0=1    2+0=2
< 0+1=1    1+1=2    2+1=0
< 0+2=2    1+2=0    2+2=1
---
>    0+0=0    1+0=1    2+0=2
>    0+1=1    1+1=2    2+1=0
>    0+2=2    1+2=0    2+2=1
9,11c9,11
< 0*0=0    1*0=0    2*0=0
< 0*1=0    1*1=1    2*1=2
< 0*2=0    1*2=2    2*2=1
---
>    0*0=0    1*0=0    2*0=0
>    0*1=0    1*1=1    2*1=2
>    0*2=0    1*2=2    2*2=1
13c13
< When p is a composite number, the factors of p are going to turn out to be ZeroDivisors.  When p is prime, these don't exist, and so Zp is an IntegralDomain and in fact necessarily a field.
---
> When p is a composite number, the factors of p are going to turn out to be ZeroDivisors.  When p is prime, these don't exist, and so Zp is an IntegralDomain and in fact necessarily a field.
------
HomoMorphism|980697794
3c3
< A homomorphism which is also one-to-one is called an isomorphism; two isomorphic objects are completely indistinguishable as far as the structure in question is concerned.  A homomorphism from a set to itself is called an endomorphism, and if it is also an isomorphism is called an automorphism.
---
> A homomorphism which is also a BiJection is called an isomorphism; two isomorphic objects are completely indistinguishable as far as the structure in question is concerned.  A homomorphism from a set to itself is called an endomorphism, and if it is also an isomorphism is called an automorphism.
------
NirvanaBuddhism|980697897
3c3
< Many of the Pali language Buddhist scriptures use a word translated as "nibbana", which appears to describe the same word/concept.
---
> Many of the Pali language Buddhist scriptures use a word translated as "nibbana", which appears to describe the same word/concept.  See [http://here-and-now.org/IMSOC/old/nibbana.html this article] for a (Therevada) Buddhist's commentary on "nibbana/nirvana".
9c9,17
< :Serious students of Buddhist texts seem to prefer "nibbana", although "nirvana" is often listed as a (transliteration of the) Sanskrit version.  A more detailed definition is [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#n here], with several uses of "nibbana" [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/nibbana.html here], and a talk on "nibbana" [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/nibbana.html here].  Finally, a Google search for [http://www.google.com/search?q=nirvana+nibbana+Pali+Sanskrit&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off nirvana nibbana Pali Sanskrit] found over a hundred links which seem to equate the two terms.
---
> :From [http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/world/buddhism.htm notes of a World Philosophy class]: "The Mahayana scriptures were written in Sanskrit not Pali (which is the language of the Theravada scriptures). This accounts for the differences in spellings: Nirvana instead of Nibbana, Sutra instead of Sutta, etc."  Many sources equate the two terms, as in this [http://www.google.com/search?q=nirvana+nibbana Google search].
> 
> :The use of "nirvana" in English may have occurred because of the greater popularity of Sanskrit over Pali in early Western accounts of "Eastern religions/philosophy".  (Sanskrit is also important in Hindu scriptures.)  Some of the most popular early books on Buddhism had a strong bias towards the Mahayana school.  (For instance, some books used the pejorative term "Hinayana" to refer to the Theravada school.)
> 
> ----
> ----
> '''Old text, to be deleted:'''
> 
> :Serious students of Buddhist texts seem to prefer "nibbana"... [remaining text deleted by author]
11a20,21
> 
> :My apologies.  Further study revealed that you are correct.
------
ReLigion|980697990
8c8
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas -- PaliCanon
10a11,16
> 
> ----
> 
> Other notable online sources for religious information include:
> * Google directory: [http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/ Religion and Spirituality]
> * The [http://www.adherents.com/ adherents.com] collection of statistics on over 4000 religions.
------
KingdomAnimalia|980698919
1c1,30
< Includes HomoSapiens, and a whole lot of other stuff.  This really deserves to be expounded further.
---
> "Lower" groups:
> 
> * PhylumPorifera
> * PhylumCnidaria (=Ctenophora)
> * PhylumCtenophora
> * PhylumPlatyhelminthes (probably polyphyletic)
> 
> Trochozoa:
> 
> * PhylumRotifera
> * PhylumMollusca (e.g. AbalonE)
> * PhylumAnnelida
> 
> Ecdysozoa:
> 
> * PhylumNematoda, the roundworms
> * PhylumOnychophora
> * PhylumTardigrada
> * PhylumArthropoda
> 
> Lophophorata:
> 
> * PhylumBrachiopoda
> * PhylumEctoprocta (=Bryozoa)
> 
> Deuterostomia:
> 
> * PhylumEchinodermata
> * PhylumHemichordata
> * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens)
------
KingdomAnimalia|980698961
30c30
< * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens)
---
> * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens, AardvarK)
------
KingdomAnimalia|980699064
6c6
< * PhylumPlatyhelminthes (probably polyphyletic)
---
> * PhylumPlatyhelminthes - probably paraphyletic to higher groups
------
KingdomAnimalia|980700022
1c1
< "Lower" groups:
---
> Lower animals:
3a4,6
> 
> Lower metazoa:
> 
------
JoshuaGrosse|980701643
11c11,13
< ''When you use a term all the time, you tend to pick the shortest version.  It never occured to me to use mapping, though now that I check that's the version most texts use.  They're either identical, or maybe a mapping has a definite codomain (as opposed to just anything that includes the range).  Feel free to change it.''
---
> ''When you use a term all the time, you tend to pick the shortest version.  It never occured to me to use mapping, though now that I check that's the version most texts use.  They're either identical, or maybe a mapping has a definite codomain (as opposed to just anything that includes the range).  Feel free to change it.''----
> 
> '''Q.''' One of the things I am wondering is if you, like myself, have an interest in/ facility for Mathematics, as well as Linguistics and Languages? It appears to be a somewhat unusual combination. 
------
AtlasShrugged|980709235
5c5
< Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She advocated libertarian capitalism as the political system most consistent with these beliefs.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
---
> Rand suggests that a society will stagnate to the extent that independence and individual achievement are discouraged or demonized.  Inversely, a society will become more prosperous as it allows, encourages, and rewards independence and individual achievement.  Rand believed that independence flourishes to the extent that people are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded where people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts.  She advocated LibertarianCapitalism as the political system most consistent with these beliefs.  These considerations make AtlasShrugged a highly political book.
------
PoLitics|980709289
22a23
> * LibertarianCapitalism
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980709582
76c76
< :For spaces in links, I'm leaning toward translating them into _ (underline) characters in the title and URL.  I could then translate _ back to a space when displaying the link.  This would allow you to type [[Jimbo Wales]], which would be displayed like "Jimbo Wales" (as a link).  If you wanted to link to the page (from outside the wiki) you could use a nice URL with an underline, rather than an ugly one with a + or %20 for each space character.
---
> :For spaces in links, I'm leaning toward translating them into _ (underline) characters in the URL.  I could then translate _ back to a space when displaying the link.  This would allow you to type [[Jimbo Wales]], which would be displayed like "Jimbo Wales" (as a link).  If you wanted to link to the page (from outside the wiki) you could use a nice URL with an underline, rather than an ugly one with a + or %20 for each space character.
80c80,84
< I don't understand why you want spaces to be converted to and from _ (underline). Isn't the space character good enough as it is? Is there some conceptual meaning of the space that I don't understand? --LinusTolke
---
> I don't understand why you want spaces to be converted to and from _ (underline). Isn't the space character good enough as it is? Is there some conceptual meaning of the space that I don't understand? --LinusTolke
> 
> :Briefly, spaces in UniformResourceLocator""s (URLs) are forbidden in the UniformResourceIdentifier (URI) specification.  (URLs are a subset of URIs.)  From RFC 2396: "The space character is excluded because significant spaces may disappear and insignificant spaces may be introduced when URI are transcribed or typeset or subjected to the treatment of word-processing programs.  Whitespace is also used to delimit URI in many contexts."
> 
> :For URLs, the valid ways to represent a space are the "+" character (within a "query component") and the "%20" escape sequence.  Both look relatively ugly compared to an underline: compare <nowiki>"Jimbo_Wales" with "Jimbo+Wales" or "Jimbo%20Wales"</nowiki>.  Internally my code also uses the _ character for filenames, as some utilities on some systems do not deal well with spaces in filenames.  However, aside from the URL issue, you should not notice the difference.  --CliffordAdams
------
CantorSet|980710316
24a25,26
> ''That's not a one-to-one mapping.  Representations of numbers in the CantorSet are unique, but binary representations aren't: 0.022222... != 0.20000... but 0.01111... = 0.10000...  Of course it's still a SurJection, so proves the objects are the same cardinality.  Any ideas on how an actual BiJection could be made, though?  I'm curious.''
> 
------
AlaskA|980710444
3c3
< On the other hand, it's cold, like RusSia.
---
> On the other hand, it's cold, like RussiA.
------
LarrySanger|980710472
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RusSia for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
9c9
< I'm not envious because I live here, in RusSia!
---
> I'm not envious because I live here, in RussiA!
17c17
< I don't know! -- Larry
---
> I don't know! -- Larry
------
EthicsVsMorals|980710520
27c27
< EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision.
---
> EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision. -- AyeSpy
45c45
< Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights.
---
> Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights. -- AyeSpy
------
AyeSpyList|980710638
12c12
< Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (Tao Tech Ching - not the cursory version I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
---
> Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (re the TaoTechChing - not the cursory commentary I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
------
AyeSpyList|980710735
5c5,7
< Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in ?don?t fence me in?), tournament fencing (as in, ?touche??), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.
---
> Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in "don't fence me in"), tournament fencing (as in, "touche'"), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.
> 
> AyeSpy
12c14
< Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (re the TaoTechChing - not the cursory commentary I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
---
> Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (re the TaoTehChing - not the cursory commentary I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
------
PhotoElectricEffect|980710998
1c1,3
< Der Photoelektrische Effekt
---
> oh my god - 
> believe me it's easier to visit
> http://www.buecherleihecke.de/gnupedia/photoe/
3,15c5
< erschienen am: 26. Januar 2001
< Autor:Norman Werner
< <H1><A NAME="SECTION00020000000000000000">
< Historisches</A>
< </H1>
< 1888 fand <SPAN  CLASS="textit">Hallwachs</SPAN> erstmals die Gesetzmäßigkeiten des
< photo-elektrischen Effektes, welcher zuvor schon von <SPAN  CLASS="textit">H. Hertz
< </SPAN>beobachtet worden war. Dabei standen die Ergebnisse des Experimentes
< in Widerspruch zur klassichen Mechanik und dem damaligen Verständnis
< von der Natur des Lichts. Erst 1905 wurden die Ergebnisse von
< <SPAN  CLASS="textit">A. Einstein</SPAN> im Rahmen der Lichtquantentheorie gedeutet. Das
< Experiment gilt als einer der deutlichsten Belege für die Quantelung
< der von Licht übertragenen Energie.
---
> i - deleted the stuff bryce took herein somehow 
17,268c7
< <P>
< 
< <H1><A NAME="SECTION00030000000000000000">
< Das Experiment</A>
< </H1>
< 
< <H2><A NAME="SECTION00031000000000000000">
< Das Wesentliche</A>
< </H2>
< Aus einem Metall, können unter optischer Anregungen Elektronen
< austreten. Dabei ist es möglich die maximale kinetische Energie der
< Elektronen nach dem Austritt zu bestimmen. Stellt man einen Zusammenhang zwischen dieser
< maximalen Energie und der Art des verwendeten Licht statt, so stellt
< man fest, daß die Intensität des Lichtes lediglich beeinflußt wieviele
< Elektronen auf eine gewisse kinetische Energie kommen. Währenddessen
< die Frage, ob überhaupt Elektronen austreten und eine bestimmte
< Energie erreichen lediglich von der Frequenz des verwendeten
< Lichtes abhängt. Dabei waren die Ergebnisse bei allen untersuchten
< Metallen im wesentlichen die selben. Im besonderen war auch der
< Anstieg 
< <!-- MATH
<  $tan(\alpha{})$
<  -->
< <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="58" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img1.gif"
<  ALT="$ tan(\alpha{})$"></SPAN> stets der gleiche. Allerdings lagen bei
< verschiedenen Metallen unterschiedliche Grenzfrequenzen <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img2.gif"
<  ALT="$ f_{gr}$"></SPAN> vor.
< 
< <P></P>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><A NAME="fig:dia"></A><A NAME="35"></A>
< <TABLE>
< <CAPTION ALIGN="BOTTOM"><STRONG>Figure 1:</STRONG>
< </CAPTION>
< <TR><TD>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
< 
< </DIV> 
<   
< <!-- MATH
<  $\includegraphics {phoe.eps}$
<  -->
< <IMG
<  WIDTH="498" HEIGHT="187" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img3.gif"
<  ALT="\includegraphics {phoe.eps}"></TD></TR>
< </TABLE>
< </DIV><P></P>
< 
< <P>
< In Abbildung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> sind die beiden angesprochenen
< Abhängigleiten dargestellt. Der nächste Abschnitt der den
< Versuchsaufbau genauer beschreibt, kann ruhig übersprungen werden. Es
< geht weiter in Absatz <A HREF="photoe.htm#sec:auswert">4</A>.
< 
< <H2><A NAME="SECTION00032000000000000000">
< Versuchsaufbau</A>
< </H2>
< Um aus dem Metall Elektronen lösen zu könne waren zweierlei
< Vorbereitungen notwendig. Zum einen wurde mit negativ geladenen
< Elektroden gearbeitet und zum anderen wurden diese durch eine Heizung
< erwärmt. Beide Maßnahmen senken die Austrittsarbeit. Um die kinetische
< Maximalenergie der Elektronen zu messen, wurde mit der
< Gegenfeldmethode<A NAME="tex2html2"
<  HREF="#foot41"><SUP><IMG  ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="1" ALT="[*]" SRC="foot_motif.gif"></SUP></A>gearbeitet. Zur Bestrahlung wird monochromatisches Licht verwendet.
< Das solche Versuche nur in nahezu luftleeren Raum
< durchgeführt werden konnten, is ja wohl klar.
< 
< <H1><A NAME="SECTION00040000000000000000"></A>
< <A NAME="sec:auswert"></A>
< <BR>
< Analyse
< </H1>
< Damit ein Elektron die Metalloberfläche verlassen kann muss eine
< bestimmte Austrittsarbeit <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img4.gif"
<  ALT="$ U_A$"></SPAN> aufgebracht werden. Da die Loslösung
< von Elektronen nur unter Lichteinfall geschieht, liegt die Vermutung
< nahe, daß das Licht die notwendige Energie einbringt. Gemäß der
< Lichtquantenhypothese wird jedoch die gesamte Energie eines
< Lichtteilchens - dem sog. "`Photons"' -
< mit einem Mal auf das Elektron übertragen. Liegt diese Energie
< unterhalb der Austrittsarbeit, so können keine Elektronen losgelöst
< werden. Aufgrund unterschiedlicher Bindungsverhältnisse in
< unterschiedlichen Metallen überrascht die Stoffabhängigkeit der
< Austrittarbeit keineswegs, was dann auch die Existenz einer
< stoffspezifischen Grenzfrequenz <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img2.gif"
<  ALT="$ f_{gr}$"></SPAN> erklärt. 
< <BR><P></P>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
< 
<   <TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Metall</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="28" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img4.gif"
<  ALT="$ U_A$"></SPAN> in [eV]</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">
< <!-- MATH
<  $\lambda{}_{gr}$
<  -->
< <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="29" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img5.gif"
<  ALT="$ \lambda{}_{gr} $"></SPAN> in [nm]</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Li</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2,46</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">504</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Na</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2,28</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">543</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">K</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2.25</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">551</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Rb</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">2.13</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">582</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Cs</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">1.94</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">639</TD>
< </TR>
< <TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT">Cu</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">4.48</TD>
< <TD ALIGN="LEFT">277</TD>
< </TR>
< </TABLE>
< 
< </DIV>
< <BR>
< Sollte das Photon mehr Energie haben, als an Austrittsarbeit nötig
< ist, so liegt der Verdacht nahe, daß das Elektron diese überschüssige
< Energie als kinetische Energie übernimmt. Es ist dies genau die
< Energie, die in der Darstellung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> dargestellt wird. 
< <P></P>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:enegieer"></A>
< <!-- MATH
<  \begin{equation}
< E_{photon}=U_{A}+E_{kin_{max}}
< \end{equation}
<  -->
< <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
< <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
< <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="191" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img6.gif"
<  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{photon}=U_{A}+E_{kin_{max}}$"></SPAN></TD>
< <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
< (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">1</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
< </TABLE></DIV>
< <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
< Da sich aus der Darstellung <A HREF="photoe.htm#fig:dia">1</A> ein linearer Zusammenhang
< zwischen 
< <!-- MATH
<  $E_{kin_{max}}$
<  -->
< <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="63" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img7.gif"
<  ALT="$ E_{kin_{max}}$"></SPAN> und <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img8.gif"
<  ALT="$ f$"></SPAN> ergibt, so ist leicht einzusehen, daß
< gilt:
< <P></P>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:brosel"></A>
< <!-- MATH
<  \begin{equation}
< E_{kin_{max}}=\tan{(\alpha{})}\cdot{}f-U_{A}
< \text{ wobei $\alpha{}$\  der Anstiegswinkel ist.}
< \end{equation}
<  -->
< <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
< <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
< <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="217" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img9.gif"
<  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{kin_{max}}=\tan{(\alpha{})}\cdot{}f-U_{A}$">&nbsp; &nbsp; wobei <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="17" HEIGHT="17" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img10.gif"
<  ALT="$ \alpha{}$"></SPAN> der Anstiegswinkel ist.</SPAN></TD>
< <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
< (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">2</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
< </TABLE></DIV>
< <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
< Da der Anstiegswinkel bei allen Metallen gleich ist, Ist es glaubhaft,
< daß es sich dabei um eine Konstante handelt. Und dem ist auch 
< so. 
< <!-- MATH
<  $\tan{(\alpha{})}=h$
<  -->
< <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="96" HEIGHT="37" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img11.gif"
<  ALT="$ \tan{(\alpha{})}=h$"></SPAN> und <SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img12.gif"
<  ALT="$ h$"></SPAN> ist allgemein bekannt als
< "`Plancksches Wirkungsquantum"'.
< Nach Einsetzen von <A HREF="photoe.htm#eq:brosel">2</A> in <A HREF="photoe.htm#eq:enegieer">1</A> erhält man
< <P></P>
< <DIV ALIGN="CENTER" CLASS="mathdisplay"><A NAME="eq:ehf"></A>
< <!-- MATH
<  \begin{equation}
< E_{photon}=h\cdot{}f
< \end{equation}
<  -->
< <TABLE CLASS="equation" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" ALIGN="CENTER">
< <TR VALIGN="MIDDLE">
< <TD NOWRAP ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN CLASS="MATH"><IMG
<  WIDTH="120" HEIGHT="34" ALIGN="MIDDLE" BORDER="0"
<  SRC="img13.gif"
<  ALT="$\displaystyle E_{photon}=h\cdot{}f$"></SPAN></TD>
< <TD NOWRAP CLASS="eqno" WIDTH="10" ALIGN="RIGHT">
< (<SPAN CLASS="eqn-number">3</SPAN>)</TD></TR>
< </TABLE></DIV>
< <BR CLEAR="ALL"><P></P>
< <H2><A NAME="SECTION00041000000000000000">.</A>
< 
< </H2>
< Was wir hier als selbstverständlich angenommen haben, nämlich, daß ein
< Photon seine gesamte Energie an ein Elektron abgibt, daß es überhaupt
< sowas wie eine Teilchennatur des Lichtes gibt, und daß die Energie
< eines solchen von seiner Frequenz  (einem Wellencharakteristikum)
< abhängt, war zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts eine wissenschaftliche Sensation.
< <BR><HR><H4>Footnotes</H4>
< <DL>
< <DT><A NAME="foot41">...
< Gegenfeldmethode</A><A NAME="foot41"
<  HREF="photoe.htm#tex2html2"><SUP><IMG  ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="1" ALT="[*]" SRC="foot_motif.gif"></SUP></A>
< <DD>vielleicht woanders in gnupedia
< 
< </DL>
< <BR><HR>
< <h4>Kontakt mit dem Autor</h4>
< Bei Verbesserungsvorschl&auml;gen, Ermutigungen und anderen Zeichen von Anteilnahme, kann ich unter <a href="mailto:norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de">norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de</a> erreicht werden. Sollte diese Addresse mittlerweile nicht mehr aktuell sein, so kann man mich postalisch unter:
< <br>
< Norman Werner<br>
< Rembrandtstr.3<br>
< 15370 Fredersdorf<br>
< &ETH;eutschland<br>
< erreichen
---
> -plain html-looks terrible
------
JoshuaGrosse|980712568
13a14,17
> 
> I definitely have an interest in both, and a facility for Mathematics.  As for language ability I'm not so sure.  I took French immersion early on and was good enough to think it fluently, but since then almost all of my vocabulary has been forgotten.  Since then I've taken a little German, and am taking Latin, and again have trouble keeping a full vocab.  At least when I got lost in Paris I could find my way.
> 
> Three things I really like are etymologies, phonetics, and alphabets.  I wonder if you tend to go for the same things?  My best friend's also good at math and languages, so either it's not so unusual or we just attract each other. :)
------
ModulE|980714889
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A left R-module consists of some commutative group (M,+) together with a RinG of scalars (R,+,*), together with an operation RxM->M (scalar multiplication, usually just denoted *) such that
> 
>    For r,s in R, x in M, (rs)x = r(sx)
>    For r,s in R, x in M, (r+s)x = rx+sx
>    For r in R, x,y in M, r(x+y) = rx+ry
> 
> A right R-module is defined similarly, only the ring acts on the right.  The two are easily interchangeable.
> 
> The action of an element r in R is defined to be the map that sends each x to rx (or xr), and is necessarily an EndoMorphism of M.  The set of all EndoMorphism''s'' of M is denoted End(M) and forms a RinG under addition and composition, so the above actually defines a HomoMorphism from R into End(M).
> 
> This is called a representation of R over M, and is called faithful if and only if the map is one-to-one.  M can be expressed as an R-module if and only if R has some representation over it.  In particular, every commutative group is a module under the IntegerNumbers, and is either faithful under them or some ModularArithmetic.
> 
> A module under a field is called a VectorSpace.
------
EndoMorphism|980714942
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A HomoMorphism from a set to itself.  Termed an AutoMorphism if it is also an IsoMorphism.
------
ModulE|980715049
13c13
< A module under a field is called a VectorSpace.
---
> A module under a FielD is called a VectorSpace.
------
RinG|980715107
8,10c8
< Some important concepts: SubRing''s'' (including ideals)
< 
< Sets of commutative group HomoMorphism''s'' form rings under addition and composition, provided they are closed under all necessary operations.  An isomorphism from a ring to such a collection is called a representation of the ring, and groups under ring-actions are referred to as ModulE''s''.  Every ring has some sort of faithful representation.
---
> Some important concepts: SubRing''s'' and ideals, ModulE''s''
------
ModulE|980715150
1c1
< A left R-module consists of some commutative group (M,+) together with a RinG of scalars (R,+,*), together with an operation RxM->M (scalar multiplication, usually just denoted *) such that
---
> A left R-module consists of some commutative group (M,+) together with a RinG of scalars (R,+,*), together with an operation R x M->M (scalar multiplication, usually just denoted *) such that
------
ModulE|980715411
13c13
< A module under a FielD is called a VectorSpace.
---
> Another thing to note is that End(M), treated as a group, is also a module under R in a natural way.  When R is a FielD, this constitutes an AssociativeAlgebra.  Module under FielD''s'' are called VectorSpace''s''.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980715538
17c17,19
< Three things I really like are etymologies, phonetics, and alphabets.  I wonder if you tend to go for the same things?  My best friend's also good at math and languages, so either it's not so unusual or we just attract each other. :)
---
> Three things I really like are etymologies, phonetics, and alphabets.  I wonder if you tend to go for the same things?  My best friend's also good at math and languages, so either it's not so unusual or we just attract each other. :)
> 
> P.S. Why didn't you call MathematicalGrouP, just GrouP?
------
MathematicalGrouP|980715599
85c85
< Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinG''s'', IdeaL''s'' and FielD''s''.
---
> Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinG''s'' and FielD''s''.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980715982
19c19
< Usually the operation, whatever it ''really'' is, is denoted like multiplication; we write a*b for the ''product'' of a and b, 1 for the identity and a^-1 for the inverse of a.  Otherwise, the operation is denoted like addition; we write a+b for the sum of a and b, 0 for the identity and -a for the inverse of a.
---
> Usually the operation, whatever it ''really'' is, is denoted like multiplication; we write a*b for the ''product'' of a and b, 1 for the identity and a^-1 for the inverse of a.  Otherwise, the operation is denoted like addition; we write a+b for the ''sum'' of a and b, 0 for the identity and -a for the inverse of a.  We usually only use additive notation when the group is commutative, ie a+b=b+a for all elements.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980716798
19c19,28
< P.S. Why didn't you call MathematicalGrouP, just GrouP?
---
> P.S. Why didn't you call MathematicalGrouP, just GrouP?----
> 
> First things last...
> 
> '''A.''' I named it MathematicalGrouP because it was the first entry in Math and I wanted  
> readers to know what kind of group I was talking about.
> 
> I have degrees in both Math and Linguistics. In Math, I like Abstract Algebra best; in Linguistics, I like Syntax best. Like you, I started French early, in third grade, and continued through college. I have also studied German, Latin, Greek, and Japanese.
> Latin and Greek are great tools if you are interested in English or Romance etymology.
> Picking up on your interest in phonetics, we could surely use your help at Nupedia in the CopyeditAME-L and Pronounce-L lists, to help provide pronunciations for our articles. I hope I am not intruding with this last remark.
------
GrouP|980717833
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See MathematicalGrouP.
------
SubGroup|980717868
1c1
< Given a group G under an operation *, we say that some subset H of G is a SubGroup if H is a group under the restriction of * thereto.  This occurs if and only if H is closed to products and inverses.
---
> Given a GrouP G under an operation *, we say that some subset H of G is a SubGroup if H is a group under the restriction of * thereto.  This occurs if and only if H is closed to products and inverses.
------
HomoMorphism|980717894
5c5
< Any homomorphism f: X -> Y defines an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient X/~ can then be given an object-structure in a natural way, e.g. [x]*[y]=[x*y].  In that case the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.  Note in some cases (e.g. groups) a single equivalence class Y suffices to specify the structure of the quotient, so we write it X/Y.
---
> Any homomorphism f: X -> Y defines an EquivalenceRelation on X by a~b iff f(a)=f(b).  The quotient X/~ can then be given an object-structure in a natural way, e.g. [x]*[y]=[x*y].  In that case the image of X is necessarily isomorphic to X/~.  Note in some cases (e.g. GrouP''s'') a single equivalence class Y suffices to specify the structure of the quotient, so we write it X/Y.
------
RinG|980717964
1c1
< A Ring is a commutative group under an operation +, together with a second operation * s.t.
---
> A Ring is a commutative GrouP under an operation +, together with a second operation * s.t.
------
ModulE|980718029
1c1
< A left R-module consists of some commutative group (M,+) together with a RinG of scalars (R,+,*), together with an operation R x M->M (scalar multiplication, usually just denoted *) such that
---
> A left R-module consists of some commutative GrouP (M,+) together with a RinG of scalars (R,+,*), together with an operation R x M->M (scalar multiplication, usually just denoted *) such that
9c9
< The action of an element r in R is defined to be the map that sends each x to rx (or xr), and is necessarily an EndoMorphism of M.  The set of all EndoMorphism''s'' of M is denoted End(M) and forms a RinG under addition and composition, so the above actually defines a HomoMorphism from R into End(M).
---
> The action of an element r in R is defined to be the map that sends each x to rx (or xr), and is necessarily an EndoMorphism of M.  The set of all endomorphisms of M is denoted End(M) and forms a ring under addition and composition, so the above actually defines a HomoMorphism from R into End(M).
------
ManiFold|980718274
1c1
< A continuous n-ManiFold is a topological space where there is some open set around each point that is isomorphic to the ProductTopology R^n.  That is, the space looks locally Euclidean.  These isomorphisms are called charts, and the collection of all of them is called an atlas; by only including charts that relate smoothly to one another, we get an analytic manifold.  All differentiable manifolds can be made analytic.
---
> A continuous n-manifold is a topological space where there is some open set around each point that is isomorphic to the ProductTopology R^n.  That is, the space looks locally Euclidean.  These isomorphisms are called charts, and the collection of all of them is called an atlas; by only including charts that relate smoothly to one another, we get an analytic manifold.  All differentiable manifolds can be made analytic.
3c3
< One of the most important kinds of ManiFold is a LieGroup.  These can always be made differentiable.
---
> Associated with every point on an analytic manifold is a TangentSpace and its dual, the CotangentSpace.  The former consists of the possible directional derivatives, and the latter the differentials, which can be thought of as infinitesimal elements of the manifold.
5c5,7
< The classification of all ManiFold''s'' is an open problem.  We know that every connected 1-D manifold is isomorphic either to R or the circle S.  Connected, compact 2-Manifolds can be divided into three infinite series:
---
> One of the most important kinds of manifold is a LieGroup.  These can always be made differentiable.
> 
> The classification of all manifold is an open problem.  We know that every connected 1-D manifold is isomorphic either to R or the circle S.  Connected, compact 2-manifolds can be divided into three infinite series:
------
ManiFold|980718350
3c3
< Associated with every point on an analytic manifold is a TangentSpace and its dual, the CotangentSpace.  The former consists of the possible directional derivatives, and the latter the differentials, which can be thought of as infinitesimal elements of the manifold.
---
> Associated with every point on an analytic manifold is a TangentSpace and its dual, the CotangentSpace.  The former consists of the possible directional derivatives, and the latter the differentials, which can be thought of as infinitesimal elements of the manifold.  These spaces always have the same dimension as the manifold does.
------
ModulE|980718471
13c13
< Another thing to note is that End(M), treated as a group, is also a module under R in a natural way.  When R is a FielD, this constitutes an AssociativeAlgebra.  Module under FielD''s'' are called VectorSpace''s''.
---
> Another thing to note is that End(M), treated as a group, is also a module under R in a natural way.  When R is a FielD, this constitutes an AssociativeAlgebra.  Modules under fields are called VectorSpace''s''.
------
SandBox|980718895
3c3,5
< Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
---
> Can I create a link to a page called Sandbox by using special markup, e.g. [Sandbox] like on ZWiki?  Hm, nope, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, it would solve the problem of silly WikiNames like DenmarK.
> ----
> [[test]]
------
SandBox|980718917
5c5
< [[test]]
---
> [[Test]]
------
SandBox|980718939
5c5
< [[Test]]
---
> [[denmark]]
------
SandBox|980718956
5c5
< [[denmark]]
---
> 
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|980720502
84a85,86
> 
> So this is a technical issue on the connection of the wiki to the tools allowing people to browse and modify the contents. I don't think this is at all important and I would think that it would be a pity if the contents of the WikiPedia would be governed by problems in the tools. --LinusTolke
------
MariahCarey|980720634
1a2,5
> 
> Most famous songs:
> * Vision of love
> * Emotions
------
SovietUnion|980721269
0a1,7
> The Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship that lasted from 1917 until 1991.  It was formally called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but was usually just called RussiA, as RussiA was the largest and most dominant Republic within the Soviet Union.
> 
> The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries in the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
> 
> The SovietUnion was the most genocidal regime in human history, murdering an estimated 62 million people.  The majority of these, some 42 million, were murdered by Stalin between 1929 and 1953.  After Stalin, the Soviet regime murdered over 6 million people within its own borders.  Perhaps the final act of murder was the VilniusMassacre, in which 14 people were killed by gunfire and tanks in Vilnius, Lithuania.  Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the killings just months after being awarded the NobelPeacePrize.
> 
> ----
------
SovietUnion|980721305
3c3
< The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries in the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
---
> The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
------
SovietUnion|980721398
3c3
< The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
---
> The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution, but without anadoning the core CommunisT tenet of centralized bureacratic control of the economy.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
------
SovietUnion|980721419
3c3
< The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution, but without anadoning the core CommunisT tenet of centralized bureacratic control of the economy.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
---
> The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution, but without abandoning the core CommunisT tenet of centralized bureacratic control of the economy.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
------
SovietUnion|980721434
3c3
< The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution, but without abandoning the core CommunisT tenet of centralized bureacratic control of the economy.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
---
> The first leader of the SovietUnion was VladimirLenin, who led the CommunistS (then called BolshevikS) to power in the RussianRevolution of 1917.  After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of JosephStalin, who led the SovietUnion until his death in 1953.  Future Soviet leaders such as NikitaKruschev and LeonidBrezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the state rather than as dictators.  MikhailGorbachev became head of the SovietUnion in 1985 and attempted to preserve the collapsing CommunisT regime by reducing tensions with the UnitedStates and lessening the extent of political persecution, but without abandoning the core CommunisT tenet of centralized bureaucratic control of the economy.  These attempts failed, and the CollapseOfTheSovietUnion occured in 1991.
------
AbstractAlgebra|980721488
6c6
< * AssociativeAlgebra''e''
---
> * AssociativeAlgebra''e'' and LieAlgebra''e''
14c14
< I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :)  But fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though. -JG
---
> I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :)  But fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though. -JG
------
SovietUnion|980721499
5c5
< The SovietUnion was the most genocidal regime in human history, murdering an estimated 62 million people.  The majority of these, some 42 million, were murdered by Stalin between 1929 and 1953.  After Stalin, the Soviet regime murdered over 6 million people within its own borders.  Perhaps the final act of murder was the VilniusMassacre, in which 14 people were killed by gunfire and tanks in Vilnius, Lithuania.  Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the killings just months after being awarded the NobelPeacePrize.
---
> The SovietUnion was the most genocidal regime in human history, murdering an estimated 62 million people.  The majority of these, some 42 million, were murdered by Stalin between 1929 and 1953.  After Stalin, the Soviet regime murdered over 6 million people within its own borders.  Perhaps the final act of murder was the VilniusMassacre, in which 14 people were killed by gunfire and tanks in Vilnius, Lithuania.  MikhailGorbachev ordered the killings just months after being awarded the NobelPeacePrize.
------
MathematicalGrouP|980721543
21c21
< Some important concepts: SubGroup''s'', PermutationGroup''s''.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinG''s'' and ModulE''s''.
---
> Some important concepts: SubGroup''s'', PermutationGroup''s''.  Some examples of groups with additional structure are RinG''s'', ModulE''s'' and LieGroup''s''.
------
TotalOrderedSet|980722057
9c9,13
< If the ContinuumHypothesis is true, the any set of CardinalNumbers is total-ordered.  Otherwise things get quite a bit messier.
---
> If the ContinuumHypothesis is true, then any set of CardinalNumbers is total-ordered...otherwise things get quite a bit messier.  The set of all OrdinalNumbers less than any given one definitely form a total-ordered set, though, and in particular the finite ordinals (NaturalNumbers) form the unique smallest total-ordered set with no upper bound.
> 
> The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The smallest connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
> 
> 
------
IntegerNumbers|980722099
3c3
< The integers turn out to be order IsoMorphic to the set of their own order AutoMorphisms, allowing us to take their compositions to form a group operation (addition), and in turn to the set of its own group EndoMorphisms, allowing us to take ''their'' compositions to define a ring multiplication.  Thus Z has a natural RinG structure, unique up to choice of zero and whether 0<1 or 1<0 (former by convention).
---
> The integers turn out to be order isomorphic to the set of their own order automorphisms, allowing us to take their compositions to form a group operation (addition), and in turn to the set of its own group EndoMorphism''s'', allowing us to take ''their'' compositions to define a ring multiplication.  Thus Z has a natural RinG structure, unique up to choice of zero and whether 0<1 or 1<0 (former by convention).
------
TotalOrderedSet|980722159
7,8d6
< The set of all OrdinalNumbers less than any given one form a total-ordered set.  In particular, the finite ordinals (NaturalNumbers) form the unique smallest total-ordered set with no upper bound.  The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor a lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.
< 
11,13c9
< The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The smallest connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
< 
< 
---
> The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The smallest connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
------
TotalOrderedSet|980722225
9c9
< The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The smallest connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
---
> The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
------
CountriesF|980722423
1a2,3
> 
> FrancE
------
FrancE|980722600
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A European country, home of the French revolution.  There anthem is still about overthrowing the government, and there flag's colors stand for liberty, equality, and fraternity.  The capitol city, Paris, is home to the Eiffel tower, a really neat steel tower.
> 
> Cities include AbbevilleFrance, which seems to be the most important because it starts the earliest in the alphabet.
------
FrancE|980722624
1c1
< A European country, home of the French revolution.  There anthem is still about overthrowing the government, and there flag's colors stand for liberty, equality, and fraternity.  The capitol city, Paris, is home to the Eiffel tower, a really neat steel tower.
---
> A European country, home of the French revolution.  There anthem is still about overthrowing the government, and there flag's colors stand for liberty, equality, and fraternity.  The capitol city, Paris, is home to the Eiffel tower, a really neat steel tower.  They speak FrenchLanguage here.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980723069
28a29,30
> 
> Of course you're not.  As I said, I have copious amounts of free time on my hands.  What exactly would that involve?  (Btw, I suspect liking AbstractAlgebra best is almost as rare as math-linguistics - virtually everyone I know is an analysis fan).
------
KingdomAnimalia|980723925
19c19
< * PhylumNematoda, the roundworms
---
> * PhylumNematoda
------
ScienCe|980724268
5a6
> * PalaeontoLogy
16a18
> * GeoLogy
------
DavidHume|980724401
1c1,48
< Describe the new page here.
---
> David Hume (1711-1776)
> 
> Hume was born in Edinburgh and attended the university there.  At first he considered a career in law, but came to have, in his words, "an insurmountable aversion to everthing but the pursuits of philosophy and general learning."
> 
> Did some self-study in France, where he completed _A Treatise of Human Nature_ at the age of 26.  When published in England (1739-40) it received next to no attention.  The quote from Hume is that it "fell dead-born from the press."
> 
> After a few years of service to various political and military figures, Hume returned to his studies.  He decided that the problem with the Treatise was style not content.  So he reworked some of the material for more popular consumption in _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_.  It was not much of a success either.
> 
> Probably due to charges of atheism he was turned down for chairs of philosophy in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
> 
> However, between philosophical pursuits, Hume did achieve literary fame as an essayist and historian.  Attention of him grew when ImmanuelKant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumber."
> 
> ----
> ----
> '''Works'''
> ----
> _A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects._ (1739-40)
> 
> Book 1:  "Of the Understanding"  His treatment of everything from the origin of our ideas to how they are to be divided.  Important statements of SkepticIsm.
> 
> Book 2:  "Of the Passions"  Treatment of emotions.
> 
> Book 3:  "Of Morals"  Moral ideas, justice, obligations, benevolence.
> 
> He intended to complete the Treatise (if it met with success) with books devoted to Politics and Criticism.
> ----
> _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ (1748)
> 
> Contains reworking of the main points of Treatise, Book 1, with the addition of material on free will, miracles, and the argument from design.
> ----
> _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals_ (1751)
> 
> Another reworking of material from the Treatise for more popular appeal.
> ----
> _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_  (posthumous)
> 
> Discussions between fictional characters Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea.  They discuss proofs of the existance of god and other fun stuff.
> ----
> _Essays Moral and Political_ (first ed. 1741-2)
> 
> A lot of Essays, revised a few times during his life.  The history of which essays were added or removed when doen't seem that interesting.  "Of the Middle Station of Life," "That Politics may be Reduced to a Science," "Of the Origin of Government," "Of Civil Liberty," "Of Commerse," "Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations," and "On Suicide" (posthumous) to name a few in a modern collection.
> ----
> _The History of Great Britain_  (1754-62)
> 
> More a catagoy of books than a single work.
> 
> ----
> /*This write-up is by no means complete, and I'm sorry that it is a bit scattered, I figure a seed is better than nothing.  --Things to fix--  I don't know how to do underlines on this wiki.  More dates would be nice, a timeline or something.  Perhaps more info on his work as a historian.  Definitely a section on his ideas.*/--PhillipHankins 
------
RequestedArticles|980724694
3c3
< SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- DavidHume -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
---
> SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
------
KingdomAnimalia|980725240
1c1
< Lower animals:
---
> Parazoan and mesozoan animals:
3a4,6
> * PhylumRhombozoa
> * PhylumOrthonectida
> * PhylumPlacozoa
9a13,14
> * PhylumRotifera
> * PhylumAcanthocephala
13c18
< * PhylumRotifera
---
> * PhylumNemertea
14a20,23
> * PhylumSipuncula
> * PhylumEchiura
> * PhylumPogonophora
> * PhylumVestimentifera
18a28
> * PhylumCephalorhyncha (=priapulids, kinorhynchs, loriciferans)
19a30
> * PhylumNematomorpha
27a39
> * PhylumPhoronida
------
MetaPhilosophy|980725246
1c1,5
< The study of the methods and aims of PhiloSophy, consisting of a lot of questions that presuppose deeper questions in EpistemOlogy, PhilosophyOfLanguage, and other philosophical subdisciplines.  Paradoxically, better done after one has explored a lot of philosophy, rather than before.----Some might say this involves moving to a higher philosophical level, transcending ordinary thought, but others might hesitate to embrace the speculative nature of such efforts.
---
> The study of the methods and aims of PhiloSophy, consisting of a lot of questions that presuppose deeper questions in EpistemOlogy, PhilosophyOfLanguage, and other philosophical subdisciplines.  Paradoxically, better done after one has explored a lot of philosophy, rather than before.
> ----
> Some might say this involves moving to a higher philosophical level, transcending ordinary thought, but others might hesitate to embrace the speculative nature of such efforts.
> ----
> PhiloSophy of the 20th Century was characterized as being "talk about talk".  Taking that perspective, metaphilosophy would be "talk about talk about talk."  But this really just collases back to "talk about (a certain type of) talk."  So the regression wouldn't get very far, metaphilosophy would be seen as a subdomain of philosophy.  Which is not to say that the term would have no potiential for use.  Only that it references a subset, not a superset; not moving to "a higher philosophical level", just turning the ordinary level on itself.  --PhillipHankins
------
KingdomAnimalia|980725280
42a43
> * PhylumChaetognatha
------
SoCrates|980726159
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> SoCrates (470 B.C. - 399 B.C.), Greek philosopher, is famous for a great many things.  Arguably, his most important contribution to Western thought is something that has come to be known as the ''SocraticMethod''--a method of asking questions of a person in order to lead the person into contradicting himself--which laid the foundation for all later rational Western thought.  Closely associated with Socrates' use of his method is his desire to discover the ''logos,'' or true nature or essence, of a thing (or concept).  For example, in the ''Euthyphro'' Socrates asks a religious man, who believes he knows what piety is, to clarify the concept.
> 
> Socrates taught PlaTo, who in turn taught ArisTotle, and it is this triumvirate of great Greek philosophers who started the WesterN tradition of PhiloSophy and by extension ScienCe.
> 
> Since he left no writings, all that we know of Socrates comes from the writings of just a few ancient Greeks, primarily Plato in PlatosDialogues (most of which were written in SocraticDialogue form), but also XenoPhon and AristoPhanes.
> ----
> To be continued...feel free to continue this yourself.
------
SoCrates|980726173
1c1
< SoCrates (470 B.C. - 399 B.C.), Greek philosopher, is famous for a great many things.  Arguably, his most important contribution to Western thought is something that has come to be known as the ''SocraticMethod''--a method of asking questions of a person in order to lead the person into contradicting himself--which laid the foundation for all later rational Western thought.  Closely associated with Socrates' use of his method is his desire to discover the ''logos,'' or true nature or essence, of a thing (or concept).  For example, in the ''Euthyphro'' Socrates asks a religious man, who believes he knows what piety is, to clarify the concept.
---
> Socrates (470 B.C. - 399 B.C.), Greek philosopher, is famous for a great many things.  Arguably, his most important contribution to Western thought is something that has come to be known as the ''SocraticMethod''--a method of asking questions of a person in order to lead the person into contradicting himself--which laid the foundation for all later rational Western thought.  Closely associated with Socrates' use of his method is his desire to discover the ''logos,'' or true nature or essence, of a thing (or concept).  For example, in the ''Euthyphro'' Socrates asks a religious man, who believes he knows what piety is, to clarify the concept.
7c7
< To be continued...feel free to continue this yourself.
---
> To be continued...feel free to continue this yourself.
------
RequestedArticles|980726217
3c3
< SoCrates -- FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon
------
RequestedArticles|980726439
4a5,6
> SeT -- SetTheory -- MoDel -- ModelTheory (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
> 
------
NewTopics|980726819
5c5
< GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism
---
> GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG
------
DavidHume|980727180
1c1
< David Hume (1711-1776)
---
> David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher and historian and, with AdamSmith and ThomasReid among others, one of the most important figures in the ScottishEnlightenment.  Hume is regarded as the third and most radical of the so-called BritishEmpiricists, after JohnLocke and GeorgeBerkeley (though the latter was Irish).  He is most famous for promoting a thoroughgoing ScepticIsm--less well-known, however, but just as important, was his promotion of NaturalIsm.
5c5
< Did some self-study in France, where he completed _A Treatise of Human Nature_ at the age of 26.  When published in England (1739-40) it received next to no attention.  The quote from Hume is that it "fell dead-born from the press."
---
> Did some self-study in France, where he completed ''A Treatise of Human Nature'' at the age of 26.  When published in England (1739-40) it received next to no attention.  Hume famously wrote that it "fell dead-born from the press."
7c7
< After a few years of service to various political and military figures, Hume returned to his studies.  He decided that the problem with the Treatise was style not content.  So he reworked some of the material for more popular consumption in _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_.  It was not much of a success either.
---
> After a few years of service to various political and military figures, Hume returned to his studies.  He decided that the problem with the Treatise was style not content.  So he reworked some of the material for more popular consumption in ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.''  It was not much of a success either, but more so than the ''Treatise.''
17c17
< _A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects._ (1739-40)
---
> ''A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects.'' (1739-40)
27c27
< _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ (1748)
---
> ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' (1748)
31c31
< _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals_ (1751)
---
> ''An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals'' (1751)
35c35
< _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_  (posthumous)
---
> ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''  (posthumous)
39c39
< _Essays Moral and Political_ (first ed. 1741-2)
---
> ''Essays Moral and Political'' (first ed. 1741-2)
43c43
< _The History of Great Britain_  (1754-62)
---
> ''The History of Great Britain''  (1754-62)
45c45
< More a catagoy of books than a single work.
---
> More a category of books than a single work.
48c48
< /*This write-up is by no means complete, and I'm sorry that it is a bit scattered, I figure a seed is better than nothing.  --Things to fix--  I don't know how to do underlines on this wiki.  More dates would be nice, a timeline or something.  Perhaps more info on his work as a historian.  Definitely a section on his ideas.*/--PhillipHankins 
---
> /*This write-up is by no means complete, and I'm sorry that it is a bit scattered, I figure a seed is better than nothing.  --Things to fix--  I don't know how to do underlines on this wiki.  More dates would be nice, a timeline or something.  Perhaps more info on his work as a historian.  Definitely a section on his ideas.*/--PhillipHankins 
------
MappinG|980727511
1c1,48
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A MappinG is simply a “rule” that assigns to each member of a Set A, a unique element of a set B.
> 
> There are non-mathematical MappinGs. Consider the “rule,” WGT that assigns to every living human being in United States their weight in pounds.  Then the set A = {people living in the United States} and B = {x:  0<x<=1000}. For example:
> 
> 
> *                       Larry  -> 160 or WGT (Larry) = 160
> *                       Jimmy  -> 165 or WGT (Jimmy) = 165
> *                       Ruth   -> 125 or WGT (Ruth)  = 125
> *                       Cindy  -> 120 or WGT (Cindy) = 120
> *                         .
> *                         .
> There are mathematical MappinGs as well. Consider the “rule,” ABS that assigns to each integer, its absolute value. Let set C = I, and the set D = I, also. Then, for example:
> *                     -5         ->  5 or ABS (-5) = 5
> *                      5         ->  5 or ABS (5)  = 5
> *                     19         -> 19 or ABS (19) = 19
> *                   -145         -> 14 or ABS (-145) = 145
> *                        .
> *                        .
> 
> 
> There are 4 basic kinds of MappinGs.
> 
> 1) ''into'' MappinG: this is a MappinG from a set X to a set Y such that there exists a y in Y such that there is no x in X such that x is mapped to y. 
> 
> 
> 2) ''onto'' MappinG: this is MappinG from a set X to a set Y such that for every y in Y there is at least one x in X such that x is mapped to y. Such a MappinG is called a SurJection.
> 
> 
> 3) ''one-to-one'' MappinG : this is a MappinG from a set X to a set Y such that for every y in Y there is one and only one x in X such that x is mapped to y. Such a mapping is called an InJection.
>  
> 4) Further, a MappinG that is both "onto" and "one-to-one," or is both a SurJection and an InJection is called a BiJection.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> * The mapping defined above as ABS, defined from the set I = Integers to the set I = integers is "into." Since the exists an integer –5 in I such that there is no integer i in I such that ABS (i) = -5, ABS defined from I -> I is "into."
> 
> * Consider the MappinG, ABS, defined from I = IntegerNumbers to I* = { IntegerNumbers >= 0}. Then ABS defined from I to I* is "onto," or a SurJection, since for every y in I*, that is, every positive integer, there is at least one x in  I such that ABS (x) = y.
> 
> * Consider the MappinG, ADD1, defined from I to I such that if x is in I then ADD1 (x) = x+1. Then ADD1 is "one-to-one" or an InJection, since for every Y in I there is one and only one x in I such that ADD1 (x) = y.
> 
> * Consider the MappinG, ADD1, as defined above. Then ADD1 is both "onto" and "one-to-one" or a BiJection, since it is already “onto” and we can show it is "one-to-one" as well. Thus, given a y in I, there is only one x in I such that ADD1 (x) = y, that is, x = y-1.
> 
> 
>          
>  
>                
> 
> 
------
SetTheory|980727542
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sets are one of the base concepts of mathematics.  A set is, more or less, just a collection of objects, called its elements.  Standard notation uses braces around the list of elements, as in:
> 
>    {red, green, blue}
>    {x : x is a primary color}
> 
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of some sets is the set of all elements contained in at least one, and the intersection is the set of all elements contained in them all.  These are denoted
> 
>    A1 u A2 u A3 ...
>    A1 n A2 n A3 ...
> 
> respectively.  If you don't mind jumping ahead a bit, the subsets of a given set form a BooleanAlgebra under these operations.  The set of all subsets of X is called its PowerSet and is denoted 2^X.
> 
------
BiJection|980727607
1c1
< A bijection is a mapping or function between two sets that is surjective (onto) and injective (one-to-one).
---
> A bijection is a MappinG or function between two sets that is surjective (onto) and injective (one-to-one).
------
HomoMorphism|980727698
1c1
< A homomorphism, from one mathematical object to another of the same kind, is a function that preserves all relevant structure.  For instance, if we are concerned about some operation *, homomorphisms must satisfy f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y).
---
> A homomorphism, from one mathematical object to another of the same kind, is a MappinG that preserves all relevant structure.  For instance, if we are concerned about some operation *, homomorphisms must satisfy f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y).
------
MathematicalRelation|980727724
1c1
< The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MathematicalFunction''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MappinG''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
------
MappinG|980727744
1c1
< A MappinG is simply a “rule” that assigns to each member of a Set A, a unique element of a set B.
---
> A MappinG is simply a "rule" that assigns to each member of a Set A, a unique element of a set B.
------
SetTheory|980728419
12a13,17
> '''Axioms for set theory'''
> 
> The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets, and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axiom schema, and in some senses are to restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
> 
> The AxiomOfChoice leads to the existence of several sets, like a well-ordering for the real numbers, that can't be constructed in ordinary ZF set theory.  However, it is impossible to prove they don't exist - the axiom is independent of the axioms of ZF - and so we are free to add it to our axioms if we want.  This has become more or less conventional, since most of the sets it adds are handy to have, even if we can never find an explicit representation for any of them.
------
SetTheory|980728898
17c17,26
< The AxiomOfChoice leads to the existence of several sets, like a well-ordering for the real numbers, that can't be constructed in ordinary ZF set theory.  However, it is impossible to prove they don't exist - the axiom is independent of the axioms of ZF - and so we are free to add it to our axioms if we want.  This has become more or less conventional, since most of the sets it adds are handy to have, even if we can never find an explicit representation for any of them.
---
> The axioms of ZF are as follows:
>    Two sets are the same iff they have the same elements.
>    No set can be recursively defined.  This is to prevent RusselsParadox.
>    There is an empty set {}.
>    If X,Y are sets, so is {X,Y}.
>    For any set X, there is another set composed of the union of its elements.
>    There exists an infinite set.
>    Axiom of replacement - roughly that sets can be imaged under functions.
> 
> The AxiomOfChoice leads to the existence of several sets, like a well-ordering for the real numbers, that can't be constructed in ordinary ZF set theory.  However, it is impossible to prove they don't exist - the axiom is independent of the axioms of ZF - and so we are free to add it to our axioms if we want.  This has become more or less conventional, since most of the sets it adds are handy to have, even if we can never find an explicit representation for any of them.
------
MathematicalRelation|980729674
1c1
< The standard way of defining a relation R on a set X is as some subset of (X x X).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MappinG''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R between a set X and a set Y is as some subset of (X x Y).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MappinG''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
------
MappinG|980729821
3c3
< There are non-mathematical MappinGs. Consider the “rule,” WGT that assigns to every living human being in United States their weight in pounds.  Then the set A = {people living in the United States} and B = {x:  0<x<=1000}. For example:
---
> There are non-mathematical MappinG''s''. Consider the “rule,” WGT that assigns to every living human being in United States their weight in pounds.  Then the set A = {people living in the United States} and B = {x:  0<x<=1000}. For example:
12c12
< There are mathematical MappinGs as well. Consider the “rule,” ABS that assigns to each integer, its absolute value. Let set C = I, and the set D = I, also. Then, for example:
---
> There are mathematical MappinG''s'' as well. Consider the “rule,” ABS that assigns to each integer, its absolute value. Let set C = I, and the set D = I, also. Then, for example:
21c21
< There are 4 basic kinds of MappinGs.
---
> There are 4 basic kinds of MappinG''s''.
43,48c43
< 
<          
<  
<                
< 
< 
---
> In terms of formal SetTheory, a Mapping from X to Y is usually defined as a MathematicalRelation where each x in X is related to one, and only one, element of Y.  This element is the image of x.  However, there are lots of other equivalent definitions.
------
SeT|980729848
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A SeT is a collection of objects. For example, one can define the set '''S''' = {Sn: Sn is a sibling of Larry Sanger}.
> 
> We require that sets be well-defined. Given an object Sn, we must be able to determine if 
> Sn belongs to '''S'''. 
------
MathematicalRelation|980729871
1c1,3
< The standard way of defining a relation R between a set X and a set Y is as some subset of (X x Y).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  Some particularly important kind of relations are MappinG''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R between a set X and a set Y is as some subset of (X x Y).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  This can also be looked at as a mapping from (X x Y) to 2={0,1}.
> 
> Some particularly important kind of relations are MappinG''s'', EquivalenceRelation''s'', and PartialOrder''s''.
------
SeT|980729969
1c1
< A SeT is a collection of objects. For example, one can define the set '''S''' = {Sn: Sn is a sibling of Larry Sanger}.
---
> A SeT is a collection of objects. For example, one can define the set '''S''' = {Sn: Sn is a sibling of the Larry M. Sanger, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Nupedia}.
------
AbstractAlgebra|980729993
1c1
< An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of a sets of elements together with one or more operations on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
---
> An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more operations on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
9,14c9
< A subalgebra of a given algebra is a subset thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  A map between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
< 
< ----
< Why not define some of the simpler terminology here and used in other mathematical articles? Would be interesting to wikify an entire mathematico-deductive system of definitions in this way. -- LarrySanger 
< 
< I would say groups, rings, etc are the simpler terminology, since everything else are special cases. :)  But fair enough.  I think I'm going to shoot for breadth first, then depth, though. -JG
---
> A subalgebra of a given algebra is a SubSet thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  A MappinG between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
------
LatticE|980730019
1c1
< A lattice is a set L, together with two binary operations v,^, such that for any a,b,c in L, 
---
> A lattice is a SeT L, together with two binary operations v,^, such that for any a,b,c in L, 
------
PartialOrder|980730035
1c1
< A partial order <= on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X, 
---
> A partial order <= on a SeT X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X, 
------
MathematicalRelation|980730067
1c1
< The standard way of defining a relation R between a set X and a set Y is as some subset of (X x Y).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  This can also be looked at as a mapping from (X x Y) to 2={0,1}.
---
> The standard way of defining a relation R between a SeT X and a SeT Y is as some SubSet of the CartesianProduct (X x Y).  We write aRb if and only if (a,b) is in R.  This can also be looked at as a mapping from (X x Y) to 2={0,1}.
------
BooleanAlgebra|980730109
10c10
< The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a subset of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets, and in particular, an algebra of sets closed under arbitrary unions is called a TopOlogy.
---
> The PowerSet of any given set S forms a boolean algebra under the partial ordering "is a SubSet of", where 0={} and 1=S.  Any subalgebra of this is called an algebra of sets, and in particular, an algebra of sets closed under arbitrary unions is called a TopOlogy.
------
EquivalenceRelation|980730181
1c1
< An equivalence relation ~ on a set X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
---
> An equivalence relation ~ on a SeT X is a MathematicalRelation satisfying the following conditions: for every a,b,c in X,
------
MappinG|980730213
1c1
< A MappinG is simply a "rule" that assigns to each member of a Set A, a unique element of a set B.
---
> A MappinG is simply a "rule" that assigns to each member of a SeT A, a unique element of a SeT B.
43c43
< In terms of formal SetTheory, a Mapping from X to Y is usually defined as a MathematicalRelation where each x in X is related to one, and only one, element of Y.  This element is the image of x.  However, there are lots of other equivalent definitions.
---
> In terms of formal SetTheory, a Mapping from X to Y is usually defined as a MathematicalRelation where each x in X is related to one, and only one, element of Y.  This element is the image of x.  However, there are lots of other equivalent definitions.
------
TopOlogy|980730259
1c1
< Topology is a branch of mathematics dealing exclusively with properties of continuity.  Formally, a topology for a space X is defined a set T of subsets of X satisfying:
---
> Topology is a branch of mathematics dealing exclusively with properties of continuity.  Formally, a topology for a SeT X is defined a SeT T of SubSet''s'' of X satisfying:
------
SetTheory|980730518
1c1
< Sets are one of the base concepts of mathematics.  A set is, more or less, just a collection of objects, called its elements.  Standard notation uses braces around the list of elements, as in:
---
> Sets are one of the base concepts of mathematics.  A SeT is, more or less, just a collection of objects, called its elements.  Standard notation uses braces around the list of elements, as in:
6c6
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of some sets is the set of all elements contained in at least one, and the intersection is the set of all elements contained in them all.  These are denoted
---
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
------
RequestedArticles|980730727
5c5
< SeT -- SetTheory -- MoDel -- ModelTheory (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> SeT -- MoDel -- ModelTheory (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
------
TotalOrderedSet|980731902
1c1
< A total-ordered set is a LatticE (T,v,^) where for any a,b in T, either avb=a and a^b=b, or avb=b and a^b=a.  A PartialOrder <= on a set T defines a total order if and only for every a,b in T, exactly one of the following hold:
---
> A total-ordered SeT is a LatticE (T,v,^) where for any a,b in T, either avb=a and a^b=b, or avb=b and a^b=a.  A PartialOrder <= on a set T defines a total order if and only for every a,b in T, exactly one of the following hold:
9c9
< The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
---
> The unique smallest total-ordered set with neither an upper nor lower bound is the IntegerNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded total-ordered set which also happens to be dense, that is have non-empty (a,b) for every a<b, is the RationalNumbers.  The unique smallest unbounded connected total-ordered set is the RealNumbers.
------
RationalNumbers|980731982
1c1
< The RationalNumbers are the unique smallest field containing the IntegerNumbers.
---
> The RationalNumbers are the unique smallest FielD containing the IntegerNumbers.
------
LarrySanger|980732454
17a18,19
> ----
> Clearly you haven't met the SiberianHusky''s'' I know...Tara and Sarah!!!
------
LiteraryArt|980735321
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
------
LiteraryArt|980735356
1a2
> dfgsdfgdfgdfgsdfgs dfg sdfg sdfg
------
ArchitecturE|980735487
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980735576
7,11c7
<       *    Sine
<       *    Cosine
<       *    Tangent
<       *    Secant
<       *    Cosecant
---
>       *    Sine     
17,32c13
<                                                Angle B
< 
<               
<                                                    /l
< 
<                                                 /   l
< 
<                                              /      l          a
<                          c
<                                           /         l
< 
<                                        /            l
< 
<                          Angle A     /______________l  
< 
<                                            
---
>                   
89,104c70
<                                                Angle B
< 
<               
<                                                    /l
< 
<                                                 /   l
< 
<                                              /      l          a = 1
<                       c = sqrt(2)
<                                           /         l
< 
<                                        /            l
< 
<                          Angle A     /______________l  
< 
<                                            
---
>                                    
------
SoCrates|980736209
2a3,4
> Socrates was what we today would euphamistically call a "street person".  He was not a land owner but instead wandered the streets talking to people, and getting food from kind citizens.  His attire was archaic-grunge, so to speak.  
> 
6,7c8,9
< ----
< To be continued...feel free to continue this yourself.
---
> 
> Socrates' reasoning and philosophy, and the questions they raised not only about ephemeral things but also political, moral, and legal matters drew the ire of the community's leaders who, fearing he was leading the young people of the city astray, held a vote and determined that he should be condemned to death, after a trial in which Socrates, instead of putting on an eloquent defense, called into question the whole basis for the trial.  The judges were unmoved.  Socrates' followers encouraged him to flee, but he refused on principle, and took the poison (hemlock) himself.  (Sound familiar?  Yes, this story has been reenacted in part or in whole, time and time again; those who do not learn from history are most certainly bound to repeat it.)  Socrates died at the age of 70.
------
SetTheory|980737772
6c6
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
---
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: ('''really?  what about the empty set?''') itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
15c15
< The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets, and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axiom schema, and in some senses are to restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
---
> The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets '''they don't even handle the first set used as an example above, or the set used as an example in SeTs''' , and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axiom schema '''they aren't an axiom schema at all.  They contain one axiom schema, the axiom of replacement''', and in some senses are to restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
19c19,20
<    No set can be recursively defined.  This is to prevent RusselsParadox.
---
>    No set can be recursively defined.  This is to prevent RusselsParadox.  
> '''what axiom is this?  I have never heard of it. Russell's paradox is prevented by replacing the axiom of unrestricted comprehension with the axiom of replacement, below.'''
23,24c24,29
<    There exists an infinite set.
<    Axiom of replacement - roughly that sets can be imaged under functions.
---
>    There exists an infinite set. 
> '''what exactly is "infinite" in terms of sets?'''
>    Axiom of replacement - roughly that sets can be imaged under functions. 
> '''very rough.  what are "functions"?'''
> 
> '''The power set axiom and the axiom of regularity are missing'''
------
SeT|980737828
4a5,6
> 
> '''What, there are no recursively enumerable sets?'''
------
MetaPhilosophy|980738710
5c5
< PhiloSophy of the 20th Century was characterized as being "talk about talk".  Taking that perspective, metaphilosophy would be "talk about talk about talk."  But this really just collases back to "talk about (a certain type of) talk."  So the regression wouldn't get very far, metaphilosophy would be seen as a subdomain of philosophy.  Which is not to say that the term would have no potiential for use.  Only that it references a subset, not a superset; not moving to "a higher philosophical level", just turning the ordinary level on itself.  --PhillipHankins
---
> PhiloSophy of the 20th Century was characterized as being "talk about talk".  Taking that perspective, metaphilosophy would be "talk about talk about talk."  But this really just collapses back to "talk about (a certain type of) talk."  So the regression wouldn't get very far, metaphilosophy would be seen as a subdomain of philosophy.  Which is not to say that the term would have no potiential for use.  Only that it references a subset, not a superset; not moving to "a higher philosophical level", just turning the ordinary level on itself.  --PhillipHankins
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980738881
7c7,11
<       *    Sine     
---
>       *    Sine
>       *    Cosine
>       *    Tangent
>       *    Secant
>       *    Cosecant
13c17,32
<                   
---
>                                                Angle B
> 
>               
>                                                    /l
> 
>                                                 /   l
> 
>                                              /      l          a
>                          c
>                                           /         l
> 
>                                        /            l
> 
>                          Angle A     /______________l  
> 
>                                            
70c89,104
<                                    
---
>                                                Angle B
> 
>               
>                                                    /l
> 
>                                                 /   l
> 
>                                              /      l          a = 1
>                       c = sqrt(2)
>                                           /         l
> 
>                                        /            l
> 
>                          Angle A     /______________l  
> 
>                                            
87a122
> 
------
SetTheory|980739199
6c6
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has at least two subsets: ('''really?  what about the empty set?''') itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
---
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
18,29c18,27
<    Two sets are the same iff they have the same elements.
<    No set can be recursively defined.  This is to prevent RusselsParadox.  
< '''what axiom is this?  I have never heard of it. Russell's paradox is prevented by replacing the axiom of unrestricted comprehension with the axiom of replacement, below.'''
<    There is an empty set {}.
<    If X,Y are sets, so is {X,Y}.
<    For any set X, there is another set composed of the union of its elements.
<    There exists an infinite set. 
< '''what exactly is "infinite" in terms of sets?'''
<    Axiom of replacement - roughly that sets can be imaged under functions. 
< '''very rough.  what are "functions"?'''
< 
< '''The power set axiom and the axiom of regularity are missing'''
---
>    Axiom of extension:        Two sets are the same iff they have the same elements.
>    Axiom of null set:         There is an empty set {}.
>    Axiom of unordered pairs:  If X,Y are sets, so is {X,Y}.
>    Axiom of unions:           For any set X, there is another set composed of the union of its elements.
>    Axiom of infinite:         There exists a set X such that, if x is in X, so is {x}.
>    Axiom of replacement:      Given any set and any MappinG, formally defined as a proposition P(x,y) where
>                               P(x,y) and P(x,z) implies y=z, there is a set containing precisely the images of 
>                               its elements.
>    Axiom of PowerSet''s'':    There exists a set P(X) containing precisely the subsets of any given set X.
>    Axiom of regularity:       Every non-empty set X contains some element Y such that X and Y are disjoint.
------
SetTheory|980739278
15c15
< The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets '''they don't even handle the first set used as an example above, or the set used as an example in SeTs''' , and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axiom schema '''they aren't an axiom schema at all.  They contain one axiom schema, the axiom of replacement''', and in some senses are to restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
---
> The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets so long as they are composed of other sets - from which most mathematical objects can be constructed anyways - and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axioms, and in some senses are too restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
------
SuperBowl|980741801
1a2
> <p>This year, the Baltimore Ravens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
------
SuperBowl|980741813
2c2
< <p>This year, the Baltimore Ravens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
---
> This year, the Baltimore Ravens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
------
SuperBowl|980741822
2c2
< This year, the Baltimore Ravens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
---
> This year, the BaltimoreRavens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
------
SuperBowl|980741833
2c2
< This year, the BaltimoreRavens defeated the New York Giants convincingly, 34-7.
---
> This year, the BaltimoreRavens defeated the NewYorkGiants convincingly, 34-7.
------
BaltimoreRavens|980741875
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A National Football League team based in Baltimore, Maryland USA.
------
NewYorkGiants|980741934
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A National Football League team based in New York City, New York, USA.
------
SuperBowl|980743032
2c2,3
< This year, the BaltimoreRavens defeated the NewYorkGiants convincingly, 34-7.
---
> 
> In Superbowl 35 (Jan 28, 2001) the BaltimoreRavens defeated the NewYorkGiants convincingly, 34-7.
------
NewYorkGiants|980743073
1c1,5
< A National Football League team based in New York City, New York, USA.
---
> A National Football League team based in New York City, New York, USA.
> 
> ----
> 
> Actually, based in New Jersey, no?
------
MerloT|980743728
1a2,3
> ----
> Merlot is also the name of an XML Editor...:-).
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|980744425
38c38
< Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequence of the formualtion of e^z, where z is a complex number.
---
> Despite, this last remark, Euler's Theorem is considered a direct consequence of the extension of the definition of the function '''e''' over the ComplexNumbers.
------
RequestedArticles|980744662
5c5
< SeT -- MoDel -- ModelTheory (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> SeT -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
------
HiStory|980747088
21a22
> * HistoryOfUnitedStates
------
UnitedStates|980747121
3c3,5
< * SenatorsOfTheUnitedStates
---
> * SenatorsOfTheUnitedStates
> 
> * HistoryOfUnitedStates
------
AtlasShrugged|980748914
7a8,13
> 
> ----
> 
> ****
> 
> AtlasShruggedCharacters
------
AtlasShrugged|980748933
11c11
< ****
---
> *
------
AtlasShrugged|980748952
11,13c11
< *
< 
< AtlasShruggedCharacters
---
> * AtlasShruggedCharacters
------
AtlasShruggedCharacters|980749371
1c1,36
< Describe the new page here.
---
> DagnyTaggart
> EddieWillers
> EllisWyatt
> FranciscoDAnconia
> GwenIves
> HankRearden
> JamesTaggart
> LillianRearden
> NewsstandOwner
> OrrenBoyle
> OwenKellogg
> PaulLarkin
> PhilipRearden
> ReardensMother
> RichardHalley
> WesleyMouch
> 
> BartendeR
> BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
> BumNumber1
> BrakemaN
> ConductoR
> DagnysFather
> EngineeR
> FiremaN
> MrAyers
> MrsBeacham
> MrsNathanielTaggart
> NathanielTaggart
> PassengerNumber1
> PassengerNumber2
> PassengerNumber3
> PassengerNumber4
> PopHarper
> WaiteR
> WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShruggedCharacters|980749471
0a1,2
> BrakemaN
> 
1a4
> 
2a6
> 
3a8
> 
4a10
> 
5a12
> 
6a14
> 
7a16
> 
8a18
> 
9a20
> 
10a22
> 
11a24
> 
12a26
> 
13a28
> 
14a30
> 
15a32
> 
17a35
> * Very minor characters
18a37
> 
19a39
> 
21c41
< BrakemaN
---
> 
22a43
> 
23a45
> 
24a47
> 
25a49
> 
26a51
> 
27a53
> 
28a55
> 
29a57
> 
30a59
> 
31a61
> 
32a63
> 
33a65
> 
34a67
> 
36c69,70
< WorkerNumber1
---
> 
> WorkerNumber1
------
DagnyTaggart|980749718
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The main character in AtlasShrugged.
> 
> Dagny is Vice-President in Charge of Operation at Taggart Transcontinental.  Those in the know know she is the one who really runs the railroad.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
------
BrakemaN|980749908
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
> 
> DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
> 
> * Appearances
------
BrakemaN|980749934
5c5,7
< * Appearances
---
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
------
AtlasShrugged|980749995
11a12
> * AtlasShruggedCompanies
------
AtlasShruggedCompanies|980750160
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AyersMusicPublishingCompany
> 
> AssociatedSteel
> 
> Phoenix-Durango
> 
> ReardenCoal
> 
> ReardenLimestone
> 
> ReardenOre
> 
> ReardenSteel
> 
> TaggartTranscontinental
> 
> WyattOil
------
AyersMusicPublishingCompany|980750273
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The publishers of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
------
AyersMusicPublishingCompany|980750299
1c1
< The publishers of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
---
> Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
------
AtlasShrugged|980750359
12c12,13
< * AtlasShruggedCompanies
---
> * AtlasShruggedCompanies
> * AtlasShruggedPlaces
------
AtlasShruggedPlaces|980750830
1c1,49
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Places mentioned in Atlas Shrugged:
> 
> Argentina (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Arizona (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> California (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> Chicago (AtlasShrugged112)
> 
> Chile (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Cleveland (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Colorado (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Cheyenne, Wyoming (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> El Paso, Texas (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Fifth Avenue (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Hudson River (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Louisiana (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Mexico, People's State of (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Middle West (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Minnesota (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> New Mexico (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> New York (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged113, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Ohio (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Philadelphia (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> Redding (Connecticut?) (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> San Francisco (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> United States (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Washington (AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Wilmington (Delaware?) (AtlasShrugged121)
------
AtlasShrugged|980750880
13a14
> * AtlasShruggedThings
------
AtlasShruggedThings|980751157
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FriendsofGlobalProgress (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> HalleysFifthConcerto (AtlasShrugged112)
> 
> NationalAllianceofRailroads (AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> RioNorteLine (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> SanSebastianLine (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> SanSebastianMines (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> TaggartComet (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged113)
> 
> WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
------
AtlasShrugged111|980751434
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Eddie Willers, walking through downtown Manhattan, wonders why the world seems to be slowly falling apart.  He returns to the Taggart Transcontinental Building in order to tell JamesTaggart the bad news about an unfulfilled steel order and another train wreck, and to make Taggart see the seriousness of the situation the business is in because it can't get steel to replace its aging railroad tracks.
> 
> * Setting
> Downtown New York, and in the Taggart Transcontinental Building.
> 
> * Characters
> BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
> EddieWillers
> Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
> JamesTaggart
> OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
> PopHarper - First and only apearance.
> 
> * Mysteries
> The question "Who is John Galt?" opens the book and is repeated over and over.  Who is John Galt?  Where did the phrase come from?  What does it mean?
------
AtlasShrugged111|980751454
10a11
> 
11a13
> 
12a15
> 
13a17
> 
14a19
> 
------
AtlasShrugged111|980751482
5c5
< 
---
> ----
8c8
< 
---
> ----
21c21
< 
---
> ----
------
AtlasShrugged|980751527
13a14
> * AtlasShruggedStructure
------
AtlasShruggedStructure|980751815
1c1,32
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged is divided into three parts, with ten chapters in each part.  Chapters are divided into any number of sections.
> 
> ----
> Part 1 - Non-Contradiction
> 
> Chapter 1  - The Theme
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged111)
>  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>  - section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
>  - section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Chapter 2  - The Chain
> 
> Chapter 3  - The Top and the Bottom
> 
> Chapter 4  - The Immovble Movers
> 
> Chapter 5  - The Climax of the D'Anconias
> 
> Chapter 6  - The Non-Commercial
> 
> Chapter 7  - The Exploiters and the Exploited
> 
> Chapter 8  - The John Galt Line
> 
> Chapter 9  - The Sacred and the Profane
> 
> Chapter 10 - Wyatt's Torch
> ----
> Part 2 - Either-Or
> 
> Part 3 - A Is A
------
AtlasShruggedStructure|980751870
12a13
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged121)
14a16,17
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged131)
>  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
------
AtlasShrugged112|980751924
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged113|980751938
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged114|980751955
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged121|980751967
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 2, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged131|980751981
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged132|980751994
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2:
> 
> * Plot summary
> ----
> * Setting
> ----
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged112|980752185
3a4
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  Afte falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
5a7
> Taggart Comet, stalled between Cleveland and New York.
7a10,27
> BrakemaN
> 
> Conductor - First and only appearance.
> 
> EngineeR - First and only appearance.
> 
> DagnyTaggart
> 
> OwenKellogg - Mentioned.
> 
> PassengerNumber1 - First and only appearance.
> 
> PassengerNumber2 - First and only appearance.
> 
> RichardHalley - Mentioned.
> ----
> * Mysteries
> What was the brakeman whistling?  Did Halley write a Fifth Concerto?
------
AtlasShrugged112|980752206
12c12
< Conductor - First and only appearance.
---
> ConductoR - First and only appearance.
------
AtlasShrugged113|980752263
3a4
> Dagny and the Comet arrive at the Taggart Terminal.  She gets off the train inadvertently whistling the theme from Halley's Fifth Concerto.  The brakeman watches her tensely.
5a7
> Taggart Terminal
7a10,12
> DagnyTaggart
> 
> BrakemaN
------
AtlasShrugged114|980752393
3a4
> Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers sats he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
5a7
> The offices of Taggart Transcontinental.
7a10,26
> DagnyTaggart
> 
> JamesTaggart
> 
> EddieWillers
> 
> OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
> 
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontiental: Mentioned.
> 
> HankRearden: Mentioned.
> 
> EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
> 
> OwenKellogg
> Mr. Ayers:  Of the Ayers Music Publishing Company
> 
------
AtlasShrugged114|980752447
18c18
< The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontiental: Mentioned.
---
> BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
25d24
< Mr. Ayers:  Of the Ayers Music Publishing Company
26a26
> MrAyers - First and only apperrance.
------
AtlasShrugged114|980752464
26c26
< MrAyers - First and only apperrance.
---
> MrAyers - First and only appearance.
------
AtlasShrugged121|980752507
3a4
> Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of Rearden Metal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, Paul Larkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
5a7
> Rearden Steel mills in Philadelphia and Rearden's home.
7c9
< * Characters
---
> * Characters
------
AtlasShrugged114|980752544
26c26,30
< MrAyers - First and only appearance.
---
> MrAyers - First and only appearance.
> ----
> * Mysteries
> What is it that makes OwenKellogg quit a job he admits he loves?
> 
------
AtlasShrugged121|980752689
9a10,21
> GwenIves: Mentioned.
> HankRearden
> LillianRearden
> MrsBeacham: First and only mention.
> PassengerNumber3: First and only appearance.
> PassengerNumber4: First and only appearance.
> PaulLarkin
> PhilipRearden
> ReardensMother
> WorkerNumber1: First and only appearance.
> 
> 
------
AtlasShrugged131|980752873
3a4
> James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, and Wesley Mouch meet to work out a deal by which they can stop Hank Rearden and the success of Rearden Metal.  Boyle wants Taggart to get his friends in Washington to regulate the distribution of iron ore, depriving Rearden of the raw materials needed to market Rearden Metal.  In exchange, Boyle agrees to get the National Alliance of Railroads to drive the Phoenix-Durango railroad out of business.  None of this is said openly or directly, of course.  Taggart also learns from Boyle that Taggart Transcontinental's San Sebastian Line has been denuded of all but the barest equipment.
5a7
> The most expensive barroom in New York, on the 60th floor of a skyscraper, design to look like a cellar.
7c9,23
< * Characters
---
> * Characters
> JamesTaggart
> 
> OrrenBoyle
> 
> WesleyMouch
> 
> PaulLarkin
> 
> WaiteR: First and only appearance.
> 
> BartendeR: First and only appearance.
> ----
> * Pregnant Passages
> "It all depends," James Taggart answered slowly, "on the people who make it possible...That's what has to be known - who makes it possible."
------
AtlasShrugged132|980753119
3a4
> Recounts Dagny's childhood decision to run Taggart Transcontinental and her rise in the company.  Recounts the history of the San Sebastian Line: Millionaire playboy Francisco D'Anconia invested money in developing the San Sebastian Mines, and James Taggart and the Board of Directors assumed they could trust D'Anconia to deliver a winner.  Dagny opposed this project and almost quit when it was approved.  James Taggart confronts Dagny and demands to know what she has done to the San Sebastian Line.  She explains that she has moved anything of value out of Mexico so the "looters" would not get it when they nationalized the line.  James Taggart is scandalized by this but cannot muster the courage to countermand her actions.  After leaving the office, Dagny has a conversation with the owner of a newstand about his cigarette collection.  He says there are no new brands anymore, and only a few brands still being made.  He talks of the cigarette as a symbol of man controlling nature, holding fire in his hands.
5a7
> The offices of Taggart Transcontinental and the Taggart Terminal.
7c9,35
< * Characters
---
> * Characters
> BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
> 
> DagnysFather
> 
> DagnyTaggart
> 
> EddieWillers
> 
> EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
> 
> FranciscoDAnconia: Mentioned.
> 
> HankRearden
> 
> JamesTaggart
> 
> MrsNathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
> 
> NathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
> 
> NewsstandOwner
> 
> OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
> ----
> * Symbolism
> The NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
DagnyTaggart|980753306
8a9,10
>    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
------
FriendsofGlobalProgress|980753396
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShurgged121.
------
FriendsofGlobalProgress|980753410
1c1
< A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShurgged121.
---
> A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged121.
------
RioNorteLine|980753629
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A branch of TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
> 
> It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged132.  It is alluded to in AtlasShrugged131.
------
AtlasShrugged114|980753755
4c4
< Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers sats he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
---
> Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers sats he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
------
NewYorkGiants|980754625
5c5
< Actually, based in New Jersey, no?
---
> Actually, based in New Jersey, no?  New Jersey, Yes!!
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980754765
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The United States were founded from 13 colonies established in NorthAmerica by the BritishEmpire.
> 
> Because NorthAmerica at the time was occupied by the NativeAmericanPeople, much of the US history is preoccupied with the wresting of the land from these inhabitants.  This was done with a variety of means including broken treaties and forced resettlement, such as the Trail of Tears.  
> 
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive Civil War.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the Civil War a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
> 
> At the end of the 19th century, the United States engaged in an extremely one-sided war with Spain, and gained control of Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba.  The US also acquired the Philippines, however only after a very bloody three year war, in which GenocidE was first used to describe the killings of 600,000 Filipinos by armed forces of the United States.
> 
> In the 20th century, as the amount of uncontested land in NorthAmerica was settled, the USA was forced to engage in more traditional mechanisms for continuing their political and economic growth.  Empires previously had used the policy of ColonialisM as the basis for establishing and protecting their foreign economic interests.  Since the US had been originally been a colony of England, obviously it would be considered hypocritical for the US to be known as a colonial empire, and so thus the US's "New World Order" was established and maintained through much more subtle events and mechanisms, many of which are not well known.  There have been a number of "Police Actions" or "Limited Engagements" in various third world countries, used to topple governments working at odds with US interests.  
> 
> Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of Poland by NaZi GermanY in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japan.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
> 
> During the second half of the 20th century, under the guise of defeating the TotalitarianisM of the CommunisT SovietUnion, the US engaged in a long and expensive ColdWar.  Coupling NaZi technologies with the AtomicBomb, the US and Soviets developed a vast arsenal of WeaponsOfMassDestruction, theoretically able to cause a nuclear detonation anywhere in the world.  The fear this ingrained into the US (and, probably) Soviet citizenry was extreme.  In the US, under SenatorJosephMcCarthy, a WitchHunt was undertaken to expose and publically denegrate anyone with beliefs that expoused anything resembling CommunisM, or who even merely associated with people believing in communism.  
> 
> At the end of the 20th century, the US finally succeeded in outlasting the SovietUnion, and was surprised by the sudden fall of communist countries around the world.  Yet the US remains committed to "full engagement" in the world.  At the start of the 21st century, the US is embracing the new globalization.
> 
> ----
> Source for much of the above is taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica website's article on the United States, 
> by William M. Brinton, 1996.  I left out a lot of the negative stuff.  Yeesh, US history is depressing...
> 
> 
------
NewYorkGiants|980755973
2d1
< 
4d2
< 
5a4,5
> ----
> Then explain to this dumb Alaskan why they are called the "New York Giants" instead of the "Jersey Giants"?
------
GeorgeWBush|980756417
14a15
> * 2001InaugurationProtests
------
SetTheory|980762075
6c6,7
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets T1,T2,T3,.... The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
---
> The notation is not self-explanatory.
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets Typo here for "all of the sets". The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
16a18,19
> The above is more than a little confusing. What does it mean to "handle sets"? What is a "model" in this context? How does the singleton operation prevent the existence of a set of all sets? 
> 
27a31
> What does "composed of" mean above? Details apart, it isn't really possible for somebody who is not already familiar with set theory to understand the above.
------
GeorgeWBush|980763229
7c7
< He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  He went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms.
---
> He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  He went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms. His tenure as Govenor also saw a sharp rise in the number of state sponsored ExeCutions.
------
InaugurationProtests|980765623
1c1,242
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Bush inauguration meets resistance'''
> 
> <img src="http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF" width="300" height="384"><br>
> 
> ''Protesters confront police in Washington, DC on Saturday, Jan. 20. ''
> 
> By Eamon Martin
> 
> '''Washington, DC, Jan. 20- '''As the pomp and circumstance 
> of President George W. Bush's inauguration attempted to forcibly 
> transcend the domestic instability left in the wake of what 
> may be the most contentious election in US history, approximately 
> 20,000 people gathered in the nation's capital to protest.
> 
> Bush, the first President in more than a century to lose the 
> national popular vote, took the oath of office as president 
> of the United States, pledging to "unite" the country which 
> the November elections showed to be deeply divided, along cultural, 
> geographic, and ethnic lines. For a large percentage of the 
> US public, the presidency is deeply mired in a crisis of legitimacy 
> by numerous allegations of vote fraud, voter disenfranchisement, 
> and the controversial Supreme Court decision that halted the 
> vote count on a legal technicality. For the many who came to 
> demonstrate from as many as forty US states, a Bush/Cheney White 
> House represents nothing less than a debasement of democracy, 
> a Republican coup d'etat with a suitably incompetent figurehead 
> for a puppet regime.
> 
> Despite a relentless, cold rain and unprecedented security 
> restrictions for demonstrators, widespread feelings of outrage 
> and contempt for the incoming administration were literally 
> overwhelming for many of those in attendance. The day saw numerous 
> marches, assemblies, street theater performances, and confrontations 
> between police and protesters that have since drawn concern 
> from media analysts, given the dramatic scope of the activities 
> and - in many cases - their subsequent, mysterious absence from 
> most news reports. Demonstrators were evident on every block 
> of the 1.6-mile inaugural parade route, and on some blocks on 
> the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, they outnumbered other 
> paradegoers.
> 
> The day began early for protesters, who were in the streets 
> well before Bush supporters. At 8:30am, a few hundred met at 
> 12th and G streets NW, then marched to 14th Street and Pennsylvania 
> Avenue, to the beat of homemade drums.
> 
> A boisterous crowd of more than 1,000 assembled at Dupont 
> Circle just before 10 am, chastising Bush for "stealing" the 
> election. At 10:30, city crews arrived to cut an effigy of Bush 
> from a tree. Speaker Patricia Ireland, president of the National 
> Organization for Women, told the crowd: "Let them have the tree. 
> We have all of Dupont Circle and we have the whole country. 
> They just have the White House." 
> 
> Meanwhile, near the Supreme Court, Al Sharpton, Walter E. Fauntroy 
> and other civil rights activists were holding a "shadow" inauguration 
> and parade, attended by over 2,000 people. Laura Brightman of 
> Brooklyn, NY commented, "We were sold out," as others around 
> her chanted, "No justice, no peace." 
> 
> "And when we tried to get justice [from the Supreme Court] 
> we were sold again," said Brightman. "The election was stolen." 
> 
> 
> At the Supreme Court building, Rudy Arredondo of Takoma Park, 
> Md., put it this way: "Bush is a Supreme Court appointee. In 
> my eyes, and in my children's eyes, he will never be a legitimate 
> president."
> 
> '''Anarchists destroy inaugural checkpoint, hoist flag: media 
> blackout '''
> 
> <img src="http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%2088.GIF" width="300" height="203"><br>
> <font size="2">''&quot;Black bloc&quot; activists build a barricade 
> in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''</font>
> 
> Notably ignored by the mainstream press, radical activists 
> made anarchist history during George W. Bush's inaugural parade 
> when one of nine police checkpoints to the celebration was battered 
> down and overrun with thousands of protesters. Not long after, 
> protesters -- led by the masked, black-clad, anarchist collective 
> known as the "Black Bloc" -- seized the Naval Memorial on Pennsylvania 
> Ave. and raised anarchist flags up the monument's flagpole. 
> Overwhelmed by the security breach, DC police and Secret Service 
> appeared confused, powerless, and embarrassed as they tried 
> to contain, arrest, or disperse the demonstrators, only to fail 
> time and time again when Black Bloc members physically fought 
> back and successfully prevented almost any such police retaliation 
> from happening.
> 
> In the weeks leading up to Bush's inaugural moment, the "historically 
> unprecedented" security measures being undertaken by the Republican 
> Party in tandem with DC police and the US Secret Service received 
> extensive attention in the news media. For the first time ever, 
> anyone wishing to attend the inaugural parade was required to 
> pass through one of nine police checkpoints, have their bags 
> searched, and in some cases be frisked and have protest signs 
> confiscated. 
> 
> "He stole the vote," said Ethyl Tobch, 79, of New York City. 
> "The fact that the people's votes were absolutely stolen plus 
> the checkpoints are very frightening. It makes you feel like 
> you are in a real dictatorship." 
> <p>It was a single egg that landed on the presidential motorcade, 
> a brief, maybe blurry tele-view of colorful protest signs along 
> the parade route. By most news accounts, the protests were an 
> inaugural footnote, not worthy of much comment or attention. 
> However, for the thousands of people attending the inaugural 
> parade who had gathered near the US Naval Memorial, a dramatic, 
> captivating spectacle unfolded before them, for many the likes 
> of which had never before been seen. As the well-to-do sat perched, 
> waiting anxiously in the expensive bleacher seats and hotel 
> balconies overlooking the parade for the arrival of the Bush 
> motorcade, parade-goers suddenly found themselves in the midst 
> of a giant confrontation between police and protesters. 
> 
> It began when a march of nearly 600 Black Bloc demonstrators 
> began to make its way towards the parade route, leaving a small 
> trail of impromptu blockades -- mainly newspaper distributor 
> racks and automobiles -- behind them. Soon after, DC police 
> appeared and managed to corral against a building wall about 
> 80 of this group who called themselves the "Revolutionary Anti-Authoritarian 
> Bloc." Mass arrests seemed imminent with the police holding 
> loads of plastic, "zip-tie" handcuffs and City Transit Authority 
> busses parked nearby at the ready for "criminal" mass transit. 
> DC Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said 
> the police contingency plan for up to 5,000 arrests involved 
> the use of several buses and 180 officers specifically prepared 
> for that many cases. All told, about 7,000 officers had been 
> deployed from various law enforcement agencies, including US 
> Marshals and National Guard troops.
> 
> A standoff ensued between the police, spectators, and a groundswell 
> of protesters suddenly reinforced by the unexpected arrival 
> of a National Organization of Women (NOW) march and a Voter 
> Rights march, chanting "Let them go! Let them go!" Hopelessly 
> outnumbered, the police eventually complied, freeing the demonstrators 
> to continue their protests. 
> 
> With protesters now numbering in the 1,500-2,000 range, a massive 
> march proceeded to Pennsylvania Ave. Not much later, with the 
> reunited Black Bloc at the front, a group of inspired participants 
> grabbed a fairly large cart parked in front of a vacant construction 
> site.
> 
> "What is this?" someone asked.
> 
> "It's a battering ram!" another yelled in reply. 
> 
> Much to the astonishment of thousands of waiting parade-watchers, 
> the construction cart came careening down an overlooking hill, 
> crashing through a police checkpoint, only to be stopped from 
> going into the parade avenue by a Secret Service car which pulled 
> in front of it's path, damaging the federal vehicle in the process. 
> The floodgates had been battered open, allowing what from balcony 
> seats must have looked like a giant pool of black ink to seep 
> into the crowded festivities, followed by a colorful barrage 
> of signs proclaiming: "Supreme Coup," "Hail To The Thief," "Not 
> Our President" and hundreds more. For all of their elaborate 
> preparations, much to their surprise, police and military were 
> now confronted with an embarrassingly massive breach of national 
> security. 
> 
> Shocked Republicans and police watched as, soon after, four 
> Black Bloc members scaled the nearby Navy Memorial flagpole 
> to the roaring cheers of demonstrators. In little time, the 
> Nautical flags were pulled down and replaced by black and red 
> anarchist flags, as well as an upside down US flag -- the widely 
> recognized symbol of distress. 
> 
> Over the next few hours, riot police attempted at least three 
> times to rush and disperse those assembled by the monument, 
> only to be pushed, fought back, and defeated. Dozens of times, 
> without identifying themselves, several undercover police attempted 
> to "surprise arrest" demonstrators. Activists responded quickly, 
> however, and with little exception, prevented this from happening 
> by directly confronting the police, tackling them, fighting 
> them, and many times forcibly removing them from the area. 
> 
> Meanwhile, the parade had been delayed. When the Bush/Cheney 
> motorcade eventually did arrive, the cars abruptly sped by this 
> concentrated protest area, forcing the Secret Service chaperones 
> to break pace and run full steam to catch up. At this particular 
> moment, while food, debris, loud insults, and a sea of hundreds 
> of middle fingers were hurled toward the new president, apparently 
> several news networks broadcasting live simulcasts, simultaneously 
> thought it best to cut to commercial breaks or check in with 
> comments from fawning news pundits. 
> 
> Most demonstrators in the area soon dispersed afterward, the 
> object of their animosity having since passed by in the new 
> Cadillac, which featured puncture-proof tires and six-inch-thick 
> bulletproof glass.
> 
> Of the estimated 350,000 people who came downtown Saturday 
> to see the swearing-in ceremony or parade, DC police arrested 
> only five, and other law enforcement agencies arrested only 
> a handful of others. 
> 
> '''Demonstrations nationwide'''
> 
> Protests in opposition to what many are characterizing as 
> an appointed regime by the US Supreme Court were not limited 
> to Washington DC. Thousands of US citizens in over a dozen cities 
> such as San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Tallahassee, 
> New York, Montpelier, Santa Fe, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland 
> and others protested the inauguration. According to the Independent 
> Media Center, thousands of protesters took over part of downtown 
> San Fransisco, stopping cable cars. 3,500 demonstrated in Los 
> Angeles. Even Paris, France saw thousands of demonstrators against 
> the death penalty protest the swearing-in of the new US President. 
> 
> 
> All around the country, mock coronations of "King George II" 
> were staged. In Seattle, an actor dressed in a Revolutionary 
> War costume stole the crown from a shrub and offered it to the 
> people. The crowd of 3,000 placed the crown at the head of a 
> parade. 
> 
> Chicago protesters converged on the city's Federal Building. 
> Demonstrators protested at the state capitols in Denver, Colorado 
> and Montpelier, Vermont. In Albuquerque, New Mexico local TV 
> coverage gave more time to local protests than to the Bush ceremonies.
> 
> In Austin, Texas, 500 people gathered on the state capitol 
> steps. The election "was stolen and it was stolen in Florida. 
> I think there should be a revolution in this country on just 
> this issue," said Arthur Joe Sr. of Dallas. 
> 
> In Asheville, North Carolina, forty-five indignant people braved 
> freezing rain to sing, dance and wave signs, to the obvious 
> delight of passing motorists, who responded with honks and thumbs 
> up. The protest lasted from ten until two o'clock.
> 
> AGR staff contributed to this report.
> 
> Additional sources: Independent Media Center, Washington Post, 
> IPS, Philadelphia Inquirer 
> 
> 
> (c) Copyright 2000 Asheville Global Report.
> Reprinting for non-profit purposes is permitted: Please credit the source.
------
InaugurationProtests|980765739
3c3
< <img src="http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF" width="300" height="384"><br>
---
> http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF
73,75c73,74
< <img src="http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%2088.GIF" width="300" height="203"><br>
< <font size="2">''&quot;Black bloc&quot; activists build a barricade 
< in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''</font>
---
> http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%2088.GIF
> ''Black bloc activists build a barricade in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''</font>
------
InaugurationProtests|980765900
3c3
< http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF
---
> http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.gif
74c74
< ''Black bloc activists build a barricade in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''</font>
---
> ''Black bloc activists build a barricade in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''
------
InaugurationProtests|980765912
3c3
< http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.gif
---
> http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF
------
FrancE|980766445
1c1
< A European country, home of the French revolution.  There anthem is still about overthrowing the government, and there flag's colors stand for liberty, equality, and fraternity.  The capitol city, Paris, is home to the Eiffel tower, a really neat steel tower.  They speak FrenchLanguage here.
---
> A European country, home of the French revolution.  Their anthem is still about overthrowing the government, and there flag's colors stand for liberty, equality, and fraternity.  The capital city, PariS, is home to the EiffelTower, a really neat steel tower.  They speak FrenchLanguage here.
3c3
< Cities include AbbevilleFrance, which seems to be the most important because it starts the earliest in the alphabet.
---
> Cities include AbbevilleFrance, which seems to be the most important because it starts the earliest in the alphabet.
------
TechnologY|980767146
5a6
> * EcheloN
------
EcheloN|980767695
1c1,22
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Echelon is a name for one of the largest spy networks in history. 
> It can capture nearly every telephone call, fax and e-mail message sent anywhere in the world. 
> 
> 
> Originally devoted solely to monitoring the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its East Bloc allies, today Echelon searches for hints of terrorist plots, drug-dealer's plans and political and diplomatic intelligence. But critics claim the system is also being used for crass commercial theft and a brutal invasion of privacy on a staggering scale. 
> 
> 
> The Echelon system is simple in design. All members of the English-speaking alliance are part of the UKUSA intelligence alliance that has maintained ties since the Second World War.
> These states have positioned electronic-intercept stations and deep-space satellites to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fibre-optic communications traffic. The captured signals are then processed through a series of supercomputers, known as dictionaries, that are programmed to search each communication for targeted addresses, words, phrases or even individual voices. 
> 
> 
> Individual states in the UKUSA alliance are assigned responsibilities for monitoring different parts of the globe. Canada's main task used to be monitoring northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from our embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite and radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and thugs in the region. The UnitedStates, with its vast array of spy satellites and listening posts, monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic RussiA and northern China. Britain listens in on EuropE and RussiA west of the Urals as well as AfricA. AustraliA hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia and southern China. New Zealand sweeps the western Pacific. 
> 
> Experts stress that Echelon is simply a method of sorting captured signals and is just one of the many new arrows in the intelligence community's quiver, along with increasingly sophisticated bugging and interception techniques, satellite tracking, through-clothing scanning, automatic fingerprinting and recognition systems that can recognize genes, odours or retina patterns. 
> 
> The Americans dominate the UKUSA alliance, providing most of the computer expertise and frequently much of the personnel for global interception bases. The U.S. National Security Agency, headquartered in Fort Meade, Md., just outside Washington, has a global staff of 38,000 and a budget estimated at more than $3.6-billion (all dollar figures US unless otherwise specified). That's more than the FBI and the CIA combined. 
> 
> 
> By comparison, Canada's communications-intelligence operations are conducted by the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), a branch of the National Defence Department. It has a staff of 890 people and an annual budget of $110-million (Cdn). The CSE's headquarters, nicknamed "The Farm," is the Sir Leonard Tilley Building on Heron Road in Ottawa, and its main communications intercept site is located on an old armed-forces radio base in Leitrim, just south of Ottawa. 
> 
> 
> The governments of AustaliA and the Netherlands have already confirmed that Echelon exists.
------
EcheloN|980767929
12c12
< Individual states in the UKUSA alliance are assigned responsibilities for monitoring different parts of the globe. Canada's main task used to be monitoring northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from our embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite and radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and thugs in the region. The UnitedStates, with its vast array of spy satellites and listening posts, monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic RussiA and northern China. Britain listens in on EuropE and RussiA west of the Urals as well as AfricA. AustraliA hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia and southern China. New Zealand sweeps the western Pacific. 
---
> Individual states in the UKUSA alliance are assigned responsibilities for monitoring different parts of the globe. Canada's main task used to be monitoring northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite and radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and thugs in the region. The UnitedStates, with its vast array of spy satellites and listening posts, monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic RussiA and northern China. Britain listens in on EuropE and RussiA west of the Urals as well as AfricA. AustraliA hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia and southern ChinA. NewZealand sweeps the western Pacific. 
------
ComputinG|980768569
1c1
< * Algorithms
---
> * AlgorithmS
------
AdA|980770998
5c5,8
< Ada95 is ''not'' a compiler, it is a version of Ada, the most recent version, I believe.   I am also skeptical of the idea that Ada is "really only used anymore" in the US DOD.
---
> Ada95 is ''not'' a compiler, it is a version of Ada, the most recent version, I believe.   I am also skeptical of the idea that Ada is "really only used anymore" in the US DOD.
> 
> ----
> Do you mean GNAT (GNU Ada Translater) when writing "Ada95"? This is no translater to C any longer but a frontend to the GNU Compiler Collection, as the C or the Java frontends are. By the way, it is _not_ used only by DOD staff and it is a highly capable language. In contrast to the popular misbelief it produces rather fast code (comparable to C).
------
SetTheory|980776999
32a33,34
> ''You people can't have it both ways.''
> 
------
BeeR|980778216
1a2,6
> 
> The effects of beer are many and varied. You may feel a little light-headed after consuming a pint or two, where after eight or nine pints, you may begin to a: fall asleep b: ThrowUp c: start a FiGht d: have CasualSex.
> The after effects of too much beer often include headache, a delicate tummy and an unending sense of ReGret.
> 
> Some well known brands include:
------
CityBerlin|980782272
3c3
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. 
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. 
4a5
> The Capital of West-GermanY was up to 1992 BonN. 
------
CityBerlin|980782666
5c5
< The Capital of West-GermanY was up to 1992 BonN. 
---
> The Capital of West-GermanY was up to 1999 BonN. 
------
ComputinG|980788746
5c5
< * ComputerArchitexture
---
> * ComputerArchitecture
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980788968
1c1
< SPACECRAFT PROPULSION [xxx]
---
> SPACECRAFT PROPULSION
------
AtlasShrugged114|980788970
4c4
< Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers sats he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
---
> Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
------
GeorgeWBush|980789053
7c7
< He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  He went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms. His tenure as Govenor also saw a sharp rise in the number of state sponsored ExeCutions.
---
> He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994.  He went on to become the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms.  His tenure in office featured many achievements and, despite a reputation for bipartisan leadership, some controversy, even international controversy; for example, during Bush's tenure, TexaS saw a sharp rise in CapitalPunishment.
------
GeorgeWBush|980789077
1c1
< George W. Bush is the current [2001] PresidentOfTheUnitedStates, the 43rd.  Formerly the Governor of the state of Texas.
---
> George W. Bush is the current [2001] PresidentOfTheUnitedStates, the 43rd.  Formerly the Governor of the state of TexaS.
------
InaugurationProtests|980790333
0a1,7
> I believe, but will wait for discussion, that this article should
> be removed from the wikipedia.  My reason is this:
> 
> When you click 'submit', you are agreeing to release the text under the GNU FDL.  But this reprinting disclaimer doesn't give all the freedom that the FDL gives.  Therefore, while it is o.k. for the moment, since this wikipedia doesn't have any 
> ads on it, it is not o.k. in the long run, because this wikipedia database is intended to be made available for download under an FDL license. --JimboWales
> 
> 
------
InaugurationProtests|980790422
4,5c4,6
< When you click 'submit', you are agreeing to release the text under the GNU FDL.  But this reprinting disclaimer doesn't give all the freedom that the FDL gives.  Therefore, while it is o.k. for the moment, since this wikipedia doesn't have any 
< ads on it, it is not o.k. in the long run, because this wikipedia database is intended to be made available for download under an FDL license. --JimboWales
---
> When you click 'submit', you are agreeing to release the text under the GNU FDL.  But this reprinting disclaimer doesn't give all the freedom that the FDL gives.  (For example, you don't have the right to redistribute modified versions, and there is a discrimination against commercial usage -- both restrictions are forbidden under the open source definition.)  
> 
> Therefore, while it is o.k. for the moment, since this wikipedia doesn't have any ads on it, it is not o.k. in the long run, because this wikipedia database is intended to be made available for download under an FDL license. --JimboWales
------
CountriesI|980792059
1c1,2
< ItalY
---
> ItalY
> IcelanD
------
IcelanD|980792360
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A european republic, positioned in the north of the Atlantic Ocean.
> Religion is mostly christian, population around 280.000 and around 103.000 sq km of land.
------
CountriesI|980792388
1a2
> 
------
IcelanD|980792402
2c2,3
< Religion is mostly christian, population around 280.000 and around 103.000 sq km of land.
---
> 
> Religion is mostly christian, population around 280.000 and around 103.000 sq km of land.
------
RequestedArticles|980792497
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- LiteraryArt -- ArchitecturE -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon
------
RequestedArticles|980792525
3,5c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon
< 
< SeT -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
------
InaugurationProtests|980792764
7a8,10
> ''Agreed.  As well, it has a journalistic-bent to it, and so needs to be rewritten into more of an encyclopedic bent.  But I felt the information is important and of current interest.  And since the protests were not covered by traditional media, and thus likely won't show up in mainstream encyclopedias and histories, I wanted to be sure we had *something* relatively detailed on it.  -- BryceHarrington''
> 
> ----
------
AtlasShrugged|980793220
8a9,10
> [added by TimShell]
> 
------
SanSebastianLine|980793383
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A branch of Taggart Transcontinentel that serves the San Sebastian Mines in Mexico.  The SanSebastianLine nationalized soon after completeion by the Mexican government.
> 
> It is mentioned in:
>   AtlasShrugged114
>   AtlasShrugged131
>   AtlasShrugged132
------
AtlasShruggedThings|980793417
1c1
< FriendsofGlobalProgress (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> FriendsofGlobalProgress
11c11
< RioNorteLine (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged132)
---
> RioNorteLine
13c13
< SanSebastianLine (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
---
> SanSebastianLine
19c19
< WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
------
RioNorteLine|980793458
3c3,9
< It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged132.  It is alluded to in AtlasShrugged131.
---
> It is mentioned in:
>   AtlasShrugged111
>   AtlasShrugged114
>   AtlasShrugged132  
> 
> It is alluded to in:
>   AtlasShrugged131
------
SanSebastianLine|980793504
1c1
< A branch of Taggart Transcontinentel that serves the San Sebastian Mines in Mexico.  The SanSebastianLine nationalized soon after completeion by the Mexican government.
---
> A branch of Taggart Transcontinentel that serves the San Sebastian Mines in Mexico.  The SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
6c6
<   AtlasShrugged132
---
>   AtlasShrugged132
------
RioNorteLine|980793787
1c1
< A branch of TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
---
> A branch of AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental|980793811
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The railroad run by Dagny Taggart.
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980793816
17c17
< can be fired multiple times (or <em>pulsed</em>.)
---
> can be fired multiple times (or ''pulsed''.)
31c31
< burn by themselves - no oxygen required! This is because the combined chemicals, when energized, "reduce," or change in ionic state by reacting with each other, as opposed to an outside oxidant.  The most commonly used monopropellant is <em>hydrazine</em> (N2H4), a chemical which is characterized as "strongly reducing".
---
> burn by themselves - no oxygen required! This is because the combined chemicals, when energized, "reduce," or change in ionic state by reacting with each other, as opposed to an outside oxidant.  The most commonly used monopropellant is ''hydrazine'' (N2H4), a chemical which is characterized as "strongly reducing".
51c51
< oxidizer (this is known as the <em>mixture ratio</em>.) 
---
> oxidizer (this is known as the ''mixture ratio''.) 
89c89
< Also known simply as <em>plasma thrusters</em>, HETs use the
---
> Also known simply as ''plasma thrusters'', HETs use the
------
SpacecraftPropulsion|980793854
1c1
< SPACECRAFT PROPULSION
---
> '''SPACECRAFT PROPULSION'''
------
AtlasShrugged|980793924
13c13
< * AtlasShruggedCharacters
---
> * AtlasShrugged/Characters
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980793947
1c1,70
< Describe the new page here.
---
> BrakemaN
> 
> DagnyTaggart
> 
> EddieWillers
> 
> EllisWyatt
> 
> FranciscoDAnconia
> 
> GwenIves
> 
> HankRearden
> 
> JamesTaggart
> 
> LillianRearden
> 
> NewsstandOwner
> 
> OrrenBoyle
> 
> OwenKellogg
> 
> PaulLarkin
> 
> PhilipRearden
> 
> ReardensMother
> 
> RichardHalley
> 
> WesleyMouch
> 
> * Very minor characters
> BartendeR
> 
> BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
> 
> BumNumber1
> 
> ConductoR
> 
> DagnysFather
> 
> EngineeR
> 
> FiremaN
> 
> MrAyers
> 
> MrsBeacham
> 
> MrsNathanielTaggart
> 
> NathanielTaggart
> 
> PassengerNumber1
> 
> PassengerNumber2
> 
> PassengerNumber3
> 
> PassengerNumber4
> 
> PopHarper
> 
> WaiteR
> 
> WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged|980793988
14,17c14,17
< * AtlasShruggedCompanies
< * AtlasShruggedPlaces
< * AtlasShruggedStructure
< * AtlasShruggedThings
---
> * AtlasShrugged/Companies
> * AtlasShrugged/Places
> * AtlasShrugged/Structure
> * AtlasShrugged/Things
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980793999
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AyersMusicPublishingCompany
> 
> AssociatedSteel
> 
> Phoenix-Durango
> 
> ReardenCoal
> 
> ReardenLimestone
> 
> ReardenOre
> 
> ReardenSteel
> 
> TaggartTranscontinental
> 
> WyattOil
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980794032
1c1,49
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Places mentioned in Atlas Shrugged:
> 
> Argentina (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Arizona (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> California (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> Chicago (AtlasShrugged112)
> 
> Chile (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Cleveland (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Colorado (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Cheyenne, Wyoming (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> El Paso, Texas (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Fifth Avenue (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Hudson River (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> Louisiana (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Mexico, People's State of (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Middle West (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Minnesota (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> New Mexico (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> New York (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged113, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Ohio (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Philadelphia (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> Redding (Connecticut?) (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> San Francisco (AtlasShrugged111)
> 
> United States (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Washington (AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Wilmington (Delaware?) (AtlasShrugged121)
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794053
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged is divided into three parts, with ten chapters in each part.  Chapters are divided into any number of sections.
> 
> ----
> Part 1 - Non-Contradiction
> 
> Chapter 1  - The Theme
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged111)
>  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>  - section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
>  - section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
> 
> Chapter 2  - The Chain
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged121)
> 
> Chapter 3  - The Top and the Bottom
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged131)
>  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> Chapter 4  - The Immovble Movers
> 
> Chapter 5  - The Climax of the D'Anconias
> 
> Chapter 6  - The Non-Commercial
> 
> Chapter 7  - The Exploiters and the Exploited
> 
> Chapter 8  - The John Galt Line
> 
> Chapter 9  - The Sacred and the Profane
> 
> Chapter 10 - Wyatt's Torch
> ----
> Part 2 - Either-Or
> 
> Part 3 - A Is A
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|980794078
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FriendsofGlobalProgress
> 
> HalleysFifthConcerto (AtlasShrugged112)
> 
> NationalAllianceofRailroads (AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131)
> 
> RioNorteLine
> 
> SanSebastianLine
> 
> SanSebastianMines (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
> 
> TaggartComet (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged113)
> 
> WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980794116
1c1
< BrakemaN
---
> AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN
------
AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN|980794131
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
> 
> DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980794160
1c1
< AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN
---
> /BrakemaN
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980794179
3c3
< DagnyTaggart
---
> /DagnyTaggart
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980794206
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The main character in AtlasShrugged.
> 
> Dagny is Vice-President in Charge of Operation at Taggart Transcontinental.  Those in the know know she is the one who really runs the railroad.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged/112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged/113)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged/114)
>    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (AtlasShrugged/132)
> 
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980794242
6,9c6,9
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged/112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged/113)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged/114)
<    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (AtlasShrugged/132)
---
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
>    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (/132)
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980794259
9c9
<    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (/132)
---
>    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980794294
1c1
< AyersMusicPublishingCompany
---
> /AyersMusicPublishingCompany
------
AtlasShrugged/AyersMusicPublishingCompany|980794305
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980794333
3c3
< AssociatedSteel
---
> /AssociatedSteel
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980794362
5c5
< Phoenix-Durango
---
> /PhoenixDurango
7c7
< ReardenCoal
---
> /ReardenCoal
9c9
< ReardenLimestone
---
> /ReardenLimestone
11c11
< ReardenOre
---
> /ReardenOre
13c13
< ReardenSteel
---
> /ReardenSteel
15c15
< TaggartTranscontinental
---
> /TaggartTranscontinental
17c17
< WyattOil
---
> /WyattOil
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|980794429
1c1
< FriendsofGlobalProgress
---
> /FriendsofGlobalProgress
11c11
< RioNorteLine
---
> /RioNorteLine
13c13
< SanSebastianLine
---
> /SanSebastianLine
------
AtlasShrugged/FriendsofGlobalProgress|980794441
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged121.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|980794472
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A branch of AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
> 
> It is mentioned in:
>   AtlasShrugged111
>   AtlasShrugged114
>   AtlasShrugged132  
> 
> It is alluded to in:
>   AtlasShrugged131
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|980794495
1c1
< A branch of AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
---
> A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
9c9
<   AtlasShrugged131
---
>   AtlasShrugged131
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|980794535
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A branch of /TaggartTranscontinentel that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
> 
> It is mentioned in:
>   AtlasShrugged114
>   AtlasShrugged131
>   AtlasShrugged132
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|980794604
1c1
< A branch of /TaggartTranscontinentel that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
---
> A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980794669
5c5
< EddieWillers
---
> /EddieWillers
7c7
< EllisWyatt
---
> /EllisWyatt
9c9
< FranciscoDAnconia
---
> /FranciscoDAnconia
11c11
< GwenIves
---
> /GwenIves
13c13
< HankRearden
---
> /HankRearden
15c15
< JamesTaggart
---
> /JamesTaggart
17c17
< LillianRearden
---
> /LillianRearden
19c19
< NewsstandOwner
---
> /NewsstandOwner
21c21
< OrrenBoyle
---
> /OrrenBoyle
23c23
< OwenKellogg
---
> /OwenKellogg
25c25
< PaulLarkin
---
> /PaulLarkin
27c27
< PhilipRearden
---
> /PhilipRearden
29c29
< ReardensMother
---
> /ReardensMother
31c31
< RichardHalley
---
> /RichardHalley
33c33
< WesleyMouch
---
> /WesleyMouch
36c36
< BartendeR
---
> /BartendeR
38c38
< BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
---
> /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
40c40
< BumNumber1
---
> /BumNumber1
42c42
< ConductoR
---
> /ConductoR
44c44
< DagnysFather
---
> /DagnysFather
46c46
< EngineeR
---
> /EngineeR
48c48
< FiremaN
---
> /FiremaN
50c50
< MrAyers
---
> /MrAyers
52c52
< MrsBeacham
---
> /MrsBeacham
54c54
< MrsNathanielTaggart
---
> /MrsNathanielTaggart
56c56
< NathanielTaggart
---
> /NathanielTaggart
58c58
< PassengerNumber1
---
> /PassengerNumber1
60c60
< PassengerNumber2
---
> /PassengerNumber2
62c62
< PassengerNumber3
---
> /PassengerNumber3
64c64
< PassengerNumber4
---
> /PassengerNumber4
66c66
< PopHarper
---
> /PopHarper
68c68
< WaiteR
---
> /WaiteR
70c70
< WorkerNumber1
---
> /WorkerNumber1
------
TimShell|980794706
3a4,5
> ----
> And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794740
7c7
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged111)
---
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/B1C1s1)
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794760
7c7
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/B1C1s1)
---
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/A111S)
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794781
7c7
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/A111S)
---
>  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/SectioN111)
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN111|980794822
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Eddie Willers, walking through downtown Manhattan, wonders why the world seems to be slowly falling apart.  He returns to the Taggart Transcontinental Building in order to tell JamesTaggart the bad news about an unfulfilled steel order and another train wreck, and to make Taggart see the seriousness of the situation the business is in because it can't get steel to replace its aging railroad tracks.
> ----
> * Setting
> Downtown New York, and in the Taggart Transcontinental Building.
> ----
> * Characters
> BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
> 
> EddieWillers
> 
> Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
> 
> JamesTaggart
> 
> OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
> 
> PopHarper - First and only apearance.
> ----
> * Mysteries
> The question "Who is John Galt?" opens the book and is repeated over and over.  Who is John Galt?  Where did the phrase come from?  What does it mean?
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794838
7c7
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged/SectioN111)
---
>  - section 1 (/SectioN111)
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN111|980794877
4c4
< Eddie Willers, walking through downtown Manhattan, wonders why the world seems to be slowly falling apart.  He returns to the Taggart Transcontinental Building in order to tell JamesTaggart the bad news about an unfulfilled steel order and another train wreck, and to make Taggart see the seriousness of the situation the business is in because it can't get steel to replace its aging railroad tracks.
---
> Eddie Willers, walking through downtown Manhattan, wonders why the world seems to be slowly falling apart.  He returns to the Taggart Transcontinental Building in order to tell James Taggart the bad news about an unfulfilled steel order and another train wreck, and to make Taggart see the seriousness of the situation the business is in because it can't get steel to replace its aging railroad tracks.
10c10
< BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
---
> /BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
12c12
< EddieWillers
---
> /EddieWillers
14c14
< Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
---
> /Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
16c16
< JamesTaggart
---
> /JamesTaggart
18c18
< OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
---
> /OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
20c20
< PopHarper - First and only apearance.
---
> /PopHarper - First and only apearance.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN111|980794886
14c14
< /Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
---
> /EllisWyatt - Mentioned.
------
MerloT|980794947
1c1
< A variety of wine grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.  It is produced primarily in France and California, and on a lesser scale in Australia, Italy, and South Africa.
---
> A variety of WinE grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.  It is produced primarily in France and CaliforniA, and on a lesser scale in AustraliA, ItalY, and SouthAfrica.
3c3
< Merlot is also the name of an XML Editor...:-).
---
> MerloT is also the name of an XML Editor...:-).
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980794953
8,10c8,10
<  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<  - section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
<  - section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
---
>  - section 2 (/SectioN112)
>  - section 3 (/SectioN113)
>  - section 4 (/SectioN114)
13c13
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged121)
---
>  - section 1 (/SectioN121)
16,17c16,17
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged131)
<  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
---
>  - section 1 (/SectioN131)
>  - section 2 (/SectioN132)
------
MerloT|980794967
1c1
< A variety of WinE grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.  It is produced primarily in France and CaliforniA, and on a lesser scale in AustraliA, ItalY, and SouthAfrica.
---
> A variety of WinE grape that is used to create MerloT wine.  MerloT is a popular variety of red wine.  It is produced primarily in FrancE and CaliforniA, and on a lesser scale in AustraliA, ItalY, and SouthAfrica.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980794984
1c1,27
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  Afte falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
> ----
> * Setting
> Taggart Comet, stalled between Cleveland and New York.
> ----
> * Characters
> /BrakemaN
> 
> /ConductoR - First and only appearance.
> 
> /EngineeR - First and only appearance.
> 
> /DagnyTaggart
> 
> /OwenKellogg - Mentioned.
> 
> /PassengerNumber1 - First and only appearance.
> 
> /PassengerNumber2 - First and only appearance.
> 
> /RichardHalley - Mentioned.
> ----
> * Mysteries
> What was the brakeman whistling?  Did Halley write a Fifth Concerto?
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN113|980795025
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Dagny and the Comet arrive at the Taggart Terminal.  She gets off the train inadvertently whistling the theme from Halley's Fifth Concerto.  The brakeman watches her tensely.
> ----
> * Setting
> Taggart Terminal
> ----
> * Characters
> /DagnyTaggart
> 
> /BrakemaN
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|980795060
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
> ----
> * Setting
> The offices of Taggart Transcontinental.
> ----
> * Characters
> /DagnyTaggart
> 
> /JamesTaggart
> 
> /EddieWillers
> 
> /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
> 
> /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
> 
> /HankRearden: Mentioned.
> 
> /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
> 
> /OwenKellogg
> 
> /MrAyers - First and only appearance.
> ----
> * Mysteries
> What is it that makes OwenKellogg quit a job he admits he loves?
> 
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|980795102
1c1,28
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 2, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of Rearden Metal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, Paul Larkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
> ----
> * Setting
> Rearden Steel mills in Philadelphia and Rearden's home.
> ----
> * Characters
> /GwenIves: Mentioned.
> 
> /HankRearden
> 
> /LillianRearden
> 
> /MrsBeacham: First and only mention.
> 
> /PassengerNumber3: First and only appearance.
> 
> /PassengerNumber4: First and only appearance.
> 
> /PaulLarkin
> 
> /PhilipRearden
> 
> /ReardensMother
> 
> /WorkerNumber1: First and only appearance.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN131|980795132
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 1:
> 
> * Plot summary
> James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, and Wesley Mouch meet to work out a deal by which they can stop Hank Rearden and the success of Rearden Metal.  Boyle wants Taggart to get his friends in Washington to regulate the distribution of iron ore, depriving Rearden of the raw materials needed to market Rearden Metal.  In exchange, Boyle agrees to get the National Alliance of Railroads to drive the Phoenix-Durango railroad out of business.  None of this is said openly or directly, of course.  Taggart also learns from Boyle that Taggart Transcontinental's San Sebastian Line has been denuded of all but the barest equipment.
> ----
> * Setting
> The most expensive barroom in New York, on the 60th floor of a skyscraper, design to look like a cellar.
> ----
> * Characters
> /JamesTaggart
> 
> /OrrenBoyle
> 
> /WesleyMouch
> 
> /PaulLarkin
> 
> /WaiteR: First and only appearance.
> 
> /BartendeR: First and only appearance.
> ----
> * Pregnant Passages
> "It all depends," James Taggart answered slowly, "on the people who make it possible...That's what has to be known - who makes it possible."
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN132|980795160
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2:
> 
> * Plot summary
> Recounts Dagny's childhood decision to run Taggart Transcontinental and her rise in the company.  Recounts the history of the San Sebastian Line: Millionaire playboy Francisco D'Anconia invested money in developing the San Sebastian Mines, and James Taggart and the Board of Directors assumed they could trust D'Anconia to deliver a winner.  Dagny opposed this project and almost quit when it was approved.  James Taggart confronts Dagny and demands to know what she has done to the San Sebastian Line.  She explains that she has moved anything of value out of Mexico so the "looters" would not get it when they nationalized the line.  James Taggart is scandalized by this but cannot muster the courage to countermand her actions.  After leaving the office, Dagny has a conversation with the owner of a newstand about his cigarette collection.  He says there are no new brands anymore, and only a few brands still being made.  He talks of the cigarette as a symbol of man controlling nature, holding fire in his hands.
> ----
> * Setting
> The offices of Taggart Transcontinental and the Taggart Terminal.
> ----
> * Characters
> /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
> 
> /DagnysFather
> 
> /DagnyTaggart
> 
> /EddieWillers
> 
> /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
> 
> /FranciscoDAnconia: Mentioned.
> 
> /HankRearden
> 
> /JamesTaggart
> 
> /MrsNathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
> 
> /NathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
> 
> /NewsstandOwner
> 
> /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
> ----
> * Symbolism
> The NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN|980795188
6,7c6,7
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
---
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (/SectioN112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (/SectioN113)
------
AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN|980795211
1c1
< An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
---
> An unnamed brakeman working on the /TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
3c3
< DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
---
> /DagnyTaggart hears /BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says /HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, /BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980795243
6,9c6,9
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
<    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
---
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (/SectioN112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (/SectioN113)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (/SectioN114)
>    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (/SectioN132)
------
AtlasShrugged/AyersMusicPublishingCompany|980795267
1c1
< Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
---
> Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of /RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of /HalleysFifthConcerto.
4c4
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
---
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (/SectioN114)
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|980795283
29c29
< What is it that makes OwenKellogg quit a job he admits he loves?
---
> What is it that makes /OwenKellogg quit a job he admits he loves?
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980795392
3c3
< Argentina (AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Argentina (/SectioN132)
5c5
< Arizona (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> Arizona (/SectioN111)
7c7
< California (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> California (/SectioN121)
9c9
< Chicago (AtlasShrugged112)
---
> Chicago (/SectioN112)
11c11
< Chile (AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Chile (/SectioN132)
13c13
< Cleveland (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
---
> Cleveland (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
15c15
< Colorado (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114)
---
> Colorado (/SectioN111, /SectioN114)
17c17
< Cheyenne, Wyoming (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> Cheyenne, Wyoming (/SectioN111)
19c19
< El Paso, Texas (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> El Paso, Texas (/SectioN111)
21c21
< Fifth Avenue (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> Fifth Avenue (/SectioN111)
23c23
< Hudson River (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> Hudson River (/SectioN111)
25c25
< Louisiana (AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Louisiana (/SectioN132)
27c27
< Mexico, People's State of (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Mexico, People's State of (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
29c29
< Middle West (AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Middle West (/SectioN132)
31c31
< Minnesota (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> Minnesota (/SectioN121)
33c33
< New Mexico (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> New Mexico (/SectioN111)
35c35
< New York (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged113, AtlasShrugged114)
---
> New York (/SectioN111, /SectioN113, /SectioN114)
37c37
< Ohio (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
---
> Ohio (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
39c39
< Philadelphia (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121)
---
> Philadelphia (/SectioN114, /SectioN121)
41c41
< Redding (Connecticut?) (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> Redding (Connecticut?) (/SectioN121)
43c43
< San Francisco (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> San Francisco (/SectioN111)
45c45
< United States (AtlasShrugged132)
---
> United States (/SectioN132)
47c47
< Washington (AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
---
> Washington (/SectioN121, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
49c49
< Wilmington (Delaware?) (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> Wilmington (Delaware?) (/SectioN121)
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980795413
3c3
< Argentina (/SectioN132)
---
> /Argentina (/SectioN132)
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980795476
5c5
< Arizona (/SectioN111)
---
> /Arizona (/SectioN111)
7c7
< California (/SectioN121)
---
> /California (/SectioN121)
9c9
< Chicago (/SectioN112)
---
> /Chicago (/SectioN112)
11c11
< Chile (/SectioN132)
---
> /Chile (/SectioN132)
13c13
< Cleveland (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
---
> /Cleveland (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
15c15
< Colorado (/SectioN111, /SectioN114)
---
> /Colorado (/SectioN111, /SectioN114)
17c17
< Cheyenne, Wyoming (/SectioN111)
---
> /CheyenneWyoming (/SectioN111)
19c19
< El Paso, Texas (/SectioN111)
---
> /ElPasoTexas (/SectioN111)
21c21
< Fifth Avenue (/SectioN111)
---
> /FifthAvenue (/SectioN111)
23c23
< Hudson River (/SectioN111)
---
> /HudsonRiver (/SectioN111)
25c25
< Louisiana (/SectioN132)
---
> /Louisiana (/SectioN132)
27c27
< Mexico, People's State of (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
---
> /MexicoPeoplesStateof (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
29c29
< Middle West (/SectioN132)
---
> /MiddleWest (/SectioN132)
31c31
< Minnesota (/SectioN121)
---
> /Minnesota (/SectioN121)
33c33
< New Mexico (/SectioN111)
---
> /NewMexico (/SectioN111)
35c35
< New York (/SectioN111, /SectioN113, /SectioN114)
---
> /NewYork (/SectioN111, /SectioN113, /SectioN114)
37c37
< Ohio (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
---
> /Ohio (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
39c39
< Philadelphia (/SectioN114, /SectioN121)
---
> /Philadelphia (/SectioN114, /SectioN121)
41c41
< Redding (Connecticut?) (/SectioN121)
---
> /Redding (Connecticut?) (/SectioN121)
43c43
< San Francisco (/SectioN111)
---
> /SanFrancisco (/SectioN111)
45c45
< United States (/SectioN132)
---
> /UnitedStates (/SectioN132)
47c47
< Washington (/SectioN121, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
---
> /Washington (/SectioN121, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
49c49
< Wilmington (Delaware?) (/SectioN121)
---
> /Wilmington (Delaware?) (/SectioN121)
------
EcheloN|980795730
2c2,3
< It can capture nearly every telephone call, fax and e-mail message sent anywhere in the world. 
---
> It can capture nearly every telephone call, fax and e-mail message sent anywhere in the world. There are estimates that EcheloN intercepts up to 3 billion communications everyday.
> Participating countries: UnitedStates, UK, CanadA, AustraliA, and NewZealand.
22c23
< The governments of AustaliA and the Netherlands have already confirmed that Echelon exists.
---
> The governments of AustaliA and the Netherlands have already confirmed that Echelon exists. Furthermore, Former CIA Director R. James Woosley has admitted using the system information about foreign companies using bribes to win foreign contracts. The information was passed on to US companies and foreign governments were pressed to stop the bribes.
------
EcheloN|980795772
23c23
< The governments of AustaliA and the Netherlands have already confirmed that Echelon exists. Furthermore, Former CIA Director R. James Woosley has admitted using the system information about foreign companies using bribes to win foreign contracts. The information was passed on to US companies and foreign governments were pressed to stop the bribes.
---
> The governments of AustraliA and the Netherlands have already confirmed that Echelon exists. Furthermore, Former CIA Director R. James Woosley has admitted using the system information about foreign companies using bribes to win foreign contracts. The information was passed on to US companies and foreign governments were pressed to stop the bribes.
------
AbbevilleFrance|980796209
3c3
< m. from its mouth in the English Channel, and 28 m.  N,W. of 
---
> m. from its mouth in the EnglishChannel, and 28 m.  N,W. of 
19c19
< There is a statue of Admiral Courbet (d. 1885) in the chief 
---
> There is a statue of AdmiralCourbet (d. 1885) in the chief 
------
AdmiralCourbet|980796262
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There is a statue of AdmiralCourbet (d. 1885) in the chief square of AbbevilleFrance.
------
CityBerlin|980796355
4,5c4
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.
< The Capital of West-GermanY was up to 1999 BonN. 
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. 
------
AardvarK|980796401
2c2
< the mammals of genus Orycteropus, confined to Africa (see 
---
> the mammals of genus Orycteropus, confined to AfricA (see 
5,6c5,6
< South Africa, and the northern aard-vark (O. aethiopicus) 
< of north-eastern Africa, extending into Egypt.  In form 
---
> SouthAfrica, and the northern aard-vark (O. aethiopicus) 
> of north-eastern Africa, extending into EgypT.  In form 
------
TechnologY|980797165
2a3
> * Cryptography
6c7
< * EcheloN
---
> * EcheloN
------
TechnologY|980797183
3c3
< * Cryptography
---
> * CryptographY
------
TechnologY|980797238
3c3
< * CryptographY
---
> * CryptologY
------
CryptologY|980797363
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CryptologY is a science concerned with communications in secure and usually secret form. It encompasses both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
> 
> 
> The term CryptologY is derived from the GreeK kryptós, "hidden," and lógos, "word." Security obtains from legitimate users, the transmitter and the receiver, being able to transform information into a cipher by virtue of a key--i.e., a piece of information known only to them. Although the cipher is inscrutable and often unforgeable to anyone without this secret key, the authorized receiver can either decrypt the cipher to recover the hidden information or verify that it was sent in all likelihood by someone possessing the key. 
------
CryptographY|980797446
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CryptographY (from the Greek kryptós and gráphein, "to write") is the study of the principles and techniques by which information can be concealed in ciphers and later revealed by legitimate users employing the secret key, but in which it is either impossible or computationally infeasible for an unauthorized person to do so.
> 
> ----
> See also:
> 
> :* CryptologY
> :* CryptanalysiS
> 
------
CryptographY|980797465
6,7c6,7
< :* CryptologY
< :* CryptanalysiS
---
> * CryptologY
> * CryptanalysiS
------
CryptanalysiS|980797543
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CryptanalysiS (from the Greek kryptós and analýein, "to loosen" or "to untie") is the science (and art) of recovering information from ciphers without knowledge of the key. CryptologY is often--and mistakenly--considered a synonym for CryptographY and occasionally for CryptanalysiS, as in the popular solution of CryptogramS or CipherS, but specialists in the field have for years adopted the convention that CryptologY is the more inclusive term encompassing both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
------
CryptologY|980797615
4c4
< The term CryptologY is derived from the GreeK kryptós, "hidden," and lógos, "word." Security obtains from legitimate users, the transmitter and the receiver, being able to transform information into a cipher by virtue of a key--i.e., a piece of information known only to them. Although the cipher is inscrutable and often unforgeable to anyone without this secret key, the authorized receiver can either decrypt the cipher to recover the hidden information or verify that it was sent in all likelihood by someone possessing the key. 
---
> The term CryptologY is derived from the GreeK kryptós, "hidden," and lógos, "word." Security obtains from legitimate users, the transmitter and the receiver, being able to transform information into a CipheR by virtue of a key--i.e., a piece of information known only to them. Although the CipheR is inscrutable and often unforgeable to anyone without this secret key, the authorized receiver can either decrypt the CipheR to recover the hidden information or verify that it was sent in all likelihood by someone possessing the key. 
------
CryptologY|980797714
4a5,6
> 
> The most frequently confused, and misused, terms in the lexicon of CryptologY are CodE and CipheR. Even experts occasionally employ these terms as though they were synonymous.
------
CodE|980797816
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A CodE is simply an unvarying rule for replacing a piece of information (e.g., letter, word, or phrase) with another object, but not necessarily of the same sort. Probably the most widely known CodE in use today is the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII). Employed in all personal computers and terminals, it represents 128 characters (and operations such as back space and carriage return) in the form of seven-bit binary numbers--i.e., as a string of seven 1s and 0s. In ASCII a lowercase a is always 1100001, an uppercase A always 1000001, and so on. In the first quarter of this century, before the telegraph was supplanted by radio communications, elaborate commercial codes that encoded complete phrases into single words (five-letter groups) were developed, so that telegraphers became conversant with such "words" as BYOXO (Are you trying to crawl out of it?), LIOUY (Why do you not answer my question[s]?), AYYLU (not clearly coded, repeat more clearly), or AZQUL (recheck coding and verify). Acronyms are also widely known and used codes, as, for example, RSVP and WASP. Occasionally a code word achieves an independent existence (and meaning) while the original equivalent phrase is forgotten or at least no longer has the precise meaning attributed to the code word--e.g., SNAFU.
> 
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeleted|980797844
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> What's brown and sticky?
> A stick.
> 
> (Sorry, but no bad jokes page is complete without it.)
> 
> -- ChessyPig
------
CipheR|980797995
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A CipheR, just like a CodE, also replaces a piece of information (an element of the plaintext that may consist of a letter or word or string of symbols) with another object. The difference is that the replacement is made according to a rule defined by a secret key known only to the transmitter and legitimate receiver(s) in the expectation that an outsider, ignorant of the key, will not be able to invert the replacement to decrypt the cipher. In the past, the blurring of the distinction between codes and ciphers was relatively unimportant. In contemporary communications, however, information is frequently both encoded and encrypted so that it is important to understand the difference. A satellite communications link, for example, may encode information in ASCII characters if it is textual, or pulse-code modulate and digitize it in binary-coded decimal form if it is an analog signal such as speech. It then encrypts the resulting coded data into ciphers by using the DataEncryptionStandard (DES). Finally, the CipheR stream itself is encoded again, using error-correcting codes for transmission from the ground station to the orbiting satellite. These operations are undone, in reverse order, by the intended receiver to recover the original information.
------
DataEncryptionStandard|980798189
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The DataEncryptionStandard (DES) is a product block CipheR in which 16 iterations, or rounds, of the substitution and transposition (permutation) process are cascaded. The block size is 64 bits, so that a 64-bit block of data (plaintext) can be encrypted into a 64-bit cipher at any one time. (A 64-bit block cipher can be decrypted by the DES as well.) The key, which controls the transformation, also consists of 64 bits. Only 56 of these, however, are at the user's disposal; the remaining eight bits are employed for checking parity (the state of being odd or even used as a basis for detecting errors in binary-coded data). Figure 7 is a functional schematic of the sequence of events that occurs in the DES encryption (or decryption) transformation. Subsets of the key bits are designated K1, K2, etc., with the subscript indicating the number of the round. The CipheR function (substitution and transposition) that is used with the key bits in each round is labeled f. At each intermediate stage of the transformation process, the CipheR output from the preceding stage is partitioned into the 32 leftmost bits, Li, and the 32 rightmost bits, Ri. Ri is transposed to become the left-hand part of the next higher intermediate CipheR, Li+1. The right-hand half of the next CipheR, Ri+1, however, is a complex function of the key and of the entire preceding intermediate cipher. The essential feature to the security of the DES is that f involves a very special nonlinear substitution--i.e., f(A) + f(B)  f(A + B)--specified by the Bureau of Standards in tabulated functions known as S boxes. This operation results in a 32-bit number, which is logically added to Ri to produce the left-hand half of the new intermediate CipheR. This process is repeated, 16 times in all. To decrypt a CipheR, the process is carried out in reverse order, with the 16th round being first. The DES process lends itself well to integrated-chip implementation. By 1984 the Bureau of Standards had certified over 35 LSI- and VLSI-chip implementations of the DES, most on single 40-pin chips, some of which operate at speeds of several million bits per second.
> 
> 
------
CryptologY|980798259
6a7,13
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> See also:
> 
> * DataEncryptionStandard
------
ChessyPig|980798298
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> More info on ChessyPig can be found on [http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~tsp/cgi-bin/triki.cgi/ChessyPig TrikiWiki], if anyone's really interested (although the info on there is pretty cryptic in itself).
------
CryptanalysiS|980798315
1c1
< CryptanalysiS (from the Greek kryptós and analýein, "to loosen" or "to untie") is the science (and art) of recovering information from ciphers without knowledge of the key. CryptologY is often--and mistakenly--considered a synonym for CryptographY and occasionally for CryptanalysiS, as in the popular solution of CryptogramS or CipherS, but specialists in the field have for years adopted the convention that CryptologY is the more inclusive term encompassing both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
---
> CryptanalysiS (from the Greek kryptós and analýein, "to loosen" or "to untie") is the science (and art) of recovering information from ciphers without knowledge of the key. CryptologY is often--and mistakenly--considered a synonym for CryptographY and occasionally for CryptanalysiS, as in the popular solution of CryptograM's or CipheR's, but specialists in the field have for years adopted the convention that CryptologY is the more inclusive term encompassing both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
------
WikiWikiWeb|980798614
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A web version of a WikiWiki. Also a dreadful pun, given that the initials are WWW, and such WikiWiki''''''s can be found mainly on the more famous WWW, the WorldWideWeb.
------
WikiSupremeCourt|980799220
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A mythical entity, rather like the UsenetCabal (TINC) and other such PatentNonsense. They decree what can and cannot be put on this WikiWiki, and probably reserve the right to summarily consign anything they see fit to 'BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense', or even destroy it completely. Such an organisation would destroy the whole democratic, co-operative spirit of a WikiWiki. (It would also stop idiots trashing things and so forth, but normal editors can put this right with decent diff functionality.)
------
IcelanD|980799405
1c1
< A european republic, positioned in the north of the Atlantic Ocean.
---
> A European republic, occupying an island on the north part of the AtlanticOcean.
3c3,9
< Religion is mostly christian, population around 280.000 and around 103.000 sq km of land.
---
> ReligioN is mostly christian.
> 
> 
> Population ca. 280.000. 
> 
> 
> Area: 103.000 sq km. 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980799711
5c5
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive Civil War.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the Civil War a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
---
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
7c7
< At the end of the 19th century, the United States engaged in an extremely one-sided war with Spain, and gained control of Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba.  The US also acquired the Philippines, however only after a very bloody three year war, in which GenocidE was first used to describe the killings of 600,000 Filipinos by armed forces of the United States.
---
> At the end of the 19th century, the United States engaged in an extremely one-sided war with Spain, and gained control of Guam, PuertoRico, and Cuba.  The US also acquired the Philippines, however only after a very bloody three year war, in which GenocidE was first used to describe the killings of 600,000 Filipinos by armed forces of the United States.
9c9
< In the 20th century, as the amount of uncontested land in NorthAmerica was settled, the USA was forced to engage in more traditional mechanisms for continuing their political and economic growth.  Empires previously had used the policy of ColonialisM as the basis for establishing and protecting their foreign economic interests.  Since the US had been originally been a colony of England, obviously it would be considered hypocritical for the US to be known as a colonial empire, and so thus the US's "New World Order" was established and maintained through much more subtle events and mechanisms, many of which are not well known.  There have been a number of "Police Actions" or "Limited Engagements" in various third world countries, used to topple governments working at odds with US interests.  
---
> In the 20th century, as the amount of uncontested land in NorthAmerica was settled, the USA was forced to engage in more traditional mechanisms for continuing their political and economic growth.  Empires previously had used the policy of ColonialisM as the basis for establishing and protecting their foreign economic interests.  Since the US had been originally been a colony of England, obviously it would be considered hypocritical for the US to be known as a colonial empire, and so thus the US's "NewWorldOrder" was established and maintained through much more subtle events and mechanisms, many of which are not well known.  There have been a number of "Police Actions" or "Limited Engagements" in various third world countries, used to topple governments working at odds with US interests.  
11c11
< Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of Poland by NaZi GermanY in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japan.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
---
> Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of PolanD by NaZi GermanY in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japanese.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
20a21
> ----
21a23
> I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales
------
LiteraryArt|980799820
2c2,4
< dfgsdfgdfgdfgsdfgs dfg sdfg sdfg
---
> dfgsdfgdfgdfgsdfgs dfg sdfg sdfg
> ----
> Uhhhhh...  Hmmmmm....
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980799843
0a1,3
> I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales
> ----
> 
21,23d23
< ----
< 
< I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales
------
CryptologY|980799958
13c13,15
< * DataEncryptionStandard
---
> * DataEncryptionStandard
> * EnigmA
> * UltrA
------
ChristianityTalk|980799987
18c18
< Go figure.
---
> Go figure.  -- AyeSpy
22c22
< The above is not to assign a value judgment one way or the other as to which type of system is "right" or even "best," but merely an observation from where I sit in the cheap seats...
---
> The above is not to assign a value judgment one way or the other as to which type of system is "right" or even "best," but merely an observation from where I sit in the cheap seats...-- AyeSpy
40c40
< -- BryceHarrington
---
> -- BryceHarrington
------
EnigmA|980800027
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> EnigmA was a device used by the German military command to encode strategic messages before and during World War II. The EnigmA CodE was broken by a British intelligence system known as UltrA.
------
LiteraryArt|980800172
4a5,7
> ----
> Well, if 'LiteraryArt' means something on the same level as some people take ExpressiveEnglish to mean (as in, half-a-pickled-cow-level), then I guess this page counts as a prime example. Otherwise, do we not have any English majors here?
> 
------
UltrA|980800257
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> UltrA was an Allied intelligence system that, in tapping the very highest-level communications among the German armed forces, as well as (after 1941) those of the Japanese armed forces, contributed to the Allied victory in World War II.
> 
> 
> In 1938 a Polish mechanic employed in a German factory producing secret signaling machines named EnigmA (which worked on the basis of a set of preset revolving drums) took notes of the components before being repatriated and, with the help of the British and French secret services, constructed a wooden mockup of the machine. A British cryptographer later smuggled a complete new EnigmA machine to EnglanD. There, British mathematicians and cryptographers conquered the problems of EnigmA variations and found means of cracking the CipheR's. Early in 1939 Britain's secret service set up the UltrA project at BletchleyPark, 50 miles (80 km) north of LondoN, for the purpose of intercepting the Germans' EnigmA signals and controlling the distribution of the resultant secret information. Strict rules were established to restrict the number of people who knew about the existence of the UltrA information and to ensure that no actions would alert the Axis powers that the Allies possessed knowledge of their plans.
> 
> 
> The incoming signals from the German war machine (more than 2,000 daily at the war's height) were of the highest level, even from AdolfHitler himself. Such information enabled the Allies to build up an accurate picture of enemy plans and orders of battle, forming the basis of war plans both strategic and tactical. UltrA intercepts of signals helped the Royal Air Force to win the Battle of Britain. Signals between AdolfHitler and General Günther von Kluge led to the destruction of a large part of the German forces in NormandY in 1944 after the Allied landing. In the Pacific the Germans had supplied their Japanese ally with an EnigmA machine as early as 1937; the modified Japanese version, called "Purple" by the Americans, was duplicated by the U.S. Signal Intelligence Service well before PearlHarbor. Resultant revelations of Japanese plans led to U.S. naval victories in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, crushing the offensive power of the Japanese fleet, and enabled American flyers to find and shoot down the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Japanese commander in the Pacific.
> 
> 
> For 29 years after the war the existence of UltrA remained an official British secret. The ban was not lifted until 1974, the year that a key participant in the UltrA project, Frederick William Winterbotham, published The UltrA Secret.
> 
> 
------
ExpressiveEnglish|980800268
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In the best light, English used well, often in a kind of descriptive sense.
> 
> In the worst light, s|<r1p7 k1dd353... or at least some people have been known to call it that.
------
UnitedStates|980800573
0a1,2
> The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
> 
5c7
< * HistoryOfUnitedStates
---
> * HistoryOfUnitedStates
------
LeiSure|980800696
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There are two main meanings to LeiSure:
> 
> LeisureSport: going to the gym, and so forth; the implication is that it's for fun rather than out of necessity.
> 
> LeisureLounging: The kind of 'reclining-in-the-sun' type leisure, which implies going to sleep or a near-sleep lounging state. This is the type that's so different from ReCreation, which implies actually doing something to stave off boredom during less active times.
------
TimShell|980800818
1c1
< TimShell is a founding partner of BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.
---
> TimShell is a founding partner of BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.  He sometimes writes about himself in the third person.
5c5
< And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
---
> And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
------
CountriesU|980801216
1a2
> Ukraine
------
CountriesU|980801236
1,2c1,2
< UnitedStates
< Ukraine
---
> UnitedStates<p>
> Ukraine
------
CountriesU|980801253
1c1,2
< UnitedStates<p>
---
> UnitedStates
> 
------
KurtCobain|980801297
1,2c1,3
< Lead singer of the grunge band NirvanaBand (together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic).
< He commited suicide in 1994 by shooting himself in the face with a shotgun.
---
> Kurt Donald Cobain (1967-1994).    
> 
> Lead singer of the grunge band Nirvana (NirvanaBand - together with DaveGrohl and ChrisNovoselic). He commited suicide in 1994 by shooting himself in the face with a shotgun.
------
AyeSpy|980801477
21c21
< Photos of plaintiff vehicle damages
---
> Photos of plaintiff and defendant vehicle damages
23c23
< Photos of defendant vehicle damages
---
> Photos/videography of client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities
25c25
< Photos of client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities
---
> Photos or micro-photography of physical evidence and of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
27,29c27
< Photos of scene, taken in a fashion so as to clarify liability or fact issues
< 
< Scale diagraming of accident scenes
---
> Photography and scale diagraming of scenes, to clarify liability or fact issues
31c29
< Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos, 
---
> Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos
33c31
< Obtaining of recorded witness statements, 
---
> Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
35c33
< Sitting in on (to observe and regulate) recorded statements of clients by insurance reps
---
> Secure, preserve and regulate access to accident vehicles as appropriate 
37,39c35
< Obtaining and preservation of physical evidence
< 	
< Inspection and analysis of physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:  failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
---
> Obtain, Inspect, analyze, and preserve physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:  failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
51,53c47
< Analysis of potential toxic exposure and causes for environmental illness
< 
< Analysis of compliance or lack thereof with safe animal restraint and handling practices
---
> Locate and interview witnesses, record witness statements. 
55c49
< Investigation of company compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws
---
> Sitting in on (to observe and regulate) recorded statements of clients by insurance reps
57c51
< nspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
---
> Analysis of potential toxic exposure and causes for environmental illness
59c53
< Photos of physical evidence
---
> Analysis of compliance or lack thereof with safe animal restraint and handling practices
61c55
< Micro-photography of evidence
---
> Investigation of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws
63c57
< Photos of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
---
> Inspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
69c63
< Videotape scenes, client activities, impairments, other evidence
---
> Videotape scenes, client activities, defendant activities, statements, other evidence
75,77c69
< Find and hire consulting and testifying experts
< 
< Liaise with and supervise consulting and testifying experts
---
> Find and hire consulting and testifying experts in all fields and liaison with same.
88,91d79
< 
< Secure, preserve and regulate access to accident vehicles as appropriate
< 
< Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
------
NirvanaBand|980801559
6,8c6,12
< Best known albums:
< * Nevermind
< * MtV unplugged
---
> Discography:
> * Bleach (1989)
> * Nevermind (1991)
> * Hormoaning(1992 - AustraliA and JapaN only)
> * Incesticide (1992)
> * In Utero (1993)
> * MtV Unplugged in New York (1994)
------
CountriesU|980801635
1c1
< UnitedStates
---
> * UnitedStates
3c3
< Ukraine
---
> * UkrainE
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|980801767
40c40
< The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibility exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear.
---
> The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibility exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear. -- AyeSpy
------
CommonSense|980801873
39c39
< It's only common sense.
---
> It's only common sense.  -- AyeSpy
------
EnglishLanguage|980801958
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee').
> 
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
------
AlTruism|980801961
20c20
< Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in general, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others.
---
> Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in general, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others. -- AyeSpy
------
PhiloSophy|980802057
8c8
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- GeorgeEMoore
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore
------
EnglishLanguage|980802201
1c1
< A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee').
---
> A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
3c3
< And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
---
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast|980802263
7c7
< People call this "having an open mind."
---
> People call this "having an open mind." -- AyeSpy
------
HelL|980802347
9c9
< An interesting read...
---
> An interesting read... -- AyeSpy
------
MonoTheism|980802373
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The belief in one GoD. ChristianIty, JudaIsm and IsLam are three famous examples of monotheistic religions. Note that the one GoD may have several aspects, such as the concept of the HolyTrinity in ChristianIty. Monotheistic religions have a tendancy to have strict sets of moral codes or laws (as they have a DivineLawgiver to provide them and justify them), often have a bias to one gender (due to the supposed gender of the GoD in question), and appear to have become more prevelant later in civilisations, when order is a GoodThing and explanations for random natural disasters are beginning to come from other sources than angry GoD''''''s.
------
LanguagE|980802449
18a19
> * PolishLanguage
21c22
< * IndoEuropean (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic, Celtic, Greek, etc.)
---
> * IndoEuropean (Germanic, Romantic, SlaviC, Celtic, Greek, etc.)
------
LeiSure|980802509
3c3
< LeisureSport: going to the gym, and so forth; the implication is that it's for fun rather than out of necessity.
---
> LeisureSport: going to the gym, and so forth; the implication is that it's for fun rather than out of necessity. SportS, in other words, but not as competetive.
------
PolishLanguage|980802598
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The PolishLanguage (together with Czech-Slovak, Upper and Lower Sorbian, and other Lekhitic languages) belongs to the West SlaviC branch of SlaviC languages. It has several dialects that correspond in the main to the old tribal divisions; the most significant of these (in terms of numbers of speakers) are Great Polish (spoken in the northwest), Little Polish (spoken in the southeast), Mazovian, and Silesian. Mazovian shares some features with Kashubian, whose remaining speakers (fewer than 200,000) live west of Gdansk near the BalticSea. Elsewhere, Polish has been influenced by contact with foreign languages. In Silesia the inimitable regional patois contains a mixture of Polish and German elements. Since 1945, as the result of mass education and mass migrations, standard Polish has become far more homogeneous, although regional dialects persist. In the western and northern territories, resettled in large measure by PoleS from the Soviet Union, the older generation came to speak a language characteristic of the former eastern provinces. Small numbers of people also speak Belarusian, Ukrainian, and German as well as several varieties of Romany.
> 
> 
------
SlaviC|980802773
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''see'' SlavicLanguages
------
SlavicLanguages|980803030
2a3,15
> 
> Also called Slavonic Languages, group of Indo-European languages spoken in most of eastern EuropE, much of the Balkans, parts of central EuropE, and the northern part of AsiA. The Slavic group of languages is most closely related to the languages of the Baltic group (Lithuanian, Latvian, and the now-extinct Old Prussian).
> 
> 
> Scholars divide the Slavic languages into three branches: (1) South Slavic, which is further split into Western and Eastern subgroups. The Western subgroup is composed of Slovene and Serbo-Croatian (present-day Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian), languages spoken in SloveniA, Bosnia and Herzegovina, YugoslaviA, and adjacent regions. The Eastern subgroup consists of Bulgarian in BulgariA and adjacent areas, and Macedonian in Macedonia and the adjacent part of GreecE. (2) West Slavic, which includes Czech in the CzechRepublic and Slovak in SlovakiA, Upper and Lower Sorbian in GermanY, and Lekhitic (Polish and related dialects). (3) East Slavic, including Russian, Ukrainian (Little Russian), and Belarusian (White Russian).
> 
> 
> The tripartite division of the Slavic languages does not take into account the spoken dialects of each language. Of these, certain so-called transitional dialects and hybrid dialects often bridge the gaps between different languages, showing similarities that are not apparent when Slavic literary (i.e., standard) languages are compared. There are, however, enough differences existing between the various Slavic dialects and languages to make communication between SlavS of different nationalities difficult, but not impossible. Within the individual SlavicLanguages, dialects may vary to a lesser degree, as in Russian, or to a much greater degree, as in Slovene. Modern mass communication, however, has helped to minimize variation in all the SlavicLanguages.
> 
> 
> SlavicLanguages descend from a dialect of Proto-Slavic, their parent language, which developed from a language that was also the ancestor of Proto-Baltic, the parent of the Baltic languages. It is believed that Proto-Balto-Slavic, this ancestral language, was spoken in the territories surrounding what is today known as Lithuania at some time after the Indo-European area had been separated into different dialect regions (c. 3000 BC).
> 
> 
19c32
< * RussianLanguage
---
> * RussianLanguage
------
SlavicPeoples|980803276
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in EuropE, residing chiefly in eastern and southeastern EuropE but extending also across northern AsiA to the Pacific Ocean. SlavicLanguages belong to the IndoEuropean family. Customarily Slavs are subdivided into east Slavs (chiefly Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians), west Slavs (chiefly PoleS, Czechs, Slovaks, and Wends, or Sorbs), and south Slavs (chiefly Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and Macedonians). Bulgarians, though of mixed origin like the Hungarians, speak a Slavic language and are often designated as south Slavs.
> 
> 
> In religion, the Slavs traditionally divided into two main groups: those associated with the Eastern Orthodox church (Russians, most Ukrainians, some Belarusians, Serbs, and Macedonians) and those associated with the Roman Catholic church (PoleS, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, some Ukrainians, and most Belarusians). The division is further marked by the use of the Cyrillic alphabet by the former (but including all Ukrainians and Belarusians) and the Latin alphabet by the latter. There are also many minority religious groups, such as Muslims, Protestants, and Jews.
> 
> 
> Prehistorically, the original habitat of the Slavs was AsiA, from which they migrated in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC to populate parts of eastern EuropE. Subsequently, these European lands of the Slavs were crossed or settled by many peoples forced by economic conditions to migrate. In the middle of the 1st millennium BC, Celtic tribes settled along the upper Oder River, and Germanic tribes settled on the lower VistulA and lower Oder rivers, usually without displacing the Slavs there. Finally, the movement westward of the Germans in the 5th and 6th centuries AD started the great migration of the Slavs, who proceeded in the Germans' wake westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line, southward into Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and the Balkans, and northward along the upper Dnieper River. When the migratory movements had ended, there appeared among the Slavs the first rudiments of state organizations, each headed by a prince with a treasury and defense force, and the beginning of class differentiation.
> 
> 
> In the centuries that followed, there developed scarcely any unity among the various Slavic peoples. The cultural and political life of the west Slavs was integrated into the general European pattern. They were influenced largely by philosophical, political, and economic changes in the West, such as feudalism, Humanism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French and Industrial revolutions. As their lands were invaded by Mongols and Turks, however, the Russians and Balkan Slavs remained for centuries without any close contact with the European community; they evolved a system of bureaucratic autocracy and militarism that tended to retard the development of urban middle classes and to prolong the conditions of serfdom. The state's supremacy over the individual tended to become more firmly rooted.
> 
> A faint kind of Slavic unity sometimes appeared. In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics. The various Slavic nationalities conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies were as often bitterly hostile toward other SlavicPeoples as they were friendly toward non-Slavs. Even political unions of the 20th century, such as that of YugoslaviA, were not always matched by feelings of ethnic or cultural accord; nor did the sharing of communism after World War II necessarily provide more than a high-level political and economic alliance.
> 
------
PolishLanguage|980803392
3a4,9
> ----
> See also:
> 
> * SlavicLanguages
> * SlavicPeoples
> * PolanD
------
PolanD|980803446
5c5
< Capital: Warsaw (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
---
> Capital: WarsaW (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
7c7
< Language spoken: Polish.
---
> Language spoken: Polish (''see'' PolishLanguage).
------
WarsaW|980803614
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> (Polish: ''Warszawa'').
> Capital of PolanD. The city, which is an autonomous administrative unit, is located in the east-central part of the country.
> 
> 
> WarsaW is notable among EuropE's capital cities not for its size, its age, or its beauty but for its indestructibility. It is a phoenix that has risen repeatedly from the ashes of war. Having suffered fearful damage during the Swedish and Prussian occupation of 1655-56, it was again assaulted in 1794, when the Russian army massacred the population of the right-bank suburb of Praga. In 1944, after the WarsaW Uprising failed, by Hitler's order the city was razed; the left-bank suburbs, controlled by the Germans, were emptied of their remaining population; and the buildings were systematically reduced to rubble by fire and dynamite. In 1945, however, the people of WarsaW, the Varsovians, returned, and the city resumed its role as the capital of Poland and the country's centre of social, political, economic, scientific, and cultural life. Many of the historic streets, buildings, and churches have been restored exactly according to their original forms.
> 
> 
> Since the second half of the 18th century, the emblem of WarsaW (originally a siren) has been a mermaid with sword and shield in hand, representing the creature who in legend led a prince to the site of Warsaw and ordered him to found the city. The city's motto is, appropriately, "Contemnit procellas" ("It defies the storms").
> 
> 
------
PolanD|980803937
1c1,3
< Poland is a medium sized country in Central Europe. It's neighbours are: GermanY, RussiA, LithuaniA, BelaruS, UkrainE, SlovakiA, and the CzechRepublic.
---
> Officially Republic of Poland, Polish ''Polska'', or ''Rzeczpospolita Polska'', country lying at the physical centre of the European continent, approximately between latitudes 49º and 55º N and longitudes 14º and 24º E. Except for its southern mountainous regions, the country consists almost entirely of lowlands within the North European Plain. The total area of PolanD is 120,728 square miles (312,685 square kilometres). Its capital is WarsaW (Warsawa).
> 
> Over the past millennium, the name Poland has been applied to a shifting territorial base. At one time, in the mid-1500s, PolanD was the largest state in Europe. At other times there was no Polish state at all. Its current frontiers, stretching for 2,198 miles (3,538 kilometres), were drawn in 1945. PolanD is bordered to the north by the BalticSea, to the northeast by RussiA and LithuaniA, and to the east by BelaruS and UkrainE. To the south the border follows the watershed of the Beskid, Carpathian, and Sudeten (Sudety) mountains, which separate PolanD from SlovakiA and the CzechRepublic, while to the west the border with GermanY is defined by the Neisse (Nysa Luzycka) and Oder (Odra) rivers.
3d4
< Population: ca. 40m PoleS.
5c6
< Capital: WarsaW (Warszawa), pop. ca. 2m.
---
> Population: ca. 40m PoleS.
------
PoleS|980804148
1a2,7
> 
> 
> Before World War II the Polish lands were noted for the richness and variety of their ethnic communities. In the provinces of Silesia, Pomerania, and Masuria (then in GermanY) there was a significant minority of Germans. In the southeast, Ukrainian settlements predominated in the regions east of Chelm and in the Carpathians east of Nowy Sacz. In all the towns and cities there were large concentrations of Yiddish-speaking Jews. The Polish ethnographic area stretched eastward: in LithuaniA, BelaruS, and western UkrainE, all of which had a mixed population, PoleS predominated not only in the cities but also in numerous rural districts. There were significant Polish minorities in Daugavpils (in LatviA), Minsk (in BelaruS), and Kiev (in UkrainE).
> 
> The war, however, killed vast numbers of people, precipitated massive migrations, and radically altered borders. As a consequence the population of PolanD became one of the most ethnically homogeneous in the world. Virtually all of PolanD's people claim Polish nationality, with Polish as their native tongue (''see'' PolishLanguage). Ukrainians, the largest minority group, are scattered in various northern districts. Lesser numbers of Belarusians and Lithuanians live in areas adjoining BelaruS and LithuaniA. The Jewish community, almost entirely Polonized, has been greatly reduced. In Silesia a significant segment of the population, of mixed Polish and German ancestry, tends to declare itself as Polish or German according to political circumstances.
> 
------
WarsaW|980804204
2c2
< Capital of PolanD. The city, which is an autonomous administrative unit, is located in the east-central part of the country.
---
> Capital of PolanD (pop. ca. 2 mil.). The city, which is an autonomous administrative unit, is located in the east-central part of the country.
------
PolanD|980805751
7a8,13
> 
> Form of Government: unitary multiparty republic with two legislative houses (Senate [100]; Diet [460])
> 
> 
> Monetary Unit: Zloty(PLN)=100 groszy; 1 USD=4.0 PLN (01/2001)
> 
------
PoleS|980805862
7a8,14
> 
> ----
> See also:
> 
> * SlavicPeoples
> * SlavicLanguages
> * PolishLanguage
------
BalticSea|980806006
6a7,11
> 
> 
> Contries with access to the BalticSea: SwedeN, NorwaY, DenmarK, GermanY, PolanD, RussiA, LithuaniA, LatviA, FinlanD.
> 
> 
------
BalticSea|980806024
9c9
< Contries with access to the BalticSea: SwedeN, NorwaY, DenmarK, GermanY, PolanD, RussiA, LithuaniA, LatviA, FinlanD.
---
> Contries with access to the BalticSea: SwedeN, NorwaY, DenmarK, GermanY, PolanD, RussiA, LithuaniA, LatviA, Estonia, FinlanD.
------
BalticSea|980806052
9c9
< Contries with access to the BalticSea: SwedeN, NorwaY, DenmarK, GermanY, PolanD, RussiA, LithuaniA, LatviA, Estonia, FinlanD.
---
> Contries with access to the BalticSea: SwedeN, NorwaY, DenmarK, GermanY, PolanD, RussiA, LithuaniA, LatviA, EstoniA, FinlanD.
------
ProgrammingLanguages|980806636
7a8
> * PhP
------
BeeR|980806969
1c1
< An alcoholic drink (typically 5-6% alcohol, about 3.5 to 4% in the US), which is consumed in large quantities by males and females of all ages (16 to 99+). Mostly drank at home, in pubs and at FootBall games.
---
> Any of a variety of alcoholic beverages produced by the fermentation of starchy material derived from grains or other plant sources.
3,4c3
< The effects of beer are many and varied. You may feel a little light-headed after consuming a pint or two, where after eight or nine pints, you may begin to a: fall asleep b: ThrowUp c: start a FiGht d: have CasualSex.
< The after effects of too much beer often include headache, a delicate tummy and an unending sense of ReGret.
---
> Known to the Egyptians, Babylonians, and probably to earlier civilizations, beer became the common beverage in northern climates not conducive to grape cultivation. Although BeeR and WinE are both fermented and undistilled, wine is made from basic materials rich in natural sugar, while beer is made from materials high in starch content. Starches must be converted to sugar before fermentation can occur.
6c5,11
< Some well known brands include:
---
> Most of the world's beers are made from malted barley and flavoured with hops. They may be produced by employing a bottom-fermenting yeast strain, which falls to the bottom of the container when fermentation is completed, or a top-fermenting strain, which releases carbon dioxide and rises to the surface, forming a head.
> 
> 
> Lager beers, preferred in the UnitedStates, are aged beers of German origin, taking their name from the German lagern ("to store"). Bottom-fermented, they are stored at a low temperature for several months, clearing, acquiring mellowness, and becoming charged with carbon dioxide. Most lagers are light in colour, with high carbonation, medium hop flavour, and alcohol content of 3-5 percent by volume. They include Pilsener, Dortmund, Munich, and California steam beer. Top-fermented beers, popular in Great Britain, include ale, stout, and a brew intermediate between the two, called porter. They have a sharper, more strongly hopped flavour than lagers and alcohol content ranging from 4 to 6.5 percent or more by volume.
> 
> 
> Beers made from raw materials other than barley include hundreds of local African drinks made from millet, sorghum, and other available starch crops; Russian kvass, made from fermented rye bread; Chinese samshu, Korean suk, and Japanese sake, all brewed from rice; and pulque, an indigenous Mexican beer made from the fermented sap of the agave plant. The Mexicans and the Japanese also brew and export several brands of Western-style beer.
------
MonoTheism|980807363
1c1
< The belief in one GoD. ChristianIty, JudaIsm and IsLam are three famous examples of monotheistic religions. Note that the one GoD may have several aspects, such as the concept of the HolyTrinity in ChristianIty. Monotheistic religions have a tendancy to have strict sets of moral codes or laws (as they have a DivineLawgiver to provide them and justify them), often have a bias to one gender (due to the supposed gender of the GoD in question), and appear to have become more prevelant later in civilisations, when order is a GoodThing and explanations for random natural disasters are beginning to come from other sources than angry GoD''''''s.
---
> The belief in one GoD. ChristianIty, JudaIsm and IsLam are three famous examples of monotheistic religions. Note that the one GoD may have several aspects, such as the concept of the HolyTrinity in ChristianIty. Monotheistic religions have a tendency to have strict sets of moral codes or laws (as they have a DivineLawgiver to provide them and justify them), often have a bias to one gender (due to the supposed gender of the GoD in question), and appear to have become more prevalent later in civilisations, when order is a GoodThing and explanations for random natural disasters are beginning to come from other sources than angry GoD''''''s.
------
EnglishLanguage|980807478
1c1
< A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
---
> The language spoken in the U.K., Ireland, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and sundry other places, and a second language for most Europeans and many in the rest of the world.
3c3
< And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
---
> ''Earlier contents of this page removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|980807564
59d58
< 
61d59
< 
62a61,66
> ----
> From EnglishLanguage:
> 
> A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
> 
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980807595
3c3
< So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, etc.
---
> So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, et cetera.
------
EnglishLanguage|980807599
3c3
< ''Earlier contents of this page removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.
---
> ''Earlier contents of this page removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.''
------
BrakemaN|980807661
3c3
< DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
---
> DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  When she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
------
LiteraryArt|980807818
1,7c1
< Describe the new page here.
< dfgsdfgdfgdfgsdfgs dfg sdfg sdfg
< ----
< Uhhhhh...  Hmmmmm....
< ----
< Well, if 'LiteraryArt' means something on the same level as some people take ExpressiveEnglish to mean (as in, half-a-pickled-cow-level), then I guess this page counts as a prime example. Otherwise, do we not have any English majors here?
< 
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetRy -- DraMa -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein -- StrangerInAStrangeLand
------
WikiSupremeCourt|980808357
1c1,3
< A mythical entity, rather like the UsenetCabal (TINC) and other such PatentNonsense. They decree what can and cannot be put on this WikiWiki, and probably reserve the right to summarily consign anything they see fit to 'BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense', or even destroy it completely. Such an organisation would destroy the whole democratic, co-operative spirit of a WikiWiki. (It would also stop idiots trashing things and so forth, but normal editors can put this right with decent diff functionality.)
---
> A mythical entity, rather like the UsenetCabal (TINC) and other such PatentNonsense.  They decree what can and cannot be put on this WikiWiki, and probably reserve the right to summarily consign anything they see fit to 'BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense', or even destroy it completely.  Such an organisation would destroy the whole democratic, co-operative spirit of a WikiWiki.  (It would also stop idiots trashing things and so forth, but normal editors can put this right with decent diff functionality.)
> ----
> Anyone can put stuff onto BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense, and anyone can take it from that page.  There are no wiki "editors."  By the very nature of a wiki, there can't be a "WikiSupremeCourt"--just a lot of concerned citizens, most of whom want to see actual useful content on this particular wiki.  That's why they do make use of that page o' censorship.  If you don't like it, find another wiki! -- LarrySanger
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980809747
1a2,6
> 
> ''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''
> 
> ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.'' --JoshuaGrosse
> 
------
EnglishLanguage|980810132
3c3,5
< ''Earlier contents of this page removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.''
---
> English descends from the language spoken by the Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain at the beginning of the MiddleAges, usually referred to as OldEnglish.  It has had large amount of influence from OldNorse and, thanks to the NormanConquest which gave England a French nobility, the FrenchLanguage.  This fundamentally transformed its character.  English has continued to amalglamate foreign words, especially Latin and Greek, to the present.
> 
> ''Earlier contents of this page removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.''
------
WojPob|980810192
8d7
< 
------
WojPob|980810345
7c7
< 
---
> ''Brief question - I couldn't help but notice on the (very nice) stuff you put up about Polish and other Slavic tongues, that you say they separated out around 3000 BC (I checked on Britannica and it agrees with you, just in case).  However most of the source's I've seen have the various other IndoEuropean groups separate out a millenium later, e.g. Celtic, Greek.  Would you happen to know why these are so different?''
------
CountriesZ|980812393
1a2
> Zimbabwae
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980812426
5c5
< ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.'' --JoshuaGrosse
---
> ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary. --JoshuaGrosse''
9c9
< The United States were founded from 13 colonies established in NorthAmerica by the BritishEmpire.
---
> The United States were founded from 13 colonies established in NorthAmerica by the BritishEmpire.  In 1773 frustration with various British practices led to revolt and independence.  In a second war, America tried but failed to expel the British from the continent (1812-4) and the two powers stalemated.
------
CountriesZ|980812453
2c2,3
< Zimbabwae
---
> 
> Zimbabwe
------
CountriesZ|980812476
2,3c2
< 
< Zimbabwe
---
> ZimbabwE
------
CountriesZ|980812485
1c1
< ZairE
---
> ZairE<br>
------
CountriesZ|980812496
1c1,2
< ZairE<br>
---
> ZairE
> 
------
UnitedStates|980812710
2a3,4
> ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
> 
------
SlaviC|980813528
1c1
< ''see'' SlavicLanguages
---
> ''see'' SlavicLanguages, SlavicPeoples
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980813560
19c19
< Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of PolanD by NaZi GermanY in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japanese.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
---
> Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of PolanD by the SovietUnion and NaziGermany in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japanese.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980813795
24a25,26
> In the meantime, the American people enjoy unprecedented economic prosperity and remain among the most free in the world and in history.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move to America from around the world to improve their lives.
> 
------
WikiSupremeCourt|980813817
3c3,5
< Anyone can put stuff onto BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense, and anyone can take it from that page.  There are no wiki "editors."  By the very nature of a wiki, there can't be a "WikiSupremeCourt"--just a lot of concerned citizens, most of whom want to see actual useful content on this particular wiki.  That's why they do make use of that page o' censorship.  If you don't like it, find another wiki! -- LarrySanger
---
> Anyone can put stuff onto BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense, and anyone can take it from that page.  There are no wiki "editors."  By the very nature of a wiki, there can't be a "WikiSupremeCourt"--just a lot of concerned citizens, most of whom want to see actual useful content on this particular wiki.  That's why they do make use of that page o' censorship.  If you don't like it, find another wiki! -- LarrySanger
> 
> In short, this organization is far from mythical.  In fact, I would estimate that over 99% of WikiPedians belong to it. -JG
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980813946
13c13
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
---
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to that statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980813967
13c13
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to that statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
---
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to the previous statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980814226
13c13
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to the previous statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  
---
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to the previous statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  Nonetheless, black people from the WestIndies and AfricA immigrate to the UnitedStates at a rate of over 100,000 per year, while very few black Americans leave for the WestIndies or Africa.
------
AfricanAmericanPeople|980814570
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A term used to describe American's whose modern ancestors came from Sub-Saharan Africa.
> 
> The term has been adopted in the UnitedStates since the 1970s as the PoliticallyCorrect term for black Americans.  The term is logically suspect, however, in that it attempts to define a race both in terms of race and citizenship.  To illustrate the problem:
> 
> What race is WalterWilliams?  African-American.
> Is WalterWilliams the same race as DesmondTutu? Yes.
> Is DesmondTutu African-American?  No.
> 
------
AfricanAmericanPeople|980814587
5,7c5,7
< What race is WalterWilliams?  African-American.
< Is WalterWilliams the same race as DesmondTutu? Yes.
< Is DesmondTutu African-American?  No.
---
>  What race is WalterWilliams?  African-American.
>  Is WalterWilliams the same race as DesmondTutu? Yes.
>  Is DesmondTutu African-American?  No.
------
AfricanAmericanPeople|980814671
1c1
< A term used to describe American's whose modern ancestors came from Sub-Saharan Africa.
---
> A term used to describe American citizens whose modern ancestors came from Sub-Saharan Africa.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980814743
5c5,7
< ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary. --JoshuaGrosse''
---
> ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''
> 
> ''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''
------
WalterWilliams|980814964
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An American economist associated with GeorgeMasonUniversity.  Williams is known for his outspoken libertarian and sometimes conservative views.  He is a popular columnist and author of books aimed at a general audience.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980815181
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We don't want the HistoryOfUnitedStates to be a large pile of pro-American propaganda, like virtually all histories of that country are.  However, we also don't want it to be a large pile of ''anti''-American propaganda.  So I think we should carefully discuss each controversial point that comes up before writing about it.
> 
> '''The American civil war'''
> 
> Bryce stated that this was not so much about racial issues as economic issues, and Tim disagreed therewith.  Which of these points, exactly, are you disagreeing with?  If it's the racial one - wasn't the north willing to reverse it's stance on that particular issue?  Not being American, I don't really know...
------
DesmondTutu|980815218
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A SouthAfrican peace activist who rose to worldwide fame through his opposition to ApartheiD.  He was the first black Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, and the winner of the 1984 NobelPeacePrize.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980815277
5c5,9
< Bryce stated that this was not so much about racial issues as economic issues, and Tim disagreed therewith.  Which of these points, exactly, are you disagreeing with?  If it's the racial one - wasn't the north willing to reverse it's stance on that particular issue?  Not being American, I don't really know...
---
> Bryce stated that this was not so much about racial issues as economic issues, and Tim disagreed therewith.  Which of these points, exactly, are you disagreeing with?  If it's the racial one - wasn't the north willing to reverse it's stance on that particular issue?  Not being American, I don't really know...
> 
> '''WWII'''
> 
> I'm not sure why it's so important to mention the SovietUnion invading PolanD, since that had nothing to with the causes of the war.  Inasmuchas the allies never went to war with them.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980815415
1,10d0
< I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales
< 
< ''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''
< 
< ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''
< 
< ''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''
< 
< ----
< 
32a23
> See HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk for discussion of the above article (or possibly an earlier version of the above article).
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980815448
6a7,8
> The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false.  The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined.  So I have to challenge that point.  Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here.
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980815480
7c7
< The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false.  The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined.  So I have to challenge that point.  Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here.
---
> The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false.  The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined.  So I have to challenge that point.  Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here. - Tim
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980815498
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales
> 
> ''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''
> 
> ''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''
> 
> ''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''
> 
> ----
> 
> Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.
> 
> By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980815555
23c23
< See HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk for discussion of the above article (or possibly an earlier version of the above article).
---
> See HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion and HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk for discussion of the above article (or possibly an earlier version of the above article).
------
DesmondTutu|980815581
1c1
< A SouthAfrican peace activist who rose to worldwide fame through his opposition to ApartheiD.  He was the first black Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, and the winner of the 1984 NobelPeacePrize.
---
> A SouthAfrican peace activist who rose to worldwide fame in the 1980s through his opposition to ApartheiD.  He was the first black Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, and the winner of the 1984 NobelPeacePrize.
------
UnitedStates|980815807
4a5,7
> - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
> 
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980815832
13c13,15
< By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> 
> ''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''
------
WojPob|980815847
1c1
< Wojtek Pobratyn.
---
> Wojtek (pronounced voytech - ''rhymes with hitech:-) Pobratyn.
7c7
< ''Brief question - I couldn't help but notice on the (very nice) stuff you put up about Polish and other Slavic tongues, that you say they separated out around 3000 BC (I checked on Britannica and it agrees with you, just in case).  However most of the source's I've seen have the various other IndoEuropean groups separate out a millenium later, e.g. Celtic, Greek.  Would you happen to know why these are so different?''
---
> ''Brief question - I couldn't help but notice on the (very nice) stuff you put up about Polish and other Slavic tongues, that you say they separated out around 3000 BC (I checked on Britannica and it agrees with you, just in case).  However most of the source's I've seen have the various other IndoEuropean groups separate out a millenium later, e.g. Celtic, Greek.  Would you happen to know why these are so different?''
------
WojPob|980815867
1c1
< Wojtek (pronounced voytech - ''rhymes with hitech:-) Pobratyn.
---
> Wojtek (pronounced voytech - ''rhymes with hitech:-)'' Pobratyn.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980816101
11a12,13
> ----
> The invasion might be worth mentioning as it was a direct consequence of the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which Hitler kept until invading the SovietUnion in 1942 (OperationBarbarossa) - WojPob
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980816272
13c13
< The invasion might be worth mentioning as it was a direct consequence of the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which Hitler kept until invading the SovietUnion in 1942 (OperationBarbarossa) - WojPob
---
> The invasion might be worth mentioning as it was a direct consequence of the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which Hitler kept until invading the SovietUnion in 1942 (OperationBarbarossa) - WojPob (GermanY invaded on Sept. 1st and the SovietUnion on Sept. 17th 1939 - ''BTW'')
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980816870
12c12
< ----
---
> 
13a14,16
> 
> ...Please note I'm not saying it's not worth mentioning altogether.  For a discussion of WWII, one could scarce leave it out.  I just don't think that the details of how the war started are particularly relevant to the history of the US, except in so far as to give them a just ''casus belli''.
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980817009
16a17,18
> ----
> There is also some stuff left on [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnitedStatesOfAmerica Ward's wiki] that probably wouldn't hurt to consider.
------
DanCe|980817183
3c3
< BallroomDance -- JazzDance -- ModernDance -- FolkDance -- BalletDance -- SquareDance -- TapDance
---
> BallroomDance -- SwingDance -- JazzDance -- ModernDance -- FolkDance -- BalletDance -- SquareDance -- TapDance
------
AdolfHitler|980817285
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AdolfHitler was born on April 20th 1889 in Braunau am Inn, a small town in the state of Upper AustriA (''Oberoesterreich'') on the Austro/German border.
> 
> 
> He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the National Socialist (NazI) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
> assumed the twin titles of Führer and chancellor (Aug. 2, 1934). 
> 
> 
> Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate and for a time bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf never used any other name,and d the name Schicklgruber was revived only by his political opponents in Germany and Austria in the 1930s.
> 
> 
> AdolfHitler commited suicide together with his lady friend EvaBraun on April 30th 1945 in his HQ in Berlin (GermanY). He appointed Admiral Doenitz as the next Führer.
------
AdolfHitler|980817320
4c4
< He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the National Socialist (NazI) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
---
> He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the National Socialist (NaZi) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
11c11
< AdolfHitler commited suicide together with his lady friend EvaBraun on April 30th 1945 in his HQ in Berlin (GermanY). He appointed Admiral Doenitz as the next Führer.
---
> AdolfHitler commited suicide together with his lady friend EvaBraun on April 30th 1945 in his HQ in Berlin (GermanY). He appointed Admiral Doenitz as the next Führer.
------
AdolfHitler|980817342
4c4
< He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the National Socialist (NaZi) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
---
> He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the NationalSocialist (NaZi) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
------
AdolfHitler|980817424
4,5c4
< He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader'') leader of the NationalSocialist (NaZi) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). He was officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death,
< assumed the twin titles of Führer and chancellor (Aug. 2, 1934). 
---
> He used the byname Der Führer (''German: The Leader''). He was the leader of the NationalSocialist (NaZi) Party (from 1920/21) and dictator of GermanY (1933-45). Officially chancellor (Kanzler) from Jan. 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death, he assumed the twin titles of Führer and chancellor (Aug. 2, 1934). 
------
AdolfHitler|980817611
7c7
< Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate and for a time bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf never used any other name,and d the name Schicklgruber was revived only by his political opponents in Germany and Austria in the 1930s.
---
> Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate and for a time bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf never used any other name, and the name Schicklgruber was revived only by his political opponents in GermanY and AustriA in the 1930s.
------
SeT|980817703
4c4
< Sn belongs to '''S'''. 
---
> Sn belongs to '''S'''.---- 
6c6,10
< '''What, there are no recursively enumerable sets?'''
---
> '''What, there are no recursively enumerable sets?'''
> ----
> 
> I am not ignoring this question, I simply don't have time at the moment. Please be patient.
> RoseParks
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|980817933
3c3
< :PhilosophyOfMath
---
> :PhilosophyOfMath -- FermatsLastTheorem
------
FermatsLastTheorem|980818079
1c1,32
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FermatsLastTheorem (also called Fermat' Great Theorem)states that there are no natural numbers x, y, and z such that x^n + y^n = z^n, in which n is a natural number greater than  2. About this the 17th-century mathematician PierreFermat wrote in 1637 in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of Diophantus' Arithmetica, "I have discovered a  truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it." Mathematicians long
> were baffled by the statement, for they were unable either to prove or to disprove it, although the statement had been proved for many specific values of n.
> 
> Using sophisticated tools from algebraic geometry, the English mathematician AndrewWiles, with help from his former student, Richard Taylor, devised a proof of FermatsLastTheorem that was published in 1995 in the journal Annals of Mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                          Tools
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                           E-mail this article
> 
>                                                                           Print this article
>                                                                           
> 
>                                                                          More About This Topic
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                           Article
> 
> 
>                                                                           Index Entry
> 
> 
>                                                                           Internet Links
>                                                                           
> 
> 
> 
------
FermatsLastTheorem|980818096
9,31c9
<                                                                          Tools
< 
< 
< 
<                                                                           E-mail this article
< 
<                                                                           Print this article
<                                                                           
< 
<                                                                          More About This Topic
< 
< 
< 
<                                                                           Article
< 
< 
<                                                                           Index Entry
< 
< 
<                                                                           Internet Links
<                                                                           
< 
< 
---
>                                                                          
------
FermatsLastTheorem|980818140
1c1,6
< FermatsLastTheorem (also called Fermat' Great Theorem)states that there are no natural numbers x, y, and z such that x^n + y^n = z^n, in which n is a natural number greater than  2. About this the 17th-century mathematician PierreFermat wrote in 1637 in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of Diophantus' Arithmetica, "I have discovered a  truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it." Mathematicians long
---
> FermatsLastTheorem (also called Fermat' Great Theorem)states that there are no natural numbers x, y, and z such that
> 
> : x^n + y^n = z^n
> 
> 
> in which n is a natural number greater than  2. About this the 17th-century mathematician PierreFermat wrote in 1637 in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of Diophantus' Arithmetica, "I have discovered a  truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it." Mathematicians long
------
SwingDance|980818218
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> While BallroomDance includes most of the swing dances popular
> today, the swing and ballroom dance cultures are distinct.
> Club-style swing dancers often find ballroom dancers inexpressive and too worried about technique.  Conversely, ballroom dancers may get frustrated when a swing dancer doesn't lead a step "correctly", or when they hold a figure several counts extra to match a break in the music.  These, of course, are BroadGeneralizations.
> 
> 
> Popular swing dances include:
> 
> LindyHop -- Charleston -- EastCoastSwing (aka TripleSwing and StreetSwing)
> 
> CountrySwing is yet another division of swing with a largely distinct culture.
------
BalticSea|980818328
1c1
< Sea with BrackishWater between ScandinaviA and BalticA.
---
> Sea in Northern Europe with BrackishWater between ScandinaviA and BalticA.
------
CryptographY|980818544
8a9,13
> ----
> Further Reading:
> 
> * Schneier, Bruce - ''Aplied Cryptography''
> * Schneier, Bruce - ''Secrets and Lies''
------
CryptologY|980818807
15c15,16
< * UltrA
---
> * UltrA
> * OneTimePads
------
GeorgeMasonUniversity|980819055
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A university in the state of VirginiA with campuses in ArlingtonVA, FairfaxVA, and PrinceWilliamVA.
> 
> George Mason University traces its roots back to the 1950s when it was part of the University of Virginia system.  It became an independent university in 1972.  It's faculty boasts NobelPrize winning economist JamesMBuchanan.
> 
> The University's web site is at (http://www.gmu.edu/, http://www.gmu.edu/).
------
GeorgeMasonUniversity|980819075
5c5
< The University's web site is at (http://www.gmu.edu/, http://www.gmu.edu/).
---
> The University's web site is at http://www.gmu.edu/ .
------
JohannSebastianBach|980819397
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Johann Sebastian Bach was a classical composer who lived from 1685 thru 1750.  He is generally ranked among history's greatest composers. 
------
JohannSebastianBach|980819455
1c1,5
< Johann Sebastian Bach was a classical composer who lived from 1685 thru 1750.  He is generally ranked among history's greatest composers. 
---
> Johann Sebastian Bach was a classical composer who lived from 1685 thru 1750.  He is generally ranked among history's greatest composers.
> 
> */Biography
> */Compositions
> */Recordings
------
OneTimePads|980819528
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> OneTimePads are the simplest of all algorithms, and were invented early in the 20th century. The basic idea is that you have a pad of key letters. You then add one key letter to one plain text letter, and never repeat the key letters (eg. T(20) to L(12) in order to get F(6) - 20 + 12 = 6 mod 26). The system works with any given alphabet, including the binary one. It is probably the only provably secure algorithm available.
> 
> 
> It is also quite useless. The key has to be as long as the message. Mordern CryptographY encrypts large things (eg. Digital Movies, Internet Connections, Telephone Conversations, etc.) - dealing with OneTimePads of such a size is simply impracticable.
> 
> 
> OneTimePads have been used in specialised circumstances. KGB spies used pencil and paper OneTimePads to communicate. The NSA broke the system because the spies used the OneTimePads more than once[sic!].
------
OneTimePads|980819574
1c1
< OneTimePads are the simplest of all algorithms, and were invented early in the 20th century. The basic idea is that you have a pad of key letters. You then add one key letter to one plain text letter, and never repeat the key letters (eg. T(20) to L(12) in order to get F(6) - 20 + 12 = 6 mod 26). The system works with any given alphabet, including the binary one. It is probably the only provably secure algorithm available.
---
> OneTimePads are the simplest of all algorithms, and were invented in the early 20th century. The basic idea is that you have a pad of key letters. You then add one key letter to one plain text letter, and never repeat the key letters (eg. T(20) to L(12) in order to get F(6) - 20 + 12 = 6 mod 26). The system works with any given alphabet, including the binary one. It is probably the only provably secure algorithm available.
------
IndoEuropean|980819721
27c27
<    a^  e^  i^  o^? u^?                  Long vowels
---
>    â   ê   î   ô?  û?                   Long vowels
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980819760
15a16,18
> 
> -----
> Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980819853
30c30,33
< Of course you're not.  As I said, I have copious amounts of free time on my hands.  What exactly would that involve?  (Btw, I suspect liking AbstractAlgebra best is almost as rare as math-linguistics - virtually everyone I know is an analysis fan).
---
> Of course you're not.  As I said, I have copious amounts of free time on my hands.  What exactly would that involve?  (Btw, I suspect liking AbstractAlgebra best is almost as rare as math-linguistics - virtually everyone I know is an analysis fan).
> ----
> 
> ''I'll check up on those dates about SlavicLanguages in a few Polish sources. This might take a while though.'' - WojPob
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980820230
0a1,21
> * Periods of United States history
> /ColonialAmerica
> /TheAmericanRevolution
> /EarlyHistory
> /TheAmericanCivilWar
> /TheIndustrialAge
> /TheGreatDepression
> /WorldWarTwo
> /TheColdWar
> /TheSuperpower
> 
> * Important topics in United States history
> /ConstitutionalDemocracy
> /WestwardExpansion
> /Slavery
> /IndustrialRevolution
> /Immigration
> /Imperialism
> /EconomicGrowth
> 
> -----
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980820250
2a3
> 
3a5
> 
4a7
> 
5a9
> 
6a11
> 
7a13
> 
8a15
> 
9a17
> 
13a22
> 
14a24
> 
15a26
> 
16a28
> 
17a30
> 
18a32
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980820295
18c18
< /TheSuperpower
---
> /TheLoneSuperpower
------
LindyHop|980820300
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Lindy Hop developed in the Savoy ballroom in Harlem.  
> 
> The two major styles of Lindy danced today are SavoyStyleLindyHop
> and HollywoodStyleLindyHop.
> 
> The basic step is called the Lindy Circle.  It takes 8 counts to complete, and involves the dancers making a complete circle 
> around each other.
> 
------
MetallicA|980820372
1c1
< One of the greatest Metal bands ever©
---
> One of the greatest Metal bands ever
5c5
< Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra©
---
> Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra
14c14
< * JamesHetfield, throat, guitar©
---
> * JamesHetfield, throat, guitar
------
CryptologY|980820384
16c16,17
< * OneTimePads
---
> * OneTimePads
> * PrettyGoodPrivacy
------
ComputerSoftware|980820436
5c5
< ** EncryptionSoftware
---
> ** CryptographY
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980821282
40c40
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  This was done more for the purpose of undermining the Confederate economy than any desire to eliminate class and racial distinctions in the US; indeed, following the CivilWar a number of harsh repressive laws were put into effect to control and limit these people.  (Note: probably fewer than 10% of historians would agree to the previous statement).  These laws have vanished, but some believe the sentiments and practices still exist in many areas of the US.  Nonetheless, black people from the WestIndies and AfricA immigrate to the UnitedStates at a rate of over 100,000 per year, while very few black Americans leave for the WestIndies or Africa.
---
> In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  Some harsh repressive laws were put into place to control and limit these people, which have been repealed, and though some such sentiments linger America remains a popular destination for immigrants.
52c52
< In the meantime, the American people enjoy unprecedented economic prosperity and remain among the most free in the world and in history.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move to America from around the world to improve their lives.
---
> In the meantime, the American country enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity and its people remain among the most free in the world and in history.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move to America from around the world to improve their lives.
------
AtlasShrugged/FifthAvenue|980821847
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A street in downtown New York.  In /SectionN111 EddieWillers walks down Fifth Avenue on his way to the Taggart Transcontinental building.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980821865
18a19,20
> 
> ''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So I think the page should still be kept as summary first, subtopics second.''
------
AtlasShrugged/FifthAvenue|980821897
1c1
< A street in downtown New York.  In /SectionN111 EddieWillers walks down Fifth Avenue on his way to the Taggart Transcontinental building.
---
> A street in downtown New York.  In /SectionN111 /SectioN111 EddieWillers walks down Fifth Avenue on his way to the Taggart Transcontinental building.
------
AtlasShrugged/FifthAvenue|980821919
1c1
< A street in downtown New York.  In /SectionN111 /SectioN111 EddieWillers walks down Fifth Avenue on his way to the Taggart Transcontinental building.
---
> A street in downtown New York.  In /SectioN111 EddieWillers walks down Fifth Avenue on his way to the Taggart Transcontinental building.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewYork|980822028
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The home of Taggart Transcontinental and the scene of much of the action in AtlasShrugged.  New York is treated as the cultural and intellectual center of the /UnitedStates.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980822091
20c20,22
< ''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So I think the page should still be kept as summary first, subtopics second.''
---
> ''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.''
> 
> ''A second point is that many of the categories listed are not specifically parts of American history.  Last I checked, there were many other participants in the second world war.  So the page should be changed to something like AmericaDuringTheSecondWorldWar, but that's kind of cumbersome.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.'' -- JG
------
AtlasShrugged/NewYork|980822094
1c1,6
< The home of Taggart Transcontinental and the scene of much of the action in AtlasShrugged.  New York is treated as the cultural and intellectual center of the /UnitedStates.
---
> The home of Taggart Transcontinental and the scene of much of the action in AtlasShrugged.  New York is treated as the cultural and intellectual center of the /UnitedStates.
> 
> It appears in:
> - /SectioN111
> - /SectioN113
> - /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/NewYork|980822111
4,6c4,6
< - /SectioN111
< - /SectioN113
< - /SectioN114
---
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN113
>  - /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980822141
21c21
< /FifthAvenue (/SectioN111)
---
> /FifthAvenue
35c35
< /NewYork (/SectioN111, /SectioN113, /SectioN114)
---
> /NewYork
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980822260
20c20
< ''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.''
---
> ''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''
22c22
< ''A second point is that many of the categories listed are not specifically parts of American history.  Last I checked, there were many other participants in the second world war.  So the page should be changed to something like AmericaDuringTheSecondWorldWar, but that's kind of cumbersome.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.'' -- JG
---
> ''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG
------
AtlasShrugged/HudsonRiver|980822274
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /DagnyTaggart's childhood home was located in the hills overlooking The Hudson River.
>  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980822304
23c23
< /HudsonRiver (/SectioN111)
---
> /HudsonRiver
------
AtlasShrugged/CheyenneWyoming|980822381
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The northern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/ElPasoTexas|980822462
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The southern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
FederalisM|980822478
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It was futile.
------
AtlasShrugged/ElPasoTexas|980822482
1c1
< The southern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
> El Paso, texas is the southern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/CheyenneWyoming|980822504
1c1
< The northern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
> Cheyenne, Wyoming is the northern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980822523
17c17
< /CheyenneWyoming (/SectioN111)
---
> /CheyenneWyoming
19c19
< /ElPasoTexas (/SectioN111)
---
> /ElPasoTexas
------
AtlasShrugged/SanFrancisco|980822573
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> San Francisco is the western terminus of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980822599
43c43
< /SanFrancisco (/SectioN111)
---
> /SanFrancisco
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|980822768
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Colorado is the home of /WyattOil and the state with the most vigorous economy in the beginning of AtlasShrugged.  It is served by /TaggartTranscontinetal's collapsing /RioNorteLine.
> 
> Mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|980822792
1c1
< Colorado is the home of /WyattOil and the state with the most vigorous economy in the beginning of AtlasShrugged.  It is served by /TaggartTranscontinetal's collapsing /RioNorteLine.
---
> Colorado is the home of /WyattOil and the state with the most vigorous economy in the beginning of AtlasShrugged.  It is served by /TaggartTranscontinental's collapsing /RioNorteLine.
------
AtlasShrugged/Arizona|980822895
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Arizona is a state where the /PhoneixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewMexico|980822936
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> New Mexico is a state where the /PhoneixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine. It is mentioned in /SectioN111. 
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980822975
5c5
< /Arizona (/SectioN111)
---
> /Arizona
15c15
< /Colorado (/SectioN111, /SectioN114)
---
> /Colorado
33c33
< /NewMexico (/SectioN111)
---
> /NewMexico
------
AtlasShrugged/MexicoPeoplesStateof|980823237
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Mexico, formally the People's State of Mexico, is a poor, corrupt third-world nation.  It is the home of the /SanSebastianMines and of /TaggartTranscontinental's /SanSebastianLine.  After millions of investment dollars are poured into these projects, they are nationalized by the Mexican government.
> 
> Mexico is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN131
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980823268
27c27
< /MexicoPeoplesStateof (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
---
> /MexicoPeoplesStateof
------
AtlasShrugged/Chicago|980823377
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /DagnyTaggart passes through Chicago while returning from an inspection of the /RioNorteLine in /SectioN112.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980823398
9c9
< /Chicago (/SectioN112)
---
> /Chicago
------
AtlasShrugged/Cleveland|980823545
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /DagnyTaggart got of her train at Cleveland while returning from an inspection of the /RioNorteLine in /SectioN112.  She phoned /HankRearden and placed the first order of /ReardenMetal.
> 
> Cleveland is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/Cleveland|980823556
1c1
< /DagnyTaggart got of her train at Cleveland while returning from an inspection of the /RioNorteLine in /SectioN112.  She phoned /HankRearden and placed the first order of /ReardenMetal.
---
> /DagnyTaggart got off her train at Cleveland while returning from an inspection of the /RioNorteLine in /SectioN112.  She phoned /HankRearden and placed the first order of /ReardenMetal.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980823590
13c13
< /Cleveland (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
---
> /Cleveland
------
AtlasShrugged/Ohio|980823736
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN112 /DagnyTaggart decides to appoint /OwenKellogg the new head of /TaggartTranscontinental's Ohio Division.
> 
> Ohio is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN112
>  - /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental|980823835
1c1
< The railroad run by Dagny Taggart.
---
> The railroad run by /DagnyTaggart.  Her committment to the railroad creates one of the book's major /Conflicts.
------
AtlasShrugged|980823877
14a15
> * AtlasShrugged/Conflicts
16a18
> * AtlasShrugged/Symbolism
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980823905
37c37
< /Ohio (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
---
> /Ohio
------
AtlasShrugged/Philadelphia|980824034
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Philadelphia is the home of /HankRearden and /ReardenSteel.
> 
> Philadelphia is mentioned in:
> 
>  - /SectioN114 - /DagnyTaggart says she is going to Philadelphia to meet /HankRearden.
>  - /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980824066
39c39
< /Philadelphia (/SectioN114, /SectioN121)
---
> /Philadelphia
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980824190
2,18c2,10
< /ColonialAmerica
< 
< /TheAmericanRevolution
< 
< /EarlyHistory
< 
< /TheAmericanCivilWar
< 
< /TheIndustrialAge
< 
< /TheGreatDepression
< 
< /WorldWarTwo
< 
< /TheColdWar
< 
< /TheLoneSuperpower
---
> :/ColonialAmerica
> :/TheAmericanRevolution
> :/EarlyHistory
> :/TheAmericanCivilWar
> :/TheIndustrialAge
> :/TheGreatDepression
> :/WorldWarTwo
> :/TheColdWar
> :/TheLoneSuperpower
21,33c13,19
< /ConstitutionalDemocracy
< 
< /WestwardExpansion
< 
< /Slavery
< 
< /IndustrialRevolution
< 
< /Immigration
< 
< /Imperialism
< 
< /EconomicGrowth
---
> :/ConstitutionalDemocracy
> :/WestwardExpansion
> :/Slavery
> :/IndustrialRevolution
> :/Immigration
> :/Imperialism
> :/EconomicGrowth
------
AtlasShrugged/California|980824202
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /HankRearden has business concerns on California.  In /SectioN121 /LillianRearden asks /HankRearden to promise he won't be in California on the night of December 10.
------
AtlasShrugged/Minnesota|980824342
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Minnesota was the location of /HankRearden's first job, working in the iron mines at age 14.  He continues to hold business concerns there.
> 
> Minnesota is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980824376
7c7
< /California (/SectioN121)
---
> /California
31c31
< /Minnesota (/SectioN121)
---
> /Minnesota
------
AtlasShrugged/Redding|980824458
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN121 /PhilipRearden mentions visiting Redding.  It is not clear which Redding this is, possible Redding, Connecticut.
------
AtlasShrugged/Wilmington|980824510
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN121 /PhilipRearden mentions visiting Wilmington.  Presumably this is Wilmington, Delaware.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980824536
41c41
< /Redding (Connecticut?) (/SectioN121)
---
> /Redding (Connecticut?)
49c49
< /Wilmington (Delaware?) (/SectioN121)
---
> /Wilmington (Delaware?)
------
AtlasShrugged/Washington|980824637
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Washington is the head of the government of the /UnitedStates.  Throughout /AtlasShrugged it is portrayed as a corrupt center of bureaucratic looters.
> 
> Washington is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN121
>  - /SectioN131
>  - /SectioN132) 
------
AtlasShrugged/Washington|980824651
1c1
< Washington is the head of the government of the /UnitedStates.  Throughout /AtlasShrugged it is portrayed as a corrupt center of bureaucratic looters.
---
> Washington is the head of the government of the /UnitedStates.  Throughout AtlasShrugged it is portrayed as a corrupt center of bureaucratic looters.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980824677
47c47
< /Washington (/SectioN121, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
---
> /Washington
49c49
< /Wilmington (Delaware?)
---
> /Wilmington (Delaware?)
------
AtlasShrugged/Washington|980824740
1c1
< Washington is the head of the government of the /UnitedStates.  Throughout AtlasShrugged it is portrayed as a corrupt center of bureaucratic looters.
---
> Washington is the head of the government of the /UnitedStates.  Throughout AtlasShrugged it is portrayed as a corrupt center of bureaucratic looters.  Many directives that effect the plot are issued from Washington, but little to none of the book's action occurs there.
6c6
<  - /SectioN132) 
---
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/UnitedStates|980825021
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The United States is the setting of AtlasShrugged.  While almost every other nation has become a socialist "People's State", the United States remains the last country with some semblance of a free economy.  This is rapidly changing, and the book follows the United States as it gradually beomes a "People's State" itself.
> 
> The United States is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980825047
45c45
< /UnitedStates (/SectioN132)
---
> /UnitedStates
------
AtlasShrugged/Argentina|980825092
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Argentina is the home of /FrancisoDAnconia and the ancestral home of his family.
> 
> Argentina is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/Chile|980825140
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /FranciscoDAnconia owns extensive mining properties in Chile.
> 
> Chile is mentioned in: 
> 
>  - /SectioN132
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/MiddleWest|980825278
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /NathanielTaggart is rumoured to have killed a state legislator from the Middle West.  Supposedly the legislator had sold short shares of Taggart's railroad, and was using his power in the state government to drive the railroad into bankruptcy.  This is mentioned in 
> /SectioN132.
------
AtlasShrugged/Louisiana|980825337
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /EddieWillers finds a wood-burning locomotive in Louisiana which is used to run trains on the /SanSebastianLine.  This is mentioned in /SectioN132.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980825379
3c3
< /Argentina (/SectioN132)
---
> /Argentina
11c11
< /Chile (/SectioN132)
---
> /Chile
25c25
< /Louisiana (/SectioN132)
---
> /Louisiana
29c29
< /MiddleWest (/SectioN132)
---
> /MiddleWest
------
TimShell|980828102
2a3,4
> /20010127
> 
------
TimShell|980828116
3c3
< /20010127
---
> /a20010127
------
TimShell|980828126
3c3
< /a20010127
---
> /A20010127
------
TimShell|980828139
3c3
< /A20010127
---
> /A
------
TimShell|980828153
3c3
< /A
---
> /AccDee
------
TimShell|980828179
3c3
< /AccDee
---
> /TimeLine
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828218
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /January27
> On Saturday, January 27, 2001, TimShell stayed at home and poached pears in MerloT. 
> 
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828240
1c1
< /January27
---
> /01Jan27
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828261
1c1
< /01Jan27
---
> /Jan27,2001
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828292
1c1
< /Jan27,2001
---
> /Y01M01D27
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828307
1d0
< /Y01M01D27
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828340
1a2,3
> ----
> And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980828409
4a5,8
> 
> * January 28, 2001
> 
> TimShell ran on the beach at sunset, thus making himself tired.  He came home and watched the rest of borint SuperBowl35. 
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829060
6c6
< * January 28, 2001
---
> * Sunady, January 28, 2001
8c8,12
< TimShell ran on the beach at sunset, thus making himself tired.  He came home and watched the rest of borint SuperBowl35. 
---
> TimShell ran on the beach at sunset, thus making himself tired.  He came home and watched the rest of boring SuperBowl35.
> 
> * Monday, January 29, 2001
> 
> TimShell woke up at 8:00 and arrived at the office at 8:30.  He was tired all day and was not at his productive best, even though he stayed at work until nearly 6:00.  He bought food from Serbians and later from Mexicans.  He talked to JimmyWales about launching some new websites.  He played with wikipedia a lot.  His stocks were up 1.53%.
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829097
2,3d1
< ----
< And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
4a3,5
> And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching. (LarrySanger wrote this.)
> 
> ----
8a10,11
> 
> ----
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829162
15a16,19
> 
> /January
> 
> /January272001
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829181
17c17
< /January
---
> /2001January27
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829209
17c17
< /2001January27
---
> /Date010127
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829240
18,19c18,19
< 
< /January272001
---
> /Date010128
> /Date010129
------
TimShell/Date010127|980829258
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell stayed at home and poached pears in MerloT. 
> 
> -----------------
> 
> And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching. (LarrySanger wrote this.)
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829282
1d0
< On Saturday, January 27, 2001, TimShell stayed at home and poached pears in MerloT. 
3,5d1
< And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching. (LarrySanger wrote this.)
< 
< ----
------
TimShell/Date010128|980829290
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell ran on the beach at sunset, thus making himself tired.  He came home and watched the rest of boring SuperBowl35.
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829317
4,8d3
< 
< TimShell ran on the beach at sunset, thus making himself tired.  He came home and watched the rest of boring SuperBowl35.
< 
< ----
< 
13,15c8,10
< /Date010127
< /Date010128
< /Date010129
---
> - /Date010127
> - /Date010128
> - /Date010129
------
TimShell/Date010129|980829326
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> TimShell woke up at 8:00 and arrived at the office at 8:30.  He was tired all day and was not at his productive best, even though he stayed at work until nearly 6:00.  He bought food from Serbians and later from Mexicans.  He talked to JimmyWales about launching some new websites.  He played with wikipedia a lot.  His stocks were up 1.53%.
------
TimShell|980829351
5,7d4
< On Saturday, January 27, 2001, TimShell stayed at home and poached pears in MerloT.
< ----
< And of course it was very easy.  Innocent, unsuspecting pears floating in a dish make an easy target.  Someone should arrest TimShell for poaching.
------
TimShell/TimeLine|980829365
1,10c1,3
< 
< 
< * Sunady, January 28, 2001
< * Monday, January 29, 2001
< 
< TimShell woke up at 8:00 and arrived at the office at 8:30.  He was tired all day and was not at his productive best, even though he stayed at work until nearly 6:00.  He bought food from Serbians and later from Mexicans.  He talked to JimmyWales about launching some new websites.  He played with wikipedia a lot.  His stocks were up 1.53%.
< 
< - /Date010127
< - /Date010128
< - /Date010129
---
>  - /Date010127
>  - /Date010128
>  - /Date010129
------
JimmyWales|980829411
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> #REDIRECT JimboWales
------
TimShell|980829509
3a4
> /Places
------
TimShell|980829526
3,4c3,4
< /TimeLine
< /Places
---
>   /TimeLine
>   /Places
------
TimShell/Places|980829604
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
>  /Chicago
>  /Naperville
>  /Omaha
>  /PacificBeach
>  /PalmSprings
>  /SanDiego
------
TimShell/Chicago|980829810
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Chicago is where TimShell lived from 1988 thru 1991, and from 1995 thru 1998.
> 
> He first lived in a studio apartment off the Bryn Mawr el stop in Edgewater, abut 5700 north.  This aprtment cost $245 a month, and it was across the alley from the el tracks.  TimShell had many dreams involving oncoming trains.
> 
> Then he moved into a house near DePaul University.
> 
> Later he moved into the basement of a house on Barry, in Lakeview.
------
HomePage|980830051
5,6d4
< It's the WeekEnd again.  The SuperBowl is happening on Sunday, not that those of you in EuropE care about that.
< 
------
TimShell/Naperville|980830190
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell did most of his growing up in Naperville, Illinois.  At the time, Naperville was mostly a farm town with about 14000 people.  His grandparents lived across the street from a farm.  TimShell remembers seeing the farmers rowing across their fields in a rowboat, after a flood.
> 
> TimShell lived in 815 Wellner Rd.  He attended Highlands Elementary.  He does not remember the second or third grade but he has pictures to prove that he was there.  He collected baseball cards and played Little League.  He committed various heinous crimes against the community but managed to avoid getting a record.
------
TimShell/Omaha|980830233
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell was bon in Omaha, Nebraska for reasons that remain unclear to this day.
------
TimShell/PacificBeach|980830295
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell lives in Pacific Beach.  He can see the ocean from his apartment.
------
TimShell/PalmSprings|980830344
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell has family in Palm Springs.  He goes there for holidays and visits.  It is a good starting off point for treks into the desert.
------
TimShell/SanDiego|980830447
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TimShell lives in San Diego.  He moved there in 1998 with his company.  It is a cool, dry place.  He keeps his windows open most of the year.
------
TimShell|980830468
1c1
< TimShell is a founding partner of BoMis.  Hi lives in PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.  He sometimes writes about himself in the third person.
---
> TimShell is a founding partner of BoMis.  Hi lives in /PacificBeach.  He knows LarrySanger personally.  He sometimes writes about himself in the third person.
------
CommunisM|980830473
3,7c3,6
< 
< * Marxism
< * Lenninism
< * Stalinism
< * Maoism
---
> * MarxisM
> * LeninisM
> * StalinisM
> * MaoisM
------
TimShell/PacificBeach|980830489
1c1
< TimShell lives in Pacific Beach.  He can see the ocean from his apartment.
---
> This is the community in which TimShell lives.  He can see the ocean from his apartment.
------
TimShell/Omaha|980830517
1c1
< TimShell was bon in Omaha, Nebraska for reasons that remain unclear to this day.
---
> TimShell was born in Omaha, Nebraska for reasons that remain unclear to this day.
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|980830895
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Special Assistant to the Vice-President in Charge of Operation at Taggart Transcontinental.  Eddie Willers grew up with /DagnyTaggart.  His father and grandfather worked for the Taggarts, and followed in their footsteps.  He is completely loyal to Dagny and to /TaggartTranscontinental.  He is meant to be a sympathetic character.
> 
> Eddie Willers is generally assumed to represent the common man.
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|980830982
3c3,8
< Eddie Willers is generally assumed to represent the common man.
---
> Eddie Willers is generally assumed to represent the common man.
> 
> Eddie Willers appears in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN114
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged111|980831006
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT /SectioN111
> 
23c25
< The question "Who is John Galt?" opens the book and is repeated over and over.  Who is John Galt?  Where did the phrase come from?  What does it mean?
---
> The question "Who is John Galt?" opens the book and is repeated over and over.  Who is John Galt?  Where did the phrase come from?  What does it mean?
------
AtlasShrugged111|980831021
1c1
< #REDIRECT /SectioN111
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN111
------
AtlasShrugged112|980831059
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN112
> 
------
AtlasShrugged113|980831081
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN113
> 
------
AtlasShrugged114|980831093
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN114
> 
------
AtlasShrugged121|980831106
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN121
> 
------
AtlasShrugged131|980831120
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN131
> 
23c25
< "It all depends," James Taggart answered slowly, "on the people who make it possible...That's what has to be known - who makes it possible."
---
> "It all depends," James Taggart answered slowly, "on the people who make it possible...That's what has to be known - who makes it possible."
------
AtlasShrugged132|980831133
0a1,2
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN132
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|980831281
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ellis Wyatt is the head of /WyattOil.  He has almost single-handedly revived the economy of Colorado by discovering a way of extracting oil from wells that had been abandoned.
> 
> Ellis Wyatt is mentioned or appears in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN114
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged111|980831300
2,25d1
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 1:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Eddie Willers, walking through downtown Manhattan, wonders why the world seems to be slowly falling apart.  He returns to the Taggart Transcontinental Building in order to tell JamesTaggart the bad news about an unfulfilled steel order and another train wreck, and to make Taggart see the seriousness of the situation the business is in because it can't get steel to replace its aging railroad tracks.
< ----
< * Setting
< Downtown New York, and in the Taggart Transcontinental Building.
< ----
< * Characters
< BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
< 
< EddieWillers
< 
< Ellis Wyatt - Mentioned.
< 
< JamesTaggart
< 
< OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
< 
< PopHarper - First and only apearance.
< ----
< * Mysteries
< The question "Who is John Galt?" opens the book and is repeated over and over.  Who is John Galt?  Where did the phrase come from?  What does it mean?
------
AtlasShrugged114|980831316
2,32d1
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
< ----
< * Setting
< The offices of Taggart Transcontinental.
< ----
< * Characters
< DagnyTaggart
< 
< JamesTaggart
< 
< EddieWillers
< 
< OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
< 
< BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
< 
< HankRearden: Mentioned.
< 
< EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
< 
< OwenKellogg
< 
< MrAyers - First and only appearance.
< ----
< * Mysteries
< What is it that makes OwenKellogg quit a job he admits he loves?
< 
------
AtlasShrugged132|980831329
2,37d1
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Recounts Dagny's childhood decision to run Taggart Transcontinental and her rise in the company.  Recounts the history of the San Sebastian Line: Millionaire playboy Francisco D'Anconia invested money in developing the San Sebastian Mines, and James Taggart and the Board of Directors assumed they could trust D'Anconia to deliver a winner.  Dagny opposed this project and almost quit when it was approved.  James Taggart confronts Dagny and demands to know what she has done to the San Sebastian Line.  She explains that she has moved anything of value out of Mexico so the "looters" would not get it when they nationalized the line.  James Taggart is scandalized by this but cannot muster the courage to countermand her actions.  After leaving the office, Dagny has a conversation with the owner of a newstand about his cigarette collection.  He says there are no new brands anymore, and only a few brands still being made.  He talks of the cigarette as a symbol of man controlling nature, holding fire in his hands.
< ----
< * Setting
< The offices of Taggart Transcontinental and the Taggart Terminal.
< ----
< * Characters
< BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
< 
< DagnysFather
< 
< DagnyTaggart
< 
< EddieWillers
< 
< EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
< 
< FranciscoDAnconia: Mentioned.
< 
< HankRearden
< 
< JamesTaggart
< 
< MrsNathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
< 
< NathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
< 
< NewsstandOwner
< 
< OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
< ----
< * Symbolism
< The NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|980831582
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A worthless millionaire Playboy, owber by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  But the real Francisco D'Anconia is revealed as the book progresses.
> 
> Francisco D'Anconia is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|980831599
1c1
< A worthless millionaire Playboy, owber by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  But the real Francisco D'Anconia is revealed as the book progresses.
---
> A worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  But the real Francisco D'Anconia is revealed as the book progresses.
------
AtlasShrugged/GwenIves|980831680
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Gwen Ives is /HankRearden's secretary.
> 
> Gwen Ives is mentioned in:
>  - /Section121
------
AtlasShrugged/GwenIves|980831693
4c4
<  - /Section121
---
>  - /SectioN121
------
ThingsThatDoNotExistForAReason|980832901
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Purina Elf Chow
> * Professional dog-scrubbers.
> * Self-adhesive chewing gum.
> * His-and-Hers granite.
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|980833384
17a18
>  - section 3 (/SectioN133)
------
WojPob|980833565
7a8,9
> 
> ''Some searching finds that there are (as should be expected) a bunch of different chronologies for the separation of Indo-European languages.  First of all, the Europeans started migrating into Europe at least as early as 2500-2000 BC, which was earlier than I had thought (not an expert at all).  The dialects separate out much earlier than that, though the slavs supposedly aren't discernable as a distinct group until about 1400 BC.  This probably refers to their separation out from the baltic peoples.  I'll do some more reading and fix up anything I happened to say that was wrong. --JoshuaGrosse''
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN133|980833957
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 3:
> 
> * Plot summary
> /EddieWillers ends a long day at work by having dinner in the employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.  There he meets /MysteryWorker.  They sit together and he tells them about the problems of the day and what /DagnyTaggart is going to do to fix things.  He mentions McNamara is the contractor who will lay the new rails for the /RioNorteLine.  Eddie will have many similar chats with /MysteryWorker throughout the book.
> 
> The cafeteria is described as follows:  "The cafeteria lay underground.  It was a large room with walls of white tile that glittered in the reflections of electric lights and looked like silver brocade.  It had a high ceiling, sparkling counters of glass and chromium, a sense of space and light."
> 
> This description is in sharp contrast to the most expensive barroom in New York, from /Section131, that was atop a skyskraper but made to look like a cellar.  The contrast gives the chapter title - The Top and the Bottom - it's irony.
> 
> ----
> * Setting
> The employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.
> ----
> * Characters
>  /EddieWillers
>  /MysteryWorker
>  /DagnyTaggart: Mentioned.
>  /McNamara: Mentioned.
>  /RichardHalley: Mentioned.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|980834011
6,8c6,10
<  - /SectioN111
<  - /SectioN114
<  - /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN133
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980834070
1,33c1,18
< /BrakemaN
< 
< /DagnyTaggart
< 
< /EddieWillers
< 
< /EllisWyatt
< 
< /FranciscoDAnconia
< 
< /GwenIves
< 
< /HankRearden
< 
< /JamesTaggart
< 
< /LillianRearden
< 
< /NewsstandOwner
< 
< /OrrenBoyle
< 
< /OwenKellogg
< 
< /PaulLarkin
< 
< /PhilipRearden
< 
< /ReardensMother
< 
< /RichardHalley
< 
< /WesleyMouch
---
>  /BrakemaN
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EddieWillers
>  /EllisWyatt
>  /FranciscoDAnconia
>  /GwenIves
>  /HankRearden
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /LillianRearden
>  /MysteryWorker
>  /NewsstandOwner
>  /OrrenBoyle
>  /OwenKellogg
>  /PaulLarkin
>  /PhilipRearden
>  /ReardensMother
>  /RichardHalley
>  /WesleyMouch
36,70c21,38
< /BartendeR
< 
< /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
< 
< /BumNumber1
< 
< /ConductoR
< 
< /DagnysFather
< 
< /EngineeR
< 
< /FiremaN
< 
< /MrAyers
< 
< /MrsBeacham
< 
< /MrsNathanielTaggart
< 
< /NathanielTaggart
< 
< /PassengerNumber1
< 
< /PassengerNumber2
< 
< /PassengerNumber3
< 
< /PassengerNumber4
< 
< /PopHarper
< 
< /WaiteR
< 
< /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /BartendeR
>  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
>  /BumNumber1
>  /ConductoR
>  /DagnysFather
>  /EngineeR
>  /FiremaN
>  /MrAyers
>  /MrsBeacham
>  /MrsNathanielTaggart
>  /NathanielTaggart
>  /PassengerNumber1
>  /PassengerNumber2
>  /PassengerNumber3
>  /PassengerNumber4
>  /PopHarper
>  /WaiteR
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
ThingsThatDoNotExistForAReason|980834190
4c4,6
< * His-and-Hers granite.
---
> * His-and-Hers granite.
> 
> ''Taking a break from AtlasShrugged?''
------
AtlasShrugged/MysteryWorker|980834199
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MysteryWorker us a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
> 
> MysteryWorker appears in:
>  /Section133
------
AtlasShrugged/MysteryWorker|980834216
4c4
<  /Section133
---
>  /SectioN133
------
AtlasShrugged/MysteryWorker|980834239
1c1
< MysteryWorker us a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
---
> /MysteryWorker us a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  /MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
3c3
< MysteryWorker appears in:
---
> /MysteryWorker appears in:
------
AtlasShrugged/MysteryWorker|980834249
1c1
< /MysteryWorker us a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  /MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
---
> /MysteryWorker is a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  /MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
------
AtlasShrugged/MysteryWorker|980834323
1c1
< /MysteryWorker is a menial worker in the Taggart Terminal who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  /MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
---
> /MysteryWorker is a menial worker for /TaggartTranscontinental who often dines with /EddieWillers in the employee's cafeteria.  /MysteryWorker will turn out to be one of the novel's central characters.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980834393
6,9c6,10
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (/SectioN112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (/SectioN113)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (/SectioN114)
<    Part 1, Chapter 3, section 2 (/SectioN132)
---
>  /SectioN112
>  /SectioN113
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN133 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|980834418
5c5
< * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
---
> Dagny appears in the following sections:
------
AtlasShrugged/McNamara|980834540
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A contractor who finished the /SanSebastianLine and who is hired to lay the new ReardenMetal track for the /ElNorteLine.  Before he gets a chance to do so, he mysteriously disappears.
> 
> McNamara appears in:
>  /SectioN133 - Mentioned.
>  /SectioN141 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/McNamara|980834570
1c1
< A contractor who finished the /SanSebastianLine and who is hired to lay the new ReardenMetal track for the /ElNorteLine.  Before he gets a chance to do so, he mysteriously disappears.
---
> A contractor who finished the /SanSebastianLine and who is hired to lay the new ReardenMetal track for the /RioNorteLine.  Before he gets a chance to do so, he mysteriously disappears.
------
AtlasShrugged/McNamara|980834583
3c3
< McNamara appears in:
---
> /McNamara appears in:
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980834614
9a10
>  /McNamara
38c39
<  /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|980834912
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /DagnyTaggart's favorite composer, who mysteriously after the evening of his greatest triumph.
> 
> RichardHalley appears in:
>  /Section112 - Mentioned prominently.
>  /Section114 - Mentioned.
>  /Section133 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|980834927
4,6c4,6
<  /Section112 - Mentioned prominently.
<  /Section114 - Mentioned.
<  /Section133 - Mentioned.
---
>  /SectioN112 - Mentioned prominently.
>  /SectioN114 - Mentioned.
>  /SectioN133 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|980834946
3c3
< RichardHalley appears in:
---
> Richard Halley appears in:
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980834970
4c4
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  Afte falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
---
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980835109
1,17c1,10
< /AyersMusicPublishingCompany
< 
< /AssociatedSteel
< 
< /PhoenixDurango
< 
< /ReardenCoal
< 
< /ReardenLimestone
< 
< /ReardenOre
< 
< /ReardenSteel
< 
< /TaggartTranscontinental
< 
< /WyattOil
---
>  /AyersMusicPublishingCompany
>  /AssociatedSteel
>  /PhoenixDurango
>  /ReardenCoal
>  /ReardenLimestone
>  /ReardenOre
>  /ReardenSteel
>  /TaggartTranscontinental
>  /UnitedLocomotiveWorks (/Section133)
>  /WyattOil
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|980835120
9c9
<  /UnitedLocomotiveWorks (/Section133)
---
>  /UnitedLocomotiveWorks (/SectioN133)
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980835213
3,49c3,27
< /Argentina
< 
< /Arizona
< 
< /California
< 
< /Chicago
< 
< /Chile
< 
< /Cleveland
< 
< /Colorado
< 
< /CheyenneWyoming
< 
< /ElPasoTexas
< 
< /FifthAvenue
< 
< /HudsonRiver
< 
< /Louisiana
< 
< /MexicoPeoplesStateof
< 
< /MiddleWest
< 
< /Minnesota
< 
< /NewMexico
< 
< /NewYork
< 
< /Ohio
< 
< /Philadelphia
< 
< /Redding (Connecticut?)
< 
< /SanFrancisco
< 
< /UnitedStates
< 
< /Washington
< 
< /Wilmington (Delaware?)
---
>  /Argentina
>  /Arizona
>  /California
>  /Chicago
>  /Chile
>  /Cleveland
>  /Colorado
>  /CheyenneWyoming
>  /ElPasoTexas
>  /FifthAvenue
>  /HudsonRiver
>  /Louisiana
>  /MexicoPeoplesStateof
>  /MiddleWest
>  /Minnesota
>  /NewMexico
>  /NewYork
>  /Ohio
>  /Philadelphia
>  /Redding (Connecticut?)
>  /SanFrancisco
>  /UnitedStates
>  /Washington
>  /Wilmington (Delaware?)
>  
------
AtlasShrugged/Cleveland|980835260
2a3,4
> /McNamara's offices are located in Cleveland.
> 
5a8
>  - /SectioN133
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|980835373
4,6c4,7
<   AtlasShrugged111
<   AtlasShrugged114
<   AtlasShrugged132  
---
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN133
9c10
<   AtlasShrugged131
---
>  /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|980835426
4,6c4,7
<   AtlasShrugged114
<   AtlasShrugged131
<   AtlasShrugged132
---
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN131
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN133
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980835432
22a23,43
> 
> ----
> Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.
> 
> Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  
> 
> Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...
> 
> Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.
> 
> That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  
> 
> But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  
> 
> I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)
> 
> Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.
> 
> -- BryceHarrington
------
AtlasShrugged/FriendsofGlobalProgress|980835473
1c1
< A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged121.
---
> A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in /SectioN121.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|980835546
1,19c1,10
< /FriendsofGlobalProgress
< 
< HalleysFifthConcerto (AtlasShrugged112)
< 
< NationalAllianceofRailroads (AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< /RioNorteLine
< 
< /SanSebastianLine
< 
< SanSebastianMines (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< TaggartComet (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged113)
< 
< WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
---
>  /FriendsofGlobalProgress
>  HalleysFifthConcerto (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
>  NationalAllianceofRailroads (/SectioN131)
>  NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (/SectioN131)
>  ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, /SectioN121, /SectioN131)
>  /RioNorteLine
>  /SanSebastianLine
>  SanSebastianMines (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
>  TaggartComet (/SectioN112, /SectioN113)
>  WyattOilFields (/SectioN111)
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN133|980835609
4c4
< /EddieWillers ends a long day at work by having dinner in the employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.  There he meets /MysteryWorker.  They sit together and he tells them about the problems of the day and what /DagnyTaggart is going to do to fix things.  He mentions McNamara is the contractor who will lay the new rails for the /RioNorteLine.  Eddie will have many similar chats with /MysteryWorker throughout the book.
---
> /EddieWillers ends a long day at work by having dinner in the employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.  There he meets /MysteryWorker.  They sit together and he tells them about the problems of the day and what /DagnyTaggart is going to do to fix things.  He mentions /McNamara is the contractor who will lay the new rails for the /RioNorteLine.  Eddie will have many similar chats with /MysteryWorker throughout the book.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN133|980835628
8c8
< This description is in sharp contrast to the most expensive barroom in New York, from /Section131, that was atop a skyskraper but made to look like a cellar.  The contrast gives the chapter title - The Top and the Bottom - it's irony.
---
> This description is in sharp contrast to the most expensive barroom in New York, from /SectioN131, that was atop a skyskraper but made to look like a cellar.  The contrast gives the chapter title - The Top and the Bottom - it's irony.
------
AtlasShrugged/HankRearden|980835900
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Hank Rearden is the founder of /ReardenSteel and the inventor of /ReardenMetal.
> 
> Rearden appears in:
> 
>  /SectioN114 - Mentioned.
>  /SectioN121
>  /SectioN131 - Mentioned and alluded to.
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/HankRearden|980835978
1c1
< One of the central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Hank Rearden is the founder of /ReardenSteel and the inventor of /ReardenMetal.
---
> One of the central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Hank Rearden is the founder of /ReardenSteel and the inventor of /ReardenMetal.  He lives in /Philadelphia with his wife /LillianRearden, his brother /PhilipRearden, and an elderly woman known only as /ReardensMother, all of whom he supports.
8c8
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|980836270
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The President of /TaggartTranscontinental.  James Taggart is an expert influence peddler who is incapable of making decisions on his own.  He relies on his sister /DagnyTaggart to actually run the railroad, but nonetheless opposes her in almost every endeavor.  He associates with other influence peddlers such as /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch, and /PaulLarkin.
> 
> James Taggart appears in:
>  /Section111
>  /Section114
>  /Section131
>  /Section132
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|980836280
4,7c4,7
<  /Section111
<  /Section114
<  /Section131
<  /Section132
---
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN131
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/LillianRearden|980836346
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The wildly unsupportive wife of /HankRearden.
> 
> Lillian Rearden appears in:
> 
>  /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/MrsBeacham|980836412
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A friend of /ReardensMother who does charity work for the parish school.  She is mentioned briefly in /SectioN121.
------
AtlasShrugged/AssociatedSteel|980836685
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Associated Steel is the company owned by /OrrenBoyle.  The company was started with just a few hundred-thousand dollars of Boyle's own money, and hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants.  Boyle used this money to buy out his competitors, and now relies on influence peddling and political favors to run his business.
> 
> /SectioN111
> /SectioN114
> /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/AssociatedSteel|980836694
3,5c3,5
< /SectioN111
< /SectioN114
< /SectioN131
---
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN131
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980837622
43a44,47
> 
> ----
> 
> I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980837700
47c47
< I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights.
---
> I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell
------
TimShell/Date010129|980838146
1,2c1
< 
< TimShell woke up at 8:00 and arrived at the office at 8:30.  He was tired all day and was not at his productive best, even though he stayed at work until nearly 6:00.  He bought food from Serbians and later from Mexicans.  He talked to JimmyWales about launching some new websites.  He played with wikipedia a lot.  His stocks were up 1.53%.
---
> TimShell woke up at 8:00 and arrived at the office at 8:30.  He was tired all day and was not at his productive best, even though he stayed at work until nearly 6:00.  He bought food from Serbians and later from Mexicans.  He talked to JimmyWales about launching some new websites.  He played with wikipedia a lot.  His stocks were up 1.53%.  He had a glass of PinotNoir in the evening.
------
SwingDance|980840783
8c8
< LindyHop -- Charleston -- EastCoastSwing (aka TripleSwing and StreetSwing)
---
> LindyHop -- CharlesoN -- EastCoastSwing (aka TripleSwing and StreetSwing)
10c10
< CountrySwing is yet another division of swing with a largely distinct culture.
---
> CountrySwing is yet another division of swing with a largely distinct culture.
------
SwingDance|980840797
8c8
< LindyHop -- CharlesoN -- EastCoastSwing (aka TripleSwing and StreetSwing)
---
> LindyHop -- CharlestoN -- EastCoastSwing (aka TripleSwing and StreetSwing)
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980841280
2a3,4
> ''I think it may be difficult to know what is considered 'controversial' before writing.  As well, I have doubts that a) someone would be good enough to admit that their assertions will be controversial, and b) that the people discussing them on this page would necessarily be of sufficient authority to de-controversialify such a topic.  Oh, and c) some things in US history are just plain controversial.  Instead, let me propose that if anyone feels anything mentioned on the main page lacks sufficient evidence, bring it here (and write counter-evidence if desired).  Others can edit the item into less controversial terms or add proof, and then move it back.  Doubt this'd be a perfect solution, but I doubt anyone believes wikipedia is going to be _able_ to be true and objective, when anyone in the world can write in it.  But that's why we have Nupedia.''
> 
8a11,14
> ''From Britannica's website:  "In the Nineteenth century, the South had seceded from the Union with the shots fired at Fort Sumter in April, 1861. Abraham Lincoln fought to preserve the Union and, in 1862, freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. The ensuing Civil War ended only in 1865 with General Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomatox."  Emancipation *did* occur during the war.  My claim that it was an economic issue was drawn from the Britannica article on the Emancipation Proclamation stating, "The locking up of the world's source of cotton supply had been a general calamity, and the Confederate government and people had steadily expected that the English and French governments would intervene in the war. The conversion of the struggle into a crusade against slavery made European intervention impossible."  However, in reading some additional sources on the Library of Congress pages, and some other civil war entries, I have to admit that Tim's comments that the evidence supports many hypotheses.  I suppose generally what I'm trying to say was that a) slavery was not the _primary_ reason for the Civil War, as we might believe, and b) the reason slaves were freed had many motivations (political, militaristic, economic, and so forth) beyond just the evilness of slavery.''
> 
> ''Finally, let me point out a distinction between "equality in terms of freeness" and "equality in terms of class".  The former can be claimed but not the latter.  Even today there is a class distinction; I was living in south central LA before, during, and after the riots and, being white, was made well aware of this on many occasions, and the evidence I saw supported this.  One man who can just come to Los Angeles from Mississippi told me, "Believe it or not, it's a lot better here than where I come from.''
> 
12a19,22
> ''First, I said Germany invaded Poland, not the Soviet Union, although in fact they did as well.  Second, Germany and the Soviet Union had a pact between them:  "On September 1, secure behind the new German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact that had stunned the world in August, Hitler began an invasion of Poland. Great Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. By the end of 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union had divided Poland between themselves, and the Soviets had occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and had attacked Finland, which they finally defeated in March 1940... In June Hitler abandoned the Nonaggression Pact of 1939 and launched a massive surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. German armoured units drove deep into Soviet territory and at one point reached the outskirts of Moscow before Soviet counterattacks and winter weather slowed the offensive to a halt."  We may not have had pitched battles between Britain and USSR during the 1939-1940 period, but don't doubt they were our enemies.''
> 
> ''In fact, it is interesting to note -- and I'll just toss this out as a flippant and discardable assertion since it'd take too long to prove -- that the NAZI's believed (for a little while, anyhow) that the British and Americans could be expected to support Fascism, since Britain and America detested Communism almost as fervently as the NAZI's did.  Looking at America's history of slavery, KKK, extermination of Native Americans, and so forth, it's surprising to think that this was actually a pretty logical thing for the NAZI's to think.  I got this off of a History Channel WWII program; I'd like to hear more about it if, in fact, it is true.''
> 
18a29,38
> 
> One thing on the main history page:  "How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII??"
> 
> Technically, it was the Soviets who defeated the NAZI State.  The Soviets lost and retook a LOT of land, lost the most lives IIRC, and engaged the NAZI's much more continually (and violently, I think) than the US did.  (Curiously, the Soviets also hold the largest responsibility for defeating themselves, but that's a topic for another page.)
> 
> Also, I saw in a History Channel documentary that the NAZI "final solution" for the Jews was inspired, if not modelled on, our treatment of the Native Americans.  Are these things true?  If so, then it makes one wonder...
> 
> Another last point that I recently read when researching some of Noam Chomsky's(sp) writings...  It can be argued on a purely imperial level, that WWII was in essence an attempt by NAZI GermanY to build an empire at the expense of the existing colonial empires (France and Britain) which failed, and which instead had the net effect of shifting the imperial power to the United States.  Control over colonies, where labor can be purchased cheaply, and human rights ignored, has throughout history been an extremely important way for imperial nations to build their economic wealth.  Could it be possible that the US has been doing the same, in the time since WWII?  Or has our international history been more filled with support for burgeoning independence movements?
> 
> -- BryceHarrington
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980842294
47a48,56
> 
> ----
> Yes, I use "we" a lot when discussing US history, because in reading a lot of this stuff I feel a great sense of personal responsibility about it, and assume (usually wrongly, as I repeately learn) others care similarly.  Note though that I don't think it is acceptable to 'cop out' by blaming the government.  Of course the government will do bad things; that is what governments, historically, have done.  But here in the United States, the principle is that the government 'belongs' to us.  Thus, I feel that like any manager taking responsibility for the action of his employees, or a general taking responsibility for the action of his soldiers, so too ought US Citizens take responsibility for actions of their government.  Of course, this too is my own personal political screed, and I promise to try to avoid letting 'we's slip in anywhere except in that which is merely discussion (like this).  
> 
> Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the history should include not only what the government does but also what the people do.  I left out things like the civil rights movement, various rebellions and religious/moral/ethical movements just for lack of writing time.  All of that should certainly be added.  But also note that usually, when the government is repressing the minority, there is a possibility that society itself supports (perhaps even elected) the repression.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, I grant that I skipped over many essential facts.  Assume that I did this because I wanted to leave the enjoyable, ennobling writing parts to you.  ;-)
> 
> I think I'll withdraw from writing more on US history...  I have a lot I'd like to say, having studied it considerably, but it just upsets me that the more I learn, the more I see it is just repeating the patterns of older empires.  And what really frustrates me is that there seems to be little chance of avoiding making the same mistakes. -- BryceWishingForBetterHarrington
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|980843327
1d0
< '''Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazarus (Ludwik Lejzer)'''
3,24d1
< http://www.geocities.com/Oleg326756/GNUPedia/zamenhof.jpg
< 
< <b>Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof</b> (1859-1917) was the creator of the EsperantoLanguage – the most succesful of all the constructed international languages. He also was known as Dr. Esperanto – by this pseudonym he published in 1887 his work “Lingvo internacia”, which had the language's description and textbook.
< 
< Zamenhof was born the 15th of December 1859 in the Polish town BialystokPoland (then Poland was a part of RussianEmpire). The town's population was made-up of four major ethnic groups: Russians, Poles, Germans, and YiddishLanguage-speaking Jews. There were many quarrels between them, and that was making young Ludovic quite sad. He supposed that the main reason for the hate and prejudice lay in reciprocal misunderstanding, caused by the lack of one common language that would play role of the neutral communication tool between people of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds.
< 
< As a student of secondary school in Warsaw Zamenhof made attempts to create some kind of international language with a grammar that was very rich, but also very complex. When he studied EnglishLanguage (along with GermanLanguage, FrenchLanguage, LatinLanguage and GreekLanguage, he decided that the international language must have relatively simple grammar with a wide use of suffixes to make new forms of the words.
< 
< By the 1878 his project "Lingwe uniwersala" was almost finished. However Zamenhof was too young then to publish his work. Soon after graduation from the school he began to study medicine, first in MoscowRussia, and later in WarsawPoland. In 1885 Zamenhof graduated from the university and began his practice as oculist. While healing people he continued to work on his project of the international language.
< 
< For two years he tried to raise funds to publish a booklet with the language's description until he received the financial help from his future wife's father. In 1987 the book titled as "D-ro Esperanto. Lingvo internacia. Anta parolo kaj plena lernolibro" ("Dr. Hopeful. International Language. Foreword And Complete Textbook") was published. For Zamenhof this language wasn't a mere communication tool, but the mean of propagation. He wanted to preach the idea of peaceful co-existing of different people and cultures. Zamenhof even came up with the teaching "Homaranismo" in order to spread these ideas.
< 
< Zamenhof became informal leader of the new EsperantoMovement, though he never was striving to gain fame or power. Esperantists were calling him The Master, admiring him as a Teacher, but Zamenhof himself had a strong dislike for this title, and never took any official position inside the EsperantoMovement. He died in Warsaw the 14th of April 1917.
< 
< '''See also:'''
< * EsperantoLanguage
< 
< ----
< 
< Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
< 
< Updated: <i>25th of January 2001</i>
25a3
> Removed at Request of Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
------
EsperantoLanguage|980843371
1,24c1
< '''Esperanto'''
< 
< <b>Esperanto</b> is a constructed language, created by Doctor Ludovic Lazarus (Ludwik Lejzer) Zamenhof in 1887 as a result of the ten years work. The first published book was <i>"D-ro Esperanto. Lingvo internacia. Anta&#365;parolo kaj plena lernolibro",</i> meaning <i>"Dr. Hopeful. International Language. Foreword And Complete Textbook".</i> Zamenhof's pseudonym <i>Esperanto</i> very soon became the name of the language itself.
< 
< Esperanto is intended to serve as a universal international language, the second language (after the parents' language) of every educated person. Most of its vocabulary is made up of Latin, Greek, English, French, German, and some other IndoEuropean roots. Esperanto has a regular grammar (sixteen rules without exceptions), phonetic alphabet (meaning that all words are pronounced as in written and vice versa), and very logical structure (the same words' ending for the same parts of speech, e.g. <i>-o</i> for nouns, <i>-a</i> for adjectives, etc.) All these features make Esperanto to be more easy-to-learn than the most world's languages, even for non-Europeans.
< 
< It's difficult to tell how many speakers of Esperanto there are. Most sources refer to the number of two million speakers worldwide. However it may be quite rough estimation. Every year there're hundreds of new titles (both translated and original) being published in Esperanto along with the music and even films. Some editions may exceed a number of a hundred thousand copies. Also there're great number of Esperanto-newspapers, magazines, and radio-stations broadcasting in Esperanto. Most <i>esperantists</i> (members of Esperanto-community or Esperanto-diaspora) are eager to international and intercultural contacts, many of them travel to conventions to meet their old friends and make new ones, have correspondents in different parts of the world, and quite often are ready to provide to travelling esperantist a housing for some days.
< 
< Esperanto is the most successful of all the artificial languages to day. In 1999 <i>Universala Esperanto-Asocio</i> <i>(The Worldwide Esperanto-Association)</i> had members in 119 countries of the world, and the annual <i>Universala Kongreso</i> <i>(World Congress)</i> usually gathers from three to six thousand esperantists.
< 
< '''See also:'''
< * LudovicLazarusZamenhof
< 
< '''Links:'''
< * [http://www.esperanto.net www.esperanto.net] -- information about Esperanto in 41 languages
< * [http://www.geocities.com/Oleg326756 Free email-based course of Esperanto]
< ----
< 
< Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
< 
< Updated: <i>24th of January 2001</i>
< 
< ----
< 
---
> Removed at Request of Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
------
AbdicatioN|980844407
1c1,81
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABDICATION (Lat. abdicatio, disowning, renouncing, 
> from ab, from, and dicare, to declare, to proclaim as 
> not belonging to one), the act whereby a person in office 
> renounces and gives up the same before the expiry of the time 
> for which it is held.  In Roman law, the term is especially 
> applied to the disowning of a member of a family, as the 
> disinheriting of a son, but the word is seldom used except 
> in the sense of surrendering the supreme power in a state.  
> Despotic sovereigns are at liberty to divest themselves of 
> their powers at any time, but it is otherwise with a limited 
> monarchy.  The throne of Great Britain cannot be lawfully 
> abdicated unless with the consent of the two Houses of 
> Parliament.  When James II., after throwing the great 
> seal into the Thames, fled to France in 1688, he did not 
> formally resign the crown, and the question was discussed 
> in parliament whether he had forfeited the throne or had 
> abdicated.  The latter designation was agreed on, for in a 
> full assembly of the Lords and Commons, met in convention, 
> it was resolved, in spite of James's protest, ``that King 
> James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of 
> the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king 
> and people, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked 
> persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having 
> withdrawn himself out of this kingdom, has abdicated the 
> government, and that the throne is thereby vacant.'' The 
> Scottish parliament pronounced a decree of forfeiture and 
> deposition.  Among the most memorable abdications of 
> antiquity may be mentioned that of Sulla the dictator, 79 
> B.C., and that of the Emperor Diocletian, A.D. 305. The 
> following is a list of the more important abdications of later 
> 
>  
>                                                       A.D.
>  Benedict IX., pope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
>  Stephen II. of Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
>  Albert (the Bear) of Brandenburg . . . . . . . . . . 1169
>  Ladislaus III. of Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206
>  Celestine V., pope . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dec. 13, 1294
>  John Baliol of Scotland  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1296
>  John Cantacuzene, emperor of the East  . . . . . . . 1355
>  Richard II. of England . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 29, 1399
>  John XXIII., pope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1415
>  Eric VII; of Denmark and XIII. of Sweden . . . . . . 1439
>  Murad II., Ottoman Sultan  . . . . . . . . .1444 and 1445
>  Charles V., emperor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1556
>  Christina of Sweden  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1654
>  John Casimir of Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1618
>  James II. of England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1688
>  Frederick Augustus of Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . 1704
>  Philip V. of Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724
>  Victor Amadeus II. of Sardinia . . . . . . . . . . . 1730
>  Ahmed III., Sultan of Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . 1730
>  Charles of Naples (on accession to throne of Spain). 1759
>  Stanislaus II. of Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1795
>  Charles Emanuel IV. of Sardinia  . . . . . . June 4, 1802
>  Charles IV. of Spain . . . . . . . . . . . .Mar. 19, 1808
>  Joseph Bonaparte of Naples . . . . . . . . . June 6, 1808
>  Gustavus IV. of Sweden . . . . . . . . . . .Mar. 29, 1809
>  Louis Bonaparte of Holland . . . . . . . . . July 2, 1810
>  Napoleon I., French Emperor. . . . . . . . .April 4, 1814, and June 22, 1815
>  Victor Emanuel of Sardinia . . . . . . . . .Mar. 13, 1821
>  Charles X. of France . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 2, 1830
>  Pedro of Brazil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .April 7, 1831
>  Miguel of Portgual . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 26, 1834
>  William I. of Holland  . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 7, 1840
>  Louis Philippe, king of the French . . . . .Feb. 24, 1848
>  Louis Charles of Bavaria . . . . . . . . . .Mar. 21, 1848
>  Ferdinand of Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 2, 1848
>  Charles Albert of Sardinia . . . . . . . . .Mar. 23, 1849
>  Leopold II. of Tuscany . . . . . . . . . . .July 21, 1859
>  Isabella II. of Spain . . . . . . . . . . . June 25, 1870
>  Amadeus I. of Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 11, 1873
>  Alexander of Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 7, 1886
>  Milan of Servia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mar. 6, 1889
>  
> 
> 1 Pedro had succeeded to the throne of Portugal in 
> 1826, but abdicated it at once in favour of his daughter. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
AbdomeN|980844450
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABDOMEN (a Latin word, either from abdere, to hide, 
> or from a form adipomen, from adeps, fat), the belly, 
> the region of the body containing most of the digestive 
> organs. (See for anatomical details the articles ALIMENTARY 
> CANAL, and ANATOMY, Superficial and Artistic.) 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
AbdominalSurgery|980844538
1c1,247
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABDOMINAL SURGERY.---The diseases affecting this region 
> are dealt with generally in the article DIGESTIVE ORGANS, 
> and under their own names (e.g. APPENDICITIS). The term 
> ``abdominal surgery'' covers generally the operations which 
> involve opening the abdominal cavity, and in modern times this 
> field of work has been greatly extended.  In this Encyclopaedia 
> the surgery of each abdominal organ is dealt with, for the 
> most part, in connexion with the anatomical description of 
> that organ (see STOMACH, KIDNEY, LIVER, &c.); but here the 
> general principles of abdominal surgery may be discussed. 
> 
> Exploratory Laparotomy.---In many cases of serious intra-abdominal 
> disease it is impossible for the surgeon to say exactly 
> what is wrong without making an incision and introducing his 
> finger, or, if need be, his hand among the intestines.  With 
> due care this is not a perilous or serious procedure, and the 
> great advantage appertaining to it is daily being more fully 
> recognized.  It was Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American 
> physiologist and poet, who remarked that one cannot say of 
> what wood a table is made without lifting up the cloth; so 
> also it is often impossible to say what is wrong inside the 
> abdomen without making an opening into it.  When an opening 
> is made in such circumstances---provided only it is done soon 
> enough--the successful treatment of the case often becomes a 
> simple matter.  An exploratory operation, therefore, should 
> be promptly resorted to as a means of diagnosis, and not left 
> as a last resource till the outlook is well-nigh hopeless. 
> 
> It is probable that if the question were put to any experienced 
> hospital surgeon if he had often had cause to regret having 
> advised recourse to an exploratory operation on the abdomen, 
> his answer would be in the negative, but that, on the other 
> hand, he had not infrequently had cause to regret that he 
> had not resorted to it, post-mortem examination having 
> shown that if only he had insisted on an exploratioui being 
> made, some band, some adhesion, some tumour, some abscess 
> might have been satisfactorily dealt with, which, left 
> unsuspected in the dark cavity, was accountable for the 
> death.  A physician by himself is helpless in these cases. 
> 
> Much of the rapid advance which has of late been made in 
> the results of abdominal surgery is due to the improved 
> relationship which exists between the public and the surgical 
> profession.  In former days it was not infrequently said, ``If 
> a surgeon is called in he is sure to operate.'' Not only have 
> the public said this, but even physicians have been known to 
> suggest it, and have indeed used the equivocal expression, 
> the ``apotheosis of surgery,'' in connexion with the operative 
> treatment of a serious abdominal lesion.  But fortunately 
> the public have found out that the surgeon, being an honest 
> man, does not advise operation unless he believes that it is 
> necessary or, at any rate, highly advisable.  And this happy 
> discovery has led to much more confidence being placed in his 
> decision.  It has truly been said that a surgeon is a physician 
> who can operate, and the public have begun to realize the fact 
> that it is useless to try to relieve an acute abdominal lesion 
> by diet or drugs.  Not many years ago cases of acute, obscure 
> or chronic affections of the abdomen which were admitted into 
> hospital were sent as a matter of course into the medical 
> wards, and after the effect of drugs had been tried with 
> expectancy and failure, the services of a surgeon were called 
> in.  In acute cases this delay spoilt all surgical chances, and 
> the idea was more widely spread that surgery, after all, was 
> a poor handmaid to medicine.  But now things are different.  
> Acute or obscure abdominal cases are promptly relegated to 
> the surgical wards; the surgeon is at once sent for, and if 
> operation is thought desirable it is performed without any 
> delay.  The public have found that the surgeon is not a reckless 
> operator, but a man who can take a broad view of a case in all 
> its bearings.  And so it has come about that the results of 
> operations upon the interior of the abdomen have been improving 
> day by day.  And doubtless they will continue to improve. 
> 
> A great impetus was given to the surgery of wounded, mortified 
> or diseased pieces of intestine by the introduction from 
> Chicago of an ingenious contrivance named, after the inventor, 
> Murphy's button. This consists of a short nickel-plated 
> tube in two pieces, which are rapidly secured in the divided 
> ends of the bowel, and in such a manner that when the 
> pieces are subsequently ``married'' the adjusted ends of 
> the bowel are securely fixed together and the canal rendered 
> practicable.  In the course of time the button loosens itself 
> into the interior of the bowel and comes away with the alvine 
> evacuation.  In many other cases the use of the button has 
> proved convenient and successful, as in the establishment of 
> a permanent communication between the stomach and the small 
> intestine when the ordinary gateway between these parts of 
> the alimentary canal is obstructed by an irremovable malignant 
> growth; between two parts of the small intestine so that 
> some obstruction may be passed; betw:en smal' and large 
> intestine.  The operative procedure goes by the name of 
> short-circuiting; it enables the contents of the bowel to get 
> beyond an obstruction.  In this way also a permanent working 
> communication can be set up between the gallbladder, or a 
> dilated bile-duct, and the neighbouring small intestine---the 
> last-named operation bears the precise but very clumsy name 
> of choledocoduodenostomy. By the use of Murphy's ingenious 
> apparatus the communication of two parts can be secured in 
> the shortest possible space of time, and this, in many of 
> the cases in which it is resorted to, is of the greatest 
> importance.  But there is this against the method---that 
> sometimes ulceration occurs around the rim of the metal button, 
> whilst at others the loosened metal causes annoyance in its 
> passage along the alimentary canal.  Some surgeons therefore 
> prefer to use a bobbin of decalcified bone or similar soft 
> material, while others rely upon direct suturing of the 
> parts.  The last-named method is gradually increasing in 
> popularity, and of course, when time and circumstances permit, 
> it is the ideal method of treatment.  The cause of death 
> in the case of intestinal obstruction is usually due to the 
> blood being poisoned by the absorption of the products of 
> decomposition of the fluid contents of the bowel above the 
> obstruction.  It is now the custom, therefore, for the surgeon to 
> complete his operation for the relief of obstruction by drawing 
> out a loop of the distended bowel, incising and evacuating 
> it, and then carefully suturing and returning it.  The surgeon 
> who first recognized the lethal effect of the absorption of 
> this stagnant fluid---or, at any rate, who first suggested the 
> proper method of treating it---was Lawson Tait of Birmingham, 
> who on the occurrence of grave symptoms after operating on 
> the abdomen gave small, repeated doses of Epsom salts to wash 
> away the harmful liquids of the bowel and to enable it at the 
> same time to empty itself of the gas, which, by distending the 
> intestines, was interfering with respiration and circulation. 
> 
> Amongst still more recent improvements in abdominal surgery 
> may be mentioned the placing of the patient in the sitting 
> position as soon as practicable after the operation, and 
> the slow administration of a hot saline solution into the 
> lower bowel, or, in the more desperate cases, of injecting 
> pints of this ``normal saline'' fluid into the loose 
> tissue of the armpit.  Hot water thus administered or 
> injected is quickly taken into the blood, increasing its 
> volume, diluting its impurities and quenching the great 
> thirst which is so marked a symptom in this condition. 
> 
> Gunshot wounds of the Abdomen.---If a revolver bullet passes 
> through the abdomen, the coils of intestine are likely to be 
> traversed by it in several places.  If the bullet be small and, 
> by chance, surgically clean, it is possible that the openings 
> may tightly close up behind it so that no leakage takes place 
> into the general peritoneal cavity.  If increasing collapse 
> suggests that serious bleeding is occurring within the abdomen, 
> the cavity is opened forthwith and a thorough exploration 
> made.  When it is uncettain lf the bowel has been traversed 
> or not, it is well to wait before opening the abdomen, due 
> preparation being made for performing that operation on the 
> first appearance of symptoms indicative of perforation having 
> occurred.  Small perforating wounds of the bowel are treated 
> by such suturing as the circumstances may suggest, the interior 
> of the abdominal cavity being rendered as free from septic 
> micro-organisms as possible.  It is by the malign influence of 
> such germs that a fatal issue is determined in the case of an 
> abdominal wound, whether inflicted by firearms or by a pointed 
> weapon.  If aseptic procedure can be promptly resorted 
> to and thoroughly carried out, abdominal wounds do well, 
> but these essentials cannot be obtained upon the field of 
> battle.  When after an action wounded men come pouring into 
> the field-hospital, the many cannot be kept waiting whilst 
> preparations are being made for the thorough carrying out 
> of a prolonged aseptic abdominal operation upon a solitary 
> case.  Experience in the South African war of 1899-1902 showed 
> that Mauser bullets could pierce coils of intestine and leave 
> the soldiers in such a condition that, if treated by mere 
> ``expectancy,'' more than 50% recovered, whereas if operations 
> were resorted to, fatal septic peritonitis was likely to ensue.  
> In the close proximity of the fight, where time, assistants, 
> pure water, towels, lotions and other necessaries for carrying 
> out a thoroughly aseptic operation cannot be forthcoming, 
> gunshot wounds of the abdomen had best not be interfered with. 
> 
> Stabs of the abdomen are serious if they have penetrated the 
> abdominal wall, as, at the time of injury, septic germs may 
> have been introduced, or the bowel may have been wounded.  In 
> either case a fatal inflammation of the peritoneum may be set 
> up.  It is inadvisable to probe a wound in order to find out 
> if the belly-cavity has been penetrated, as the probe itself 
> might carry inwards septic germs.  In case of doubt it is 
> better to enlarge the wound in order to determine its depth, 
> and to disinfect and close it if it be non-penetrating.  If, 
> however, the bellycavity has been opened, the neighbouring 
> pieces of bowel should be examined, cleansed and, if need be, 
> sutured.  Should there have been an escape of the contents of 
> the bowel the ``toilet of the peritoneum'' would be duly made, 
> and a drainage-tube would be left in.  If the stab had injured 
> a large blood-vessel either of the abdominal cavity, or of the 
> hiver or of some other organ, the bleeding would be arrested 
> by ligature or suture, and the extravasated blood sponged 
> out.  Before the days of antiseptic surgery, and of exploratory 
> abdominal operations, these cases were generally allowed 
> to drift to almost certain death, unrecognized and almost 
> untreated: at the present time a large number of them are saved. 
> 
> Intussusception.---This is a terribly fatal disease of 
> infants and children, in which a piece of bowel slips into, 
> and is gripped by, the piece next below it.  Formerly it was 
> generally the custom to endeavour to reduce the invagination 
> by passing air or water up the rectum under pressure--a 
> speculative method of treatment which sometimes ended in a 
> fatal rupture of the distended bowel, and often---one might 
> almost say generally--failed to do what was expected of 
> it.  The teaching of modern surgery is that a small incision 
> into the abdomen and a prompt withdrawal of the invaginated 
> piece of bowel can be trusted to do all that, and more than, 
> infection can effect, without blindly risking a rupture of the 
> bowel.  It is certain that when the surgeon is unable to 
> unravel the bowel with his fingers gently applied to the parts 
> themselves, no speculative distension of the bowel could 
> have been effective.  But the outlook in these distressing 
> cases, even when the operation is promptly resorted to, is 
> extremely grave, because of the intensity of the shock which 
> the intussusception and resulting strangulation entail.  
> Still, every operation gives them by far the best chance. 
> 
> Cancer of the Intestine.---With the introduction of aseptic 
> methods of operating, it has been found that the surgeon can 
> reach the bowel through the peritoneum easily and safely.  
> With the peritoneum opened, moreover, he can explore the 
> diseased bowel and deal with it as circumstances suggest.  
> If the cancerous mass is fairly movable the affected piece 
> of bowel is excised and the cut ends are spliced together, 
> and the continuity of the alimentary canal is permanently 
> re-established.  Thus in the case of cancer of the large 
> intestine which is not too far advanced, the surgeon expects 
> to be able not only to relieve the obstruction of the bowel, 
> but actually to cure the patient of his disease.  When the 
> lowest part of the bowel was found to be occupied by a cancerous 
> obstruction, the surgeon used formerly to secure an easy escape 
> for the contents of the bowel by making an opening into the 
> colon in the left loin.  But in recent years this operation of 
> lumbar colotomy has been almost entirely replaced by opening 
> the colon in the left groin.  This operation of iniguinal 
> colotomy is usually divided into two stages: a loop of the 
> large intestine is first drawn out through the abdominal 
> wound and secured by stitches, and a few days afterwards, 
> when it is firmly glued in place by adhesive inflammation, 
> it is cut across, so that subsequently the motions can no 
> longer find their way into the bowel below the artificial 
> anus.  If at the first stage of the operation symptoms of 
> obstruction are urgent, one of the ingenious glass tubes 
> with a rubber conduit, which Mr F. T. Paul has invented, 
> may be forthwith introduced into the distended bowel, so 
> that the contents may be allowed to escape without fear of 
> soiling the peritoneum or even the surface-wound. (E. O.*) 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
WikiPediaFaq|980844582
61c61,63
< A. Yes, click on the RecentChanges link at the top and bottom of every page.
---
> A. Yes, click on the RecentChanges link at the top and bottom of every page.
> ----
> '''Q. Can a hit counter be implemented on a Wiki page?'''
------
AbductioN|980844588
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABDUCTION (Lat. abductio, abducere, to lead away), a 
> law term denoting the forcible or fraudulent removal of a 
> person, limited by custom to the case where a woman is the 
> victim.  In the case of men or children, it has been usual 
> to substitute the term kidnapping (q.v.).  The old English 
> laws against abduction, generally contemplating its object 
> as the possession of an heiress and her fortune, have been 
> repealed by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which 
> makes it felony for any one from motives of lucre to take 
> away or detain against her will with intent to marry or 
> carnally know her, &c., any woman of any age who has any 
> interest in any real or personal estate, or is an heiress 
> presumptive, or co-heiress, or presumptive next of kin to 
> any one having such an interest; or for any one to cause 
> such a woman to be married or carnally known by any other 
> person; or for any one with such intent to allure, take 
> away, or detain any such woman under the age of twenty-one, 
> out of the possession and against the will of her parents or 
> guardians.  By s. 54, forcible taking away or detention 
> against her will of any woman of any age with like intent is 
> felony.  The same act makes abduction without eyen any such 
> intent a misdemeanour, where an unmarried girl under the 
> age of sixteen is unlawfully taken out of the possession and 
> against the will of her parents or guardians.  In such a case 
> the girl's consent is immaterial, nor is it a defence that the 
> person charged reasonably believed that the girl was sixteen or 
> over.  The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 made still more 
> stringent provisions with reference to abduction by making 
> the procuration or attempted procuration of any virtuous 
> female under the age of twenty-one years a misdemeanour, as 
> well as the abduction of any girl under eighteen years of 
> age with the intent that she shall be carnally known, or the 
> detaining of any female against her will on any premises, 
> with intent to have, or that another person may have, carnal 
> knowledge of her.  In Scotland, where there is no statutory 
> adjustment, abduction is similarly dealt with by practice. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
------
AbeceDarians|980844698
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABECEDARIANS, a nickname given to certain extreme 
> Anabaptists (q.v.), who regarded the teaching of the Holy 
> Spirit as all that was necessary, and so despised all human 
> learning and even the power of reading the written word. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
AbeL|980844760
1c1,22
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABEL (Hebrew for breath), the second son of Adam, slain 
> by Cain, his elder brother (Gen. iv. 1-16).  The narrative 
> in Genesis which tells us that ``the Lord had respect unto 
> Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and to his offering 
> he had not respect,'' is supplemented by the statement of the 
> New Testament, that ``by faith Abel offered unto God a more 
> excellent sacrifice than Cain'' (Heb. xi. 4), and that Cain 
> slew Abel ``because his own works were evil and his brother's 
> righteous'' (1 John iii. 12). See further under CAIN.  The 
> name has been identified with the Assyrian ablu, ``son,'' but 
> this is far from certain.  It more probably means ``herdsman'' 
> (cf. the name Jabal), and a distinction is drawn between the 
> pastoral Abel and the agriculturist Cain.  If Cain is the eponym 
> of the Kenites it is quite possible that Abel was originally 
> a South Judaean demigod or hero; on this, see Winckler, 
> Gesch.  Israels, ii. p. 189; E. Meyer, Israelitein, p. 
> 395. A sect of Abelitae, who seem to have lived in North 
> Africa, is mentioned by Augustine (De Haeresibus, lxxxvi.). 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
CharlestoN|980844855
1c1,46
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Charleston is danced in 8-count figures, solo, with a partner
> or in groups (usually facing lines).
> 
> A common incarnation of the man's basic step is as follows:
> 
> (count) 1: Left foot straight back, committing most or all of the weight.
> 
> 2: Replacing weight to right foot.
> 
> 3: Kicking forward with the left foot, weight remaining on the right (placing the foot too early is a common mistake for beginners which causes them to get ahead of the music).
> 
> 4: Stepping forward onto the left foot and committing all the weight to the foot.
> 
> 5: Kicking forward with the right foot.
> 
> 6: Lifting the right foot.
> 
> 7: Kicking the right foot back or back and to the side.
> 
> 8: Stepping back onto the right foot, preparing for count 1.
> 
> Many variations on this footwork are commonly seen, particularly
> in the size of the steps and height of the kicks.  Charleston
> is danced by some in a very understated, minimalistic style, and by others very energetically.
> 
> Among the numerous variations in style, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th steps are the most consistent.  Counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 simply transfer the right foot from the front to the back, and thus provide lots of room for variation.  For instance:
> 
> 5: Kick forward
> 6: Pull right foot back
> 7: Kick forward again
> 8: Step back and place weight
> 
> The lady's part when dancing with a partner is the same as the man's, except that she moves the opposite foot (but in the same direction - NOT the natural opposite as in Waltz where she moves the opposite foot in the opposite direction).  IE., she begins by stepping back on her right foot.  When dancing tandem style with a partner and in other situations, however, the lady does exactly the same footwork as the man.
> 
> Charleston can be danced solo, its simple, flexible basic step making it easy to concentrate on style and musicality.  
> 
> When dancing solo or in groups, the hands are often swung forward and back, opposite the direction of the corresponding foot.  Often the fingers are held together pointing sideways away from tbe body, leaving the palms parallel to the floor.
> 
> A common formation for dancing in groups is to form two long lines of dancers facing each other.  Each dancer should have arms' width of space to himself laterally and the lines should be around 6 feet apart.  
> 
> The default is to dance a basic step.  One person will typically then call out a variation (such as turning 360 degrees in place on counts 5-8), which is then done by everyone beginning the next measure and again for the following 2 measures.  If the caller doesn't call another step immediately, the dancers return to the basic step.  Switching sides is sometimes called, upon which the dancers hop on the left foot across to the other side on counts 5-8, turning 180 degrees to the left.
> 
> When dancing in couples, the basic hold is for the lady to stand next to the man on the man's right side.  The man holds the lady's right hand with his left.  The man's right hand is placed on the lady's waist on her right side; thus he can lead her right side with his hand, in conjunction with his forearm across her lower back.  The lady's left hand is placed on the man's right shoulder.
> 
> To lead the basic step, then, the man uses his right hand to lead the lady's right side (and thus foot) back as he steps back on his left foot.  He then leads her right side forward as he kicks and steps forward on counts 3 and 4.  Likewise, the mirror-image lead continues for the second half of the step.
> 
------
WcGing|980844907
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Just a character from the [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WcGing Bomis Wiki pages]
------
PeterAbelard|980844916
1c1,280
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABELARD, PETER (1079-1142), scholastic philosopher, was born 
> at Pallet (Palais), not far from Nantes, in 1079.  He was the 
> eldest son of a noble Breton house.  The name Abaelardus 
> (also written Abailardus, Abaielardus, and in many other 
> ways) is said to be a corruption of Habelardus, substituted 
> by himself for a nickname Bajolardus given to him when a 
> student.  As a boy, he showed an extraordinary quickness of 
> apprehension, and, choosing a learned life instead of the 
> knightly career natural to a youth of his birth, early became 
> an adept in the art of dialectic, under which name philosophy, 
> meaning at that time chiefly the logic of Aristotle transmitted 
> through Latin channels, was the great subject of liberal 
> study in the episcopal schools.  Roscellinus, the famous 
> canon of Compiegne, is mentioned by himself as his teacher; 
> but whether he heard this champion of extreme Nominalism in 
> early youth, when he wandered about from school to school 
> for instruction and exercise, or some years later, after he 
> had already begun to teach for himself, remains uncertain.  
> His wanderings finally brought him to Paris, still under 
> the age of twenty.  There, in the great cathedral school of 
> Notre-Dame, he sat for a while under the teaching of William 
> of Champeaux, the disciple of St Anselm and most advanced of 
> Realists, but, presently stepping forward, he overcame the 
> master in discussion, and thus began a long duel that issued 
> in the downfall of the philosophic theory of Realism, till 
> then dominant in the early Middle Age. First, in the teeth 
> of opposition from the metropolitan teacher, while yet only 
> twenty-two, he proceeded to set up a school of hs own at 
> Melun, whence, for more direct competition, he removed to 
> Corbeil, nearer Paris.  The success of his teaching was 
> signal, though for a time he had to quit the field, the 
> strain proving too great for his physical strength.  On his 
> return, after 1108, he found William lecturing no longer at 
> Notre-Dame, but in a monastic retreat outside the city, and 
> there battle was again joined between them.  Forcing upon 
> the Realist a material change of doctrine, he was once more 
> victorious, and thenceforth he stood supreme.  His discomfited 
> rival still had power to keep him from lecturing in Paris, hut 
> soon failed in this last effort also.  From Melun, where he 
> had resumed teaching, Abelard passed to the capital, and set 
> up his school on the heights of St Genevieve, looking over 
> Notre-Dame.  From his success in dialectic, he next turned to 
> theology and attended the lectures of Anselm at Laon.  His triumph 
> over the theologian was complete; the pupil was able to give 
> lectures, without previous training or special study, which 
> were acknowledged superior to those of the master.  Abelard 
> was now at the height of hs fame.  He stepped into the chair at 
> Notre-Dame, being also nominated canon, about the year 1115. 
> 
> Few teachers ever held such sway as Abelard now did for a 
> time.  Distinguished in figure and manners, he was seen 
> surrounded by crowds--it is said thousands of students, 
> drawn from all countries by the fame of hs teaching, in which 
> acuteness of thought was relieved by simplicity and grace of 
> exposition.  Enriched by the offerings of his pupils, and 
> feasted with universal admiration, he came, as he says, 
> to think himself the only philosopher standing in the 
> world.  But a change in his fortunes was at hand.  In his 
> devotion to science, he had hitherto lived a very regular 
> life, varied only by the excitement of conflict: now, at 
> the height of his fame, other passions began to stir within 
> him.  There lived at that time, within the precincts of 
> Notre-Dame, under the care of her uncle, the canon Fulbert, a 
> young girl named Heloise, of noble extraction, and born about 
> 1101.  Fair, but still more remarkable for her knowledge, 
> which extended beyond Latin, it is said, to Greek and Hebrew, 
> she awoke a feeling of love in the breast of Abelard; and 
> with intent to win her, he sought and gained a footing in 
> Fulbert's house as a regular inmate.  Becoming also tutor to 
> the maiden, he used the unlimited power which he thus obtained 
> over her for the purpose of seduction, though not without 
> cherishing a real affection which she returned in unparalleled 
> devotion.  Their relation interfering with his public work, and 
> being, moreover, ostentatiously sung by himself, soon became 
> known to all the world except the too-confiding Fulbert; and, 
> when at last it could not escape even his vision, they were 
> separated only to meet in secret.  Thereupon Heloise found 
> herself pregnant, and was carried off by her lover to Brittany, 
> where she gave birth to a son.  To appease her furious uncle, 
> Abelard now proposed a marriage, under the condition that it 
> should be kept secret, in order not to mar his prospects of 
> advancement in the church; but of marriage, whether public 
> or secret, Heloise would hear nothing.  She appealed to him 
> not to sacrifice for her the independence of his life, nor 
> did she finally yield to the arrangement without the darkest 
> forebodings, only too soon to be reallzed.  The secret of 
> the marriage was not kept by Fulbert; and when Heloise, true 
> to her singular purpose, boldly denied it, life was made so 
> unsupportable to her that she sought refuge in the convent of 
> Argenteuil.  Immediately Fulbert, believing that her husband, 
> who aided in the flight, designed to be rid of her, coinceived 
> a dire revenge.  He and some others broke into Abelard's 
> chamber by night, and perpetrated on him the most brutal 
> mutilation.  Thus cast down from his pinnacle of greatness 
> into an abyss of shame and misery, there was left to the 
> brilliant master only the life of a monk.  The priesthood 
> and ecclesiastical office were canonically closed to him.  
> Heloise, not yet twenty, consummated her work of self-sacrifice 
> at the call of his jealous love, and took the veil. 
> 
> It was in the abbey of St Denis that Abelard, now aged 
> forty, sought to bury himself with his woes out of sight.  
> Finding, however, in the cloister neither calm nor solitude, 
> and having gradually turned again to study, he yielded after 
> a year to urgent entreaties from without and within, and 
> went forth to reopen his school at the priory of Maisonceile 
> (1120).  His lectures, now framed in a devotional spirit, were 
> heard again by crowds of students, and all his old influence 
> seemed to have returned; but old enmities were revived 
> also, against which he was no longer able as before to make 
> head.  No sooner had he put in writing his theological 
> lectures (apparently the Introductio and Theolo giam 
> that has come down to us), than his adversaries fell foul of 
> his rationalistic interpretation of the Trinitarian dogma.  
> Charging him with the heresy of Sabellius in a provincial 
> synod held at Soissons in 1121, they procured by irregular 
> practices a condemnation of his teaching, whereby he was made 
> to throw his book into the flames and then was shut up in 
> the convent of St Medard at Soissons.  After the other, it 
> was the bitterest possible experience that could befall him, 
> nor, in the state of mental desolation into which it plunged 
> him, could he find any comfort from being soon again set free.  
> The life in his own monastery proved no more congenial than 
> formerly.  For this Abelard himself was partly responsible.  
> He took a sort of malicious pleasure in irritating the monks. 
> Quasijocando, he cited Bede to prove that Dionysius the 
> Areopagite had been bishop of Corinth, while they relied upon 
> the statement of the abbot Hilduin that he had been bishop of 
> Athens.  When this historical heresy led to the inevitable 
> persecution, Abelard wrote a letter to the abbot Adam in 
> which he preferred to the authority of Bede that of Eusebius' 
> Historia Ecelesiastica and St Jerome, according to whom 
> Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, was distinct from Dionysius 
> the Areopagite, bishop of Athens and founder of the abbey, 
> though, in deference to Bede, he suggested that the Areopagite 
> might also have beeit bishop of Corinth.  Life in the 
> monastery was intolerable for such a troublesome spirit, and 
> Abelard, who had once attempted to escape the persecution 
> he had called forth by flight to a monastery at Provins, 
> was finally allowed to withdraw.  In a desert place near 
> Nogent-sur-Seine, he built himself a cabin of stubble and 
> reeds, and turned hermit.  But there fortune came back to him 
> with a new surprise.  His retreat becoming known, students 
> flocked from Paris, and covered the wilderness around him 
> with their tents and huts.  When he began to teach again he 
> found consolation, and in gratitude he consecrated the new 
> oratory they built for him by the name of the Paraclete. 
> 
> Upon the return of new dangers, or at least of fears, Abelard 
> left the Paraclete to make trial of another refuge, accepting 
> an invitation to preside over the abbey of St Gildas-de-Rhuys, 
> on the far-off shore of Lower Brittany.  It proved a wretched 
> exchange.  The region was inhospitable, the domain a prey to 
> lawless exaction, the house itself savage and disorderly.  
> Yet for nearly ten years he continued to struggle with fate 
> before he fled from his charge, yielding in the end only under 
> peru of violent death.  The misery of those years was not, 
> however, unrelieved; for he had been able, on the breaking 
> up of Heloise's convent at Argenteuil, to establish her as 
> head of a new religious house at the deserted Paraclete, and 
> in the capacity of spiritual director he often was called to 
> revisit the spot thus made doubly dear to him.  All this time 
> Heloise had lived amid universal esteem for her knowledge and 
> character, uttering no word under the doom that had fallen upon 
> her youth; hut now, at last, the occasion came for expressing 
> all the pent-up emotions of her soul.  Living on for some time 
> apart (we do not know exactly where), after his flight from St 
> Gildas, Abelard wrote, among other things, his famous Historia 
> Calamitatum, and thus moved her to peu her first Letter, 
> which remains an unsurpassed utterance of human passion and 
> womanly devotion; the first being followed by the two other 
> Letters, in which she finally accepted the part of resignation 
> which, now as a brother to a sister, Abelard commended to 
> her.  He not long after was seen once more upon the field 
> of his early triumphs lecturing on Mount St Genevieve in 
> 1136 (when he was heard by John of Salisbury), but it was 
> only for a brief space: no new triumph, but a last great 
> trial, awaited him in the few years to come of his chequered 
> life.  As far back as the Paraclete days, he had counted 
> as chief among his foes Bernard of Clairvaux, in whom was 
> incarnated the principle of fervent and unhesitating faith, 
> from which rational inquiry like his was sheer revolt, and 
> now this uncompromising spirit was moving, at the instance of 
> others, to crush the growing evil in the person of the boldest 
> offender.  After preliminary negotiations, in which Bernard 
> was roused by Abelard's steadfastness to put forth all his 
> strength, a council met at Sens (1141), before which Abelard, 
> formally arraigned upon a number of heretical charges, was 
> prepared to plead his cause.  When, however, Bernard, not without 
> foregone terror in the prospect of meeting the redoubtable 
> dialectician, had opened the case, suddenlly Abelard appealed to 
> Rome.  The stroke availed him nothing; for Bernard, who had 
> power, notwithstanding, to get a condemnation passed at the 
> council, did not rest a moment till a second condemnation was 
> procured at Rome in the following year.  Meanwhile, on his way 
> thither to urge his plea in person, Abelard had broken down 
> at the abbey of Cluny, and there, an utterly fallen man, with 
> spirit of the humblest, and only not bereft of his intellectual 
> force, he lingered but a few months before the approach of 
> death.  Removed by friendly hands, for the relief of his 
> sufferings, to the priory of St Marcel, near Chalon-sur-Saone, 
> he died on the 21st of April 1142.  First buried at St Marcel, 
> his remains soon after were carried off in secrecy to the 
> Paraclete, and given over to the loving care of Heloise, who 
> in time came herself to rest beside them (1164).  The bones 
> of the pair were shifted more than once afterwards, but they 
> were marvellously preserved even through the vicissitudes 
> of the French Revolution, and now they lie united in the 
> well-known tomb in the cemetery of Pere-la-Chaise at Paris. 
> 
> Great as was the influence exerted by Abelard on the minds of 
> his contemporaries and the course of medieval thought, he has 
> been little known in modern times but for his connexion with 
> Heloise.  Indeed, it was not till the 19th century, when Cousin 
> in 1836 issued the collection entitled Ouvrages inedits 
> d'Abelard, that his philosophical performance could be judged 
> at first hand; of his strictly philosophical works only one, 
> the ethical treatise Scito te ipsum, having been published 
> earlier, namely, in 1721.  Cousin's collection, besides giving 
> extracts from the theological work Sic et Non (an assemblage 
> of opposite opinions on doctrinal points, culled from the 
> Fathers as a basis for discussion, the main interest in which 
> lles in the fact that there is no attempt to reconcile the 
> different opinions), includes the Dialectica, commentaries 
> on logical works of Aristotle, Porphyry and Boothius, and a 
> fragment, De Generibus et Speciebus.  The last-named 
> work, and also the psychological treatise De Inteilectibus, 
> published apart by Cousin (in Fragmens Philosophiques, 
> vol. ii.), are now considered upon internal evidence not to 
> be hy Abelard himself, but only to have sprung out of his 
> school.  A genuine work, the Glossulae super Porphyrium, 
> from which Charles de Remusat, in his classical monograph 
> Abelard (1845), has given extracts, remains in manuscript. 
> 
> The general importance of Abelard lles in his having fixed 
> more decisively than any one before him the scholastic manner 
> of philosophizing, with its object of giving a formally 
> rational expression to the received ecclesiastical doctrine 
> . However his own particular interpretations may have been 
> condemned, they were conceived in essentially the same spirit 
> as the general scheme of thought afterwards elaborated in 
> the 13th century with approval from the heads of the church.  
> Through him was prepared in the Middle Age the ascendancy 
> of the philosophical authority of Aristotle, which became 
> firmly established in the half-century after his death, when 
> first the completed Organon, and gradually ail the other 
> works of the Greek thinker, came to be known in the schools: 
> before his time it was rather upon the authority of Plato 
> that the prevailing Realism sought to lean.  As regards his 
> so-called Conceptualism and his attitude to the question of 
> Universals, see SCHOLASTICISM.  Outside of his dialectic, 
> it was in ethics that Abelard showed greatest activity of 
> philosophical thought; laying very particular stress upon 
> the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral 
> character, at least the moral value, of human action.  His 
> thought in this direction, wherein he anticipated something 
> of modern speculation, is the more remarkable because his 
> scholastic successors accomplished least in the field of 
> morals, hardly venturing to bring the principles and rules of 
> conduct under pure philosophical discussion, even after the 
> great ethical inquiries of AAstotle became fully known to them. 
> 
> BIBLIOGRAPHY --Abelard's own works remain the best sources 
> for his life, especially his Historia Culamitatum, an 
> autobiography, and the correspondence with Heloise.  The 
> literature on Abelard is extensive, but consists principally 
> of monographs on different aspects of his philosophy.  
> Charles de Remusat's Abelard (2 vols., 1845) remains an 
> authority; it must be distinguished from his drama Abelard 
> (1877), which is an attempt to give a picture of medieval 
> life.  McCabe's life of Abelard is written closely from 
> the sources. eee also the valuable analysis by Nitsch 
> in the article ``Abalard'' There is a comprehensive 
> bibliograohy in U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources 
> hist. du moyen age, s. ``Abailard.'' (G. C. R.; J. T. S.*) 
> 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
AbensbergGermany|980844995
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABENSBERG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the 
> Abens, a tributary of the Danube, 18 m.  S.W. of Regensburg, 
> with which it is connected by rail.  Pop. 2202.  It has a small 
> spa, and its sulphur baths are resorted to for the cure of 
> rheumatism and gout.  The town is the Castra Abusina of the 
> Romans, and Roman remains exist in the neighbourhood.  Here, 
> on the 20th of April 1809, Napoleon gained a signal victory 
> over the Austrians under the Archduke Louis and Genegal Hiller. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen|980845160
1c1,202
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABERDEEN, GEORGE HAMILTON GORDON, 4TH EARL OF (1784-1860), 
> English statesman, was the eldest son of George Gordon, Lord 
> Haddo, by his wife Charlotte, daughter of William Baird of 
> Newbyth, Haddingtonshire, and grandson of George, 3rd earl of 
> Aberdeen.  Born in Edinburgh on the 28th of January 1784, 
> he lost his father in 1791 and his mother in 1795; and as 
> his grandfather regarded him with indifference, he went to 
> reside with Henry Dundas, afterwards Viscount Melville.  At 
> the age of fourteen he was permitted by Scotch law to name 
> his own curators, or guardians, and selecting William Pitt 
> and Dundas for this office he spent much of his time at their 
> houses, thus meeting many of the leading politicians of the 
> day.  He was educated at Harrow, and St John's College, Cambridge, 
> where he graduated as a nobleman in 1804.  Before this time, 
> however, he had become earl of Aberdeen on his grandfather's 
> death in 1801, and had travelled over a large part of the 
> continent of Europe, meeting on his journeys Napoleon Bonaparte 
> and other persons of distinction.  He also spent some time in 
> Greece, and on his return to England founded the Athenian 
> Society, membership of which was confined to those who had 
> travelled in that country.  Moreover, he wrote an article in 
> the Edinburgh Review of July 1805 criticizing Sir William 
> Gill's Topography of Troy, and these circumstances led Lord 
> Byron to refer to him in Eniglish Bardo and Scotch Reviewers 
> as ``the travell'd thane, Athenian Aberdeen.'' Having attained 
> his majority in 1805, he married on the 28th of July Catherine 
> Elizabeth Hamilton, daughter of John James, 1st marquess of 
> Abercorn.  In December 1806 he was elected a representative 
> peer for Scotland, and took his seat as a Tory in the House of 
> Lords, but for some years he took only a slight part in public 
> business.  However, by his birth, his abilities and his 
> connexions alike he was marked out for a high position, and 
> after the death of his wife in February 1812 he was appointed 
> ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at 
> Vienna, where he signed the treaty of Toplitz between Great 
> Britain and Austria in October 1813; and accompanying the 
> emperor Francis I. through the subsequent campaign against 
> France, he was present at the battle of Leipzig.  He was 
> one of the British representatives at the congress of 
> Chatillon in February 1814, and in the same capacity was 
> present during the negotiations which led to the treaty of 
> Paris in the following May. Returning home he was created 
> a peer of the United Kingdom as Viscount Gordon of Aberdeen 
> (1814), and made a member of the privy council.  On the 15th 
> of Juby 1815 he married Harriet, daughter of the Hon. John 
> Douglas, and widow of James, Viscount Hamilton, and thus 
> became doubly connected with the family of the marquess of 
> Abercorn.  During the ensuing thirteen years Aberdeen took a 
> less prominent part in public affairs, although he succeeded 
> in passing the Entail (Scotland) Act of 1825.  He kept in 
> touch, however, with foreign politics, and having refused to 
> join the ministry of George Canning in 1827, became a member 
> of the cabinet of the duke of Wellington as chancellor of the 
> duchy of Lancaster in January 1828.  In the following June he 
> was transferred to the office of secretary of state for foreign 
> affairs, and having acquitted himself with credit with regard 
> to the war between Russia and Turkey, and to affairs in Greece, 
> Portugal and France, he resigned with Wellington in November 
> 1830, and shared his leader's attitude towards the Reform 
> Bill of 1832.  As a Scotsman, Aberdeen was interested in the 
> ecclesiastical controversy which culminated in the disruption of 
> 1843.  In 1840 he introduced a bill to settle the vexed question 
> of patronage; but disliked by a majority in the general assembly 
> of the Scotch church, and unsupported by the government, it 
> failed to become law, and some opprobrium was cast upon its 
> author.  In 1843 he brought forward a similar measure ``to 
> remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to 
> benefices.'' This Admission to Benefices Act, as it was called, 
> passed into law, but did not reconcile the opposing parties. 
> 
> During the short administration of Sir Robert Peel in 1834 
> and 1835, Aberdeen had filled the office of secretary for 
> the colonies, and in September 1841 he took office again 
> under Peel, on this occasion as foreign secretary; the 
> five years during which he held this position were the most 
> fruitful and successful of his public life.  He owed his 
> success to the confidence placed in him by Queen Victoria, 
> to his wide knowledge of European politics, to his intimate 
> friendship with Guizot, and not least to his own conciliatory 
> disposition.  Largely owing to his efforts, causes of quarrel 
> between Great Britain and France in Tahiti, over the marriage 
> of Isabella II. of Spain, and in other directions, were 
> removed.  More important still were his services in settling 
> the question of the boundary between the United States and 
> British North America at a time when a single injudicious 
> word would probably have provoked a war.  In 1845 he supported 
> Peel when in a divided cabinet he proposed to suspend the duty 
> on foreign corn, and left office with that minister in July 
> 1846.  After Peel's death in 1850 he became the recognized 
> leader of the Peelites, although since his resignation his 
> share in public business had been confined to a few speeches 
> on foreign affairs.  His dislike of the Ecclesiastical Titles 
> Assumption Bill, the rejection of which he failed to secure in 
> 1851, prevented him from joining the government of Lord John 
> Russell, or from forming an administration himself in this 
> year.  In December 1852, however, be became first lord of 
> the treasury and head of a coalition ministry of Whigs and 
> Peelites.  Although united on free trade and in general 
> on questions of domestic reform, a cabinet which contained 
> Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, in addition to 
> Aberdeen, was certain to differ on questions of foreign 
> policy.  The strong and masterful character of these and 
> other colleagues made the task of the prime minister one 
> of unusual difficulty, a fact which was recognized by 
> contemporaries.  Charles Greville in his Memoirs says, 
> ``In the present cabinet are five or six first-rate men of 
> equal, or nearly equal, pretensions, none of them likely to 
> acknowledge the superiority or defer to the opinions of any 
> other, and every one of these five or six considering himself 
> abler and more important than their premier''; and Sir James 
> Graham wrote, ``It is a powerful team, but it will require good 
> driving.'' The first year of office passed off successfully, 
> and it was owing to the steady support of the prime minister 
> that Gladstone's great budget of 1853 was accepted by the 
> cabinet.  This was followed by the outbreak of the dispute 
> between France and Turkey over the guardianship of the 
> holy places at Jerusalem, which, after the original cause 
> of quarrel had been forgotten, developed into the Crimean 
> war.  The tortuous negotiations which preceded the struggle 
> need not be discussed here, but in defence of Aberdeen 
> it may be said that he hoped and strove for peace to the 
> last.  Rightly or wrongly, however, he held that Russell was 
> indispensable to the cabinet, and that a resignation would 
> precipitate war.  His outlook, usually so clear, was blurred 
> by these considerations, and he lacked the strength to force 
> the suggestions which he made in the autumn of 1853 upon his 
> imperious colleagues.  Palmerston, supported by Russell and 
> well served by Lord Stratford de Redcllffe, British ambassador 
> at Constantinople, favoured a more aggressive policy, and 
> Aberdeen, unable to control Palmerston, and unwilling to let 
> Russell go, cannot be exonerated from blame.  When the war 
> began he wished to prosecute it vigorously; but the stories 
> of misery and mismanagement from the seat of war deprived 
> the ministry of public favour.  Russell resigned; and on 
> the 29th of January 1855 a motion by J. A. Roebuck, for the 
> appointment of a select committee to enquire into the conduct 
> of the War, was carried in the House of Commons by a large 
> majority.  Treating this as a vote of want of confidence 
> Aberdeen at once resigned office, and the queen bestowed 
> upon him the order of the Garter.  He smoothed the way for 
> Palmerston to succeed him, and while the earl of Clarendon 
> remained at the foreign office he aided him with advice and 
> was consulted on matters of moment.  He died in London on the 
> 14th of December 1860, and was buried in the family vault at 
> Stanmore.  By his first wife he had one son and three 
> daughters, all of whom predeceased their father.  By his second 
> wife, who died in August 1833, he left four sons and one 
> daughter.  His eldest son, George John James, succeeded as 5th 
> earl; his second son was General Sir Alexander Hamilton-Gordon, 
> K.C.B.; his third son was the Reverend Douglas Hamilton-Gordon; 
> and his youngest son Arthur Hamilton, after holding various 
> high offices under the crown, was created Baron Stanmore in 
> 1893.  Among the public offices held by the earl were those of 
> lord-lieutenant of Aberdeenshire, president of the society of 
> Antiquaries from 1812 to 1846 and fellow of the Royal Society. 
> 
> Aberdeen was a distinguished scholar with a retentive memory 
> and a wide knowledge of literature and art.  His private life 
> was exemplary, and he impressed his contemporaries with the 
> loftiness of his character.  His manner was reserved, and 
> as a speaker he was weighty rather than eloquent.  In public 
> life he was remarkable for his generosity to his political 
> opponents, and for his sense of justice and honesty.  He 
> did not, however, possess the qualities which impress the 
> populace, and he lacked the strength which is one of the 
> essential gifts of a statesman.  His character is perhaps best 
> described by a writer who says ``his strength was not equal 
> to his goodness.'' His foreign policy was essentially one of 
> peace and non-intervention, and in pursuing it he was accused 
> of favouring the despotisms of Europe.  Aberdeen was a model 
> landlord.  By draining the land, by planting millions of trees 
> and by erecting numerous buildings, he greatly improved the 
> condition of his Aberdeenshire estates, and studied continually 
> the welfare of his dependants.  A bust of him by Matthew Noble 
> is in Westminster Abbey, and his portrait was painted by Sir 
> Thomas Lawrence.  He wrote An Inquiry into the Principles 
> of Beauty in Grecian Architecture (London, 1822), and the 
> Correspondence of the Earl of Aberdeen has been printed 
> privately under the direction of his son, Lord Stanmore. 
> 
> The 6th earl, George (1841-1870), son of the 5th earl, 
> was drowned at sea, and was succeeded by his brother 
> John Campbell Gordon, 7th earl of Aberdeen, (b. 1847), a 
> prominent Liberal politician, who was lord-lieutenant of 
> Ireland in 1886, governor-general of Canada 1893--1898, 
> and again the lord-lieutenant of Ireland when Sir Henry 
> Campbell-Bannerman formed his ministry at the close of 1905. 
> 
> See Lord Stanmore, The Earl of Aberdeen (London, 1893); C. 
> C. F. Greville, Memoirs, edited by H. Reeve (London, 1888); 
> Spencer Walpole, History of England (London, 1878-1886), 
> and Life of Lord John Russell (London, 1889); A. W. 
> Kinglake, Invasion of the Crimea (London, 1877-1888); 
> Sir T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort (London, 
> 1875-1880); J. Morley, Life of Gladstone (London, 1903). 
>                                                     (A. W. H. deg. )
> 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
> 
------
AberdeenScotland|980845299
1c1,373
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABERDEEN, a royal burgh, city and county of a city, 
> capital of Aberdeenshire, and chief seaport in the north of 
> Scotland.  It is the fourth Scottish town in population, 
> industry and wealth, and stands on a bay of the North 
> Sea, between the mouths of the Don and Dee, 130 1/2 m.  N. 
> E. of Edinburgh by the North British railway.  Though Old 
> Aberdeen, extending from the city suburbs to the southern 
> banks of the Dob, has a separate charter, privileges and 
> history, the distinction between it and New Aberdeen can no 
> longer be said to exist; and for parliamentary, municipal 
> and other purposes, the two towns now form practically one 
> community.  Aberdeen's popular name of the ``Granite City,' 
> is justified by the fact that the bulk of the town fs built 
> of granite, but to appreciate its more poetical designation 
> of the ``Silver City by the Sea,'' it should be seen after 
> a heavy rainfall when its stately structures and countless 
> houses gleam pure and white under the brilliant sunshine.  
> The area of the city extends to 6602 acres, the burghs of 
> Old Aberdeen and Woodside, and the district of Torry (for 
> parliamentary purposes in the constituency of Kincardineshire) 
> to the south of the Dee, having been incorporated in 1891.  
> The city comprises eleven wards and eighteen ecclesiastical 
> parishes, and is under the jurisdiction of a council with 
> lord provost, bailies, treasurer and dean of guild.  The 
> corporation owns the water (derived from the Dee at a spot 21 
> m.  W.S.W. of the city) and gas supplles, electric lighting and 
> tramways.  Since 1885 the city has returned two members to 
> Parliament.  Aberdeen is served by the Caledonian, Great North 
> of Scotland and North British railways (occupying a commodious 
> joint railway station), and there is regular communication by 
> sea with London and the chief ports on the eastern coast of 
> Great Britain and the northern shores of the Continent.  The mean 
> temperature of the city for the year is 45.8 deg.  F., for summer 
> 56 deg.  F., and for winter 37.3 deg.  F. The average yearly rainfall 
> is 30.57 inches.  The city is one of the healthiest in Scotland. 
> 
> Streets and Buildings.--Roughly, the extended city runs 
> north and south.  From the new bridge of Don to the ``auld 
> brig'' of Dee there is tramway communication via King 
> Street, Union Street and Holburn Road--a distance of over five 
> miles.  Union Street is one of the most imposing thoroughfares 
> in the British Isles.  From Castle Street it runs W. S. W. 
> for nearly a mile, is 70 ft. wide, and contains the principal 
> shops and most of the modern public buildings, all of granite.  
> Part of the street crosses the Denburn ravine (utilized for 
> the line of the Great North of Scotland railway) by a fine 
> granite arch of 132 ft. span, portions of the older town 
> still fringing the gorge, fifty feet below the level of Union 
> Street.  Amongst the more conspicuous secular buildings in the 
> street may be mentioned the Town and County Bank, the Music 
> Hall, with sitting accommodation for 2000 persons, the Trinity 
> Hall of the incorporated trades (originating in various years 
> between 1398 and 1527, and having charitable funds for poor 
> members, widows and orphans), containing some portraits 
> by George Jamesone, a noteworthy set of carved oak chairs, 
> dating from 1574, and the shields of the crafts with quaint 
> inscriptions; the office of the Aberdeen Free Press, one of 
> the most influential papers in the north of Scotland; the Palace 
> Hotel; the office of the Nnrthern Assurance Company, and the 
> Nutional Bank of Scotland.  In Castle Street, a continuation 
> eastwards of Union Street, are situated the Municipnl and 
> County Buildings, one of the most splendid granite edifices 
> in Scotland, in the Franco-Scottish Gothic style, built in 
> 1867-1878.  They are of four stories and contain the great 
> hall with an open timber ceiling and oak-panelled walls; the 
> Sheriff Court House; the Town Hall, with excellent portraits 
> of Prince Albert (Prince Consort), the 4th earl of Aberdeen, 
> the various lord provosts and other distinguished citizens.  
> In the vestibule of the entrance corridor stands a suit of 
> black armour believed to have been worn by Provost Sir Robert 
> Davidson, who feh in the battle of Harlaw, near Inverurie, in 
> 1411.  From the south-western corner a grand tower rises to 
> a height of 210 ft., commanding a fine view of the city and 
> surrounding country.  Adjoining the municipal buildings is 
> the North of Scotland Bank, of Greek design, with a portico 
> of Corinthian columns, the capitals of which are exquisitely 
> carved.  On the opposite side of the street is the fine 
> building of the Union Bank.  At the upper end of Castle Street 
> stands the Salvation Army Citadel, an effective castellated 
> mansion, the most imposing ``barracks'' possessed anywhere 
> by this organization.  In front of it is the Market Cross, 
> a beautiful, open-arched, hexagonal structure, 21 ft. in 
> diameter and 18 ft. high.  The original was designed in 1682 
> by Jnhn Montgomery, a native architect, but in 1842 it was 
> removed hither from its old site and rebuilt in a better 
> style.  On the entablature surmounting the Ionic columns are 
> panels containing medallions of Scots sovereigns from James 
> I. to James VII. From the centre rises a shaft, 12 1/2 ft. 
> high, with a Corinthian capital on which is the royal,unicorn 
> rampant.  On an eminence east of Castle Street are the military 
> barracks.  In Market Street are the Mechanics' Institution, 
> founded in 1824, with a good library; the Post and Telegraph 
> offices; and the Market, where provisions of all kinds and 
> general wares are sold.  The Fish Market, on the Albert Basin, 
> is a busy scene in the early morning.  The Art Gallery and 
> Museum at Schoolhill, built in the Italian Renaissance style 
> of red and brown granite, contains an excellent Collection of 
> pictures, the Macdonald Hall of portraits of contemporary 
> artists by themselves being of altogether exceptional 
> interest and unique of its kind in Great Britain.  The public 
> llbrary, magnificently housed, contains more than 60,000 
> volumes.  The theatre in Guild Street is the chief seat of 
> dramatic, as the Palace Theatre in Bridge Place is of variety 
> entertainment.  The new buildings of Marischal College fronting 
> Broad Street, opened by King Edward VII. in 1906, form one 
> of the most splendid examples of modern architecture in Great 
> Britain; the architect, Alexander Marshall Mackenzie, a native 
> of Aberdeen, having adapted his material, white granite, to 
> the design of a noble building with the originality of genius. 
> 
> Churches.---Like most Scottish towns, Aberdeen is well 
> equipped with churches, most of them of good design, but 
> few of special interest.  The East and West churches of St 
> Nicholas, their kirkyard separated from Union Street by an Ionic 
> facade, 147 1/2 ft. long, built in 1830, form one continuous 
> building, 220ft. in length, including the Drum Aisle (the 
> ancient burial-place of the Irvines of Drum) and the Colllson 
> Aisle, which divide them and which formed the transept of the 
> 12th-century church of St Nicholas.  The West Church was built in 
> 1775, in the Italian style, the East originally in 1834 in the 
> Gothic.  In 1874 a fire destroyed the East Church and the 
> old central tower with its fine peal of nine bells, one of 
> which, Laurence or ``Lowrie,'' was 4 ft. in diameter at the 
> mouth, 3 1/2 ft. high and very thick.  The church was rebuilt 
> and a massive granite tower erected over the intervening 
> aisles at the cost of the municipality, a new peal of 36 
> bells, cast in Holland, being installed to commemorate the 
> Victorian jubilee of 1887.  The Roman Catholic Cathedral in 
> Huntly Street, a Gothic building, was erected in 1859.  The 
> see of Aberdeen was first founded at Mortlach in Banffshire 
> by Malcolm II. in 1004 to celebrate his victory there over 
> the Danes, but in 1137 David I. transferred the bishopric 
> to Old Aberdeen, and twenty years later the cathedral of 
> St Machar, situated a few hundred yards from the Don, was 
> begun.  Save during the episcopate of William Elphinstone 
> (1484-1511), the building progressed slowly.  Gavin Dunbar, 
> who followed him in 1518, was enabled to complete the 
> structure by adding the two western spires and the southern 
> transept.  The church suffered severely at the Reformation, 
> but is still used as the parish church.  It now consists of the 
> nave and side aisles.  It is chiefly built of outlayer granite, 
> and, though the plainest cathedral in Scotland, its stately 
> simplicity and severe symmetry lend it unique distinction.  
> On the flat panelled ceiling of the nave are the heraldic 
> shields of the princes, noblemen and bishops who shared in its 
> erection, and the great west window contains modern painted 
> glass of excellent colour and design.  The cemeteries are St 
> Peter's in Old Aberdeen, Trinity near the links, Nellfield 
> at the junction of Great Western and Holburn Roads, and 
> Allenvale, very tastefully laid out, adjoining Duthie Park. 
> 
> Education.---Aberdeen University consists of King's College 
> in Old Aberdeen, founded by Bishop Elphinstone in 1494, 
> and Marischal College, in Broad Street, founded in 1593 by 
> George Keith, 5th earl Marischal, which were incorporated in 
> 1860.  Arts and divinity are taught at King's, law, medicine 
> and science at Marischal.  The number of students exceeds 800 
> yearly.  The buildings of both colleges are the glories of 
> Aberdeen.  King's forms a quadrangle with interior court, two 
> sides of which have been rebuilt, and a library wing has been 
> added.  The Crown Tower and the Chapel, the oldest parts, date from 
> 1500.  The former is surmounted by a structure about 40 ft. 
> high, consisting of a six-sided lantern and royal crown, both 
> sculptured, and resting on the intersections of two arched 
> ornamental slips rising from the four corners of the top of the 
> tower.  The choir of the chapel still contains the original 
> oak canopied stalls, miserere seats and lofty open screens in 
> the French flamboyant style, and of unique beauty of design and 
> execution.  Their preservation was due to the enlightened 
> energy of the principal at the time of the Reformation, who 
> armed his folk to save the building from the barons of the 
> Mearns after they had robbed St Machar's of its bells and 
> lead.  Marischal College is a stately modern building, having 
> been rebuilt in 1836-1841, and greatly extended several years 
> later at a cost of L. 100,000.  The additions to the buildings 
> opened by King Edward VII. in 1906 have been already mentioned.  
> The beautiful Mitchell Tower is so named from the benefactor (Dr 
> Charles Mitchell) who provided the splendid graduation hall.  
> The opening of this tower in 1895 signalized the commemoration 
> of the four hundredth anniversary of the foundation of the 
> university.  The University Library comprises nearly 100,000 
> books.  A Botanic Garden was presented to the university in 
> 1899.  Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities combine to return 
> one member to Parliament.  The United Free Church Divinity 
> Hall in Alford Place, in the Tudor Gothic style, dates from 
> 1850.  The Grammar School, founded in 1263, was removed in 
> 1861-1863 from its old quarters in Schoolhill to a large new 
> building, in the Scots Baronial style, off Skene Street.  
> Robert Gordon's College in Schoolhill was founded in 1729 
> by Robert Gordon of Straloch and further endowed in 1816 by 
> Alexander Simpson of Collyhill.  Originally devoted (as Gordon's 
> Hospital) to the instruction and maintenance of the sons of poor 
> burgesses of guild and trade in the city, it was reorganized 
> in 1881 as a day and night school for secondary and technical 
> education, and has since been unusually successful.  Besides 
> a High School for Girls and numerous board schools, there are 
> many private higher-class schools.  Under the Endowments Act 
> 1882 an educational trust was constituted which possesses a 
> capital of L. 155,000.  At Blairs, in Kincardineshire, five 
> miles S.W. of Aberdeen, is St Mary's Roman Catholic College 
> for the training of young men intended for the priesthood. 
> 
> Charities.---The Royal Infimary, in Woolmanhill, established 
> in 1740, rebuilt in the Grecian style in 1833-1840, and 
> largely extended after 1887 as a memorial of Queen Victoria's 
> jubilee; the Royal Asylum, opened in 1800; the Female Orphan 
> Asylum, in Albyn Place, founded in 1840; the Blind Asylum, 
> in Huntly Street, established in 1843; the Royal Hospital 
> for Sick Children; the Maternity Hospital, founded in 1823; 
> the City Hospital for Infectious Diseases; the Deaf and Dumb 
> Institution; Mitchell's Hospital in Old Aberdeen; the East 
> and West Poorhouses, with lunatic wards; and hospitals devoted 
> to specialized diseases, are amongst the most notable of 
> the charitable institutions.  There are, besides, industrial 
> schools for boys and girls and for Roman Catholic children, a 
> Female School of Industry, the Seabank Rescue Home, Nazareth 
> House and Orphanage, St Martha's Home for Girls, St Margaret's 
> Convalescent Home and Sisterhood, House of Bethany, the 
> Convent of the Sacred Heart and the Educational Trust School. 
> 
> Parks and Open Spaces.---Duthie Park, of 50 acres, the gift 
> of Miss Elizabeth Crombie Duthie of Ruthrieston, occupies an 
> excellent site on the north bank of the Dee. Victoria Park 
> (13 acres) and its extension Westburn Park (13 acres) are 
> situated in the north-western area; farther north lies Stewart 
> Park (11 acres), called after Sir D. Stewart, lord provost in 
> 1893.  The capacious links bordering the sea between the 
> mouths of the two rivers are largely resorted to for open-air 
> recreation; there is here a rifle range where a ``wapinschaw,'' 
> or shooting tournament, is held annually.  Part is laid out 
> as an 18-hole golf course; a section is reserved for cricket 
> and football; a portion has been railed off for a race-course, 
> and a bathing-station has been erected.  Union Terrace 
> Gardens are a popular rendezvous in the heart of the city. 
> 
> Statues.---In Union Terrace Gardens stands a colossal statue 
> in bronze of Sir William Wallace, by W. G. Stevenson, R.S.A. 
> (1888).  In the same gardens are a bronze statue of Burns 
> and Baron Marochetti's seated figure of Prince Albert.  In 
> front of Gordon's College is the bronze statue, by T. S. 
> Burnett, A.R.S.A., of General Gordon (1888).  At the east 
> end of Union Street is the bronze statue of Queen Victoria, 
> erected in 1893 by the royal tradesmen of the city.  Near the 
> Cross stands the granite statue of the 5th duke of Gordon (d. 
> 1836).  Here may also be mentioned the obelisk of Peterhead 
> granite, 70 ft. high, erected in the square of Marischal 
> College to the memory of Sir James M`Grigor (1778-1851), the 
> military surgeon and director-general of the Army Medical 
> Department, who was thrice elected lord rector of the College. 
> 
> Bridges.--The Dee is crossed by four bridges,--the old 
> bridge, the Wellington suspension bridge, the railway bridge, 
> and Victoria Bridge, opposite Market Street.  The first, till 
> 1832 the only access to the city from the south, consists of 
> seven semicircular ribbed arches, is about 30 ft. high, and 
> was built early in the 16th century by Bishops Elphinstone and 
> Dunbar.  It was nearly all rebuilt in 1718--1723, and in 
> 1842 was widened from 14 1/2 to 26 ft.  The bridge of Don has 
> five granite arches, each 75 ft. in span, and was built in 
> 1827--1832.  A little to the west is the Auld Brig o' 
> Balgownie, a picturesque single arch spanning the deep 
> black stream, said to have been built by King Robert I., 
> and celebrated by Byron in the tenth canto of Don Juan. 
> 
> Harbour.--A defective harbour, with a shallow sand and gravel 
> bar at its entrance. long retarded the trade of Aberdeen, but 
> under various acts since 1773 it was greatly deepened.  The 
> north pier, built partly by Smeaton in 1775-1781, and partly 
> by Telford in 1810-1815, extends nearly 3000 ft. into the North 
> Sea. It increases the depth of water on the bar from a few 
> feet to 22 or 24 ft. at spring tides and to 17 or 18 ft. at 
> neap.  A wet dock, of 29 acres, and with 6000 ft. of quay, 
> was completed in 1848 and called Victoria Dock in honour 
> of the queen's visit to the city in that year.  Adjoining 
> it is the Upper Dock.  By the Harbour Act of 1868, the Dee 
> near the harbour was diverted from the south at a cost of 
> L. 80,000, and 90 acres of new ground (in addition to 25 acres 
> formerly made up) were provided on the north side of the 
> river for the Albert Basin (with a graving dock), quays and 
> warehouses.  A breakwater of concrete, 1050 ft. long, was 
> constructed on the south side of the stream as a protection 
> against south-easterly gales.  On Girdleness, the southern 
> point of the bay, a lighthouse was built in 1833.  Near the 
> harbour mouth are three batteries mounting nineteen guns. 
> 
> Industry.---Owing to the variety and importance of its chief 
> industries Aberdeen is one of the most prosperous cities in 
> Scotland.  Very durable grey granite has been quarried near 
> Aberdeen for more than 300 years, and blocked and dressed 
> paving ``setts,'' kerb and building stones, and monumental 
> and other ornamental work of granite have long been exported 
> from the district to all parts of the world.  This, though 
> once the predominant industry, has been surpassed by the 
> deep-sea fisheries, which derived a great impetus from 
> beam-trawling, introduced in 1882, and steam line fishing 
> in 1889, and threaten to rival if not to eclipse those of 
> Grimsby.  Fish trains are despatched to London daily.  Most 
> of the leading industries date from the 18th century, amongst 
> them woollens (1703), linen (1749) and cotton (1779).  These 
> give employment to several thousands of operatives.  The 
> paper-making industry is one of the most famous and oldest in 
> the city, paper having been first made in Aberdeen in 1694.  
> Flax-spinning and jute and combmaking factories are also very 
> flourishing, and there are successful foundries and engineering 
> works.  There are large distilleries and breweries, and 
> chemical works employing many hands.  In the days of wooden 
> ships ship-building was a flourishing industry, the town being 
> noted for its fast clippers, many of which established records 
> in the ``tea races.'' The introduction of trawllng revived 
> this to some extent, and despite the distance of the city 
> from the iron fields there is a fair yearly output of iron 
> vessels.  Of later origin are the jam, pickle and potted 
> meat factories, hundreds of acres having been laid down in 
> strawberries and other fruits within a few miles of the city. 
> 
> History.--Aberdeen was an important place as far back as the 
> 12th century.  William the Lion had a residence in the city, to 
> which he gave a charter in 1179 confirming the corporate rights 
> granted by David I. The city received other royal charters 
> later.  It was burned by the English king, Edward III., in 
> 1336, but it was soon rebuilt and extended, and called New 
> Aberdeen.  The burgh records are the oldest in Scotland.  
> They begin in 1398 and with one brief break are complete to 
> the present day.  For many centuries the city was subject to 
> attacks by the neighbouring barons, and was strongly fortified, 
> but the gates were all removed by 1770.  In 1497 a blockhouse 
> was built at the harbour mouth as a protection against the 
> English.  During the struggles between the Royalists and 
> Covenanters the city was impartially plundered by both 
> sides.  In 1715 the Earl Marischal proclaimed the Old 
> Pretender at Aberdeen, and in 1745 the duke of Cumberland 
> resided for a short time in the city before attacking 
> the Young Pretender.  The motto on the city arms is ``Bon 
> Accord,'' which formed the watchword of the Aberdonians 
> while aiding Robert Bruce in his battles with the English. 
> 
> Population.---In 1396 the population was about 3000.  By 1801 it had 
> become 26,992; in 1841 it was 63,262; (1891) 121,623; (1901) 153,503. 
> 
> 
> 
> AUTHORITIES.--The charters of the burgh; extracts from 
> the council register down to 1625, and selections from the 
> letters. guildry and treasurer's accounts, forming 3 vols. 
> of the Spalding Club; Cosmo Innes, Registrum Episcopatus 
> Aberdonensis, Spalding Club; Walter Thore, The History 
> of Aberdeen (1811); Robert Wilson, Historical Account and 
> Delineation of Aberdeen (1822); William Kennedy, The Annals 
> of Aberdeen (1818); Orem, Descripjion of the Chanonry, 
> Cathedral and King's College of Old Aberdeen, 1724-1725 
> (1830); Sir Andrew Leith Hay of Rannes, The Castellated 
> Architecture of Aberdeen; Giles, Specimens of old 
> Castellated Houses of Aberdeen (1838); James Bryce, Lives 
> of Eminent Men of Aberdeen (1841); J. Gordon, Description 
> of Both Towns of Aberdeen (Spalding Club, 1842); Joseph 
> Robertson, The Book of Bon-Accord (Aberdeen, 1839); W. 
> Robbie, Aberdeen: its Traditions and History (Aberdeen, 
> 1893); C. G. Burr and A. M. Munro, Old Landmarks of Aberdeen 
> (Aberdeen, 1886); A. M. Munro, Memorials of the Aldermen, 
> Provosts and Lord Provosts of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1897); 
> P. J. Anderson, Charters, &c., illustrating the History 
> of Records of Marischal College (New Spalding 1890); 
> Selections from the Records of Marischal College (New 
> Spalding Club, 1889, 1898..1899); J. Cooper, Chartulary of 
> the Church of St Nicholas (New Spalding Club, 1888, 1892); 
> G. Cadenhead, Sketch of the Territorial History of the 
> Burgh of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1876); W. Cadenhead, Guide to 
> the City of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1897); A. Smith, History 
> and Antiquities of New and Old Aberdeen (Aberdeen, 1882).
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
------
AberdeenSouthDakota|980845705
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ABERDEEN, a city and the county-seat of Brown county, South 
> Dakota, U.S.A., about 125 m.  N.E. of Pierre.  Pop. (1890) 
> 3182; (1900) 4087, of whom 889 were foreign born; (1905) 5841; 
> (1910) 10,753.  Aberdeen is served by the Chicago, Milwaukee 
> and St Paul, the Great Northern, the Minneapolis and St 
> Louis, and the Chicago and North Western railways.  It is 
> the financial and trade centre for the northern part of the 
> state, a fine agricultural region, and in 1908 had five banks 
> and a number of wholesale houses.  The city is the seat of the 
> Northern Normal and Industrial School, a state institution, 
> and has a Carnegie Library; the principal buildings are the 
> court house and the government buildings.  Artesian wells 
> furnish good water-power, and artesian-well supplies, grain 
> pitchers, brooms, chemicals and flour are manufactured.  The 
> municipality owns and operates the water-works.  Aberdeen 
> was settled in 1880, and was chartered as a city in 1883. 
> 
> ----
> Source:  An unnamed encyclopedia from a project that puts out-of-copyright texts into the public domain.  This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
> 
------
HiStory|980845864
2a3,4
> ''These broad era statements seemed like a good idea when I first thought of them, but I'm strongly questioning that now.  This is in direct conjunction with me having made some foolish mistakes.''
> 
22c24
< * HistoryOfUnitedStates
---
> * HistoryOfUnitedStates
------
CopperAge|980846124
0a1,2
> ''Author's note - bronze wasn't introduced by our friends the charioteers, but appeared more or less everywhere around 2000 BC.  From this and other things I would like to do some refactoring before anyone worries about this page.''
> 
------
BronzeAge|980846208
0a1,2
> ''Author's note - this page was written with the idea that bronze was introduced by various chariot-peoples, who are separate from the migrants of 2000.  I don't know where I got this idea, but I would like a chance to refactor the page to make things more correct.''
> 
------
HiStory|980846309
3c3
< ''These broad era statements seemed like a good idea when I first thought of them, but I'm strongly questioning that now.  This is in direct conjunction with me having made some foolish mistakes.''
---
> ''These broad era statements seemed like a good idea when I first thought of them, but in hindsight I think they should be broken up, e.g. BronzeAgeOfMiddleEast or some such.  This would go hand-in-hand with factoring out some silly mistakes.  Any opinions before I go ahead? -- JoshuaGrosse''
------
IndoEuropean|980846696
1,3c1
< It turns out that most of the western major language families are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European. They are associated with various groups of migrants that appeared around the beginning of the BronzeAge.  Huge amounts of information about ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) lexicon and grammar have been inferred. Discussion about actual proto-IE culture has been stalled, though, by its association with the racist doctrines of German NationalSocialism.
< 
< The various subgroups of Indo-European include:
---
> It turns out that most of the major language families of Europe and western Asia are related into one superfamily, referred to as Indo-European.  The various subgroups of Indo-European include:
15a14,15
> 
> The original homeland of the speakers of ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) is not known for certain, but probably lies somewhere around the black sea.  Most of the subgroups diverged and had spread out over much of Europe and the MiddleEast during the fourth and third millenia BC.  Discussion of PIE culture has been stalled by its association with the racist doctrines of NationalSocialism, but enormous amounts of work has been done on its structure and vocabulary.
------
MuSic|980847686
21a22,25
> 
> How about some genres?
> 
> ClassicaLMusic -- DanCe -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
------
MuSic|980847716
25c25
< ClassicaLMusic -- DanCe -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
---
> ClassicaLMusic -- DanCeMusic -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
------
MuSic|980847756
25c25
< ClassicaLMusic -- DanCeMusic -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
---
> ClassicaLMusic -- ElectronicMusic -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
------
SetTheory|980858906
31c31,48
< What does "composed of" mean above? Details apart, it isn't really possible for somebody who is not already familiar with set theory to understand the above.
---
> 
> *What does "composed of" mean above? 
> To rephrase the axiom, given a set X, there is a set Y whose elements are precisely those
> that are elements of some element of X.  This again will be a little confusing: in ZF, the only things that exist
> are sets, and the only things that sets contain are other sets. For example, if 
>    { {1,2}, {3,4}, {4,5,6} }
> is a set then
>    { 1,2,3,4,5,6 }
> is a set.
> 
> *Details apart, it isn't really possible for somebody who is not already familiar with set theory to understand the above.
> For anyone who wants to understand, it is an idea to have a little familiarity with set theory in its `less formal' form,
> and the problems it has, so as to see why set theory is the way it is.  Part of the reason it is necessary is due to examples
> such as RussellsParadox :
>    Let R = { x | x is not a member of x }
>    Question: is R a member of R
>    Problem: If R is a member of R then R does not satisfy the criterion for membership -- contradiction.
>             If R is not a member of R then R does satisfy the criterion for membership -- another contradiction.
35a53,56
> 
> One other point about the AxiomOfChoice is that whenever you implicitly assume that the cardinality (i.e. size) of a set exists, you are using AxiomOfChoice in order to do this.
> 
> On the other hand, AxiomOfChoice also allows one to prove that the solid unit sphere can be broken up into 5 (infinitely complicated) pieces, shuffled around (with no scaling/shearing etc... just rotation and translation), and put back together to make two solid spheres, each identical to the original. (The Banach-Tarski Paradox)
------
TheBeatles|980868872
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Beatles were a group of four musicians that epitomised the popular culture of Britain, indeed much of the English speaking world during the 1960s and early 1970's.  The members of the group were: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr (Richard Starky) were all from Liverpool, England.
------
CalvinOstrum|980872675
1c1,10
< cbo@interlog.com
---
> cbo@interlog.com----
> 
> '''Q.''' You have asked about recursively denumerable sets on the SeT page. I am not sure if you are questioning:
> * 1). the existence of such a sets.
> * 2). whether such sets are well-defined
> *AND MORE IMPORTANT
> * 1). If you are tryimg to illicit more content, please feel free to add content to the page.
> * 2). If you are referring to the paradoxes resulting from looking at sets like X = {x: x is a set}, a more limited problem, Russell's Paradox is on the SetTheory page.
> 
> In conclusion, perhaps an example of such a set would help. RoseParks
------
SeT|980872993
9,10c9
< I am not ignoring this question, I simply don't have time at the moment. Please be patient.
< RoseParks
---
> Mr. Olstrum, please see your page for some questions about your question. RoseParks
------
SeT|980873109
9c9
< Mr. Olstrum, please see your page for some questions about your question. RoseParks
---
> Mr. Ostrum, please see your page for some questions about your question. RoseParks
------
WikiPediaProcess|980873539
39c39,41
< WikiPedia fulfils many of the principles (such as freedom from closed editorial controls) advocated by the GNUPedia project, however it is not directly derived from that project.  Note that GNUPedia has changed its name and focus; it is now known as "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia".  It is currently focused more on the development of new encyclopedia software than on actively gathering articles, however because of the common licensing approach taken by Nupedia and Wikipedia, articles posted here can be used in the GNE software when it eventually becomes available for public use, and/or can be submitted to Nupedia for formal peer review and inclusion in that project.  GNE is accepting article submissions, but is asking for some time to finish their software before displaying them publically.  -- BryceHarrington
---
> WikiPedia fulfils many of the principles (such as freedom from closed editorial controls) advocated by the GNUPedia project, however it is not directly derived from that project.  Note that GNUPedia has changed its name and focus; it is now known as "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia".  It is currently focused more on the development of new encyclopedia software than on actively gathering articles, however because of the common licensing approach taken by Nupedia and Wikipedia, articles posted here can be used in the GNE software when it eventually becomes available for public use, and/or can be submitted to Nupedia for formal peer review and inclusion in that project.  GNE is accepting article submissions, but is asking for some time to finish their software before displaying them publically.  -- BryceHarrington----
> '''Q'''. For the Math articles there is a crying need to have more symbols, like the Greek alphabet, Integral and Summation symbols, infinity, and more, as well as the capability to 
> show graphs, depict figures, and much more. Are there any tools to do this, other than linking to a another web page? RoseParks
------
JoshuaGrosse|980875027
32a33,42
> As a member of Nupedia, you would have to sign-up for the Copyedit-L, Copyeditame-L and Pronounce-L lists and look at and get comfortable using our AME prounciation guide at:
> http://www.nupedia.com/pronguide.shtml
> or possibly the Copyeditbre-L, as well, and then look at and learn to use our BRE prounciation Guide
> at:
> http://www.nupedia.com/pronguidebre.html
> 
> We have a at least one article, already posted and some in the works that have no pronunciations for unfamiliar words and foreign words, simply because there is no one to supply them, using these guides. Such articles can be found in the main page of Nupedia, under New Articles, and in the Copyediting area which you will find a link to, after logging in, on you member page. Look for articles under open copyedit area. If you have any questions, feel free. As usual this is purely voluntary. RoseParks
> 
> ---- 
> 
------
JoshuaGrosse|980875656
28c28
< Picking up on your interest in phonetics, we could surely use your help at Nupedia in the CopyeditAME-L and Pronounce-L lists, to help provide pronunciations for our articles. I hope I am not intruding with this last remark.
---
> Picking up on your interest in phonetics, we could surely use your help at Nupedia in the Copyeditame-L and Pronounce-L lists, to help provide pronunciations for our articles. I hope I am not intruding with this last remark.
32,33c32,34
< 
< As a member of Nupedia, you would have to sign-up for the Copyedit-L, Copyeditame-L and Pronounce-L lists and look at and get comfortable using our AME prounciation guide at:
---
> At the moment we have Prounciation Guides for American English and British English.
> All articles to date are identified as written in one of these languages.
> As a member of Nupedia, you would have to sign-up for the Copyedit-L, Copyeditame-L and Pronounce-L lists. These are available for sign-up from your member page under Mailing Lists. Also, you would have to look at and get comfortable using our AME prounciation guide at:
35,36c36
< or possibly the Copyeditbre-L, as well, and then look at and learn to use our BRE prounciation Guide
< at:
---
> You might be interested in the Copyeditbre-L list, as well. Here you need to look at and learn to use our BRE prounciation Guide at:
39c39,40
< We have a at least one article, already posted and some in the works that have no pronunciations for unfamiliar words and foreign words, simply because there is no one to supply them, using these guides. Such articles can be found in the main page of Nupedia, under New Articles, and in the Copyediting area which you will find a link to, after logging in, on you member page. Look for articles under open copyedit area. If you have any questions, feel free. As usual this is purely voluntary. RoseParks
---
> We have  at least one article, already posted and some in the works that have no pronunciations for unfamiliar words and foreign words, simply because there is no one to supply them, using these guides. Such articles can be found in the main page of Nupedia, under New Articles, and in the Copyediting area which you will find a link to, after logging in, on you member page. Look for articles in the Open Copyedit area. If you have any questions, feel free. As usual this is purely voluntary. RoseParks
> email: rose.parks@att.net
------
HiStory|980877660
4a5,6
> ''The usual way to divide history up is by nation or region and '''then''' by historical period.  If you really care about this, you should consult with a historian, I think. -- LarrySanger''
> 
20c22
< * HistoryOfMeditteranean
---
> * HistoryOfMediterranean
------
WikiPediaProcess|980878120
42a43
> '''A.'''  I can't answer the question definitively but I can say that you can easily link to images elsewhere.  So, perhaps as a temporary solution, you can always upload, elsewhere, an image, then link to it from WikiPedia.  The wiki programmers must know more, though...
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980879607
38a39,46
> 
> ----
> Chomsky seems to be applying Lenin's theory of imperialism.  The competing theory, that nations grow wealthy by increasing the productivity of thier labor, has the advantage over Lenin's of being supported by the evidence.
> 
> R.J. Rummel has done history's most exhaustive study on the issue of governmental mass murder.  He has calculated the total number of deaths by studying each reported instance of murder and adding them all up, for all of the most destructive regimes of the 20th century (the total for the century came in around 170 million).  For perspective, he has done similar research on pre-20th century political mass murder.  He was able to document an estimated 6000 deaths of Native Americans at the hands of the United States government.  If you wish to argue that there were more than this, please indicate when and where each incident occured and how many people were killed in each incident.  This is recent history in an area with a free press and a literate population - if these events occured, they would have been documented.  Where are the bodies?  If the evidence was destroyed, where is the powerful centralized organization that systematically disposed of the evidence over thousands of miles (a powerful centralized oganization would be necessary for a task of that scale).  Where are the directives from Washington (there is official documentation of all the modern genocides - why not this one)?  Where are the eye-witness accounts (there are eye-witness accounts of all the modern genocides - why not this one)?
> 
> A collaborative project like this one could be a valuable tool for this kind of research.  We can start of page for IndianMassacres and begin compiling an exhaustive list of incidents:
>  WoundedKneeMassacre - December 29, 1890 - 300 (est.) people killed.
------
IndianMassacres|980879660
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> December 29, 1890 - WoundedKneeMassacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980879677
45,46c45
< A collaborative project like this one could be a valuable tool for this kind of research.  We can start of page for IndianMassacres and begin compiling an exhaustive list of incidents:
<  WoundedKneeMassacre - December 29, 1890 - 300 (est.) people killed.
---
> A collaborative project like this one could be a valuable tool for this kind of research.  We can start of page for IndianMassacres and begin compiling an exhaustive list of incidents.
------
IndianMassacres|980879931
1c1,5
< December 29, 1890 - WoundedKneeMassacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
---
> A list of specific incidents in which NativeAmerican people were killed by agents of the United States government.  By compiling a complete list of incidents we can determine the total number of people killed.
> 
> It is assumed that each instance would have some kind of documentation.  This assumption is justified because these events occured in modern history, in an area with a free press and a highly literate population.  We also know from other instances of genocide that evidence abounds, even with the official attempts to suppress it.  There are paper trails of official directives and eye-witness accounts of every genocide in modern history.
> 
>  December 29, 1890 - WoundedKneeMassacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
------
IndianMassacres|980879997
4a5,6
> Please add more incidents to this list.  If an incident is not already widely known, please include a source reference.
> 
------
CalvinOstrum|980880011
1c1,3
< cbo@interlog.com----
---
> cbo@interlog.com
> 
> ----
10a13,18
> 
> ----
> 
> Someone wrote "We require that sets be well-defined. Given an object Sn, we must be able to determine if Sn belongs to S."  My point is simply that for most people doing set theory (I don't know who ''We'' is), this is not true.  We do not require that, given an object, we are able to determine whether it is in a given set or not.   Most people doing set theory do not, for example, claim that recursively enumerable sets which are not recursive do not exist.  For example, the set of theorems of a given first order theory is very often only a semi-decidable set.  
> Philosophically, some people may object to the claim that such sets exist, but it is not the usual position.  -- CalvinOstrum
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980880069
45a46,47
> 
> - TimShell
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980880454
46a47,49
> (curiously, Rummel just sent me this graphic:)
> <img http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg>
> 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980880478
47,48c47,48
< (curiously, Rummel just sent me this graphic:)
< <img http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg>
---
> (curiously, Rummel just sent me this illustration:)
> img http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980880496
48c48
< img http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg
---
> http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980880511
47a48
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|980880831
1c1
< A worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  But the real Francisco D'Anconia is revealed as the book progresses.
---
> A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco D'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  As the book progresses we learn there is much more to this story.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|980880848
3c3
< Francisco D'Anconia is mentioned in:
---
> Francisco D'Anconia appears or is mentioned in:
------
AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN|980881017
3c3
< /DagnyTaggart hears /BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says /HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, /BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
---
> /DagnyTaggart hears /BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  Whe she asks him what piece it's from, he says /HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out /RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, /BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|980881033
1c1
< /DagnyTaggart's favorite composer, who mysteriously after the evening of his greatest triumph.
---
> /DagnyTaggart's favorite composer, who mysteriously disappeared after the evening of his greatest triumph.
6c6
<  /SectioN133 - Mentioned.
---
>  /SectioN133 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN111|980881170
10,20c10,15
< /BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
< 
< /EddieWillers
< 
< /EllisWyatt - Mentioned.
< 
< /JamesTaggart
< 
< /OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
< 
< /PopHarper - First and only apearance.
---
>  /BumNumber1 - First and only appearance.
>  /EddieWillers
>  /EllisWyatt - Mentioned.
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
>  /PopHarper - First and only apearance.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980881204
10,24c10,17
< /BrakemaN
< 
< /ConductoR - First and only appearance.
< 
< /EngineeR - First and only appearance.
< 
< /DagnyTaggart
< 
< /OwenKellogg - Mentioned.
< 
< /PassengerNumber1 - First and only appearance.
< 
< /PassengerNumber2 - First and only appearance.
< 
< /RichardHalley - Mentioned.
---
>  /BrakemaN
>  /ConductoR - First and only appearance.
>  /EngineeR - First and only appearance.
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /OwenKellogg - Mentioned.
>  /PassengerNumber1 - First and only appearance.
>  /PassengerNumber2 - First and only appearance.
>  /RichardHalley - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980881238
4c4
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
---
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
------
AtlasShrugged112|980881270
2,29d1
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  Afte falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
< ----
< * Setting
< Taggart Comet, stalled between Cleveland and New York.
< ----
< * Characters
< BrakemaN
< 
< ConductoR - First and only appearance.
< 
< EngineeR - First and only appearance.
< 
< DagnyTaggart
< 
< OwenKellogg - Mentioned.
< 
< PassengerNumber1 - First and only appearance.
< 
< PassengerNumber2 - First and only appearance.
< 
< RichardHalley - Mentioned.
< ----
< * Mysteries
< What was the brakeman whistling?  Did Halley write a Fifth Concerto?
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN113|980881292
10,12c10,11
< /DagnyTaggart
< 
< /BrakemaN
---
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /BrakemaN
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|980881390
4c4
< Dagny meets with James Taggart and Eddie Willers.  She informs them that she has ordered Rearden Metal from Rearden Steel to be used to replace the tracks of the Rio Norte Line.  Later she calls Mr. Ayers to determine if Richard Halley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with Owen Kellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
---
> Dagny meets with /JamesTaggart and /EddieWillers.  She informs them that she has ordered /ReardenMetal from /ReardenSteel to be used to replace the tracks of the /RioNorteLine.  Later she calls /MrAyers to determine if /RichardHalley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with /OwenKellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
10,26c10,18
< /DagnyTaggart
< 
< /JamesTaggart
< 
< /EddieWillers
< 
< /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
< 
< /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
< 
< /HankRearden: Mentioned.
< 
< /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
< 
< /OwenKellogg
< 
< /MrAyers - First and only appearance.
---
>  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EddieWillers
>  /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
>  /HankRearden: Mentioned.
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /MrAyers - First and only appearance.
>  /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
>  /OwenKellogg
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|980881460
4c4
< Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of Rearden Metal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, Paul Larkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
7c7
< Rearden Steel mills in Philadelphia and Rearden's home.
---
> /ReardenSteel mills in /Philadelphia and Rearden's home.
10,28c10,19
< /GwenIves: Mentioned.
< 
< /HankRearden
< 
< /LillianRearden
< 
< /MrsBeacham: First and only mention.
< 
< /PassengerNumber3: First and only appearance.
< 
< /PassengerNumber4: First and only appearance.
< 
< /PaulLarkin
< 
< /PhilipRearden
< 
< /ReardensMother
< 
< /WorkerNumber1: First and only appearance.
---
>  /GwenIves: Mentioned.
>  /HankRearden
>  /LillianRearden
>  /MrsBeacham: First and only mention.
>  /PassengerNumber3: First and only appearance.
>  /PassengerNumber4: First and only appearance.
>  /PaulLarkin
>  /PhilipRearden
>  /ReardensMother
>  /WorkerNumber1: First and only appearance.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN131|980881588
4c4
< James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, and Wesley Mouch meet to work out a deal by which they can stop Hank Rearden and the success of Rearden Metal.  Boyle wants Taggart to get his friends in Washington to regulate the distribution of iron ore, depriving Rearden of the raw materials needed to market Rearden Metal.  In exchange, Boyle agrees to get the National Alliance of Railroads to drive the Phoenix-Durango railroad out of business.  None of this is said openly or directly, of course.  Taggart also learns from Boyle that Taggart Transcontinental's San Sebastian Line has been denuded of all but the barest equipment.
---
> /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /PaulLarkin, and /WesleyMouch meet to work out a deal by which they can stop /HankRearden and the success of /ReardenMetal.  Boyle wants Taggart to get his friends in /Washington to regulate the distribution of iron ore, depriving Rearden of the raw materials needed to market Rearden Metal.  In exchange, Boyle agrees to get the /NationalAllianceofRailroads to drive the /PhoenixDurango railroad out of business.  None of this is said openly or directly, of course.  Taggart also learns from Boyle that /TaggartTranscontinental's /SanSebastianLine has been denuded of all but the barest equipment.
7c7
< The most expensive barroom in New York, on the 60th floor of a skyscraper, design to look like a cellar.
---
> The most expensive barroom in New York, on the 60th floor of a skyscraper, designed to look like a cellar.
10,20c10,15
< /JamesTaggart
< 
< /OrrenBoyle
< 
< /WesleyMouch
< 
< /PaulLarkin
< 
< /WaiteR: First and only appearance.
< 
< /BartendeR: First and only appearance.
---
>  /BartendeR: First and only appearance.
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /OrrenBoyle
>  /PaulLarkin
>  /WaiteR: First and only appearance.
>  /WesleyMouch
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN132|980881720
4c4
< Recounts Dagny's childhood decision to run Taggart Transcontinental and her rise in the company.  Recounts the history of the San Sebastian Line: Millionaire playboy Francisco D'Anconia invested money in developing the San Sebastian Mines, and James Taggart and the Board of Directors assumed they could trust D'Anconia to deliver a winner.  Dagny opposed this project and almost quit when it was approved.  James Taggart confronts Dagny and demands to know what she has done to the San Sebastian Line.  She explains that she has moved anything of value out of Mexico so the "looters" would not get it when they nationalized the line.  James Taggart is scandalized by this but cannot muster the courage to countermand her actions.  After leaving the office, Dagny has a conversation with the owner of a newstand about his cigarette collection.  He says there are no new brands anymore, and only a few brands still being made.  He talks of the cigarette as a symbol of man controlling nature, holding fire in his hands.
---
> Recounts /DagnyTaggart's childhood decision to run /TaggartTranscontinental and her rise in the company.  Recounts the history of the /SanSebastianLine: Millionaire playboy /FranciscoDAnconia invested money in developing the /SanSebastianMines, and /JamesTaggart and the Board of Directors assumed they could trust D'Anconia to deliver a winner.  Dagny opposed this project and almost quit when it was approved.  James Taggart confronts Dagny and demands to know what she has done to the San Sebastian Line.  She explains that she has moved anything of value out of /Mexico so the "looters" would not get it when they nationalized the line.  James Taggart is scandalized by this but cannot muster the courage to countermand her actions.  After leaving the office, Dagny has a conversation with the owner of a newstand about his cigarette collection.  He says there are no new brands anymore, and only a few brands still being made.  He talks of the cigarette as a symbol of man controlling nature, holding fire in his hands.
10,32c10,21
< /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
< 
< /DagnysFather
< 
< /DagnyTaggart
< 
< /EddieWillers
< 
< /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
< 
< /FranciscoDAnconia: Mentioned.
< 
< /HankRearden
< 
< /JamesTaggart
< 
< /MrsNathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
< 
< /NathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
< 
< /NewsstandOwner
< 
< /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
---
>  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
>  /DagnysFather
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EddieWillers
>  /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
>  /FranciscoDAnconia: Mentioned.
>  /HankRearden
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /MrsNathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
>  /NathanielTaggart: Mentioned.
>  /NewsstandOwner
>  /OrrenBoyle: Mentioned.
35c24
< The NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
---
> The /NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the /NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
AtlasShrugged/Mexico|980881745
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Mexico, formally the People's State of Mexico, is a poor, corrupt third-world nation.  It is the home of the /SanSebastianMines and of /TaggartTranscontinental's /SanSebastianLine.  After millions of investment dollars are poured into these projects, they are nationalized by the Mexican government.
> 
> Mexico is mentioned in:
>  - /SectioN111
>  - /SectioN131
>  - /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/MexicoPeoplesStateof|980881771
1,6c1
< Mexico, formally the People's State of Mexico, is a poor, corrupt third-world nation.  It is the home of the /SanSebastianMines and of /TaggartTranscontinental's /SanSebastianLine.  After millions of investment dollars are poured into these projects, they are nationalized by the Mexican government.
< 
< Mexico is mentioned in:
<  - /SectioN111
<  - /SectioN131
<  - /SectioN132
---
> #REDIREDT AtlasShrugged/Mexico
------
AtlasShrugged/MexicoPeoplesStateof|980881782
1c1
< #REDIREDT AtlasShrugged/Mexico
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Mexico
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|980881803
15c15
<  /MexicoPeoplesStateof
---
>  /Mexico
27c27
<  
---
>  
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN132|980881847
24c24
< The /NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the newsstand owner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the /NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
---
> The /NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the /NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN133|980881900
4c4
< /EddieWillers ends a long day at work by having dinner in the employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.  There he meets /MysteryWorker.  They sit together and he tells them about the problems of the day and what /DagnyTaggart is going to do to fix things.  He mentions /McNamara is the contractor who will lay the new rails for the /RioNorteLine.  Eddie will have many similar chats with /MysteryWorker throughout the book.
---
> /EddieWillers ends a long day at work by having dinner in the employees' cafeteria of the Taggart Terminal.  There he meets /MysteryWorker.  They sit together and he tells them about the problems of the day and what /DagnyTaggart is going to do to fix things.  He mentions that /McNamara is the contractor who will lay the new rails for the /RioNorteLine.  Eddie will have many similar chats with /MysteryWorker throughout the book.
------
CalvinOstrum|980883526
17c17,21
< Philosophically, some people may object to the claim that such sets exist, but it is not the usual position.  -- CalvinOstrum
---
> Philosophically, some people may object to the claim that such sets exist, but it is not the usual position.  -- CalvinOstrum----
> 
> Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With you permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks.
> I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully.
> RoseParks
------
CalvinOstrum|980883590
19c19
< Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With you permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks.
---
> Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks.
------
CalvinOstrum|980883742
19,20c19
< Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks.
< I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully.
---
> Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks. Or perhaps you would like to add to the page yourself? I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully.
------
SeT|980883796
9c9
< Mr. Ostrum, please see your page for some questions about your question. RoseParks
---
> 
------
IndianMassacres|980883807
7c7
<  December 29, 1890 - WoundedKneeMassacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
---
> December 29, 1890 - WoundedKneeMassacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
------
SeT|980883818
7c7
< ----
---
> 
------
IndianMassacres|980883975
7a8,16
> 
> ----
> 
> I am not an expert in this area.  But I remember, growing up in AlabamA, the story of the TrailOfTears, in which many NativeAmerican people were forced to leave AlabamA (and other places, perhaps), and walk to ArkansaS or something like that.
> Many of them died along the way.  Would that count?
> 
> (Notice that I am not only not an expert, this edit is more of
> a question than a comment, so perhaps someone could fill in
> the TrailOfTears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.)
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980884584
0a1,15
> Note from JimboWales: I really like the way the following discussion is going.  What I'm interested to see is whether
> and to what extent we might be able to achieve some consensus
> on a basic 3-screen history of the UnitedStates.
> 
> Someone wrote that the Nazi FinalSolution was perhaps modelled
> on U.S policy towards NativeAmerican''''s.  I think this is
> ludicrous on many levels.  Even if it were true that some Nazi's
> viewed it as the same thing (something I don't really know about), that view is itself ludicrous.  We're talking about a
> serious estimate of 6,000 dead in a variety of unfortunate incidents, versus a serious estimate of how many millions dead as the result of a deliberate genocide?
> 
> Anyhow, it will be very interesting to see what we might
> hammer out as mutually acceptable to reasonable people who
> disagree.
> 
> ----
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980884744
13c13,22
< disagree.
---
> disagree.  So far, things don't look good.  :-)  BryceHarrington is citing NoamChomsky, who I regard as a lunatic.  And TimShell
> is posting highly inflammatory pictures of genocide.
> 
> Will it break down into a flame war?  Or does the ability of
> others to come in and "tone down" the discussion at will mean
> that flame wars can be avoided?
> 
> It sure is fun and addictive to watch to find out!
> 
> 
------
TheBeatles|980884816
1c1
< The Beatles were a group of four musicians that epitomised the popular culture of Britain, indeed much of the English speaking world during the 1960s and early 1970's.  The members of the group were: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr (Richard Starky) were all from Liverpool, England.
---
> The Beatles were a group of four musicians that epitomised the popular culture of Britain, indeed much of the English speaking world during the 1960s and early 1970's.  The members of the group were: JohnLennon, PaulMcCartney, GeorgeHarrison and RingoStarr (RichardStarky) were all from LiverpoolEngland.
------
PeterAbelard|980885158
1c1
< ABELARD, PETER (1079-1142), scholastic philosopher, was born 
---
> ABELARD, PETER (1079-1142), ScholasticPhilosopher, was born 
11c11
< meaning at that time chiefly the logic of Aristotle transmitted 
---
> meaning at that time chiefly the logic of AristotlE transmitted 
15c15
< but whether he heard this champion of extreme Nominalism in 
---
> but whether he heard this champion of extreme NominalisM in 
19c19
< His wanderings finally brought him to Paris, still under 
---
> His wanderings finally brought him to ParisFrance, still under 
21,22c21
< Notre-Dame, he sat for a while under the teaching of William 
< of Champeaux, the disciple of St Anselm and most advanced of 
---
> Notre-Dame, he sat for a while under the teaching of WilliamofChampeaux, the disciple of St Anselm and most advanced of 
25c24
< in the downfall of the philosophic theory of Realism, till 
---
> in the downfall of the philosophic theory of RealisM, till 
30c29
< Corbeil, nearer Paris.  The success of his teaching was 
---
> Corbeil, nearer ParisFrance.  The success of his teaching was 
168,169c167
< Gildas, Abelard wrote, among other things, his famous Historia 
< Calamitatum, and thus moved her to peu her first Letter, 
---
> Gildas, Abelard wrote, among other things, his famous HistoriaCalamitatum, and thus moved her to peu her first Letter, 
235c233
< The general importance of Abelard lles in his having fixed 
---
> The general importance of Abelard lies in his having fixed 
243,244c241,242
< Through him was prepared in the Middle Age the ascendancy 
< of the philosophical authority of Aristotle, which became 
---
> Through him was prepared in the MiddleAge the ascendancy 
> of the philosophical authority of AristotlE, which became 
246c244
< first the completed Organon, and gradually ail the other 
---
> first the completed OrganoN, and gradually ail the other 
251c249
< Universals, see SCHOLASTICISM.  Outside of his dialectic, 
---
> Universals, see ScholasticisM.  Outside of his dialectic, 
261c259
< great ethical inquiries of AAstotle became fully known to them. 
---
> great ethical inquiries of AristotlE became fully known to them. 
264c262
< for his life, especially his Historia Culamitatum, an 
---
> for his life, especially his HistoriaCulamitatum, an 
------
AbductioN|980885372
35c35
< knowledge of her.  In Scotland, where there is no statutory 
---
> knowledge of her.  In ScotlanD, where there is no statutory 
------
RequestedArticles|980885448
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- TheBeatles -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
------
AbdominalSurgery|980885542
1,3c1,3
< ABDOMINAL SURGERY.---The diseases affecting this region 
< are dealt with generally in the article DIGESTIVE ORGANS, 
< and under their own names (e.g. APPENDICITIS). The term 
---
> AbdominalSurgery.---The diseases affecting this region 
> are dealt with generally in the article DigestiveOrgans, 
> and under their own names (e.g. AppendicitiS). The term 
9c9
< that organ (see STOMACH, KIDNEY, LIVER, &c.); but here the 
---
> that organ (see StomacH, KidneY, LiveR, &c.); but here the 
18c18
< recognized.  It was Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American 
---
> recognized.  It was Dr OliverWendellHolmes, the American 
------
AdolfHitler|980885596
10c10
< AdolfHitler commited suicide together with his lady friend EvaBraun on April 30th 1945 in his HQ in Berlin (GermanY). He appointed Admiral Doenitz as the next Führer.
---
> AdolfHitler commited suicide together with his lady friend EvaBraun on April 30th 1945 in his HQ in Berlin (GermanY). He appointed AdmiralDoenitz as the next Führer.
------
InaugurationProtests|980885965
9a10,11
> I have read alternative perspectives on the protests, which pointed out that they were primarily composed of people paid to protest by various special interest groups.  I suppose that point of view should be noted, as well.  -- JimboWales
> 
------
AtlasShrugged|980887463
13c13,15
< * AtlasShrugged/Characters
---
> *
> 
> * /Characters
------
HomePage|980887475
3c3
< CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
---
> BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
------
AtlasShrugged|980887509
13c13
< *
---
> */WhyThisSectionExists
16,21c16,21
< * AtlasShrugged/Companies
< * AtlasShrugged/Conflicts
< * AtlasShrugged/Places
< * AtlasShrugged/Structure
< * AtlasShrugged/Symbolism
< * AtlasShrugged/Things
---
> * /Companies
> * /Conflicts
> * /Places
> * /Structure
> * /Symbolism
> * /Things
------
BusinessAndEconomics|980887795
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * BusinessSchools
> * EconomicS
> * /EducatioN
> * ElectonicCommerce
> * /Ethics
> * FinanceAndInvestment
> * /History
> * IntellectualProperty
> * /Law
> * ManagementScience
> * MarketingAndAdvertising
> * /Media
> * TradE
------
AtlasShrugged/WhyThisSectionExists|980887896
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I am developing the AtlasShrugged section of Wikipedia as a test to push the envelope of what is possible with a wiki.  I hope to show that a wiki-based encyclopedia is not merely the same old encyclopedia with a different development and editing system, but a tool that allows types of content not easily integrated into conventional encyclopedias.
> 
> I chose AtlasShrugged for this project for a few reasons.  I am familiar with it so can do a passable job in summarizing it.  It is very large and complex, making it a good test of what is possible.  Often people who are into AtlasShrugged are _really_ into it, so there are likely people who will contribute and who will be interested in the section.  There is a movie coming out, so interest in AtlasShrugged might be expected to surge soon - it would be good for the project if we were able to sate that interest with a really cool AtlasShrugged section.
------
InaugurationProtests|980888319
2,8c2
< be removed from the wikipedia.  My reason is this:
< 
< When you click 'submit', you are agreeing to release the text under the GNU FDL.  But this reprinting disclaimer doesn't give all the freedom that the FDL gives.  (For example, you don't have the right to redistribute modified versions, and there is a discrimination against commercial usage -- both restrictions are forbidden under the open source definition.)  
< 
< Therefore, while it is o.k. for the moment, since this wikipedia doesn't have any ads on it, it is not o.k. in the long run, because this wikipedia database is intended to be made available for download under an FDL license. --JimboWales
< 
< ''Agreed.  As well, it has a journalistic-bent to it, and so needs to be rewritten into more of an encyclopedic bent.  But I felt the information is important and of current interest.  And since the protests were not covered by traditional media, and thus likely won't show up in mainstream encyclopedias and histories, I wanted to be sure we had *something* relatively detailed on it.  -- BryceHarrington''
---
> be removed from the wikipedia.
12,254c6
< ----
< 
< '''Bush inauguration meets resistance'''
< 
< http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%201.GIF
< 
< ''Protesters confront police in Washington, DC on Saturday, Jan. 20. ''
< 
< By Eamon Martin
< 
< '''Washington, DC, Jan. 20- '''As the pomp and circumstance 
< of President George W. Bush's inauguration attempted to forcibly 
< transcend the domestic instability left in the wake of what 
< may be the most contentious election in US history, approximately 
< 20,000 people gathered in the nation's capital to protest.
< 
< Bush, the first President in more than a century to lose the 
< national popular vote, took the oath of office as president 
< of the United States, pledging to "unite" the country which 
< the November elections showed to be deeply divided, along cultural, 
< geographic, and ethnic lines. For a large percentage of the 
< US public, the presidency is deeply mired in a crisis of legitimacy 
< by numerous allegations of vote fraud, voter disenfranchisement, 
< and the controversial Supreme Court decision that halted the 
< vote count on a legal technicality. For the many who came to 
< demonstrate from as many as forty US states, a Bush/Cheney White 
< House represents nothing less than a debasement of democracy, 
< a Republican coup d'etat with a suitably incompetent figurehead 
< for a puppet regime.
< 
< Despite a relentless, cold rain and unprecedented security 
< restrictions for demonstrators, widespread feelings of outrage 
< and contempt for the incoming administration were literally 
< overwhelming for many of those in attendance. The day saw numerous 
< marches, assemblies, street theater performances, and confrontations 
< between police and protesters that have since drawn concern 
< from media analysts, given the dramatic scope of the activities 
< and - in many cases - their subsequent, mysterious absence from 
< most news reports. Demonstrators were evident on every block 
< of the 1.6-mile inaugural parade route, and on some blocks on 
< the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, they outnumbered other 
< paradegoers.
< 
< The day began early for protesters, who were in the streets 
< well before Bush supporters. At 8:30am, a few hundred met at 
< 12th and G streets NW, then marched to 14th Street and Pennsylvania 
< Avenue, to the beat of homemade drums.
< 
< A boisterous crowd of more than 1,000 assembled at Dupont 
< Circle just before 10 am, chastising Bush for "stealing" the 
< election. At 10:30, city crews arrived to cut an effigy of Bush 
< from a tree. Speaker Patricia Ireland, president of the National 
< Organization for Women, told the crowd: "Let them have the tree. 
< We have all of Dupont Circle and we have the whole country. 
< They just have the White House." 
< 
< Meanwhile, near the Supreme Court, Al Sharpton, Walter E. Fauntroy 
< and other civil rights activists were holding a "shadow" inauguration 
< and parade, attended by over 2,000 people. Laura Brightman of 
< Brooklyn, NY commented, "We were sold out," as others around 
< her chanted, "No justice, no peace." 
< 
< "And when we tried to get justice [from the Supreme Court] 
< we were sold again," said Brightman. "The election was stolen." 
< 
< 
< At the Supreme Court building, Rudy Arredondo of Takoma Park, 
< Md., put it this way: "Bush is a Supreme Court appointee. In 
< my eyes, and in my children's eyes, he will never be a legitimate 
< president."
< 
< '''Anarchists destroy inaugural checkpoint, hoist flag: media 
< blackout '''
< 
< http://www.agrnews.org/issues/106/J20%2088.GIF
< ''Black bloc activists build a barricade in the streets of Washingtoon, DC.''
< 
< Notably ignored by the mainstream press, radical activists 
< made anarchist history during George W. Bush's inaugural parade 
< when one of nine police checkpoints to the celebration was battered 
< down and overrun with thousands of protesters. Not long after, 
< protesters -- led by the masked, black-clad, anarchist collective 
< known as the "Black Bloc" -- seized the Naval Memorial on Pennsylvania 
< Ave. and raised anarchist flags up the monument's flagpole. 
< Overwhelmed by the security breach, DC police and Secret Service 
< appeared confused, powerless, and embarrassed as they tried 
< to contain, arrest, or disperse the demonstrators, only to fail 
< time and time again when Black Bloc members physically fought 
< back and successfully prevented almost any such police retaliation 
< from happening.
< 
< In the weeks leading up to Bush's inaugural moment, the "historically 
< unprecedented" security measures being undertaken by the Republican 
< Party in tandem with DC police and the US Secret Service received 
< extensive attention in the news media. For the first time ever, 
< anyone wishing to attend the inaugural parade was required to 
< pass through one of nine police checkpoints, have their bags 
< searched, and in some cases be frisked and have protest signs 
< confiscated. 
< 
< "He stole the vote," said Ethyl Tobch, 79, of New York City. 
< "The fact that the people's votes were absolutely stolen plus 
< the checkpoints are very frightening. It makes you feel like 
< you are in a real dictatorship." 
< <p>It was a single egg that landed on the presidential motorcade, 
< a brief, maybe blurry tele-view of colorful protest signs along 
< the parade route. By most news accounts, the protests were an 
< inaugural footnote, not worthy of much comment or attention. 
< However, for the thousands of people attending the inaugural 
< parade who had gathered near the US Naval Memorial, a dramatic, 
< captivating spectacle unfolded before them, for many the likes 
< of which had never before been seen. As the well-to-do sat perched, 
< waiting anxiously in the expensive bleacher seats and hotel 
< balconies overlooking the parade for the arrival of the Bush 
< motorcade, parade-goers suddenly found themselves in the midst 
< of a giant confrontation between police and protesters. 
< 
< It began when a march of nearly 600 Black Bloc demonstrators 
< began to make its way towards the parade route, leaving a small 
< trail of impromptu blockades -- mainly newspaper distributor 
< racks and automobiles -- behind them. Soon after, DC police 
< appeared and managed to corral against a building wall about 
< 80 of this group who called themselves the "Revolutionary Anti-Authoritarian 
< Bloc." Mass arrests seemed imminent with the police holding 
< loads of plastic, "zip-tie" handcuffs and City Transit Authority 
< busses parked nearby at the ready for "criminal" mass transit. 
< DC Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said 
< the police contingency plan for up to 5,000 arrests involved 
< the use of several buses and 180 officers specifically prepared 
< for that many cases. All told, about 7,000 officers had been 
< deployed from various law enforcement agencies, including US 
< Marshals and National Guard troops.
< 
< A standoff ensued between the police, spectators, and a groundswell 
< of protesters suddenly reinforced by the unexpected arrival 
< of a National Organization of Women (NOW) march and a Voter 
< Rights march, chanting "Let them go! Let them go!" Hopelessly 
< outnumbered, the police eventually complied, freeing the demonstrators 
< to continue their protests. 
< 
< With protesters now numbering in the 1,500-2,000 range, a massive 
< march proceeded to Pennsylvania Ave. Not much later, with the 
< reunited Black Bloc at the front, a group of inspired participants 
< grabbed a fairly large cart parked in front of a vacant construction 
< site.
< 
< "What is this?" someone asked.
< 
< "It's a battering ram!" another yelled in reply. 
< 
< Much to the astonishment of thousands of waiting parade-watchers, 
< the construction cart came careening down an overlooking hill, 
< crashing through a police checkpoint, only to be stopped from 
< going into the parade avenue by a Secret Service car which pulled 
< in front of it's path, damaging the federal vehicle in the process. 
< The floodgates had been battered open, allowing what from balcony 
< seats must have looked like a giant pool of black ink to seep 
< into the crowded festivities, followed by a colorful barrage 
< of signs proclaiming: "Supreme Coup," "Hail To The Thief," "Not 
< Our President" and hundreds more. For all of their elaborate 
< preparations, much to their surprise, police and military were 
< now confronted with an embarrassingly massive breach of national 
< security. 
< 
< Shocked Republicans and police watched as, soon after, four 
< Black Bloc members scaled the nearby Navy Memorial flagpole 
< to the roaring cheers of demonstrators. In little time, the 
< Nautical flags were pulled down and replaced by black and red 
< anarchist flags, as well as an upside down US flag -- the widely 
< recognized symbol of distress. 
< 
< Over the next few hours, riot police attempted at least three 
< times to rush and disperse those assembled by the monument, 
< only to be pushed, fought back, and defeated. Dozens of times, 
< without identifying themselves, several undercover police attempted 
< to "surprise arrest" demonstrators. Activists responded quickly, 
< however, and with little exception, prevented this from happening 
< by directly confronting the police, tackling them, fighting 
< them, and many times forcibly removing them from the area. 
< 
< Meanwhile, the parade had been delayed. When the Bush/Cheney 
< motorcade eventually did arrive, the cars abruptly sped by this 
< concentrated protest area, forcing the Secret Service chaperones 
< to break pace and run full steam to catch up. At this particular 
< moment, while food, debris, loud insults, and a sea of hundreds 
< of middle fingers were hurled toward the new president, apparently 
< several news networks broadcasting live simulcasts, simultaneously 
< thought it best to cut to commercial breaks or check in with 
< comments from fawning news pundits. 
< 
< Most demonstrators in the area soon dispersed afterward, the 
< object of their animosity having since passed by in the new 
< Cadillac, which featured puncture-proof tires and six-inch-thick 
< bulletproof glass.
< 
< Of the estimated 350,000 people who came downtown Saturday 
< to see the swearing-in ceremony or parade, DC police arrested 
< only five, and other law enforcement agencies arrested only 
< a handful of others. 
< 
< '''Demonstrations nationwide'''
< 
< Protests in opposition to what many are characterizing as 
< an appointed regime by the US Supreme Court were not limited 
< to Washington DC. Thousands of US citizens in over a dozen cities 
< such as San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Tallahassee, 
< New York, Montpelier, Santa Fe, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland 
< and others protested the inauguration. According to the Independent 
< Media Center, thousands of protesters took over part of downtown 
< San Fransisco, stopping cable cars. 3,500 demonstrated in Los 
< Angeles. Even Paris, France saw thousands of demonstrators against 
< the death penalty protest the swearing-in of the new US President. 
< 
< 
< All around the country, mock coronations of "King George II" 
< were staged. In Seattle, an actor dressed in a Revolutionary 
< War costume stole the crown from a shrub and offered it to the 
< people. The crowd of 3,000 placed the crown at the head of a 
< parade. 
< 
< Chicago protesters converged on the city's Federal Building. 
< Demonstrators protested at the state capitols in Denver, Colorado 
< and Montpelier, Vermont. In Albuquerque, New Mexico local TV 
< coverage gave more time to local protests than to the Bush ceremonies.
< 
< In Austin, Texas, 500 people gathered on the state capitol 
< steps. The election "was stolen and it was stolen in Florida. 
< I think there should be a revolution in this country on just 
< this issue," said Arthur Joe Sr. of Dallas. 
< 
< In Asheville, North Carolina, forty-five indignant people braved 
< freezing rain to sing, dance and wave signs, to the obvious 
< delight of passing motorists, who responded with honks and thumbs 
< up. The protest lasted from ten until two o'clock.
< 
< AGR staff contributed to this report.
< 
< Additional sources: Independent Media Center, Washington Post, 
< IPS, Philadelphia Inquirer 
< 
< 
< (c) Copyright 2000 Asheville Global Report.
< Reprinting for non-profit purposes is permitted: Please credit the source.
---
> (Article about protests deleted)
------
RequestedArticles|980888456
6a7
> LetterATopics
------
HistoryOfUnitedStates|980888645
24c24
< Because NorthAmerica at the time was occupied by the NativeAmericanPeople, much of the US history is preoccupied with the wresting of the land from these inhabitants.  This was done with a variety of means including broken treaties and forced resettlement, such as the Trail of Tears.  
---
> America remains a popular destination for immigrants.
26c26
< In the middle of the 19th century, the nation was wracked with a massive CivilWar.  The war was fought for economic and political purposes, but one of the most profound and long lasting effects of this war was ending the governmental support of slavery and the freeing of the AfricanAmericanPeople from bondage.  Some harsh repressive laws were put into place to control and limit these people, which have been repealed, and though some such sentiments linger America remains a popular destination for immigrants.
---
> The American country enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity and its people remain among the most free in the world and in history.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move to America from around the world to improve their lives.
28c28,30
< At the end of the 19th century, the United States engaged in an extremely one-sided war with Spain, and gained control of Guam, PuertoRico, and Cuba.  The US also acquired the Philippines, however only after a very bloody three year war, in which GenocidE was first used to describe the killings of 600,000 Filipinos by armed forces of the United States.
---
> See also:
> * HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion
> * HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk
30,44d31
< In the 20th century, as the amount of uncontested land in NorthAmerica was settled, the USA was forced to engage in more traditional mechanisms for continuing their political and economic growth.  Empires previously had used the policy of ColonialisM as the basis for establishing and protecting their foreign economic interests.  Since the US had been originally been a colony of England, obviously it would be considered hypocritical for the US to be known as a colonial empire, and so thus the US's "NewWorldOrder" was established and maintained through much more subtle events and mechanisms, many of which are not well known.  There have been a number of "Police Actions" or "Limited Engagements" in various third world countries, used to topple governments working at odds with US interests.  
< 
< Following the stock market crash in 1929 and years of virtually unlimited credit during the RoaringTwenties, the US was lost in a deep depression, that took most of a decade to emerge from.  Just as it emerged from this crisis, they were drawn into the Second World War, which had unofficially begun in Spain in 1934 and officially with the invasion of PolanD by the SovietUnion and NaziGermany in 1939.  The UnitedStates entered the war in 1941 with the bombing of PearlHarbor by the Japanese.  After four long years of war, GermanY and Japan were defeated, and (with its newly developed AtomicBomb) the UnitedStates emerged as the most powerful nation in the world.
< 
< During the second half of the 20th century, under the guise of defeating the TotalitarianisM of the CommunisT SovietUnion, the US engaged in a long and expensive ColdWar.  Coupling NaZi technologies with the AtomicBomb, the US and Soviets developed a vast arsenal of WeaponsOfMassDestruction, theoretically able to cause a nuclear detonation anywhere in the world.  The fear this ingrained into the US (and, probably) Soviet citizenry was extreme.  In the US, under SenatorJosephMcCarthy, a WitchHunt was undertaken to expose and publically denegrate anyone with beliefs that expoused anything resembling CommunisM, or who even merely associated with people believing in communism.  
< 
< At the end of the 20th century, the US finally succeeded in outlasting the SovietUnion, and was surprised by the sudden fall of communist countries around the world.  Yet the US remains committed to "full engagement" in the world.  At the start of the 21st century, the US is embracing the new globalization.
< 
< In the meantime, the American country enjoys unprecedented economic prosperity and its people remain among the most free in the world and in history.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of people move to America from around the world to improve their lives.
< 
< ----
< Source for much of the above is taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica website's article on the United States, 
< by William M. Brinton, 1996.  I left out a lot of the negative stuff.  Yeesh, US history is depressing...
< 
< See HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion and HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk for discussion of the above article (or possibly an earlier version of the above article).
------
LetterATopics|980888645
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here are some topics that start with letter A.  These are some
> of the topics from a really old and lame desktop encyclopedia I own.  I'm just trying to plant some seeds.  None of the articles are that good (yet).
> 
> AaRiver
> AachenGermany
> AardvarK
> AardwolF
> Bible/Aaron
> AbacuS
> AbadanIran
> AbalonE
> AbbaS
> EdwinAustinAbbey
> AbbeY
> AbbeyTheatre
> JohnAbbott
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980888684
27,28d26
< ''I think it may be difficult to know what is considered 'controversial' before writing.  As well, I have doubts that a) someone would be good enough to admit that their assertions will be controversial, and b) that the people discussing them on this page would necessarily be of sufficient authority to de-controversialify such a topic.  Oh, and c) some things in US history are just plain controversial.  Instead, let me propose that if anyone feels anything mentioned on the main page lacks sufficient evidence, bring it here (and write counter-evidence if desired).  Others can edit the item into less controversial terms or add proof, and then move it back.  Doubt this'd be a perfect solution, but I doubt anyone believes wikipedia is going to be _able_ to be true and objective, when anyone in the world can write in it.  But that's why we have Nupedia.''
< 
35,37d32
< ''From Britannica's website:  "In the Nineteenth century, the South had seceded from the Union with the shots fired at Fort Sumter in April, 1861. Abraham Lincoln fought to preserve the Union and, in 1862, freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. The ensuing Civil War ended only in 1865 with General Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomatox."  Emancipation *did* occur during the war.  My claim that it was an economic issue was drawn from the Britannica article on the Emancipation Proclamation stating, "The locking up of the world's source of cotton supply had been a general calamity, and the Confederate government and people had steadily expected that the English and French governments would intervene in the war. The conversion of the struggle into a crusade against slavery made European intervention impossible."  However, in reading some additional sources on the Library of Congress pages, and some other civil war entries, I have to admit that Tim's comments that the evidence supports many hypotheses.  I suppose generally what I'm trying to say was that a) slavery was not the _primary_ reason for the Civil War, as we might believe, and b) the reason slaves were freed had many motivations (political, militaristic, economic, and so forth) beyond just the evilness of slavery.''
< 
< ''Finally, let me point out a distinction between "equality in terms of freeness" and "equality in terms of class".  The former can be claimed but not the latter.  Even today there is a class distinction; I was living in south central LA before, during, and after the riots and, being white, was made well aware of this on many occasions, and the evidence I saw supported this.  One man who can just come to Los Angeles from Mississippi told me, "Believe it or not, it's a lot better here than where I come from.''
43,46d37
< ''First, I said Germany invaded Poland, not the Soviet Union, although in fact they did as well.  Second, Germany and the Soviet Union had a pact between them:  "On September 1, secure behind the new German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact that had stunned the world in August, Hitler began an invasion of Poland. Great Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. By the end of 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union had divided Poland between themselves, and the Soviets had occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and had attacked Finland, which they finally defeated in March 1940... In June Hitler abandoned the Nonaggression Pact of 1939 and launched a massive surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. German armoured units drove deep into Soviet territory and at one point reached the outskirts of Moscow before Soviet counterattacks and winter weather slowed the offensive to a halt."  We may not have had pitched battles between Britain and USSR during the 1939-1940 period, but don't doubt they were our enemies.''
< 
< ''In fact, it is interesting to note -- and I'll just toss this out as a flippant and discardable assertion since it'd take too long to prove -- that the NAZI's believed (for a little while, anyhow) that the British and Americans could be expected to support Fascism, since Britain and America detested Communism almost as fervently as the NAZI's did.  Looking at America's history of slavery, KKK, extermination of Native Americans, and so forth, it's surprising to think that this was actually a pretty logical thing for the NAZI's to think.  I got this off of a History Channel WWII program; I'd like to hear more about it if, in fact, it is true.''
< 
54,63d44
< One thing on the main history page:  "How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII??"
< 
< Technically, it was the Soviets who defeated the NAZI State.  The Soviets lost and retook a LOT of land, lost the most lives IIRC, and engaged the NAZI's much more continually (and violently, I think) than the US did.  (Curiously, the Soviets also hold the largest responsibility for defeating themselves, but that's a topic for another page.)
< 
< Also, I saw in a History Channel documentary that the NAZI "final solution" for the Jews was inspired, if not modelled on, our treatment of the Native Americans.  Are these things true?  If so, then it makes one wonder...
< 
< Another last point that I recently read when researching some of Noam Chomsky's(sp) writings...  It can be argued on a purely imperial level, that WWII was in essence an attempt by NAZI GermanY to build an empire at the expense of the existing colonial empires (France and Britain) which failed, and which instead had the net effect of shifting the imperial power to the United States.  Control over colonies, where labor can be purchased cheaply, and human rights ignored, has throughout history been an extremely important way for imperial nations to build their economic wealth.  Could it be possible that the US has been doing the same, in the time since WWII?  Or has our international history been more filled with support for burgeoning independence movements?
< 
< -- BryceHarrington
< 
75a57,58
> 
> ''Okay, okay, I don't wish to be thought of as a lunatic, or be punching bag filler, so I'll depart.''
------
LetterATopics|980888706
0a1,3
> Shocking Fact: I just entered these topics randomly, only to
> find that some of them are already covered by the PG/EB stuff.
> 
16c19
< JohnAbbott
---
> JohnAbbott
------
LetterATopics|980888716
8c8
< AachenGermany
---
> AacheN
------
AardwolF|980888786
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Small animal from South AfricA.  Related to the HyenA.  Lives in the ground.  Nocturnal hunter.
------
LetterATopics/Aaron|980888974
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Is this a good naming convention for people from the Bible?
> 
> Anyhow, Bible/Aaron was the older brother of Bible/Moses.
> 
> Bible/Moses was a lousy public speaker, so God had Bible/Aaron do all the speechifying.
> 
> Aaron made a GoldenCalf, let people worship it, despite the TenCommandments.  God, annoyed by this, punished everyone, appropriately no doubt.
> 
> I'm sorry this is irreverent.  I'm not the right person to write
> about BiblicalPeople.
------
EconomicS|980889031
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A social science that seeks to analyze and describe the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. It is a relatively new academic discipline: the first major book on EconomicS, AdamSmith's ''The Wealth of Nations'' was published in 1776.
> 
> 
> The is an economic aspect to almost any topic one can think of - EducatioN, ReLigion, PoliticS, employment, trasport, defence, etc. EconomicS is, therefore,a comprehensive theory of how society works. 
> 
> 
> One of the guiding ideas in EconomicS is scarcity. Virtually everything is scarce; there are not enough resources around world to satisfy humanity. It is not only the poor who feel deprived; even the relatively well-off seem to want more. It is the economists job to evaluate the choices that exist for the use of those resources.
------
AbadanIran|980889063
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A city in Iran, located on AbadanIsland.  Site of much oil stuff.
------
EdwinAustinAbbey|980889153
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Artist -- painter.  Born 1852, died 1911.  His most famous work, TheQuestOfTheHolyGrail, resides in the BostonPublicLibrary.
------
JohnAbbott|980889249
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Prime Minister of Canada from 1891-1893.  He died in 1893.
> 
> He studied at McGillUniversity.
------
EconomicS|980889306
7a8,17
> 
> 
> The major divisions of EconomicS include MicroeconomicS, which deals with the  behaviour of individual consumers, companies, traders, and farmers; and MacroeconomicS, which focuses on aggregates such as the level of income in an economy, the volume of total employment, and the flow of investment. Another branch,
> DevelopmentEconomics, investigates the history and changes of economic activity and organization over a period of time, as well as their relation to other activities and institutions. Within these three major divisions there are specialized areas of study
> that attempt to answer questions on a broad spectrum of human economic activity, including public finance, money supply and banking, international trade, labour, industrial organization, and AgriculturE. The areas of investigation in EconomicS overlap with other social sciences, particularly PoliticalScience, but EconomicS is primarily concerned with relations between buyer and seller.
> 
> ----
> * MicroeconomicS
> * MacroeconomicS
> * DevelopmentEconomics
------
BryceHarrington|980889348
4,72c4
< Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY, and it thrills me to be able to share these with you, and feel they represent my best work.  
< 
< ----
< ''Bryce, about your notes on HistoryOfEurope...I didn't want to put these there, since it is a summary page.  I removed the bit about Alex great conquering Greece, since that was his father, and about other civilizations probably experimenting with governments, since all evidence suggests they did not.  But all in all, I was thinking such developments really belong on a HistoryOfTheMeditteranean page, since ''that'' is where the center of the action is, not Europe.  Didn't want to impose, 'course...thoughts?''  -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< ----
< '''I don't think Roman and Greek history should be isolated from European history, since they're obviously so
< intricately tied.  I'm not sure a HistoryOfTheMediterranean page would be exactly what we need, but 
< certainly something oriented to the ancient history of the western world would be good.  I believe the
< topics already listed under HiStory should cover that, though.  Good catch on Alexander's father conquering
< Greece - I should have caught that.  ''' -- BryceHarrington
< 
< ''I was thinking of Europe as a cultural centre, not as a continent, so that's why I left them off.  The other way is better, since it gives a home to topics like Celts and megaliths.  But I still think that the Romans and Greeks don't belong here.  Yes, Greece and Italy are located in Europe.  But the Greeks had much more to do with Persia than the interior, and the RomanEmpire was as much African and Asian is it was European.''
< 
< ''I really think the essential "region" these civs belong to is the Meditteranean.  At the very least, this would give the Carthaginians a home too.  Of course this has a lot of overlap with Europe, and they should refer a lot to each other; but anything said on Europe about Rome (and to a lesser extent Greece) is just going to be repeated in other regions.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< Hrm, well I'm just an American, but I did study a LOT of European history in school (bit of a passion of mine).  The Greeks and Romans had a _profound_ influence on European history, and while I do agree that they also had influence and interaction with other people on other continents as well, I still (strongly) think Greece and Rome deserve (even require) mention here.  Their impact goes far beyond mere influence; their civilization and culture is really the underpinnings of all that followed.  
< 
< I could write a whole essay on this, but let me address just three specific areas; things that I think we can agree were critical aspects in the later history of Europe:  Religion, Governance, and Settlement.  I could also discuss things like science, theater, architecture, language, military, and sports, but hopefully you'll forgive me if I wave my hand at those as "obvious".  ;-)
< 
< Christianity is of unquestionable influence on the history of Europe, but it's origins and early development is inextricably bound up not in Germanic or Celtic culture, but in Greek and Roman.  Jesus was martyred during
< the reign of the first emperor of Rome, smack in the middle of the most heavily studied period of "classical" Roman history.  The reason for his death was tied up largely in the political and economic behavior of the Romans; Israel was bound up in a struggle for freedom, that they eventually lost - the Jews were dispersed around the world (including Europe).  If not for the Roman Empire, one could wonder if Christianity could have emerged at all.  Many of the early Christians were killed in Roman gladatorial pits, giving the young religion many martyrs and many converts in Rome itself.  There is a vast network of catacombs beneath the city of Rome, where the early Christians buried there dead (and possibly even hid).  Of course, eventually Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and spread it even further, perhaps now with the help of the Roman sword?  But during this whole process, Christianity was absorbing culture and traditions from Rome, and theory from Greece.  Early forms of the Bible were written in Greek, and then later Latin.  Statues and imagery of older gods were reused (e.g., Mary from some of the pre-existing mother-goddess cults).  Roman holidays were recast into Christian holidays (Christmas, IIRC, had roots in the Mithras religion?)  Much cut-and-paste-and-tweak.
< 
< The Roman style of governance, with a dictatorial emperor, has had direct influence on many of Europe's most powerful leaders.  The Romans used the word "Ceasar" to indicate utmost authority.  From this we have gotten the words "Czar", "Tsar", "Kaiser", and even "King".  While dictatorship is certainly nothing unique to Europe, it is the Roman style of dictatorship that many of Europe's leaders ascribed to.  When Charlemagne built his empire, he placed "Roman" right in the middle of its name.  Napoleon and Hitler also both drew from Roman symbology to lend an air of ancient authority to their regimes.  "Heil Hitler" is an obvious allusion to and derivation from "Hail Ceasar".  The military organization and tactics similarly were taught to the "barbaric" tribes (we can imagine "military advisors" looking down on the anarchical locals, thinking "these guys will never learn...")  The skills and discipline taught by the Romans almost assuredly profoundly affected their ability to conquer Rome when it neared its end, and to take control over the lands it left behind.
< 
< The Roman Empire is also the primary force responsible for settlement of Europe, influencing even lands not under their direct control.  And through the Romans we find (important) underlying Greek origins.  At the height of their empire, the Romans directly controlled Gaul (later France), England, Spain, and all of Southern Europe.  Indirectly, they controlled or influenced most of the remainder of Europe.  Many European towns have Roman origins; some started as mere fortresses for the Roman garrisons.  When the Romans entered a land, they planned (and built) to stay.  Europe came to be crossed with a vast network of roads that were the best human-made land routes in Europe until the 20th century.  The archaeological evidence (even as far as Hadrian's wall in the far north of England) demonstrates that the Romans were not mere casual visitors clinging to the belly of Europe, but embraced it.  Yes, while their main involvement was to the East, the Romans were to Europe what the American Colonists were to North America - they carved civilization out of the forests.  The 'villa' style of agricultural settlement stood in mark contrast to the Celtic family oriented traditions, yet persisted well into the middle ages (and beyond, in the Hispanic culture).
< 
< Without the Roman Empire's influence, Europe would NOT be the place it is today and would have had a *far* different history than it did.  The pre-existing Celt/Germanic civilizations were drastically different from the Romans, and took the Greco-Roman style as a model for their own latter cultures.  Rome and Greece need to be looked at not as merely random civilizations that had their time and then died, to be replaced by unique new civilizations; rather, they had a *key* role in the formation of all that followed in Europe.  Leaving them out of the European History page would be akin to leaving England out of the history of the United States.  
< 
< ''Well, the thing is that I ''would'' keep England's history separate from that of the US.  That's not to say that I would omit it, but that I would place it separately in the main hierarchy and then cross-reference a lot.  Otherwise England's history is going to be told as the history of England, retold as that of Scotland, retold as that of France, and so forth.  Same deal with Rome.  There should be one RomanEmpire page, and the history of Europe should say something along the lines of "most of south Europe was included in the RomanEmpire, under which urban centers spread and the catholic church was introduced and blah blah blah.  And then Egypt, Syria, and so forth can do the same sort of thing.''
< 
< ----
< '''Regarding other civilizations experimenting with other forms of government; well I guess I just wanted to point out some stuff Greece achieved, but without arrogantly claiming that no one else did too.'''
< 
< ''Ok.  Greece does deserve credit, though, for being completely unique in developing democratic governments, formal mathematics, empirical science (to the extent that they did), and so forth.  They also were unique in inventing vowels. :)'' -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< Actually, I believe there were actually some native american tribes that had either semi-democratic or concensus-oriented styles of leadership.  I believe I ran into some references by Jefferson regarding this, which would have some rather exciting implications.  I agree that Greeks kicked butt with math and science, but archaeology has suggested that some of the new world civilizations had achieved some impressive discoveries themselves, independently.  I think Greece probably gets the bulk of the credit because a) their works were preserved and have come down to us through our own literary history.  Consider if we had only their pottery and ruins to judge them by, would we have any clue about their most impressive achievements?  -- BryceHarrington
< 
< ''I think most tribal societies start ought more-or-less democratically (I've also heard of English historians commenting about the "democratic genius of the GermanicPeoples).  What makes the Greeks exceptional is they brought the idea into an urban context.  At the time, all urban societies were pretty much top down - civilizations of slaves, as the Greeks put it.''
< 
< ''In math, again, I think the main contribution of the Greeks - rational and axiomatic reasoning rather than empirical and approximate - is unique.  That's not to say other civs didn't perform some wonderful math; the Babylonians could solve quadratic problems, and both the Hindus and Mayans invented zero.  But it's not the same when you're doing it for practical reasons.''
< 
< ''The Greeks also, btw, invented history (though that one isn't unique), and that's more or less guaranteed that they wouldn't be known just from their ruins.  Compare to Persia, which actually based a lot of its inscriptions on what the Greeks said.  Unfortunately the American civilizations got cheated in this respect, since most of their writings were slash-and-burnt along with the people.''
< 
< ----
< Anyway, the current page looks much better.  The power of collaboration, ay?  ;-)
< 
< ''Is very, very cool.  I've noticed you've been doing a lot of work building infrastructure, and that's really very praiseworthy.  Thanks for the help with this one.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< Thanks, I love what we're doing here, and think we're really making something that matters.  I gave a shot at reorganizing the homepage, 'cause the existing organization makes little sense to me (and ordering disorder is a dire habit of mine), but it looks like someone reverted the changes.  Ah well...
< 
< Btw, thank you muchly for commenting to me about the changes...  I like having had the change to give my opinion on it, even if ultimately we went a different way.
< 
< ----
< '''To adequately summarize what is known about the History of Europe, I think we can agree that the page is going to get quite long.  Maybe we should divide it up into some subsections like other pages have been.'''
< -- BryceHarrington
< 
< ''How's this for a primary division?  AncientEurope (pre-Roman stuff), MedievalEurope, Rennaisance, and then a bunch of later stuff I'm less knowledgeable about.  Closely tied to these would be HellenicCivilization, RomanEmpire, ByzantineEmpire, and HistoryOfIslam.  A second split in terms of geographical regions - things like HolyRomanEmpire - probably wouldn't hurt, and then things can grow as the will.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< These all sound like good and viable topics.  Personally, I have too many negative experiences to trust a hierarchical structure...  Most real things rarely map well into a hierarchy.  As you say, the Roman Empire overlaps a lot more than just Europe.  Fortunately, Wiki allows organization broader than mere hierarchical, so we'll be okay.  
< 
< To add to your list...  We'll want a section for the DarkAges, FrenchRevolution and Napoleon, Colonialism, the SpanishEmpire, the BritishEmpire, the Crusades, and a whole heaping ton of CatholicChurchInEurope.  
< 
< ''Should the DarkAges as part of the MiddleAges, or as a separate time period?  I personally am all for the former, because a thousand years is a darn long time which is hard to summarize, but the latter is more conventional.''
< 
< Yes, the DarkAges preceded the MiddleAges and in a European context are worth separating out.  
< The Medieval period started around 1000-1100 and is marked by the growth of cities and nations.  During the Dark Ages, people lived in a very tribal/village oriented way.  Scholars have traditionally discounted the DarkAges as "without development", yet looking at civilization before the collapse of the Roman Empire, and what emerged in the middle ages, it's clear that some very interesting things must have happened.  
< 
< Also note that the middle ages could be split into pre-1300 and post-1300 fairly easily.  1300 is about when the Plague really set in and hit home, and the mid- and late-1300's saw a number of massive wars and political changes. (Not that I'm advocating splitting it up at the category level, but on its page, we could follow that path for header divisions.)
---
> Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY.  I am currently involved in copying in the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text.  
------
EconomicS|980889402
4c4
< The is an economic aspect to almost any topic one can think of - EducatioN, ReLigion, PoliticS, employment, trasport, defence, etc. EconomicS is, therefore,a comprehensive theory of how society works. 
---
> The is an economic aspect to almost any topic one can think of - EducatioN, ReLigion, PoLitics, employment, trasport, defence, etc. EconomicS is, therefore,a comprehensive theory of how society works. 
17c17
< * DevelopmentEconomics
---
> * DevelopmentEconomics
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|980889546
1c1
< Special Assistant to the Vice-President in Charge of Operation at Taggart Transcontinental.  Eddie Willers grew up with /DagnyTaggart.  His father and grandfather worked for the Taggarts, and followed in their footsteps.  He is completely loyal to Dagny and to /TaggartTranscontinental.  He is meant to be a sympathetic character.
---
> Special Assistant to the Vice-President in Charge of Operation at Taggart Transcontinental.  Eddie Willers grew up with /DagnyTaggart.  His father and grandfather worked for the Taggarts, and he followed in their footsteps.  He is completely loyal to Dagny and to /TaggartTranscontinental.  He is meant to be a sympathetic character.
------
LetterATopics/Aaron|980889589
1d0
< 
11c10,12
< about BiblicalPeople.
---
> about BiblicalPeople.
> 
> See AaroN
------
MicroeconomicS|980889884
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A study of the economic behaviour of individual consumers, firms, and industries and the distribution of total production and income among them. It considers individuals both as suppliers of labour and capital and as the ultimate consumers of the final product. On the other hand, it analyzes firms both as suppliers of products and as consumers of labour and capital. 
> 
> MicroeconomicS seeks to analyze the market or other type of mechanism that establishes relative prices among goods and services and allocates society's resources among their many alternative uses.
> 
> 
> ----
> See also: 
> 
> * MacroeconomicS
------
MicroeconomicS|980889988
5d4
< 
9a9
> * EconomicS
------
ThingsThatDoNotExistForAReason|980890052
4a5
> * The 'Sing Along With Geddy Lee' interactive CD.
------
MacroeconomicS|980890207
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A study of the entire economy in terms of the total amount of goods and services produced, total income earned, the level of employment of productive resources, and the general behaviour of prices.
> 
> Until the 1930s most economic analysis concentrated  on individual firms and industries. With the GreatDepression of the 1930s, however, and the development of the concept of national income and product statistics, the field of MacroeconomicS began to expand. The policy goals of the discipline include economic growth, price stability, and full employment.
> 
> ----
> See also: 
> 
> * MicroconomicS
> * EconomicS 
------
MacroeconomicS|980890235
8c8
< * MicroconomicS
---
> * MicroeconomicS
------
LetterATopics|980893102
11c11
< Bible/Aaron
---
> BiblE/Aaron
------
BiblE/Aaron|980893115
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See AaroN
------
BusinessSchools|980893939
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * /UnitedStates
> * /Europe
------
AtlasShrugged/WhyThisSectionExists|980894061
3c3,5
< I chose AtlasShrugged for this project for a few reasons.  I am familiar with it so can do a passable job in summarizing it.  It is very large and complex, making it a good test of what is possible.  Often people who are into AtlasShrugged are _really_ into it, so there are likely people who will contribute and who will be interested in the section.  There is a movie coming out, so interest in AtlasShrugged might be expected to surge soon - it would be good for the project if we were able to sate that interest with a really cool AtlasShrugged section.
---
> I chose AtlasShrugged for this project for a few reasons.  I am familiar with it so can do a passable job in summarizing it.  It is very large and complex, making it a good test of what is possible.  Often people who are into AtlasShrugged are _really_ into it, so there are likely people who will contribute and who will be interested in the section.  There is a movie coming out, so interest in AtlasShrugged might be expected to surge soon - it would be good for the project if we were able to sate that interest with a really cool AtlasShrugged section.
> ----
> Then we ought to have a similar LordOfTheRings section, too! -- LarrySanger
------
WojPob|980894290
9c9,13
< ''Some searching finds that there are (as should be expected) a bunch of different chronologies for the separation of Indo-European languages.  First of all, the Europeans started migrating into Europe at least as early as 2500-2000 BC, which was earlier than I had thought (not an expert at all).  The dialects separate out much earlier than that, though the slavs supposedly aren't discernable as a distinct group until about 1400 BC.  This probably refers to their separation out from the baltic peoples.  I'll do some more reading and fix up anything I happened to say that was wrong. --JoshuaGrosse''
---
> ''Some searching finds that there are (as should be expected) a bunch of different chronologies for the separation of Indo-European languages.  First of all, the Europeans started migrating into Europe at least as early as 2500-2000 BC, which was earlier than I had thought (not an expert at all).  The dialects separate out much earlier than that, though the slavs supposedly aren't discernable as a distinct group until about 1400 BC.  This probably refers to their separation out from the baltic peoples.  I'll do some more reading and fix up anything I happened to say that was wrong. --JoshuaGrosse''
> ----
> 
> Wow, Wojtek, that's some awesome AsciiArt on your homepage.
> I fear you now.  ;-) --JimboWales
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980894510
5,10d4
< Someone wrote that the Nazi FinalSolution was perhaps modelled
< on U.S policy towards NativeAmerican''''s.  I think this is
< ludicrous on many levels.  Even if it were true that some Nazi's
< viewed it as the same thing (something I don't really know about), that view is itself ludicrous.  We're talking about a
< serious estimate of 6,000 dead in a variety of unfortunate incidents, versus a serious estimate of how many millions dead as the result of a deliberate genocide?
< 
22,23d15
< 
< 
40a33,46
> 
> '''Attitude towards NativeAmericans'''
> 
> Someone wrote that the Nazi FinalSolution was perhaps modelled
> on U.S policy towards NativeAmerican''''s.  I think this is
> ludicrous on many levels.  Even if it were true that some Nazi's
> viewed it as the same thing (something I don't really know about), that view is itself ludicrous.  We're talking about a
> serious estimate of 6,000 dead in a variety of unfortunate incidents, versus a serious estimate of how many millions dead as the result of a deliberate genocide? -- JimboWales
> 
> For the record, there ''were'' deliberate attempts to annihilate the native americans.  I can give you two incidents in particular.  One, which happened hortly before the American revolution, was the deliberate spreading of smallpox among the Pontiac.  The second is the deliberate annihilation of the Six Nations, to quote Washington:
> 
> "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex, as possible...that the country not be merely overrun but destroyed."
> 
> This took place as punishment for their alliance with the British.  But certainly it's not how they would have treated the Canadiens, and the Oneida and Tuscora were not spared for their neutrality.  In short, it might not have been the coordinated and causeless hatred of the nazis, but certainly it was far from a series of incidents that devastated the natives.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980894626
44c44
< "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex, as possible...that the country not be merely overrun but destroyed."
---
> :"The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex, as possible...that the country not be merely overrun but destroyed."
46c46
< This took place as punishment for their alliance with the British.  But certainly it's not how they would have treated the Canadiens, and the Oneida and Tuscora were not spared for their neutrality.  In short, it might not have been the coordinated and causeless hatred of the nazis, but certainly it was far from a series of incidents that devastated the natives.
---
> This took place as punishment for their alliance with the British.  But certainly it's not how they would have treated the Canadiens, and the Oneida and Tuscora were not spared for their neutrality.  In short, it might not have been the coordinated and causeless hatred of the nazis, but certainly it was far from a series of incidents that devastated the natives.  Please don't consider this as a specifically anti-American sentiment, since as you can see above it was a continuation of the British attitude, and common to imperialist powers in general.
------
IndianMassacres|980894870
6a7,8
> 1765 - smallpox infected blankets sent deliberately 1to members of Pontiac's enemy alliance (Canada: A people's history)
> 1777 - deliberate devastation of Six Nations as British allies ("")
16c18
< the TrailOfTears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.)
---
> the TrailOfTears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.)
------
IndianMassacres|980894892
7a8
> 
8a10
> 
------
IndianMassacres|980894911
7,8d6
< 1765 - smallpox infected blankets sent deliberately 1to members of Pontiac's enemy alliance (Canada: A people's history)
< 
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980894951
23c23
< The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false.  The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined.  So I have to challenge that point.  Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here. - Tim
---
> The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false.  The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined.  So I have to challenge that point.  Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here. - TimShell
46a47,49
> 
> <i>I agree, the treatment of the NativeAmericans was ugly, but comparing it to the NaziHolocaust is really pushing it.  We are talking about a total of 6,000 dead (according to TimShell over on IndianMassacres, anyway) versus millions. --JimboWales</i>
> 
------
IndianMassacres|980894988
18c18,19
< the TrailOfTears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.)
---
> the TrailOfTears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.) --JimboWales
>  
------
RinGs|980895031
1c1
< deleted in favor of RinG
---
> #REDIRECT RinG
------
InaugurationProtests|980895061
6c6,8
< (Article about protests deleted)
---
> (Article about protests deleted)
> 
> Perhaps someone could just post a short summary of what happened?
------
BusinessSchools/UnitedStates|980895130
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Some top schools include:
> 
> /HarvardUniversity
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980895283
48c48
< <i>I agree, the treatment of the NativeAmericans was ugly, but comparing it to the NaziHolocaust is really pushing it.  We are talking about a total of 6,000 dead (according to TimShell over on IndianMassacres, anyway) versus millions. --JimboWales</i>
---
> ''I agree, the treatment of the NativeAmericans was ugly, but comparing it to the NaziHolocaust is really pushing it.  We are talking about a total of 6,000 dead (according to TimShell over on IndianMassacres, anyway) versus millions. --JimboWales''
49a50
> Ok, I'm not trying to say that they're tragedies of equal magnitudes.  But remember North America was populated fairly sparsely at the time, except for the Aztecs and Mayans down in Mexico, whose blood goes on the hands of the conquistadors.  I'm merely saying that though the nazis were dealing with a ''lot'' more people, so many that they had to develop all sorts of horrifyingly ingenious methods of doing so, the underlying motivations seem comparable.
------
RobertHeinlein|980895306
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Robert A. Heinlein was an author of ScienceFiction novels who lived from 1907 until 1988.  He is ranked among the most influential authors in this genre.
> 
> Heinlein spent his childhood in Missouri in the early years of the 20th century. This
> was a time of great religious revival across America, especially socially marginalized
> areas...such as Missouri.  It was an environment of narrow-mindedness and parochialism,
> where the rules of the tribe were assumed to be laws for all humanity.  Heinlein
> managed to break free from the mores of his childhood, to slough off the values in
> which he had been raised, and to remake himself in the manner of his own choosing. This
> personal triumph became a recurring theme in his stories.
> 
> This theme is taken to its furthest in the related books 'Time Enough For Love',
> 'Number of the Beast', and 'To Sail Beyond the Sunset'.  We are left to wonder, what
> would humanity be in the absence of all customs? How would our humanity be expressed if
> we did not develop under the soul-squashing influence of culture? We would be
> individuals. We would have self-made souls.
> 
> Other recurring themes uniting Heinlein's works include individual dignity and the supreme value of personal liberty, the virtue of independence, science as a liberating factor, the perniciousness of bureaucrats, the hypocrisy of organized religion and the silliness of mysticism. 
------
BusinessSchools/UnitedStates|980895311
3a4,41
> 
> /StanfordUniversity
> 
> /ColumbiaUniversity
> 
> /MassachusettsInstituteOfTechnology
> 
> /UniversityOfPennsylvania
> 
> /NorthwesternUniversity
> 
> /UniversityOfChicago
> 
> /DartmouthCollege
> 
> /UniversityOfCaliforniaLosAngeles
> 
> /DukeUniversity
> 
> /UniversityOfCaliforniaBerkeley
> 
> /UniversityOfMichiganAnnArbor
> 
> /UniversityOfVirginia
> 
> /NewYorkUniversity
> 
> /CarnegieMellonUniversity
> 
> /UniversityOfNorthCarolinaChapelHill
> 
> /UniversityOfTexasAustin
> 
> /YaleUniversity
> 
> /CornellUniversity
> 
> /UniversityOfRochester
------
RobertHeinlein|980895328
1c1
< Robert A. Heinlein was an author of ScienceFiction novels who lived from 1907 until 1988.  He is ranked among the most influential authors in this genre.
---
> Robert A. Heinlein was an author of ScienceFiction novels who lived from 1907 until 1988.  He is ranked among the most influential authors of the ScienceFiction genre.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion|980895618
51a52,53
> There's a tendency to think of the holocaust as a singularly awful point in history.  The sad thing is, it's not.  It's just that the Nazis were better at what they were doing then most others who have tried, and have received a lot more publicity.  But most countries that have ever been powerful, have some sort of deliberate genocide on their hands.
> 
------
ScienceFiction|980896061
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A form of fiction that developed in the 20th century and deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals. The term is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component.
> 
> 
> Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as MaryShelley's Gothic novel ''FrankensteiN'', or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
> Hyde'' (1886) are ScienceFiction, whereas BramStoker's ''Dracula'' (1897), based as it is purely on the SupernaturaL, is not.
> 
> ScienceFiction was made possible only by the rise of modern science itself, notably the revolutions in astronomy and physics. Aside from the age-old genre of fantasy literature, which does not qualify, there were notable precursors: imaginary voyages
> to the moon or to other planets in the 18th century and space travel in Voltaire's ''Micromégas'' (1752), alien cultures in JonathanSwift's ''Gulliver's Travels'' (1726), and SciencefictioN elements in the 19th-century stories of EdgarAllanPoe, Nathaniel
> Hawthorne, and Fitz-James O'Brien. Science fiction proper began, however, toward the end of the 19th century with the scientific romances of JulesVerne, whose science was rather on the level of invention, as well as the science-oriented novels of social
> criticism by HgWells.
> 
> The development of ScienceFiction as a self-conscious genre dates from 1926 when Hugo Gernsback, who coined the portmanteau word scientifiction, founded ''Amazing Stories'' magazine, which was devoted exclusively to ScienceFiction stories. Published in
> this and other pulp magazines with great and growing success, such stories were not viewed as serious literature but as sensationalism. With the advent in 1937 of a demanding editor, John W. Campbell, Jr., of Astounding Science Fiction (founded in
> 1930) and with the publication of stories and novels by such writers as IsaacAsimov, ArthurCClarke, and RobertHeinlein, ScienceFiction emerged as a mode of serious fiction. Ventures into the genre by writers who were not devoted exclusively to science fiction, such as AldousHuxley, C.S. Lewis, and KurtVonnegut, also added respectability.
> 
> A great boom in the popularity of ScienceFiction followed World War II. The increasing intellectual sophistication of the genre and the emphasis on wider societal and psychological issues significantly broadened the appeal of ScienceFiction to the reading public. ScienceFiction became international, extending into the SovietUnion and other eastern European nations. Serious criticism of the genre became common, and, in the UnitedStates particularly, science fiction was studied as literature in colleges and universities. Magazines arose that were dedicated to informing the ScienceFiction fan on all aspects of the genre. Some science-fiction works became paperback best-sellers.
> 
> Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included A.E. Van Vogt, J.G. Ballard, Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert, Harlan Ellison, Poul Anderson, Samuel R.
> Delany, Ursula K. LeGuin, Frederik Pohl, Octavia E. Butler, and Brian Aldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
> 
------
ScienceFiction|980896202
4,5c4,5
< Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as MaryShelley's Gothic novel ''FrankensteiN'', or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
< Hyde'' (1886) are ScienceFiction, whereas BramStoker's ''Dracula'' (1897), based as it is purely on the SupernaturaL, is not.
---
> Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as MaryShelley's Gothic novel ''FrankensteiN'', or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
> Hyde (1886) are ScienceFiction, whereas BramStoker's ''Dracula'' (1897), based as it is purely on the SupernaturaL, is not.
------
IsaacAsimov|980896515
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> IsaacAsimov (Jan. 2, 1920, Petrovichi, Russia - April 6, 1992, New York) - an American author and biochemist, a highly successful and prolific writer of ScienceFiction and of science books for the layperson. He published about 500 volumes.
> 
> 
> IsaacAsimov was brought to the UnitedStates at the age of three. He grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., graduating from ColumbiaUniversity in 1939 and taking a Ph.D. there in 1948. He then joined the faculty of BostonUniversity, with which he remained associated
> thereafter.
> 
> 
> IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars,
> like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), Foundation's Edge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest Science-fiction short story ever written. 
> 
> 
> Among IsaacAsimov's books on various topics in science, written with lucidity and humour, are The Chemicals of Life (1954), Inside the Atom (1956), The World of Nitrogen (1958), Life and Energy (1962), The Human Brain (1964), The Neutrino (1966), Science, Numbers and I (1968), Our World in Space (1974), and Views of the Universe (1981). He also published two volumes of autobiography.
> 
------
RobertHeinlein|980896563
3c3
< Heinlein spent his childhood in Missouri in the early years of the 20th century. This
---
> Heinlein spent his childhood in MissourI in the early years of the 20th century. This
11,12c11,12
< This theme is taken to its furthest in the related books 'Time Enough For Love',
< 'Number of the Beast', and 'To Sail Beyond the Sunset'.  We are left to wonder, what
---
> This theme is taken to its furthest in the related books 'TimeEnoughForLove',
> 'TheNumberoftheBeast', and 'ToSailBeyondtheSunset'.  We are left to wonder, what
17a18,73
> 
> * Novels
>  /RocketShipGalileo
>  /SpaceCadet 
>  /RedPlanet 
>  /FarmerInTheSky 
>  /BetweenPlanet
>  /TheRollingStones
>  /StarmanJones
>  /TheStarBeast
>  /TunnelintheSky
>  /TimefortheStars
>  /CitizenoftheGalaxy
>  /HaveSpaceSuitWillTravel 
>  /PodkayneofMars
>  /SixthColumn 
>  /ThePuppetMasters 
>  /DoubleStar 
>  /TheDoorIntoSummer 
>  /StarshipTroopers 
>  /StrangerinaStrangeLand 
>  /GloryRoad 
>  /FarnhamsFreehold 
>  /TheMoonisaHarshMistress 
>  /IWillFearNoEvil 
>  /TimeEnoughForLove 
>  /TheNumberoftheBeast 
>  /Friday 
>  /JobAComedyofJustice 
>  /TheCatWhoWalksThroughWalls 
>  /ToSailBeyondtheSunset 
> 
> 
> * ShortStories
>  /LifeLine 
>  /TheRoadsMustRoll
>  /BlowupsHappen
>  /TheManWhoSoldTheMoon
>  /Delilah&TheSpaceRigger
>  /SpaceJockey
>  /Requiem
>  /TheLoneWatch
>  /GentlemenBeSeated
>  /TheBlackPitsofLuna
>  /ItsGreattoBeBack
>  /WeAlsoWalkDogs
>  /Searchlight
>  /OrdealinSpace
>  /TheGreenHillsofEarth
>  /LogicofEmpire
>  /TheMenaceFromEarth
>  /IfThisGoesOn
>  /Coventry
>  /Misfit
>  /Universe
>  /MethuselahsChildren
------
RobertHeinlein|980896690
52,53d51
<  /LifeLine 
<  /TheRoadsMustRoll
55c53
<  /TheManWhoSoldTheMoon
---
>  /Coventry
57,59d54
<  /SpaceJockey
<  /Requiem
<  /TheLoneWatch
61c56
<  /TheBlackPitsofLuna
---
>  /IfThisGoesOn
63,64c58,61
<  /WeAlsoWalkDogs
<  /Searchlight
---
>  /LifeLine 
>  /LogicofEmpire
>  /MethuselahsChildren
>  /Misfit
65a63,66
>  /Requiem
>  /Searchlight
>  /SpaceJockey
>  /TheBlackPitsofLuna
67c68,69
<  /LogicofEmpire
---
>  /TheLoneWatch
>  /TheManWhoSoldTheMoon
69,71c71
<  /IfThisGoesOn
<  /Coventry
<  /Misfit
---
>  /TheRoadsMustRoll
73c73
<  /MethuselahsChildren
---
>  /WeAlsoWalkDogs
------
RobertHeinlein|980896810
20,23d19
<  /RocketShipGalileo
<  /SpaceCadet 
<  /RedPlanet 
<  /FarmerInTheSky 
25,29d20
<  /TheRollingStones
<  /StarmanJones
<  /TheStarBeast
<  /TunnelintheSky
<  /TimefortheStars
30a22,26
>  /DoubleStar 
>  /FarmerInTheSky 
>  /FarnhamsFreehold 
>  /Friday 
>  /GloryRoad 
31a28,29
>  /IWillFearNoEvil 
>  /JobAComedyofJustice 
32a31,32
>  /RedPlanet 
>  /RocketShipGalileo
34,36c34,35
<  /ThePuppetMasters 
<  /DoubleStar 
<  /TheDoorIntoSummer 
---
>  /SpaceCadet 
>  /StarmanJones
39,40c38,39
<  /GloryRoad 
<  /FarnhamsFreehold 
---
>  /TheCatWhoWalksThroughWalls 
>  /TheDoorIntoSummer 
42,43d40
<  /IWillFearNoEvil 
<  /TimeEnoughForLove 
45,47c42,47
<  /Friday 
<  /JobAComedyofJustice 
<  /TheCatWhoWalksThroughWalls 
---
>  /ThePuppetMasters 
>  /TheRollingStones
>  /TheStarBeast
>  /TunnelintheSky
>  /TimeEnoughForLove 
>  /TimefortheStars
49d48
< 
------
RobertHeinlein|980896845
11,12c11,12
< This theme is taken to its furthest in the related books 'TimeEnoughForLove',
< 'TheNumberoftheBeast', and 'ToSailBeyondtheSunset'.  We are left to wonder, what
---
> This theme is taken to its furthest in the related books '/TimeEnoughForLove',
> '/TheNumberoftheBeast', and '/ToSailBeyondtheSunset'.  We are left to wonder, what
------
EricHoffer|980896924
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Eric Hoffer was a American social /PhilosopheR. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, TheTrueBeliever, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. This book, which he considered his best, established his reputation, and he remained a successful writer for most of his remaining years. 
> 
> At age seven, and for unknown reasons, Hoffer went blind. His eyesight inexplicably returned when he was fifteen. Fearing he would again go blind, he seized upon the opportunity to read as much as he could for as long as he could. His eyesight remained, but Hoffer never abandoned his habit of voracious reading. He was completely self-educated. 
> 
> His work was not only original, it was completely out of step with dominant academic trends. In particular, it was completey non-Freudian, at a time when almost all American psychology was confined to the Freudian paradigm. In avoiding the academic mainstream, Hoffer managed to avoid the straightjacket of established thought. 
> 
> Hoffer was among the first to recognize the central importance of self-esteem to psychological well-being. While most recent writers focus on the benefits of a positive self-esteem, Hoffer focused on the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. He finds in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity the roots of fanatacism and self-righteousness. He finds that a passionate obsession with the outside world or with the private lives of other people is merely a craven attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life. 
------
BusinessSchools/Europe|980897012
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I have run out of time to help with this today, so I'll
> just leave a pointer to [http://www.mbaweb.net/Resources/Euro_Schools.htm this page],
> which lists a number of top schools.  Someone should enter these names in directly here, so we can start to write about each school.
------
ArthurKoestler|980897052
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Arthur Koestler was a twentieth century novelist, political activist, and a social philosopher. 
> 
> Much of Koestler's work was completely out of step with mainstream views. He did not merely arrive at different answers to common questions. Anyone can do that. Instead, Koestler answered, or tried to answer, important questions that others were not even asking. This is often a sign of true creative genius. 
> 
> The result of this originality is a uneven set of ideas and conclusions. Some of his ideas can be appreciated as brilliant, as his work on creativity. Some ideas challenge us to readjust our thinking in order to grasp their importance. And other ideas are just nonsense. But taken as a whole, they are well worth serious consideration. 
> 
> * Books by Arthur Koestler
>  /TheActofCreation
>  /TheSleepwalkers
>  /TheGhostintheMachine
>  /TheGodThatFailed
>  /DarknessatNoon
> 
------
EricHoffer|980897062
1c1
< Eric Hoffer was a American social /PhilosopheR. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, TheTrueBeliever, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. This book, which he considered his best, established his reputation, and he remained a successful writer for most of his remaining years. 
---
> Eric Hoffer was a American social /PhilosopheR. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the PresidentialMedalOfFreedom. His first book, TheTrueBeliever, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. This book, which he considered his best, established his reputation, and he remained a successful writer for most of his remaining years. 
------
ErnstMayr|980897290
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of the 20th century's leading evolutionary BiologistS. His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the synthesis of Mendelian GeneticS and Darwinian EvolutioN, and to the development of the BiologicalSpeciesCconcept. His theory of ParapatricSpeciation has become widely accepted as the standard mode of speciation, and is the basis of the theory of PunctuatedEquillibrium. Furthermore, his writings reflect, not only a technical expertise in biological subjects, but a broad and penetrating understanding of the deeper philosophical issues involved.
> 
> * Books by Ernst Mayr include:
>  /TheGrowthOfBiologicalThought
>  /EvolutionAndTheDiversityofLife
>  /OneLongArgument
>  /PopulationsSpeciesAndEvolution
>  /TowardANewPhilosophyOfBiology
>  /PrinciplesOfSystematicZoology 
>  /SystematicsAndTheOriginOfSpecies 
>  /ThisIsBiology
------
PresidentialMedalOfFreedom|980897356
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Highest civilian award in the United States.  Established by HarryTruman in 1945.  Awarded to several people annually.
> 
> Winners include such diverse personalities as EricHoffer and JesseJackson.
------
HLMenckeN|980897364
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> H.L. (Henry Louis) Mencken was a twentieth century journalist and social critic, a cynic and a freethinker. He was an outspoken defender of freedom of conscience and civil rights, an opponent of persecution and injustice, and of the puritanism and self-righteousness that masks the oppressive impulse. As a nationally syndicated columnists and author of numerous books he played an important role in ending America's preoccupation with fundamentalist Christianity, and opened the way for a secularist revival. 
------
AynRand|980897417
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
>  Born Alice Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, February 2, 1905.
>  Emigrated to the United States in 1926, changing her name to Ayn Rand.
>  Moved to Hollywood and began writing for the movie industry. 
>  Married Frank O'Connor, 1929. 
>  Released 'The Night of January 16th', a play, 1934. 
>  Wrote two unsuccessful novels, 'We the Living' (1936), 'Anthem' (1938). 
>  Wrote the best selling novel, 'The Fountainhead' (1943). 
>  In 1951 met psychology student Nathaniel Branden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
>  Wrote philosophical novel 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
>  Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement. 
>  Developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through non-fiction works throughout the 1960s and 1970s. 
>  Broke with Branden, 1968, following certain infidelities on his part. 
>  Died March 6, 1982
------
AynRand|980897496
7,10c7,10
<  Wrote the best selling novel, 'The Fountainhead' (1943). 
<  In 1951 met psychology student Nathaniel Branden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
<  Wrote philosophical novel 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
<  Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement. 
---
>  Wrote the best selling novel, 'TheFountainhead' (1943). 
>  In 1951 met psychology student NathanielBranden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
>  Wrote philosophical novel 'AtlasShrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
>  Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement to promote her philosophy of ObjectivisM. 
------
ObjectivisM|980897634
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Objectivism (capitalized) is the name chosen by AynRand for her philosophy.  Some of the main Objectivist tenets are:
> 
> I. Objective reality 
> 
> Reailty is what it is, independent of our beliefs or desires. No two facts of reality can contradict each other- this is an important test of truth. Everything that exists has a specific identity and a specific nature that determines how it acts. Nature is to be explained in terms of nature, without reference to the supernatural. Everything that occurs has a material cause, and everything that exists has a material basis. 
> 
> II. Reason 
> 
> The mind apprehends reality through a process of reasoning. Reasoning is the art of building from perceptions to concepts and propositions. In this way, beliefs are built up from the evidence. Reasoning, or logic, follows certain, non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include non-contradictory identification and grouping by essentials. By applying the rules of logic consistently, we can hope to achieve objectively valid knowledge about reality. 
> 
> III. Morality 
> 
> If we wish to survive we must act in certain ways. Moral behavior is that which tends to promote our survival. Immoral behavior is that which tends to promote our destruction. Where survival is not at issue, moral behavior will tend to promote security and happiness, immoral behavior insecurity and unhappiness. There are different levels of value. The higher values are those which make the lesser values possible. At the higher levels of value there is a community of interests among all rational, civilized human beings. The question of self versus others is irrelevant, in that one's self-interest and the interests of others are in fundamental harmony. The rational pursuit of one's interests promotes the interests of others, while the good of others promotes one's own good. As a practical matter, the good of all is best served when individuals pursue their own legitimate interests as they each see fit. 
> 
> IV. Politics 
> 
> If self versus others is an irrelevant issue, so too is the question of the individual versus society. The individual good and the social good are in harmony. A society is healthy to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their goals. This freedom is the fundamental social value. It requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary. Mutual consent is the defining characteristic of a free society. People are unfree to the extent that they are forced to do what they would not choose for themselves. As all governmental action is based on using force to this end, it is necessary to limit the scope of government action as much as possible, leaving the scope of individual freedom as broad as possible. Politically, people can exercise their rights however they please, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. Socially, people can choose to what extent they will abide by cultural norms. Economically, people are free to produce and exchange as they see fit, in the spirit of capitalism. 
------
RJRummeL|980897870
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Rudolph Rummel is professor emeritus of political science at the UniversityofHawaii. He has spent his career studying wars, conflicts, and governmental mass murder, for which he has coined the term DemocidE. 
> 
> Among Rummel's more startling findings is that the death toll from government mass murder is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying some 8,193 reports of government killing, Rummel estimates that there have been 169,198,000 victims of democide in the last century, as against some 38,000,000 killed in war. Four times as many people have been murdered in cold blood by people working for governments than have died in battle. 
> 
> Rummel's research has revealed strong correlations between peace, freedom, and democracy. According to his estimates, there have been 353 wars since 1816. There have been no wars between democracies. In Rummel's words, "We have a solution for war. It is to expand the sphere of liberty." 
> 
> There is also a correlation between political power and democide. Political mass murder - far more deadly than war - grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. On the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. According to Rummel, "The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom." 
> 
> After dedicating his life to studying the century's worst horrors, Rummel concludes that "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." 
> 
> In January, 2001, Rummel published a new book SavingLivesEnrichingLife on his website at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/.  This book aims at popularizing the findings of his academic research.
------
SetTheory|980897905
54c54
< One other point about the AxiomOfChoice is that whenever you implicitly assume that the cardinality (i.e. size) of a set exists, you are using AxiomOfChoice in order to do this.
---
> One other point about the AxiomOfChoice is that whenever you implicitly assume that the cardinality (i.e. size) of a set exists, you are using AxiomOfChoice in order to do this.  Since all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities, you get unconstructible sets either way.
------
JulianSimon|980897962
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Julian Simon was professor of Business Administration at the UniversityofMaryland and a Senior Fellow at the CatoInstitute. 
> 
> He authored of many books and quite a few articles, mostly on economic subjects. He is best known for his work on population, natural resources, and immigration. 
> 
> His book 'TheUltimateResource,' later reissued as 'TheUltimateResource2,' is a massive, fact-heavy assault on the conventional wisdom of population growth and resource consumption. In it, Simon challenged the neo-Malthusian notion that an increase in population has negative economic consequences, that population is a drain on natural resources, and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. 
> 
> This challenge rests on the evidence. The data to date do not support the arguments of the doomsayers. On the contrary, the trends tend in a direction opposite of what they predict. 
> 
> The theory Simon developed to account for this is a textbook example of truly creative thinking. He cut across the grain of accepted wisdom to produce a strikingly original interpretation of the facts. In this and in other works he exhibits many of t hose characteristics normally associated with genius (not the least of which is a tendency to incite bitter hostility amongst intellectual mediocrities). 
------
JulianSimon|980898038
9a10,12
> 
> Many of the writings of Julian Simon are available online at:
> http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/
------
RJRummeL|980898156
11c11
< In January, 2001, Rummel published a new book SavingLivesEnrichingLife on his website at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/.  This book aims at popularizing the findings of his academic research.
---
> In January, 2001, Rummel published a new book SavingLivesEnrichingLife on [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/ his website].  This book aims at popularizing the findings of his academic research.
------
PhilosophyOfReligion|980898194
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Major Christian Philosophers:  BaruchSpinoza -- SorenKierkegaard -- MaxWeber -- ReneDescartes -- DavidHume
------
ScienceFiction|980898268
4,5c4,5
< Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as MaryShelley's Gothic novel ''FrankensteiN'', or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
< Hyde (1886) are ScienceFiction, whereas BramStoker's ''Dracula'' (1897), based as it is purely on the SupernaturaL, is not.
---
> Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as MaryShelley's Gothic novel ''FrankensteiN'', or the ModernPrometheus (1818) and RobertLouisStevenson'''''s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
> Hyde (1886) are ScienceFiction, whereas BramStoker's ''DraculA'' (1897), based as it is purely on the SupernaturaL, is not.
18,19c18
< Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included A.E. Van Vogt, J.G. Ballard, Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert, Harlan Ellison, Poul Anderson, Samuel R.
< Delany, Ursula K. LeGuin, Frederik Pohl, Octavia E. Butler, and Brian Aldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
---
> Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included AEVanVogt, JGBallard, RayBradbury, Frank Herbert, HarlanEllison, PoulAnderson, SamuelRDelany, UrsulaKLeGuin, FrederikPohl, OctaviaEButler, and BrianAldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
------
BryceHarrington|980898294
4c4,10
< Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY.  I am currently involved in copying in the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text.  
---
> Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY.  I am currently involved in copying in the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text.
> 
> ''I couldn't help but notice your sliding Aaron of biblical fame into a BiblE/Aaron, and was wondering if you have any comments on how historical, biblical, and mythical figures should be handled.  I wrote a quick AchillEus page, and would feel a lot better about his compatriots if they weren't taking up raw WikiNames (notably Helen and Paris).  But on the other hand, it makes wiki-linking a lot worse, doesn't it?''
> 
> ''While I'm annoying you, I was wondering if you had any ideas on how subdivisions of histories should be kept.  As noted, I'm considering moving the stuff on BronzeAge into things like BronzeAgeOfMiddleEast or some such, while I correct them.  But should it be a top-level thing, or kept under BronzeAge, or kept under MiddleEast?''
> 
> ''Thanks, JoshuaGrosse''
------
PresidentialMedalOfFreedom|980898554
3a4,61
> 
> Some recent winners:
> 
> EdgarWayburn
> 
> HelmutKohl
> 
> MaxKampelman
> 
> OliverWhiteHill
> 
> GeraldFord
> 
> IsolinaFerre
> 
> EvelynDubrow
> 
> RosalynnCarter
> 
> JimmyCarter
> 
> EdgarMBronfmanJr
> 
> LloydMBentsen
> 
> ElmoRZumwaltJr
> 
> AlbertShanker
> 
> DavidRockefeller
> 
> ElliotLRichardson
> 
> MarioGObledo
> 
> MargaretMurie
> 
> WilmaMankiller
> 
> SolMLinowitz
> 
> Fred Korematsu
> 
> FrancesHesselbein
> 
> ZacharyFisher
> 
> DanteBFascell
> 
> JamesFarmer
> 
> RobertColes
> 
> BrookeAstor
> 
> ArnoldAronson
> 
> I am getting this list from [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002285.html here], and hopefully other people can join in with the typing.  :-)
------
HiStory|980898567
1,16c1
< Should only include histories of eras, fields and countries that are now defunct...because otherwise, you should probably just put it on the appropriate country or field page.
< 
< ''These broad era statements seemed like a good idea when I first thought of them, but in hindsight I think they should be broken up, e.g. BronzeAgeOfMiddleEast or some such.  This would go hand-in-hand with factoring out some silly mistakes.  Any opinions before I go ahead? -- JoshuaGrosse''
< 
< ''The usual way to divide history up is by nation or region and '''then''' by historical period.  If you really care about this, you should consult with a historian, I think. -- LarrySanger''
< 
< * PalaeolithicPeriod
< * NeolithicPeriod
< * CopperAge
< * BronzeAge
< * IronAge
< * ClassicalAge
< * MiddleAges
< * ModernPeriod
< 
< * HistoryOfMesopotamia
---
> * HistoryOfMiddleEast
------
HiStory|980898913
1c1
< * HistoryOfMiddleEast
---
> * HistoryOfLevant - stuff from BronzeAge and CopperAge will get refactored here and corrected.
------
ReLigion|980898976
8c8
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas -- PaliCanon
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas -- PaliCanon -- TheBookofMormon
------
ChristianIty|980899473
21c21,24
< Cool
---
> 
> Types of Christian Sectarianism: Catholicism -- Presbyterianism -- Episcopalianism -- Baptist
> 
> Related Christian Movements: Mormonism -- SeventhDayAdventists -- UnificationChurch -- OtherMajorChristianCults
------
BusinessSchools/Europe|980899551
3c3,36
< which lists a number of top schools.  Someone should enter these names in directly here, so we can start to write about each school.
---
> which lists a number of top schools.  Someone should enter these names in directly here, so we can start to write about each school.
> ----
> 
> * AthensUniversityOfEconomicsAndBusinessAdministration
> 
> * BudapestUniversityOfEconomicSciences
> 
> * CopenhagenBusinessSchool
> 
> * ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
> 
> * HelsinkiSchoolOfEconomcisAndBusinessAdministration
> 
> * KingstonUniversityLondon
> 
> * LondonSchoolOfEconomics
> 
> * NorwegianSchoolOfManagement
> 
> * SheffieldHallamUniversity
> 
> * StGallenUniversity
> 
> * StockholmSchoolOfEconomics
> 
> * TilburgUniversity
> 
> * UniversityCollegeOfSwansea
> 
> * UniversityOfIceland
> 
> * WarsawSchoolOfEconomics
> 
> * ViennaUniversityOfEconomics
------
ChristianIty|980899566
22c22
< Types of Christian Sectarianism: Catholicism -- Presbyterianism -- Episcopalianism -- Baptist
---
> Types of Christian Sectarianism: CatholicisM -- PresbyterianisM -- EpiscopalianisM -- BaptisT
24c24
< Related Christian Movements: Mormonism -- SeventhDayAdventists -- UnificationChurch -- OtherMajorChristianCults
---
> Related Christian Movements: Mormonism -- SeventhDayAdventists -- UnificationChurch -- OtherMajorChristianCults
------
BusinessSchools/Europe|980899640
6c6
< * AthensUniversityOfEconomicsAndBusinessAdministration
---
> /AthensUniversityOfEconomicsAndBusinessAdministration
8c8
< * BudapestUniversityOfEconomicSciences
---
> /BudapestUniversityOfEconomicSciences
10c10
< * CopenhagenBusinessSchool
---
> /CopenhagenBusinessSchool
12c12
< * ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
---
> /ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
14c14
< * HelsinkiSchoolOfEconomcisAndBusinessAdministration
---
> /HelsinkiSchoolOfEconomcisAndBusinessAdministration
16c16
< * KingstonUniversityLondon
---
> /KingstonUniversityLondon
18c18
< * LondonSchoolOfEconomics
---
> /LondonSchoolOfEconomics
20c20
< * NorwegianSchoolOfManagement
---
> /NorwegianSchoolOfManagement
22c22
< * SheffieldHallamUniversity
---
> /SheffieldHallamUniversity
24c24
< * StGallenUniversity
---
> /StGallenUniversity
26c26
< * StockholmSchoolOfEconomics
---
> /StockholmSchoolOfEconomics
28c28
< * TilburgUniversity
---
> /TilburgUniversity
30c30
< * UniversityCollegeOfSwansea
---
> /UniversityCollegeOfSwansea
32c32
< * UniversityOfIceland
---
> /UniversityOfIceland
34c34
< * WarsawSchoolOfEconomics
---
> /WarsawSchoolOfEconomics
36c36
< * ViennaUniversityOfEconomics
---
> /ViennaUniversityOfEconomics
------
BusinessSchools/Europe|980899692
33a34,35
> /ViennaUniversityOfEconomics
> 
36c38
< /ViennaUniversityOfEconomics
---
> 
------
BusinessSchools/Europe|980899957
14c14
< /HelsinkiSchoolOfEconomcisAndBusinessAdministration
---
> /HelsinkiSchoolOfEconomicsAndBusinessAdministration
------
BusinessSchools|980900002
2c2,3
< * /Europe
---
> * /Europe
> * /Asia
------
ChristianIty|980900146
5c5
< Catholicism and Protestantism are the two major divisions of Christianity (but see below).  Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican (ChurchOfEngland) churches are examples of Protestant faiths.  Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are the two primary divisions of Catholicism.  
---
> Catholicism and Protestantism are the two major divisions of Christianity (but see below).  BaptisT, MethodisT, LutheraN, and AnglicaN (ChurchOfEngland) churches are examples of Protestant faiths.  RomanCatholic and EasternOrthodox are the two primary divisions of Catholicism.  
9c9
< Protestant faiths trace their roots to the work of John Calvin and Martin Luther, who felt that the Catholic church no longer had GoD's sanction, and thus rejected its authority.
---
> Protestant faiths trace their roots to the work of JohnCalvin and MartinLuther, who felt that the Catholic church no longer had GoD's sanction, and thus rejected its authority.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980900942
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The first cities started developing in southern Mesopotamia during the 4th millenium BC.  With these ties of religion began to replace ties of kinship as the basis for society.  Each city had a patron god, worshipped in a massive central temple called a ''ziggurat'', and was ruled by a priest-king (''ishakku'').  Society became more segmented and specialized and capable of coordinated projects like irrigation and warfare.
> 
> Along with cities came a number of advances in technology.  By around 3000 BC, writing, the wheel, and other such innovations had been introduced.  By now the SumerianPeoples of south Mesopotamia were all organized into a variety of independent CityState''s'', such as Ur and Uruk, which by around 2500 BC had begun to coalesce into larger political units.  By accomodating the conquered people's gods, religion became more polytheistic and government became somewhat more secular; the title of ''lugal'', big man, appears along side the earlier religious titles, although his primary duty is still the worship of the state gods.
> 
> Parallel developments were meanwhile occuring in Egypt, which by 3100 BC had been unified to form the OldKingdom, and amongst the peoples of the IndusValley in north-western India.  All of these civilizations lie in fertile river valleys where agriculture is relatively easy once dams and irrigation are constructed to control the flood waters.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980901199
5c5,7
< Parallel developments were meanwhile occuring in Egypt, which by 3100 BC had been unified to form the OldKingdom, and amongst the peoples of the IndusValley in north-western India.  All of these civilizations lie in fertile river valleys where agriculture is relatively easy once dams and irrigation are constructed to control the flood waters.
---
> This process came to its natural conclusion with the development of the first empires around 2350 BC.  A people called the Akkadians invaded the valley under Sargon I and established their supremacy over the Sumerians.  They were followed by the empires of Ur (2200-2000) and OldBabylonia (1800-1600).
> 
> Parallel developments were meanwhile occuring in Egypt, which by 3100 BC had been unified to form the OldKingdom, and amongst the peoples of the IndusValley in north-western India.  All of these civilizations lie in fertile river valleys where agriculture is relatively easy once dams and irrigation are constructed to control the flood waters.
------
CryptanalysiS|980901312
1a2,18
> 
> 
> There are three generic types of CryptanalysiS characterised by what the cryptanalyst knows: (1) ciphertext only; (2) known ciphertext/plaintext pairs; and (3) chosen plaintext or chosen
> ciphertext. 
> 
> 
> Often the cryptanalyst either will know some of the plaintext or will be able to guess at, and exploit, a likely element of the
> text, such as a letter beginning with "Dear Sir" or a computer session starting with "LOG IN." The last category represents the most favourable situation for the cryptanalyst in which he can
> cause either the transmitter to encrypt a plaintext of his choice or the receiver to decrypt a ciphertext that he chose. Of course, for single-key CryptographY there is no distinction between
> chosen plaintext and chosen ciphertext, but in two-key CryptographY it is possible for one of the encryption or decryption functions to be secure against chosen input while the other is vulnerable.
> 
> 
> Because of its reliance on "hard" mathematical problems as a basis for cryptoalgorithms and because one of the keys is publicly exposed, two-key CryptographY has led to a new type of
> CryptanalysiS that is virtually indistinguishable from research in any other area of computational mathematics. Unlike the ciphertext attacks or ciphertext/plaintext pairs attacks in single-key cryptosystems, this sort of cryptanalysis is aimed at breaking the cryptosystem by analysis that can be carried out based only on a knowledge of the system itself. Obviously there is no counterpart to this kind of cryptanalytic attack in single-key systems. One of the most attractive schemes for exchanging session keys in a hybrid cryptosystem depended on the ease with which a number (primitive root) could be raised to a power (in a finite field), as opposed to the difficulty of calculating the discrete logarithm. A special-purpose chip to implement this algorithm was produced by a U.S. company, and several others designed secure electronic mail and computer-networking schemes based on the algorithm. In 1983 Donald Coppersmith found a computationally feasible way to take discrete logarithms in precisely those finite fields that
> had been of greatest cryptographic interest and thereby gave to the cryptanalyst a tool with which to break those cryptosystems. Similarly, the RSA cryptoalgorithm is no securer than the
> modulus is difficult to factor, so that a breakthrough in factoring would also be a cryptanalytic breakthrough. In 1980 one could factor a difficult 50-digit number at an expense of
> 1,000,000,000,000 elementary computer operations (add, subtract, shift, and so forth). By 1984 the state of the art in factoring algorithms had advanced to a point where a 75-digit number could be factored in 1,000,000,000,000 operations. If a mathematical advance made it feasible to factor 150 or more digit numbers in the same number of operations, this would make it possible for the cryptanalyst to break several commercial RSA schemes. In other words, the security of two-key cryptography depends on well-defined mathematical questions in a way that single-key CryptographY generally did not and conversely equates CryptanalysiS to mathematical research in an atypical way.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980903117
0a1,2
> '''The bronze age'''
> 
7a10,17
> 
> This started to change around the end of the third millenium as cities started to spread to the nearby hilly country: among the Assyrians in north Mesopotamia, the Canaanites in Syria-Palestine, to the Minoans in Crete, and to the Hittites in eastern Anatolia.  Around this same time various immigrants, such as the Hittites and Achaeans, started appearing around the peripheries of civilization.  These groups are associated with the appearance of the light two-wheeled war chariot and typically with IndoEuropean languages.
> 
> By 1700-1500 this process had intensified and most of the older centres were overrun.  Babylonia was conquered by the Kassites and the civilization of the IndusValley was annihilated by the IndoAryans.  Their kin, the Mitanni, subjugated Assyria and for a time menaced the Hittite kingdom, but were defeated by the two around 1350.  Various Achaean kingdoms developed in Greece, most notably that of Mycenae, and by 1400 were dominant over the older Minoan cities.  And the semitic Hyskos used the new technologies to occupy Egypt, but were expelled, leaving the empire of the NewKingdom to develop in their wake.
> 
> Around 1200 BC most of these powers collapsed, or were at least rendered temporarily impotent.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed, although a few neo-Hittite city states survived in north Syria.  Over the next century Egypt shrunk to its territorial core and its central authority dissolved.
> 
> 
------
HistoryOfLevant|980903211
15c15
< Around 1200 BC most of these powers collapsed, or were at least rendered temporarily impotent.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed, although a few neo-Hittite city states survived in north Syria.  Over the next century Egypt shrunk to its territorial core and its central authority dissolved.
---
> In 1200 BC all of these powers suddently collapsed.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed, although a few neo-Hittite city states survived in north Syria.  Egypt repelled its attackers with only a major effort, and over the next century shrunk to its territorial core, its central authority permanently weakened.
------
CopperAge|980903323
1,14c1
< ''Author's note - bronze wasn't introduced by our friends the charioteers, but appeared more or less everywhere around 2000 BC.  From this and other things I would like to do some refactoring before anyone worries about this page.''
< 
< Around 4000-3500 BC the first cities appeared among the SumerianPeoples of Mesopotamia.  With these came a new societal structure.  Ties of kinship no longer sufficed to hold communities together, and were replaced by religion.  Each CityState had a patron god, to whom a massive central temple (ziggurat) was dedicated, and was ruled by a priest-king (''ishakku'').
< 
< The development of cities led to increased specialization and enabled people to take on bigger projects.  Kings were responsible for coordinating efforts like irrigation and warfare, which increased considerably in scale.  By around 2500 BC cities had begun to dominate each other, and by accomodating their subject's gods began to become slightly more secular in character, and eventually Mesopotamia was united under the empires of Akkad, Ur, and OldBabylonia.
< 
< Meanwhile parallel developments had occured in Africa and India.  The OldKingdomOfEgypt was unified around 3100 BC, the country that left us the pyramids, and after a brief interlude became the MiddleKingdomOfEgypt centered at Thebes.  And a relatively poorly known, but nevertheless highly advanced, urban civilization grew up at centers like Harappa in the IndusValley.
< 
< The urban societies of this era emerged along with many new advances, most notably writing.  However, in terms of tools things did not progress technologically to any great degree.  Copper smelting developed, but the metal is fairly expensive and brittle, and most implements remained tipped with stone, and farming remained restricted to the fertile river valleys where these civilizations had developed.
< 
< Things started changing around 2000 BC.  Civilization began to spread to the surrounding hills where agriculture necessarily depended upon rainwater, and new civilization centers began to develop around the older ones: the HittitePeoples arrived in Anatolia (Turkey), cities developed among the CanaanitePeoples of Syria-Palestine and the MinoanPeoples of Crete.  This process intensified around 1600 BC, when new immigrants with bronze technology overtook the older civilization centers.
< 
< ----
< See also: NeolithicPeriod, BronzeAge
---
> Deleted by author due to mistakes.  See HistoryOfLevant instead.  Maybe later this page can link to various subtopics, though.
------
BronzeAge|980903357
1,13c1
< ''Author's note - this page was written with the idea that bronze was introduced by various chariot-peoples, who are separate from the migrants of 2000.  I don't know where I got this idea, but I would like a chance to refactor the page to make things more correct.''
< 
< Around 2000-1800 BC various new groups started appearing all around the periphery of civilization, armed with powerful new technologies: bronze implements, horses, and the light two-wheeled chariot.  These weapons were used to good advantage, and by around 1600 BC all the older civilization centers had been overrun.
< 
< Egypt was temporarily occupied by the Semitic Hyskos, but these were ejected and the NewKingdomOfEgypt - its first empire - grew up in their wake.  Babylonia was conquered by the KassitePeoples, and the IndoAryans more or less annihilated the civilization they found in the IndusValley.  A related group, the Mitanni, set up a kingdom over much of Syria and Assyria.
< 
< Some of these groups also spread to new areas, e.g. the CelticPeoples.  Greece was overrun by the AchaeanPeoples, who set up the first Greek-speaking kingdoms (notably Mycenae) and came to dominate the older MinoanPeoples.  The first civilization in China, the ShangDynasty, may have developed under the influence of the TocharianPeoples who spread eastward.
< 
< Horses and chariots require a lot of time and upkeep, and so their use was restricted mainly to warrior nobilities.  These are the feudal "heroic" societies vaguely familiar to us from epics like TheIliad and the ''Ramayana''.  They are often associated with IndoEuropean languages, which probably spread out from a homeland on the caspian sea along with bronze working.
< 
< Around 1200 BC ''something'' happened that dramatically shifted power away from these kingdoms.  Within a few decades city centers all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked and the kingdoms swept away.  Only Egypt, power broken, and Assyria escaped destruction.  This issues in a dark age for the west, and by the time civilization had recovered, the iron age had begun.
< ----
< See also: CopperAge, IronAge
---
> Deleted by author due to mistakes. See HistoryOfLevant instead. Maybe later this page can link to various subtopics, though. 
------
HiStory|980903378
1c1
< * HistoryOfLevant - stuff from BronzeAge and CopperAge will get refactored here and corrected.
---
> * HistoryOfLevant
------
BryceHarrington|980903399
10a11,13
> 
> Wasn't me that did that...  I merely pasted the EB/PG stuff into the AaroN page, and the put a link to it from BiblE/Aaron, that someone else set up.  I think 'namespaces' are an important mechanism for reducing collisions, however they also have a tendancy to lead to complicated hierarchies and duplication of entries.  These days, I tend to just store things flatly, and then build multiple hierarchical indexes to allow accessing the information in a variety of ways, but with the way linking works right now, this will result in a lot of collisions.  Regarding where to put the middle east bronze age stuff, maybe it needs to be broken up more topically?
> 
------
ChristianIty|980903537
5c5
< Catholicism and Protestantism are the two major divisions of Christianity (but see below).  BaptisT, MethodisT, LutheraN, and AnglicaN (ChurchOfEngland) churches are examples of Protestant faiths.  RomanCatholic and EasternOrthodox are the two primary divisions of Catholicism.  
---
> Catholicism and Protestantism are the two major divisions of Christianity in Western Europe (but see below).  BaptisT, MethodisT, LutheraN, and AnglicaN (ChurchOfEngland) churches are examples of Protestant faiths.  RomanCatholic and EasternOrthodox are the two primary divisions of Catholicism.  
------
CalvinOstrum|980904135
3,20d2
< ----
< 
< '''Q.''' You have asked about recursively denumerable sets on the SeT page. I am not sure if you are questioning:
< * 1). the existence of such a sets.
< * 2). whether such sets are well-defined
< *AND MORE IMPORTANT
< * 1). If you are tryimg to illicit more content, please feel free to add content to the page.
< * 2). If you are referring to the paradoxes resulting from looking at sets like X = {x: x is a set}, a more limited problem, Russell's Paradox is on the SetTheory page.
< 
< In conclusion, perhaps an example of such a set would help. RoseParks
< 
< ----
< 
< Someone wrote "We require that sets be well-defined. Given an object Sn, we must be able to determine if Sn belongs to S."  My point is simply that for most people doing set theory (I don't know who ''We'' is), this is not true.  We do not require that, given an object, we are able to determine whether it is in a given set or not.   Most people doing set theory do not, for example, claim that recursively enumerable sets which are not recursive do not exist.  For example, the set of theorems of a given first order theory is very often only a semi-decidable set.  
< Philosophically, some people may object to the claim that such sets exist, but it is not the usual position.  -- CalvinOstrum----
< 
< Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks. Or perhaps you would like to add to the page yourself? I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully.
< RoseParks
------
RoseParks|980904376
14a15,28
> 
> --
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> : Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks. Or perhaps you would like to add to the page yourself? I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully. RoseParks
> 
> In reply:
> 
> : To add my remarks would make no sense, since they are just correcting something that shouldn't be there in the first place (whether it is wrong or just obscure I can't be sure of). And I don't feel like writing an entry for sets myself -- actually I am probably not competent to do so.  Although I've already seen it to be false in quite a few cases, I am assuming that people should only be writing entries for areas they actually really know something about.  
> 
> : Hopefully my useful contribution to public pedagogy ultimately will be (inter alia) an interactive formalized development of some branches of mathematics in a proof system such as HOL but I have to learn a lot more before I can do that.  
> 
> : Please send any replies to actual email, this seems to be a strange way to carry on a personal dialog.  If on a subject, the subject can be edited in place, implicitly generating a mailing list of any people interested in it.  Otherwise, I see no reason to have my name showing up repeatedly in "RecentChanges". -- Calvin Ostrum
------
HistoryOfLevant|980906315
11c11
< This started to change around the end of the third millenium as cities started to spread to the nearby hilly country: among the Assyrians in north Mesopotamia, the Canaanites in Syria-Palestine, to the Minoans in Crete, and to the Hittites in eastern Anatolia.  Around this same time various immigrants, such as the Hittites and Achaeans, started appearing around the peripheries of civilization.  These groups are associated with the appearance of the light two-wheeled war chariot and typically with IndoEuropean languages.
---
> This started to change around the end of the third millenium as cities started to spread to the nearby hilly country: among the Assyrians in north Mesopotamia, the Canaanites in Syria-Palestine, to the Minoans in Crete, and to the Hittites in eastern Anatolia.  Around this same time various immigrants, such as the Hittites and Achaeans, started appearing around the peripheries of civilization.
13c13
< By 1700-1500 this process had intensified and most of the older centres were overrun.  Babylonia was conquered by the Kassites and the civilization of the IndusValley was annihilated by the IndoAryans.  Their kin, the Mitanni, subjugated Assyria and for a time menaced the Hittite kingdom, but were defeated by the two around 1350.  Various Achaean kingdoms developed in Greece, most notably that of Mycenae, and by 1400 were dominant over the older Minoan cities.  And the semitic Hyskos used the new technologies to occupy Egypt, but were expelled, leaving the empire of the NewKingdom to develop in their wake.
---
> These groups are associated with the appearance of the light two-wheeled war chariot and typically with IndoEuropean languages.  Horses and chariots require a lot of time and upkeep, so their use was mainly confined to a small nobility.  These are the feudal "heroic" societies familiar to us from epics like TheIliad and the ''Ramayana''.
15c15
< In 1200 BC all of these powers suddently collapsed.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed, although a few neo-Hittite city states survived in north Syria.  Egypt repelled its attackers with only a major effort, and over the next century shrunk to its territorial core, its central authority permanently weakened.
---
> By around 1700-1500 most of the older centres had been overrun.  Babylonia was conquered by the Kassites and the civilization of the IndusValley was annihilated by the IndoAryans.  Their kin, the Mitanni, subjugated Assyria and for a time menaced the Hittite kingdom, but were defeated by the two around 1350.  Various Achaean kingdoms developed in Greece, most notably that of Mycenae, and by 1400 were dominant over the older Minoan cities.  And the semitic Hyskos used the new technologies to occupy Egypt, but were expelled, leaving the empire of the NewKingdom to develop in their wake.
16a17
> In 1200 BC all of these powers suddently collapsed.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed.  Egypt repelled its attackers with only a major effort, and over the next century shrunk to its territorial core, its central authority permanently weakened.
17a19,23
> '''The iron age'''
> 
> The destruction at the end of the bronze age left a number of tiny kingdoms and city-states behind.  A few Hittite centres remained in northern Syria, along with some Canaanite (Phoenician) ports that escaped destruction and now developed into great commercial powers.  Southern Palestine initially fell to the Philistines, but by 1000 had been conquered by the Hebrews.  And most of the interior, as well as Babylonia, was overrun by Aramaeans.
> 
> In this dark period a number of technological innovations spread, most notably iron working and the alphabet, developed by the Canaanites around 1500 BC.  Also around this time, the Hebrew religion developed into the first major monotheism, JudaIsm, which is still practiced today.
------
HomePage|980906629
0a1
> <body bgcolor=blue>
------
HistoryOfLevant|980906634
17c17
< In 1200 BC all of these powers suddently collapsed.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed.  Egypt repelled its attackers with only a major effort, and over the next century shrunk to its territorial core, its central authority permanently weakened.
---
> In 1200 BC all of these powers suddently collapsed.  Cities all around the eastern Meditteranean were sacked within a span of a few decades by assorted raiders.  The Achaean kingdoms disappeared, and the Hittite empire was destroyed.  Egypt repelled its attackers with only a major effort, and over the next century shrunk to its territorial core, its central authority permanently weakened.  Only Assyria escaped significant damage.
23c23,24
< In this dark period a number of technological innovations spread, most notably iron working and the alphabet, developed by the Canaanites around 1500 BC.  Also around this time, the Hebrew religion developed into the first major monotheism, JudaIsm, which is still practiced today.
---
> In this dark period a number of technological innovations spread, most notably iron working and the alphabet, developed by the Canaanites around 1500 BC.  Also around this time, the Hebrew religion developed into the first major monotheism, JudaIsm, which is still practiced today.
> 
------
HomePage|980906642
1d0
< <body bgcolor=blue>
------
BryceHarrington|980906699
4,13c4
< Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY.  I am currently involved in copying in the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text.
< 
< ''I couldn't help but notice your sliding Aaron of biblical fame into a BiblE/Aaron, and was wondering if you have any comments on how historical, biblical, and mythical figures should be handled.  I wrote a quick AchillEus page, and would feel a lot better about his compatriots if they weren't taking up raw WikiNames (notably Helen and Paris).  But on the other hand, it makes wiki-linking a lot worse, doesn't it?''
< 
< ''While I'm annoying you, I was wondering if you had any ideas on how subdivisions of histories should be kept.  As noted, I'm considering moving the stuff on BronzeAge into things like BronzeAgeOfMiddleEast or some such, while I correct them.  But should it be a top-level thing, or kept under BronzeAge, or kept under MiddleEast?''
< 
< ''Thanks, JoshuaGrosse''
< 
< Wasn't me that did that...  I merely pasted the EB/PG stuff into the AaroN page, and the put a link to it from BiblE/Aaron, that someone else set up.  I think 'namespaces' are an important mechanism for reducing collisions, however they also have a tendancy to lead to complicated hierarchies and duplication of entries.  These days, I tend to just store things flatly, and then build multiple hierarchical indexes to allow accessing the information in a variety of ways, but with the way linking works right now, this will result in a lot of collisions.  Regarding where to put the middle east bronze age stuff, maybe it needs to be broken up more topically?
< 
---
> Lately, I guess I tend to focus on nurturing and organizing the PoLitics section of the site, however my real love is HiStory.  I wrote the pages on OregoN, GladstoneOregon, and AlchemY.  I am currently involved in copying in the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text.
------
JoshuaGrosse|980906747
41,44d40
< 
< ---- 
< 
< ''I'll check up on those dates about SlavicLanguages in a few Polish sources. This might take a while though.'' - WojPob
------
HistoryOfLevant|980906981
24a25,31
> Blah blah Assyria, Chaldaea, Media, Persia, blah.
> 
> '''The classical empires'''
> 
> Blah blah Alexander, Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
> 
> For subsequent history see HistoryOfIslam.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewsstandOwner|980907419
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The unnamed owner of a newsstand in the Taggart Terminal.  Twenty years ago he owned a cigarette factory but it went under, and he's been working at his newsstand ever since.  He is a collector of cigarettes, and knows every brand ever made.  He occassionally chats with /DagnyTaggart when she comes by.  On one occassion (SectioN132), after Dagny asks him about his collection, he bemoans the fact that there are no new brands and the old brands are all disappearing.  Later (section?) he shows her a new brand that he found, that he had never seen before.  It carried the sign of the dollar.
> 
> In his first appearance, /NewstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwners discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewsstandOwner|980907433
1c1
< The unnamed owner of a newsstand in the Taggart Terminal.  Twenty years ago he owned a cigarette factory but it went under, and he's been working at his newsstand ever since.  He is a collector of cigarettes, and knows every brand ever made.  He occassionally chats with /DagnyTaggart when she comes by.  On one occassion (SectioN132), after Dagny asks him about his collection, he bemoans the fact that there are no new brands and the old brands are all disappearing.  Later (section?) he shows her a new brand that he found, that he had never seen before.  It carried the sign of the dollar.
---
> The unnamed owner of a newsstand in the Taggart Terminal.  Twenty years ago he owned a cigarette factory but it went under, and he's been working at his newsstand ever since.  He is a collector of cigarettes, and knows every brand ever made.  He occassionally chats with /DagnyTaggart when she comes by.  On one occassion (/SectioN132), after Dagny asks him about his collection, he bemoans the fact that there are no new brands and the old brands are all disappearing.  Later (section?) he shows her a new brand that he found, that he had never seen before.  It carried the sign of the dollar.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewsstandOwner|980907446
3c3
< In his first appearance, /NewstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwners discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
---
> In his first appearance, /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwners discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewsstandOwner|980907483
3c3
< In his first appearance, /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwners discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
---
> In his first appearance, /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwner's discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
------
AtlasShrugged/NewsstandOwner|980907516
3c3
< In his first appearance, /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwner's discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery.
---
> In his first appearance, /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  This alludes to the Greek myth of Prometheus, who gave mankind the gift of fire, allowing it to raise itself up and become civilized.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the mind of man that raises mankind.  Thus the cigarettes become symbolic of the men of the mind.  The disappearance of the old brands represents the disappearance of the men of the mind, and /NewsstandOwner's discovery of the new brand foreshadows Dagny's discovery of a new kind of men of the mind.
------
GrouP|980907589
1c1
< See MathematicalGrouP.
---
> #REDIRECT MathematicalGrouP.
------
AtlasShrugged/OrrenBoyle|980907608
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Orren Boyle is the head of /AssociatedSteel and a friend of /JamesTaggart.  He is a member of the group of characters known as the /Looters.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980907628
9a10
>  /Looters
------
AtlasShrugged/Looters|980907951
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A group of characters that are the bad guys in AtlasShrugged.  They consist of men and women who cannot produce value themselves, who parasite off of those who can create value, and who seek to destroy those same people despite the fact that they are dependent upon them.
> 
> The Looters include
>  /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
------
AtlasShrugged/Looters|980907976
4c4
<  /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
---
> /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
------
AtlasShrugged/Looters|980907988
3,4c3
< The Looters include
< /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
---
> The Looters include /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
------
AtlasShrugged/Looters|980908032
3c3,10
< The Looters include /JamesTaggart, /OrrenBoyle, /WesleyMouch,  /PaulLarkin, /FloydFerris, /LillianRearden, /PhilipRearden.
---
> The Looters include:
>  /FloydFerris
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /LillianRearden
>  /OrrenBoyle
>  /PaulLarkin
>  /PhilipRearden.
>  /WesleyMouch
------
AtlasShrugged/OrrenBoyle|980908182
1c1,7
< Orren Boyle is the head of /AssociatedSteel and a friend of /JamesTaggart.  He is a member of the group of characters known as the /Looters.
---
> Orren Boyle is the head of /AssociatedSteel and a friend of /JamesTaggart.  He is one of the /Looters.  He is an investor in the /SanSebastianMines.
> 
> Orren Boyle appears or is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN131
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/BartendeR|980908313
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A character mentioned in /SectioN131.  /BartendeR works in the most expensive barroom in New York, frequented by /JamesTaggart and the /Looters.
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental|980908822
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental are a group of men mostly loyal to /JamesTaggart.
> 
> The Board represents the other people whose approval is neccesary for people who are incapable of making decisions on their own, most notably /JamesTaggart, who treats approval of the Board as a scientific test of truth.
> 
> In /Section132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
> 
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental is mentioned in:
>  /Section114
>  /Section132
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental|980908843
5c5
< In /Section132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
---
> In /SectioN132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
8,9c8,9
<  /Section114
<  /Section132
---
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/BumNumber1|980909060
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The character who opens the book with the question, "Who is John Galt?"  He chats momentarily with /EddieWillers, helping establish (for the reader) Eddie's sense of unease.
> 
> /BumNumber1 appears in /SectioN111.
------
IndoIranianLanguages|980909092
1c1
< The eastern-most group of IndoEuropean languages, and some of which we have the oldest records of.  These originate around modern Afghanistan and early on split as some people went west and some went east.
---
> The eastern-most group of the living IndoEuropean languages, and some of which we have the oldest records of.  These originate around modern Afghanistan and early on split as some people went west and some went east.
3a4
> * SanskritLanguage (extinct)
------
AtlasShrugged/WorkerNumber1|980909170
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An unnamed worker at /ReardenSteel in /SectioN121.  He is on hand the night the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured, and smiles at /HankRearden in acknowledgement of his accomplishment.  This is the only acknowledgement Rearden recieves.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|980909227
24c24
<  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
---
>  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental|980909241
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental are a group of men mostly loyal to /JamesTaggart.
> 
> The Board represents the other people whose approval is neccesary for people who are incapable of making decisions on their own, most notably /JamesTaggart, who treats approval of the Board as a scientific test of truth.
> 
> In /SectioN132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
> 
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental|980909264
1c1
< The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental are a group of men mostly loyal to /JamesTaggart.
---
> #REDIRECT BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental
3,9d2
< The Board represents the other people whose approval is neccesary for people who are incapable of making decisions on their own, most notably /JamesTaggart, who treats approval of the Board as a scientific test of truth.
< 
< In /SectioN132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
< 
< The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental is mentioned in:
<  /SectioN114
<  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental|980909309
1c1
< #REDIRECT BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental
------
AtlasShrugged/ConductoR|980909583
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /ConductoR works on the /TaggartComet.  In /SectioN112 he explains to /DagnyTaggart that he is waiting for a broken light to change.  He represents the type of incompetent, initiativeless worker who is concerned only with following the rules so no one can blame hime for anything.
------
AtlasShrugged/PopHarper|980909790
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Pop Harper is chief clerk at the offices of TaggartTranscontinental.  He complains that it is impossible to get new typewriters, and that the world will soon be without this simple device.  His attitude is that there is nothing to be done and things will just happen as they happen.  This attitude explains why, after a lifetime of labor, he is still merely a clerk.
> 
> Pop harper appears in /SectioN111.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980910385
4c4
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.
---
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.  Faced with this incompetence,she decides to promote /OwenKellogg to superintendent of the Ohio Division.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|980910407
4c4
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.  Faced with this incompetence,she decides to promote /OwenKellogg to superintendent of the Ohio Division.
---
> Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.  Faced with this incompetence, she decides to promote /OwenKellogg to superintendent of the Ohio Division.
------
DavidHume|980910890
48c48
< /*This write-up is by no means complete, and I'm sorry that it is a bit scattered, I figure a seed is better than nothing.  --Things to fix--  I don't know how to do underlines on this wiki.  More dates would be nice, a timeline or something.  Perhaps more info on his work as a historian.  Definitely a section on his ideas.*/--PhillipHankins 
---
> /*--Suggested things to do--  More dates would be nice, maybe timeline or something.  Perhaps more info on his work as a historian.  More explication of his ideas.  Links to off-wikipedia resources.*/
------
ArtificialLanguages|980910976
1c1
< Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing makes them members of this category is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
---
> Artifical Languages is a rather broad heading that can include several different classes of languages.  The basic thing that makes them members of this category is that they were consciously made by someone(s) (humans, so far).
------
RoseParks|980912273
16d15
< --
18d16
< You wrote:
20d17
< : Thank you Mr. Ostrum. With your permission, I will edit the SeT page and add your remarks. Or perhaps you would like to add to the page yourself? I am a teacher of Math at the University level, but no expert on Set Theory. I was simply adding a definition, apparently none too carefully. RoseParks
22,28d18
< In reply:
< 
< : To add my remarks would make no sense, since they are just correcting something that shouldn't be there in the first place (whether it is wrong or just obscure I can't be sure of). And I don't feel like writing an entry for sets myself -- actually I am probably not competent to do so.  Although I've already seen it to be false in quite a few cases, I am assuming that people should only be writing entries for areas they actually really know something about.  
< 
< : Hopefully my useful contribution to public pedagogy ultimately will be (inter alia) an interactive formalized development of some branches of mathematics in a proof system such as HOL but I have to learn a lot more before I can do that.  
< 
< : Please send any replies to actual email, this seems to be a strange way to carry on a personal dialog.  If on a subject, the subject can be edited in place, implicitly generating a mailing list of any people interested in it.  Otherwise, I see no reason to have my name showing up repeatedly in "RecentChanges". -- Calvin Ostrum
------
WikiPediaFaq|980914187
63c63
< '''Q. Can a hit counter be implemented on a Wiki page?'''
---
> '''Q. Can a hit counter be implemented on a WiKi page?'''
------
RoseParks|980914484
15,17c15,16
< 
< 
< 
---
> ----
> I am not surely, or even Shirley, so I have no clue who you really are :-(
------
WolfgangMozart|980914603
1c1,9
< Mozart was a classical composer who lived from 1756 until 1791.  He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.
---
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
> 
> He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
> 
> Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote cadenzas to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
> 
> Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
> 
> As brilliant as he was, Mozart did not have an easy life.  Many times, he did not receive the promised payment for his work.  Gradually, his health became very poor.  He lived just a little over half of Beethoven's life span, yet was amazingly prolific from early childhood until his death in 1791.
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980915808
56a57,62
> 
> ----
> 
> Tim has excellent points.  I second them.  The bit about not focusing exclusively on the government is gold.  I also think that you needn't feel responsible for the actions done many years before your birth by a government which you now have <<1/280,000,000th of a say in.  Simplifications need to be proven helpful before they are adopted.  I hold up your guilt as an example of the harm they can do.  If you feel bad that some things happened in history (and are still happening), I would think anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the victims more appropriate responses.  These can motivate one to help make things better without being such a burden.  Don't you show, by your recognition of the wrong, some distance from it?  Sorry, I just don't think you deserve the burden of guilt, so I rambled on trying to fix your psychie or something.  I appologize.
> 
> That having been said, this is a wiki.  The obvious answer, and likely among the best, has been given:  write a middle way account and people can link off to pessimistic (or optimistic) interpretations & elaborations as they see fit.  Writing the middle way shouldn't be that hard.  Let anyone add what they want, and if someone objects to something, off to another page it goes.  --PhillipHankins
------
PhilosophyOfReligion|980919331
1a2,3
> ----
> Er, Spinoza was a Christian philosopher?  He was a pantheistic Jew!  I don't know if Weber was religious at all (he theorized about religion); and Hume of course is famous for being an atheist, though in fact he might have been an agnostic or even a closet believer.  (The ''Dialogues'' aren't very clear about this.)
------
ConsequentialIsm|980919676
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The notion that what ultimately matters in evaluating actions or policies of action is the consequences that result. 
> 
> Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with UtilitarianIsm, which is a mistake, as UtilitarianIsm is but one kind of consequentialism. Kinds of consequentialism can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" Egoism can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself is taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or the sum of sentient beings) is of the greatest moment. These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. Some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.
> 
> 
> Another way to divide consequentialism is by the kind of consequences that are taken to matter most. The most popular form of consequentialism is hedonic consequentialism, according to which a good consequence is one that produces net pleasure, and the best consequence is one that produces more net pleasure than any of the alternatives. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which full, flourishing happiness (which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure) is the aim. However, one might fix on some non-psychological good as the preferred consequence of actions. For instance, certain ideologues seem to be consequentialists with regard to material equality or political liberty, regarding gains in these things as desirable in themselves, regardless of other consequences. One might also adopt a beauty consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. Similarly, one might find nothing of greater gravity than the production of knowledge. One can also assemble packages of goods, all to be promoted equally. Since in this case there is no overarching consequence to aim for, conflicts between goods are to be adjudicated not by some ultimate consequentialist principle, but by the fine contextual discernment and intuition of the agent.
> 
> Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontologism. However, this may be mistaken. Many forms of consequentialism at bottom are deontological, demanding that we simply have a duty to produce a certain kind of consequence, whether or not that kind of consequence personally moves us. And even paradigmatic deontological theories, such as Kant's, at times seem consequentialistic. For instance, one might argue that for Kant, the more expression of rational nature, or the good will, the better. A more fundamental distinction is between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest and motivation (actually or counterfactually) and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their interests and drives.
------
DirectRealism|980920483
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy.
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy. 
------
DirectRealism|980920535
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy. 
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy. - WillWilkinson
------
WillWilkinson|980920664
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I'm a grad student in Philosophy at the University of Maryland, and a program director at the Institute for Humane Studies. I can be reached at will@willwilkinson.net
------
ConsequentialIsm|980920947
3c3
< Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with UtilitarianIsm, which is a mistake, as UtilitarianIsm is but one kind of consequentialism. Kinds of consequentialism can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" Egoism can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself is taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or the sum of sentient beings) is of the greatest moment. These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. Some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.
---
> Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with UtilitarianIsm, which is a mistake, as UtilitarianIsm is but one kind of consequentialism. Kinds of consequentialism can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" EgoIsm can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself is taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or the sum of sentient beings) is of the greatest moment. These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. Some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.
8c8
< Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontologism. However, this may be mistaken. Many forms of consequentialism at bottom are deontological, demanding that we simply have a duty to produce a certain kind of consequence, whether or not that kind of consequence personally moves us. And even paradigmatic deontological theories, such as Kant's, at times seem consequentialistic. For instance, one might argue that for Kant, the more expression of rational nature, or the good will, the better. A more fundamental distinction is between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest and motivation (actually or counterfactually) and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their interests and drives.
---
> Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontologism. However, this may be mistaken. Many forms of consequentialism at bottom are deontological, demanding that we simply have a duty to produce a certain kind of consequence, whether or not that kind of consequence personally moves us. And even paradigmatic deontological theories, such as Kant's, at times seem consequentialistic. For instance, one might argue that for Kant, the more expression of rational nature, or the good will, the better. It is difficult to find a theory that posits an intrinsic good (such as the good will in Kant)in which it is not better to have more of the intrinsic good. A more fundamental distinction is between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest and motivation (actually or counterfactually) and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their interests and drives. - WillWilkinson
------
SetTheory|980921157
55a56,60
> COMMENT: This is not at all true - cardinality can be defined
> without using AC. The statement about "all constructible sets"
> having distinct cardinalities makes no obvious sense. What
> is meant here by a "constructible set"?
> 
------
SetTheory|980922683
60a61,64
> ''The usual way of defining cardinals is by taking a representative ordinal of each size, which you can't do without the axiom of choice.  The only other way I've ever seen done is by taking equivalence classes of sets, but these don't end up being ZF sets - i.e. you have to use objects outside the system being considered.''
> 
> ''A set X has been constructed if there is a 'way' of determining whether any given element is in it.  I'm being deliberately vague, but I think you can see the idea.  ZF+AC asserts the real numbers have a basis as a vector space over the rationals, but you are never going to be able to demonstrate an example of some such set.  ZF-AC asserts that there is a set which can't be put into one-to-one correspondence with any ordinal, and if I am not mistaken you can't find me one of those either (though I'm not entirely sure, since you're not allowed to use AC to set up the correspondence).''
> 
------
JoshuaGrosse|980923414
1,3c1,2
< ''RinGs-leader.''
< 
< Ok, if you want me to have a HomePage...JoshuaGrosse is a student of pure mathematics with a distinct over-abundance of spare time.  He figured that it wouldn't hurt, therefore, to spend some of it just randomly smashing things he knows into WikiPedia.  Interests include maths, sciences, and histories.----
---
> JoshuaGrosse is a student of pure mathematics with a distinct over-abundance of spare time.  He figured that it wouldn't hurt, therefore, to spend some of it just randomly smashing things he knows into WikiPedia.  Interests include maths, sciences, and histories.  So far on this wiki, Josh is responsible for some of the structure around AbstractAlgebra, HiStory, LanguagE, and GreekMythology.
> ----
9,12d7
< '''Q.''' Why do you call what I call a "mapping" a "map"?--RoseParks
< 
< ''When you use a term all the time, you tend to pick the shortest version.  It never occured to me to use mapping, though now that I check that's the version most texts use.  They're either identical, or maybe a mapping has a definite codomain (as opposed to just anything that includes the range).  Feel free to change it.''----
< 
15,17c10
< I definitely have an interest in both, and a facility for Mathematics.  As for language ability I'm not so sure.  I took French immersion early on and was good enough to think it fluently, but since then almost all of my vocabulary has been forgotten.  Since then I've taken a little German, and am taking Latin, and again have trouble keeping a full vocab.  At least when I got lost in Paris I could find my way.
< 
< Three things I really like are etymologies, phonetics, and alphabets.  I wonder if you tend to go for the same things?  My best friend's also good at math and languages, so either it's not so unusual or we just attract each other. :)
---
> ''I definitely have an interest in both, and a facility for Mathematics.  As for language ability I'm not so sure.  I took French immersion early on and was good enough to think it fluently, but since then almost all of my vocabulary has been forgotten.  Since then I've taken a little German, and am taking Latin, and again have trouble keeping a full vocab.  At least when I got lost in Paris I could find my way.''
19,24c12
< P.S. Why didn't you call MathematicalGrouP, just GrouP?----
< 
< First things last...
< 
< '''A.''' I named it MathematicalGrouP because it was the first entry in Math and I wanted  
< readers to know what kind of group I was talking about.
---
> ''Three things I really like are etymologies, phonetics, and alphabets.  I wonder if you tend to go for the same things?  My best friend's also good at math and languages, so either it's not so unusual or we just attract each other. :)''
30,31c18,19
< Of course you're not.  As I said, I have copious amounts of free time on my hands.  What exactly would that involve?  (Btw, I suspect liking AbstractAlgebra best is almost as rare as math-linguistics - virtually everyone I know is an analysis fan).
< ----
---
> ''Of course you're not.  As I said, I have copious amounts of free time on my hands.  What exactly would that involve?  (Btw, I suspect liking AbstractAlgebra best is almost as rare as math-linguistics - virtually everyone I know is an analysis fan).''
> 
------
HumanComputerInteraction|980924520
28c28
< http://www.lclark.edu/~zkramer/newdeal/pics/wow!.gif   This is one of the most interesting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar design.   |S|c|a|r|e|
---
> Please don't place flashing pictures in the encyclopedia. We humans evolved  where motion could signal a predator, so when a human's eye sees something jump, the human's brain cannot give its complete attention to anything else on the page. Flashing pictures interfere with reading and learning. [mailto:areed2@calstatela.edu Adam Reed]
30c30
< Hello, this is a test.
---
> ----
31a32
> This is one of the most interesting things that i have ever seen on the web.  In fact when i go home today i think i will attempt to host a page of similar design.   |S|c|a|r|e|
------
HistoryOfUnitedStatesTalk|980926460
25,45d24
< Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  
< 
< I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.
< 
< Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  
< 
< Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...
< 
< Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.
< 
< That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  
< 
< But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  
< 
< I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)
< 
< Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.
< 
< -- BryceHarrington
< 
< ----
48,56d26
< 
< ----
< Yes, I use "we" a lot when discussing US history, because in reading a lot of this stuff I feel a great sense of personal responsibility about it, and assume (usually wrongly, as I repeately learn) others care similarly.  Note though that I don't think it is acceptable to 'cop out' by blaming the government.  Of course the government will do bad things; that is what governments, historically, have done.  But here in the United States, the principle is that the government 'belongs' to us.  Thus, I feel that like any manager taking responsibility for the action of his employees, or a general taking responsibility for the action of his soldiers, so too ought US Citizens take responsibility for actions of their government.  Of course, this too is my own personal political screed, and I promise to try to avoid letting 'we's slip in anywhere except in that which is merely discussion (like this).  
< 
< Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the history should include not only what the government does but also what the people do.  I left out things like the civil rights movement, various rebellions and religious/moral/ethical movements just for lack of writing time.  All of that should certainly be added.  But also note that usually, when the government is repressing the minority, there is a possibility that society itself supports (perhaps even elected) the repression.
< 
< Anyway, like I said, I grant that I skipped over many essential facts.  Assume that I did this because I wanted to leave the enjoyable, ennobling writing parts to you.  ;-)
< 
< I think I'll withdraw from writing more on US history...  I have a lot I'd like to say, having studied it considerably, but it just upsets me that the more I learn, the more I see it is just repeating the patterns of older empires.  And what really frustrates me is that there seems to be little chance of avoiding making the same mistakes. -- BryceWishingForBetterHarrington
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|980926836
4a5,183
> 
> According to [mailto:areed2@calstatela.edu Adam Reed] (see http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ayn_Rands_jewish_years/Who_is_Francisco_DAnconia.html) D'Anconia is the only Hero-class character who is recognizably Jewish (of course not in the religious, but in the historical sense, like Ayn Rand herself.) Adam Reed writes:
> 
> ----
> Who is Francisco D'Anconia?
> 
> Frank O'Connor
> 
> Ayn Rand was always in love with Frank O'Connor. Even during her
> passionate intellectual and sexual involvement with Nathaniel Branden,
> Frank O'Connor was always Ayn Rand's great lover.
> 
> As is frequent among actors, Frank O'Connor's personality was bland, a
> blank canvas on which to paint his roles. His roles were of men born
> to pleasure. Frank could stand in rags on a garbage dump and look like
> he belonged in a ballroom. Ayn Rand was in love, not so much with
> Frank O'Connor himself, as with the roles he could play. And she wrote
> roles for him into every one of her books.
> 
> At first, it was easy for Ayn Rand to write Frank O'Connor into her
> books. Frank had been born for the role of Lolya, Alissa Rosenbaum's
> first lover, Leo of "We the Living", aristocratic, tragic, Dionysian
> and Nitzschean. Unity5-3000, of Anthem, stands above the crowd in both
> features and stature.
> 
> With "The Fountainhead", putting Frank into the novel became more
> difficult. Ayn Rand was writing about "a man of self-made soul", so it
> was necessary that Howard Roark come from nowhere, and Frank's
> aristocratic presence was the opposite of that. To fit Frank O'Connor
> into The Fountainhead Ayn Rand had to give Gail Wynand, also a
> self-made man and therefore of proletarian birth, an obscure
> aristocratic ancestry. As it turned out, Gail Wynand's tragic
> character flaws were beyond Frank O'Connor's acting range, and Frank
> missed out on the only role he could have had in Ayn Rand's film.
> 
> John Galt, in "Atlas Shrugged", was a follow-up on Howard Roark, and
> had to come out of noplace for the same reason. But the plot required
> that Galt stay under cover for the first two-thirds of the book. The
> male lead would be there the whole time. It would be a man moving in
> the same social circles as Dagny Taggart, so an aristocrat was a
> plausible choice. Ayn Rand would write Frank O'Connor into the role of
> his lifetime. And she would make sure that the male lead bore some
> variation on Frank's name.
> 
> Ayn Rand's Father
> 
> The idea of the "Secret Striker" in the midst of Dagny's circle had,
> as its essential figure, a man of singular ability to create wealth,
> compelled by a crazy world to refrain from exercising that ability. At
> some point, Ayn Rand realized that she knew the character of such as
> man from her own life: her father.
> 
> Educated in chemistry and working in pharmacy, Ayn Rand's father made
> his own way to Saint Petersburg, a city hundreds of versts beyond the
> Pale, where no Jew was permitted to live unless he paid bribes greater
> than the entire income of an ordinary man. Rosenbaum was wealthy
> enough to settle his family in a Crimean resort for the duration of
> the Russian Civil War. Then, after returning to Saint Petersburg,
> Alissa Rosenbaum's father became, in words remembered by Nathaniel
> Branden in Judgement Day, "unable to adapt, a self-made man now in an
> impossible situation."
> 
> Alissa had no understanding of her father's character and predicament
> until decades after she left home. Alissa was fascinated by
> aristocracy, by men who believed themselves entitled, by birth, to a
> life of pleasure and privilege - proper Nitzscheans, who had no qualms
> taxing and terrorizing lesser beings into paying for the life of
> pleasure that the aristocrat considered his birthright. Alissa's
> father, who insisted that good life was to be earned by effort and
> reason, was a living demonstration of what effort and reason led to in
> a tragic world: a former industrialist living with his family in a
> tenement room that smelled of their neighbors' cabbage.
> 
> An essential part of Rosenbaum's character was that he was an
> alienated Jew, who saw in Communism the fulfillment of Russia's
> Christian mysticism, of its insane cult of sacrifice, flagellation and
> selflessness. He was a Jew who had lived by the creed of Sanhedrin 4:5
> - (Every man and every woman should say to himself or herself every
> day,) "The world was created for my sake" - and he saw his world
> destroyed by the demented opposite of that creed, by the altruist's
> belief that the world existed for everyone's sake except one's own.
> Ayn Rand's challenge was to create a figure who was, simultaneously,
> that alienated Jewish intellectual, and a man of natural joy, an
> aristocrat whom Frank O'Connor could credibly play.
> 
> The Jewish Grandees
> 
> Until modern times, there were no Jewish aristocrats in Christendom,
> and New Money just didn't look like Frank O'Connor. There was only one
> exception: under Moslem rule in Spain and Portugal, a small number of
> wealthy Jewish families had been promoted into the aristocracy. During
> the expulsion of 1492, most of these families chose to convert to
> Christianity rather than leave their estates. After that they
> practiced Christianity in the open and Judaism in secret. The primary
> job of the Inquisition was to investigate these "New Christians" and
> test the sincerity of their conversion. The method was to torture
> suspects until, guilty or not, they confessed. They were then burnt at
> the stake. At this point, the Inquisitors believed, the sincere
> Christians among them will have been done the favor of being sent to
> the Bosom of Christ, while the secret Jews were expedited to "their
> father the Devil".
> 
> To Jews living despised and discouraged in northern and eastern
> Europe, Sepharadim - former Spanish Jews - had the status of a mythic
> aristocracy, even those of them whose families were not particularly
> distinguished in Spain itself. The highest cachet was attached to
> descendants of former conversos who had fled from the Inquisition - to
> Netherlands, England, Italy, South and North America - and resumed the
> practice of Judaism once they were free. In their history, Ayn Rand
> found the fusion she was looking for: Jew, aristocrat, hero. That hero
> still needed a business and a name.
> 
> Anaconda, D'Ancona, D'Anconia
> 
> The secret striker for the plot of Atlas Shrugged needed a business
> that had to be deliberately destroyed, and not just cease to function
> when abandoned, like a railroad or a factory. Mineral mines, located
> to bring their owner to New York (where the plot has him meet Dagny,
> American businessmen, and American socialites) suggested South
> American copper. The main company mining South American copper was
> Anaconda, which sounds like an anagram of D'Ancona, the family name of
> a distinguished line of Jewish Mediterranean intellectuals and
> businessmen with several entries in the Encyclopedia Judaica. The
> family looks of the D'Anconas are reminiscent of ancient Roman
> nobility, and Ayn Rand first saw Frank O'Connor in the role of a Roman
> centurion in "King of Kings".
> 
> The name D'Ancona sounded aristocratic enough (although in fact it
> wasn't) and familiar to educated Jews, and yet not common enough to be
> readily identified as Jewish by the typical non-Jewish reader. Ayn
> Rand, at that point in her life, was beginning to write for Nathaniel
> Branden, and for "the Collective", and may have enjoyed putting in a
> secret gimmick just for her friends. Ancona, though, was a city in
> Italy, not Spain, and Rand put in an "i", perhaps because she thought
> "D'Anconia" sounded Spanish. It doesn't - to the Spanish ear
> "D'Anconia" still sounds Italian - but the Mediterranean is a small
> sea, and "Francisco D'Anconia" had the right ring to Ayn's ear.
> 
> A Grandee's Hannukah
> 
> Atlas Shrugged begins on September 2. One learns from Dagny's
> flashbacks that Francisco's ancestor Sebastian had been a Spanish
> aristocrat who fled from the Inquisition to the New World. This, and
> the fact that he first established himself in Argentina, and only then
> sent for his beloved - as so many Jewish immigrants to the New World
> had done, well into the twentieth century - is a hint, to be confirmed
> when we meet Francisco in person. By then it is the start of winter:
> "A few snowflakes came down, past the dark windows of empty stores, to
> melt in the mud of the sidewalks." Hannukah time.
> 
> "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor,
> playing marbles." Playing a child's game on the floor is a celebration
> of the Maccabee revolt. The Maccabees were guerillas, and chose
> carefully the few battles they fought. They hid for years in caves and
> wadis, and fought boredom with games played on the ground. The reader
> who knows the origin of this custom now also knows that Francisco must
> be, in some sense, the soldier of a rebellion, fighting from cover
> behind enemy lines.
> 
> In Jewish custom, one commemorates one's ancestors by re-enacting
> their practice. Francisco's Converso ancestors could not keep Jewish
> objects, such as spinning tops with Hebrew letters, since such objects
> would have immediately marked them as secret Jews. They played,
> instead, with marbles unstrung from a rosary. If a curious neighbor or
> servant wandered in, all he would see would be an accidentally broken
> rosary, and children helping to pick beads off the floor. Francisco is
> hiding his true self, and things are not what they seem.
> 
> From this point on, whenever Francisco D'Anconia appears in the novel,
> there is a pointedly Jewish, often specificly anti-altruist and
> anti-Christianity subtext. Dagny, not being Jewish, clearly has no
> idea why Francisco is playing with marbles, and is too well-brought-up
> to ask. Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's non-Jewish spouse, must have been
> in on many occasions when Ayn did something Jewish and _he_ didn't
> have a clue. Thus, another perversely distinctive Randian joke: In the
> role of Francisco D'Anconia Frank gets to play the role of a Jew, and
> Dagny is the clueless one.
> 
> ----
------
HistoryOfLevant|980926951
25c25,27
< Blah blah Assyria, Chaldaea, Media, Persia, blah.
---
> During the 9th century the Assyrians began to reassert themselves against the incursions of the Aramaeans, and over the next few centuries developed into a powerful and well-organized empire.  Their armies were among the first to employ cavalry, which took the place of chariots, and had a reputation for both prowess and brutality.  At their height, the Assyrians dominated all of Syria-Palestine, Egypt, and Babylonia.  However, the empire began to collapse toward the end of the 7th century, and was obliterated by an alliance between a resurgent Babylonia and the Iranian Medes.
> 
> Blah blah Chaldaea, Media, Persia, blah.
31c33
< For subsequent history see HistoryOfIslam.
---
> For subsequent history see HistoryOfIslam.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980928357
27c27
< Blah blah Chaldaea, Media, Persia, blah.
---
> The subsequent balance of power was short-lived, though.  In 550 BC the Persians revolted against the Medes and gained control of their empire, and over the next few decades annexed to it the realms of Lydia in Anatolia, Babylonia, and Egypt, as well as consolidating their control over the Iranian plateau nearly as far as India.  This vast kingdom was divided up into various satrapies and governed roughly according to the Assyrian model, but with a far lighter hand.  Around this time Zoroastrianism became the predominant religion in Persia.
------
TheaTer|980934851
0a1,5
> The earliest days of theater has not been definitively identified.  Some theories hold that theatrical and dramatic representations came from the revelry of the ancient Greek celebration of Bacchus.  In any case, little doubt exists about the fact that the modern theater was born in ancient Greece.  Important figures in ancient Greek theater include:
> *  AristophaneS
> *  SophocleS
> *  EuripideS
> *  AeschyluS
2,3c7
< Showing revision 1
< Come now, everyone! There must be people out there interested in theatre in its many wonderous forms! To start you out, here's a link to the Lewis & Clark College Theater website: 
---
> ...and AristotlE, primarily for his timeless theories on the dramatic arts.
5c9
< [Click me!] 
---
> In the middle ages in Europe, the theater was reduced to didactic, metaphorical illustrations that featured the "Everyman."
6a11
> The Renaissance brought the geniuses of WilliamShakespeare.
8c13
< Let's get that ball rolling! 
---
> The Baroque theater produced MolierE.
------
FilmHistory|980935090
8a9,10
> 
> Arguably, the most important figure in the history of film aesthetics would be DWGriffith.
------
FilmHistory|980935121
10c10
< Arguably, the most important figure in the history of film aesthetics would be DWGriffith.
---
> Arguably, the most important figure in the history of film aesthetics would be DwGriffith.
------
DwGriffith|980935788
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> David Wark Griffith has been called the father of film grammar.  Scholars no longer dispute that few of any of Griffith's "innovations" actually began with him, but still he is given credit for cannonizing a set of codes that have become the universal back-bone to the film language.  In the broadest terms, Griffith's contributions can be categorized as MiseEnScene and editing (FilmEditing.)
> 
> Griffith has been a highly controversial figure.  While highly popular at the time of its release, his film BirthofaNation (1915) was also considered responsible for the resurgence of the KluKluxKlan in the United States.
> 
> Griffith remains both a praised and distained character in the history of the cinema.
> 
> Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1908 and 1912 (the years he directed for the Mutual Film Company), Griffith produced an astounding 500 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he launched his own company and set to work to produce BirthofaNation.
------
BirthofaNation|980936040
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A controverial film directed by DwGriffith.  It was released in 1915 and has been credited with securing the future of feature length films (any film over an hour in length) as well as solidifying the codes of film language.
> 
> The controversy of the film revolves around its premise of a post-Civil War America where the KluKluxKlan successfully redeems the South from carpet baggers and evil mulattos.  Even at the time of the film's release, riots protested the film.  However, the success of the film made Griffith a wealthy man.
------
MiseEnScene|980936141
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of two dominant theories of conveying information in the cinema where the long takes and often a movie camera is preferred over constantly chopping up a scene through editing.
------
FilmEditing|980936355
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One of two dominant theories of conveying information in the cinema where conveying information is done by juxtaposing one image with another to produce a third idea.  After DwGriffith's BirthofaNation and Intolerance, the early Russian filmmakers took up this approach to film communication.  It seemed to agree with their revolutionary ideas and seemed to be the perfect artistic expression of the HegelianDialectic.  (See also the KuleshovExperiment.)
------
KuleshovExperiment|980936498
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Kuleshov was an early Russian filmmaker.  He believed that juxtaposing two unrelated images could convey a separate meaning.  His example was a shot of a man and then a shot of a bowl of food conveyed the idea of hunger even though the shot of the man and the shot of the bowl was done at different times and places.
------
PhilosophyOfReligion|980936633
1c1
< Major Christian Philosophers:  BaruchSpinoza -- SorenKierkegaard -- MaxWeber -- ReneDescartes -- DavidHume
---
> Major Christian Philosophers:  BaruchSpinoza -- SorenKierkegaard -- MaxWeber -- ReneDescartes -- DavidHume -- BoethiuS
3c3
< Er, Spinoza was a Christian philosopher?  He was a pantheistic Jew!  I don't know if Weber was religious at all (he theorized about religion); and Hume of course is famous for being an atheist, though in fact he might have been an agnostic or even a closet believer.  (The ''Dialogues'' aren't very clear about this.)
---
> Er, Spinoza was a Christian philosopher?  He was a pantheistic Jew!  I don't know if Weber was religious at all (he theorized about religion); and Hume of course is famous for being an atheist, though in fact he might have been an agnostic or even a closet believer.  (The ''Dialogues'' aren't very clear about this.)
------
BoethiuS|980936694
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Boethius was a very early Christian philosopher and his most recognized work was the ConsolationOfPhilosophy.
------
ConsolationOfPhilosophy|980936840
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This thin work depicts Socratic dialogues between an imprisoned Boethius (imprisoned because he was a Christian) and the woman Philosphy to help him come to terms with his suffering.  It tackles significant Christian questions about the foreknowledge of God as potential determinism as well as the purpose or place of suffering.
------
SetTheory|980943979
62a63,73
> COMMENT: The axiom
> of choice is not needed to define cardinals in ZF - the
> equivalence classes can be taken to be sets, by defining the
> cardinal of x as the set of all sets of minimal rank
> equivalent to x. We are also perfectly free to simply
> introduce a special function symbol for cardinals, governed
> by the axiom card(x)=card(y) <-> x and y are equivalent.
> (Suppes does it this way.) Associating the axiom of choice
> with there mere possibility of talking about cardinals is
> quite unjustified.
> 
63a75,79
> 
> COMMENT: This is not only vague, but it is not a recognizable
> informal version of anything formally defined in set theory. In
> particular, it is completely obscure what you mean by saying
> that two constructible sets have distinct cardinalities.
------
SetTheory|980944120
79c79
< that two constructible sets have distinct cardinalities.
---
> that all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities.
------
EastGermany|980948686
14c14
< GermanY got divided after the war, also Berlin, former capital of Germany got divided. Since Berlin was 
---
> GermanY was divided after the war, also Berlin, former capital of Germany was divided. Since Berlin was 
16c16
< soon got known as WestBerlin.
---
> soon became known as WestBerlin.
18,19c18,19
< So when EastGermany closed the border it also literally surrounded WestBerlin by a huge wall, the BerlinWall.
< Anyway, there is too much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner!" (which is a popular cake in germany, btw); East and West Germany using WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the Cold War, the cold war it self and all that.
---
> So when EastGermany closed the western borders, it also literally enclosed WestBerlin within a huge wall, the BerlinWall.
> Anyway, there is too much historical stuff to talk about, Kennedy visiting WestBerlin and saying "I am a Berliner!" (which is a popular cake in Germany, btw); East and West Germany using WestBerlin as an outpost and ground for the Cold War, the cold war itself and all that.
21c21
< In 1989 the BerlinWall fell and with it the whole CommunisT system of EastGermany, both parts got re-united and 
---
> In 1989 the BerlinWall fell and with it the whole CommunisT system of EastGermany, both parts re-united and 
24c24
< But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western germany.
---
> But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western Germany.
------
EastGermany|980949435
24c24
< But still there are lot of differences about the once eastern and the once western part of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western Germany.
---
> But still there are lot of differences between the formerly "eastern" and "western" parts of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western Germany.
------
TrigonometricFunctions|980949465
79c79
< The familiar mnemonic to remember these definitions is CAHSOHTOA. It reminds
---
> One familiar mnemonic to remember these definitions is CAHSOHTOA. It reminds
80a81,82
> 
> Another mnemonic is commonly used in the UK is OHMS. This is memorable because it might mean "On Her Majesty's Service", which is stamped on the front of Tax demands, or "Opposite over Adjacent Means Sine".
------
MiddleAges|980951777
1,2c1
< 
< Science and religion were mixed up into the philosophy of AlchemY.
---
> Period in European History (see also HistoryofEurope) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
------
MiddleAges|980952178
1c1
< Period in European History (see also HistoryofEurope) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
---
> Period in European History (see also<a href="wiki.cgi?HistoryOfEurope"> HistoryofEurope</a>) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
------
MiddleAges|980952251
1c1
< Period in European History (see also<a href="wiki.cgi?HistoryOfEurope"> HistoryofEurope</a>) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
---
> Period in European History (see also HistoryOfEurope which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
------
MiddleAges|980952296
1c1
< Period in European History (see also HistoryOfEurope which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
---
> Period in European History (see also HistoryOfEurope) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
------
MiddleAges|980952461
1c1
< Period in European History (see also HistoryOfEurope) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the FrankEmpire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
---
> Period in European History (see also HistoryOfEurope) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance Age (ca. 14th century). After the downfall of Roman power, several Germanic and Slavic tribes and the Byzantine Empire competed for power in different parts of Europe. Basicly, the spread of Christianity from the Mediterranean area and from Ireland and Scotland throughout Europe led to a spread of ecclesiastical power which pervaded political institutions (e.g. the Frankish Empire) and formed the basis for a first European "identity": Christendom. A rather nasty example of this identity at work are the Crusades, during which Popes, kings, and emporors drew on the unity of all Christians to wage bloody war on Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern borders. With the rise of western European economic growth, culture and political power, the Middle Ages came to an end, gradually making way for a movement called the Renaissance.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980953225
31c31
< Blah blah Alexander, Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
---
> Blah blah AlexanderTheGreat, Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
------
AlexanderTheGreat|980954611
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Alexander (the Great) was born Alexander III., son of Philip, King of Macedonia, in 356 BC. Macedonia was a country to the north of classical Greece, regarded as semi-barbarian (and therefore foreign) by most Greeks, but the Mecedonians felt as Greeks, as a matter of honor.
> 
> Alexander was a high-spirited youth, a wild horseman, and a favorite captain of his father's army. He studied with AristotlE, who was his private teacher.
> 
> In 336, he succeeded his father on the throne. Having established his political power in Greece, he set of on his famous conquest of Persia in 334. Within two years, he had conquered the eastern Mediterranean coast, and in 332-331, he conquered Egypt. Returning to Persia proper, occupying Babylon within the same year. He proceeded to Media, Scythia, and on to India. Having adopted Persian attire and customs (e.g. at audiences, his subjects had to cast themselves on their faces when approaching him), he lost a lot of sympathies amongst his Greek countrymen. He also lost a lot of lives amongst his countrymen when he drove his army further and further east, through deserts and other nasty places. Having won a battle or two in India, he returned west in an attempt to consolidate his empire, but died of a sudden fever before he really got anywhere.
> 
> He left a huge empire of persio-greek culture (which then fell apart into three parts), and an odd assemblage of towns: Alexandrias, Alexandropolises and other Alexvilles all over Greece, Persia, Egypt, and all the way to India.
> 
> Oddly, he seems to be cursed to this day in Iran for burnng Persepolis, which is supposed to have been quite pretty before Alexander arrived.
------
AlexanderTheGreat|980954736
5c5
< In 336, he succeeded his father on the throne. Having established his political power in Greece, he set of on his famous conquest of Persia in 334. Within two years, he had conquered the eastern Mediterranean coast, and in 332-331, he conquered Egypt. Returning to Persia proper, occupying Babylon within the same year. He proceeded to Media, Scythia, and on to India. Having adopted Persian attire and customs (e.g. at audiences, his subjects had to cast themselves on their faces when approaching him), he lost a lot of sympathies amongst his Greek countrymen. He also lost a lot of lives amongst his countrymen when he drove his army further and further east, through deserts and other nasty places. Having won a battle or two in India, he returned west in an attempt to consolidate his empire, but died of a sudden fever before he really got anywhere.
---
> In 336, he succeeded his father on the throne. Having established his political power in Greece, he set of on his famous conquest of Persia in 334. Within two years, he had conquered the eastern Mediterranean coast, and in 332-331, he conquered Egypt. Returning to Persia proper, he occupied Babylon within the same year. He proceeded to Media, Scythia, and on to India. Having adopted Persian attire and customs (e.g. at audiences, his subjects had to cast themselves on their faces when approaching him), he lost a lot of sympathies amongst his Greek countrymen. He also lost a lot of lives amongst his countrymen when he drove his army further and further east, through deserts and other nasty places. Having won a battle or two in India, he returned west in an attempt to consolidate his empire, but died of a sudden fever before he really got anywhere.
9c9
< Oddly, he seems to be cursed to this day in Iran for burnng Persepolis, which is supposed to have been quite pretty before Alexander arrived.
---
> Oddly, he seems to be cursed to this day in Iran for burning Persepolis, which is supposed to have been quite pretty before Alexander arrived.
------
GreeK|980954964
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Of, or relating to GreecE, its people or its culture.
> 
> Famous Greeks were PlatO, AristotlE, AlexanderTheGreat, and last but not least ZorbasTheGreek.
------
RequestedArticles|980958188
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
------
UsenetCabal|980959984
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A supposedly mythical organisation which apparently moderated all groups and generally controlled the whole of Usenet newsgroup traffic; any direct mention of them is generally followed by the abbreviation TINC - There Is No Cabal. The word Cabal has something to do with some French courtiers (can someone who actually knows please fill the details in here?). After this theory was publicised (and largely refuted), many 'Cabals' sprung up throughout Usenet, like the LspaceCabal (TINC) of AltFanPratchett (which is an actual organisation, but any mention of it still has the negative acronym appended).
------
CryptanalysiS|980962902
1c1
< CryptanalysiS (from the Greek kryptós and analýein, "to loosen" or "to untie") is the science (and art) of recovering information from ciphers without knowledge of the key. CryptologY is often--and mistakenly--considered a synonym for CryptographY and occasionally for CryptanalysiS, as in the popular solution of CryptograM's or CipheR's, but specialists in the field have for years adopted the convention that CryptologY is the more inclusive term encompassing both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
---
> CryptanalysiS (from the GreeK kryptós and analýein, "to loosen" or "to untie") is the science (and art) of recovering information from ciphers without knowledge of the key. CryptologY is often--and mistakenly--considered a synonym for CryptographY and occasionally for CryptanalysiS, as in the popular solution of CryptograM's or CipheR's, but specialists in the field have for years adopted the convention that CryptologY is the more inclusive term encompassing both CryptographY and CryptanalysiS.
------
CryptographY|980962933
1c1
< CryptographY (from the Greek kryptós and gráphein, "to write") is the study of the principles and techniques by which information can be concealed in ciphers and later revealed by legitimate users employing the secret key, but in which it is either impossible or computationally infeasible for an unauthorized person to do so.
---
> CryptographY (from the GreeK kryptós and gráphein, "to write") is the study of the principles and techniques by which information can be concealed in ciphers and later revealed by legitimate users employing the secret key, but in which it is either impossible or computationally infeasible for an unauthorized person to do so.
------
GreeK|980963016
3c3,6
< Famous Greeks were PlatO, AristotlE, AlexanderTheGreat, and last but not least ZorbasTheGreek.
---
> Famous Greeks were PlatO, AristotlE, AlexanderTheGreat, and last but not least ZorbasTheGreek.
> ----
> 
> ''See also'':  GreekLanguage
------
WojPob|980963078
3c3
< A MSc student at the Vienna School of Economics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. 
---
> A MSc student at the ViennaSchoolOfEconomics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. 
13c13
< I fear you now.  ;-) --JimboWales
---
> I fear you now.  ;-) --JimboWales
------
BusinessSchools/Asia|980963429
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /HongKongUniversitySchoolOfBusiness
> 
> /JiangxiUniversityOfFinanceAndEconomics
> 
> /NanyangTechnologicalUniversity
> 
> /PekingUniversitySchoolOfEconomics
> 
> /UniversityOfTsukuba
> 
------
EastGermany|980963528
3c3
< After WW2, in 1949 at the Potsdam Conference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
---
> After WW2, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
8c8
< It was also called EastGermany.  EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a CommunisTic
---
> It was also called EastGermany.  EastGermany was under heavy influence of RussiA and became a CommunisT
24c24
< But still there are lot of differences between the formerly "eastern" and "western" parts of Germany (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western Germany.
---
> But still there are lot of differences between the formerly "eastern" and "western" parts of GermanY (both in lifestyle, wealth, political beliefs and such) and so we still talk about eastern and western Germany.
------
WhatIsaWiki|980963606
1c1
< A <I>wiki</I> is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A <I>wiki</I> is a collection of interlinked <b>web</b> pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
------
AlexanderTheGreat|980963991
7c7
< He left a huge empire of persio-greek culture (which then fell apart into three parts), and an odd assemblage of towns: Alexandrias, Alexandropolises and other Alexvilles all over Greece, Persia, Egypt, and all the way to India.
---
> He left a huge empire of persio-greek culture (which then fell apart into three parts), and an odd assemblage of towns: Alexandrias, Alexandropolises and other Alexvilles all over GreecE, PersiA, EgypT, and all the way to IndiA.
9c9
< Oddly, he seems to be cursed to this day in Iran for burning Persepolis, which is supposed to have been quite pretty before Alexander arrived.
---
> Oddly, he seems to be cursed to this day in IraN for burning Persepolis, which is supposed to have been quite pretty before Alexander arrived.
------
AlexanderTheGreat|980964066
5c5
< In 336, he succeeded his father on the throne. Having established his political power in Greece, he set of on his famous conquest of Persia in 334. Within two years, he had conquered the eastern Mediterranean coast, and in 332-331, he conquered Egypt. Returning to Persia proper, he occupied Babylon within the same year. He proceeded to Media, Scythia, and on to India. Having adopted Persian attire and customs (e.g. at audiences, his subjects had to cast themselves on their faces when approaching him), he lost a lot of sympathies amongst his Greek countrymen. He also lost a lot of lives amongst his countrymen when he drove his army further and further east, through deserts and other nasty places. Having won a battle or two in India, he returned west in an attempt to consolidate his empire, but died of a sudden fever before he really got anywhere.
---
> In 336, he succeeded his father on the throne. Having established his political power in GreecE, he set of on his famous conquest of PersiA in 334. Within two years, he had conquered the eastern Mediterranean coast, and in 332-331, he conquered EgypT. Returning to Persia proper, he occupied Babylon within the same year. He proceeded to Media, Scythia, and on to IndiA. Having adopted Persian attire and customs (e.g. at audiences, his subjects had to cast themselves on their faces when approaching him), he lost a lot of sympathies amongst his GreeK countrymen. He also lost a lot of lives amongst his countrymen when he drove his army further and further east, through deserts and other nasty places. Having won a battle or two in IndiA, he returned west in an attempt to consolidate his empire, but died of a sudden fever before he really got anywhere.
------
UsenetCabal|980964275
1c1
< A supposedly mythical organisation which apparently moderated all groups and generally controlled the whole of Usenet newsgroup traffic; any direct mention of them is generally followed by the abbreviation TINC - There Is No Cabal. The word Cabal has something to do with some French courtiers (can someone who actually knows please fill the details in here?). After this theory was publicised (and largely refuted), many 'Cabals' sprung up throughout Usenet, like the LspaceCabal (TINC) of AltFanPratchett (which is an actual organisation, but any mention of it still has the negative acronym appended).
---
> A supposedly mythical organisation which apparently moderated all groups and generally controlled the whole of Usenet newsgroup traffic; any direct mention of them is generally followed by the abbreviation TINC - There Is No CabaL. The word CabaL has something to do with some French courtiers (can someone who actually knows please fill the details in here?). After this theory was publicised (and largely refuted), many 'Cabals' sprung up throughout Usenet, like the LspaceCabal (TINC) of AltFanPratchett (which is an actual organisation, but any mention of it still has the negative acronym appended).
------
CabaL|980964387
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A CabaL is a private organization or party engaged in secret intrigues. In EnglanD the word was used during the 17th century to describe the mystical interpretation of the HebreW scripture (the Cabala, or Kabbala), as well as to describe any secret or extralegal council of the king, especially the foreign committee of the Privy Council. 
> 
> 
> The term took on its present invidious meaning from a group of five ministers chosen in 1667 by King Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper [later earl of Shaftesbury], and Lauderdale), whose initial letters coincidentally spelled cabal. This cabal, never very unified in its members' aims and sympathies, fell apart by 1672; Shaftesbury even became one of Charles II's fiercest opponents. 
------
UsenetCabal|980964486
1c1,6
< A supposedly mythical organisation which apparently moderated all groups and generally controlled the whole of Usenet newsgroup traffic; any direct mention of them is generally followed by the abbreviation TINC - There Is No CabaL. The word CabaL has something to do with some French courtiers (can someone who actually knows please fill the details in here?). After this theory was publicised (and largely refuted), many 'Cabals' sprung up throughout Usenet, like the LspaceCabal (TINC) of AltFanPratchett (which is an actual organisation, but any mention of it still has the negative acronym appended).
---
> A supposedly mythical organisation which apparently moderated all groups and generally controlled the whole of Usenet newsgroup traffic; any direct mention of them is generally followed by the abbreviation TINC - There Is No CabaL. After this theory was publicised (and largely refuted), many 'Cabals' sprung up throughout Usenet, like the LspaceCabal (TINC) of AltFanPratchett (which is an actual organisation, but any mention of it still has the negative acronym appended).
> ----
> 
> ''The word CabaL has something to do with some French courtiers (can someone who actually knows please fill the details in here?).''
> 
> Job done;-) - WojPob
------
AbensbergGermany|980964673
1c1
< ABENSBERG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the 
---
> ABENSBERG, a town of GermanY, in the kingdom of BavariA, on the 
------
WojPob|980964838
3c3
< A MSc student at the ViennaSchoolOfEconomics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. 
---
> A MSc student at the ViennaUniversityOfEconomics and Business Administration. He's got a huge amount of time to spare. 
------
HistoryOfEurope|980965505
3c3
< Europe has been human-occupied since the dawn of mankind.  NeanderthaL man settled Europe long before the emergence
---
> Europe has been human-occupied since the dawn of mankind.  NeanderthaL man settled EuropE long before the emergence
6c6
< The first well-known civilization in Europe was that of the MinoanPeoples and AchaeanPeoples in Greece.  Around the same time, the CelticPeoples spread over most of the interior as far as Spain and later Turkey.  As they did not practice a written language, knowledge of them is piecemeal.  The Romans encountered them and recorded a great deal
---
> The first well-known civilization in EuropE was that of the MinoanPeoples and AchaeanPeoples in GreecE.  Around the same time, the CelticPeoples spread over most of the interior as far as Spain and later Turkey.  As they did not practice a written language, knowledge of them is piecemeal.  The Romans encountered them and recorded a great deal
9c9
< colonized and conquered much of the southern portion of Europe.
---
> colonized and conquered much of the southern portion of EuropE.
11,12c11
< At the end of the BronzeAge the older Greek kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having
< vastly differing types of government and cultures, including what are more or less unprescendented developments in various governmental forms, PhiloSophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
---
> At the end of the BronzeAge the older GreeK kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having vastly differing types of government and cultures, including what are more or less unprescendented developments in various governmental forms, PhiloSophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
14c13
< The campaigns of AlexanderTheGreat brought Greek culture into contact with the older learnings of Persia, Egypt, and India, opening up a new period of developments.  Much of this learning was assimilated by the nascent RomanEmpire as it expanded outward from Italy, taking advantage of its enemies inability to unite.  First governed by kings, then a senatorial republic, Rome finally became an empire under JuliusCaesar and his AuthoritariaN successors.
---
> The campaigns of AlexanderTheGreat brought GreeK culture into contact with the older learnings of PersiA, EgypT, and IndiA, opening up a new period of developments.  Much of this learning was assimilated by the nascent RomanEmpire as it expanded outward from ItalY, taking advantage of its enemies inability to unite.  First governed by kings, then a senatorial republic, RomE finally became an empire under JuliusCaesar and his AuthoritariaN successors.
16c15
< Europe emerged as the site of a distinct civilization after the fall of the RomanEmpire (c. 400-500 AD), separated from the rest of the Meditteranean by the Byzantine and Islamic cultures.  Huge amounts of technology and learning were lost, and people returned to local agragarian communities.
---
> EuropE emerged as the site of a distinct civilization after the fall of the RomanEmpire (c. 400-500 AD), separated from the rest of the Meditteranean by the Byzantine and Islamic cultures.  Huge amounts of technology and learning were lost, and people returned to local agragarian communities.
20c19
< Philosophy, science and technology developed rapidly throughout.  The church broke up and semi-secular governments started developing.  In the FrenchRevolution, people made a significant attempt to create a new government based on freedom and equality, instead launching the NapoleonicEra.  Napoleon also destroyed the HolyRomanEmpire, leaving Germany and Italy to develop into nation-states by 1900.
---
> Philosophy, science and technology developed rapidly throughout. The church broke up and semi-secular governments started developing.  In the FrenchRevolution, people made a significant attempt to create a new government based on freedom and equality, instead launching the NapoleonicEra.  NapoleoN also destroyed the HolyRomanEmpire, leaving GermanY and ItalY to develop into nation-states by 1900.
22c21
< The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of Europe.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of the UnitedStates and SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
---
> The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of EuropE.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of the UnitedStates and SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
------
CabaL|980965589
4c4
< The term took on its present invidious meaning from a group of five ministers chosen in 1667 by King Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper [later earl of Shaftesbury], and Lauderdale), whose initial letters coincidentally spelled cabal. This cabal, never very unified in its members' aims and sympathies, fell apart by 1672; Shaftesbury even became one of Charles II's fiercest opponents. 
---
> The term took on its present invidious meaning from a group of five ministers chosen in 1667 by King Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper [later earl of Shaftesbury], and Lauderdale), whose initial letters coincidentally spelled CabaL. This CabaL, never very unified in its members' aims and sympathies, fell apart by 1672; Shaftesbury even became one of Charles II's fiercest opponents. 
------
RequestedArticles|980965722
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers (we also need to add whatever ordinary language approximations of logico-mathematical concepts that we can find; we'd like nonmathematicians/nonlogicians to be able to understand these articles)
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
------
DirectRealism|980965989
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions ( JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy. - WillWilkinson
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions (JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy.
------
PhillipHankins|980967233
3a4,6
> ----
> 
> Note to PhillipHankins to JimboWales: You removed your name from an entry that you wrote, and said it was silly of you to have it there, but I thought it was fine to have it there.  One way that it is useful is for other people to find you and then other topics that you've written about.  Anyhow, you can delete this comment, I just wanted to say this. :-)
------
PhillipHankins|980967244
6c6
< Note to PhillipHankins to JimboWales: You removed your name from an entry that you wrote, and said it was silly of you to have it there, but I thought it was fine to have it there.  One way that it is useful is for other people to find you and then other topics that you've written about.  Anyhow, you can delete this comment, I just wanted to say this. :-)
---
> Note to PhillipHankins from JimboWales: You removed your name from an entry that you wrote, and said it was silly of you to have it there, but I thought it was fine to have it there.  One way that it is useful is for other people to find you and then other topics that you've written about.  Anyhow, you can delete this comment, I just wanted to say this. :-)
------
DavidHume|980967326
5c5
< Did some self-study in France, where he completed ''A Treatise of Human Nature'' at the age of 26.  When published in England (1739-40) it received next to no attention.  Hume famously wrote that it "fell dead-born from the press."
---
> Did some self-study in France, where he completed ''ATreatiseofHumanNature'' at the age of 26.  When published in England (1739-40) it received next to no attention.  Hume famously wrote that it "fell dead-born from the press."
------
ATreatiseofHumanNature|980967372
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ATreatiseofHumanNature was completed by DavidHume at the age of 26. When published in EnglanD (1739-40) it received next to no attention. Hume famously wrote that it "fell dead-born from the press." 
------
CryptanalysiS|980967473
15c15
< CryptanalysiS that is virtually indistinguishable from research in any other area of computational mathematics. Unlike the ciphertext attacks or ciphertext/plaintext pairs attacks in single-key cryptosystems, this sort of cryptanalysis is aimed at breaking the cryptosystem by analysis that can be carried out based only on a knowledge of the system itself. Obviously there is no counterpart to this kind of cryptanalytic attack in single-key systems. One of the most attractive schemes for exchanging session keys in a hybrid cryptosystem depended on the ease with which a number (primitive root) could be raised to a power (in a finite field), as opposed to the difficulty of calculating the discrete logarithm. A special-purpose chip to implement this algorithm was produced by a U.S. company, and several others designed secure electronic mail and computer-networking schemes based on the algorithm. In 1983 Donald Coppersmith found a computationally feasible way to take discrete logarithms in precisely those finite fields that
---
> CryptanalysiS that is virtually indistinguishable from research in any other area of computational mathematics. Unlike the ciphertext attacks or ciphertext/plaintext pairs attacks in single-key cryptosystems, this sort of cryptanalysis is aimed at breaking the cryptosystem by analysis that can be carried out based only on a knowledge of the system itself. Obviously there is no counterpart to this kind of cryptanalytic attack in single-key systems. One of the most attractive schemes for exchanging session keys in a hybrid cryptosystem depended on the ease with which a number (primitive root) could be raised to a power (in a finite field), as opposed to the difficulty of calculating the discrete logarithm. A special-purpose chip to implement this algorithm was produced by a U.S. company, and several others designed secure electronic mail and computer-networking schemes based on the algorithm. In 1983 DonaldCoppersmith found a computationally feasible way to take discrete logarithms in precisely those finite fields that
------
CryptanalysiS|980967549
18c18
< 1,000,000,000,000 elementary computer operations (add, subtract, shift, and so forth). By 1984 the state of the art in factoring algorithms had advanced to a point where a 75-digit number could be factored in 1,000,000,000,000 operations. If a mathematical advance made it feasible to factor 150 or more digit numbers in the same number of operations, this would make it possible for the cryptanalyst to break several commercial RSA schemes. In other words, the security of two-key cryptography depends on well-defined mathematical questions in a way that single-key CryptographY generally did not and conversely equates CryptanalysiS to mathematical research in an atypical way.
---
> 1,000,000,000,000 elementary computer operations (add, subtract, shift, and so forth). By 1984 the state of the art in factoring algorithms had advanced to a point where a 75-digit number could be factored in 1,000,000,000,000 operations. If a mathematical advance made it feasible to factor 150 or more digit numbers in the same number of operations, this would make it possible for the CryptanalysT to break several commercial RSA schemes. In other words, the security of two-key cryptography depends on well-defined mathematical questions in a way that single-key CryptographY generally did not and conversely equates CryptanalysiS to mathematical research in an atypical way.
------
OntOlogy|980967623
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The most recognizably metaphysical branch of MetaPhysics, ''ontology'' is the study of existence in general, or in AristotlE'''''s memorable phrase, the study of ''BeingQuaBeing.''  So ontology is the study of existing things insofar as they exist, or as to the aspect of ExistEnce.
> 
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of "ThinG," ''thing'' being used in its broadest possible sense, that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
> 
> What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explained in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  As it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
> 
> The ontological problems ''par excellence'' include:
> * What is ExistencE?
> * Is ExistencE is a property?
> * The ProblemOfUniversals
> * Are ObjectS ultimately bundles of properties or instead SubstancE''''s?
> There are, however, very many more ontological problems than these; but many of the problems begin with these problems.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980967663
2a3,7
> '''January 31, 2001'''
> 
> I am adding a page called NobelPrize, where we can list all the winners by category, and eventually fill in with short biographies.
> 
> 
------
NobelPrize|980967770
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <i>I suppose we need a writeup of what the prize actually is.</i>
> 
> Nobel Prizes are awarded in the following disciplines:
> 
> /PhysicS
> 
> /ChemistrY
> 
> /PhysiologyOrMedicine
> 
> /LiteraturE
> 
> /PeacE
> 
> /EconomicSciences
------
NobelPrize/PhysicS|980967950
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A full list can be found [
> http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/index.html here].
> 
> 2000 - ZhoresIAlferov, HerbertKroemer, JackSKilby
> 
> 1999 - GerardusTHooft, MartinusJGVeltman
> 
> 1998 - RobertBLaughlin, HorstLStormer, DanielCTsui
> 
> 1997 - StevenChu, ClaudeCohenTannoudji, WilliamDPhillips
------
OntOlogy|980967962
1c1
< The most recognizably metaphysical branch of MetaPhysics, ''ontology'' is the study of existence in general, or in AristotlE'''''s memorable phrase, the study of ''BeingQuaBeing.''  So ontology is the study of existing things insofar as they exist, or as to the aspect of ExistEnce.
---
> The core of MetaPhysics, ''ontology'' is the study of existence in general, or in AristotlE'''''s memorable phrase, the study of ''BeingQuaBeing.''  So ontology is the study of existing things insofar as they exist, or as to the aspect of ExistEnce.
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of "ThinG," ''thing'' being used in its broadest possible sense, that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
5c5
< What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explained in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  As it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
---
> What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
12c12
< There are, however, very many more ontological problems than these; but many of the problems begin with these problems.
---
> There are, however, very many more ontological problems than these.
------
OntOlogy|980968133
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968225
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968356
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968400
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968413
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968434
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968443
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968458
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT'''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT's.
------
UsenetCabal|980968462
1a2,8
> 
> :There ''Is'' No Cabal, but there ''was'' an effective cabal in the early days of Usenet.  This group was often known as the "backbone cabal", which consisted of a number of large "backbone" sites that distributed most of the Usenet traffic.  Some of these sites paid thousands of dollars per month for the communication links servicing Usenet, often hidden in large telecommunications budgets.  (Since the late 1990s, the growth of cheap high-speed Internet connections has made a backbone organization largely unnecessary.)
> 
> :Probably the last effective action of this cabal was the non-acceptance of the newsgroup "rec.sex" (around 1990?).  The newsgroup was proposed and passed by the usual voting system.  Several major backbone administrators refused to accept that newsgroup in the otherwise-"clean" rec.* hierarchy.  The alt.sex group (and later sub-hierarchy) quickly became very popular and soon the "alt.*" hierarchy became common on many sites.  (Several sites would be reluctant to subscribe to just "alt.sex", so they would get the whole hierarchy instead.)
> 
> :Of course, some people say the cabal is just hiding...
> 
6c13
< Job done;-) - WojPob
---
> Job done;-) - WojPob
------
OntOlogy|980968470
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT's.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968499
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968508
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
OntOlogy|980968542
5c5
< What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
---
> AristotlE's What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
------
OntOlogy|980968551
5c5
< AristotlE's What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
---
> AristotlE'''''s What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
------
OntOlogy|980968575
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
5c5
< AristotlE'''''s What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
---
> What it means to take, for example, the category ObjectS seriously as a CategoryOfBeing is to assert that the concept of objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties.  In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of OntOlogy can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) CategoriesOfBeing.
------
OntOlogy|980968585
3c3
< While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
---
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE's influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980968879
63c63,67
< '''Q. Can a hit counter be implemented on a WiKi page?'''
---
> '''Q. Can a hit counter be implemented on a WikiWiki page?'''
> 
> A. Sure, the powers-that-be simply have to make it happen.
> ----
> ''''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  But this should have created "AristotlE's" as one single link, shouldn't it have?
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980968927
1c1,66
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Complete list [http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/index.html here].
> 
> 2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
> 
> 1999 -- RobertAMundell
> 
> 1998 -- AmartyaSen
> 
> 1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
> 
> 1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
> 
> 1995 -- RobertELucasJr
> 
> 1994 -- ReinhardSelten, JohnFNashJr, JohnCHarsanyi
> 
> 1993 -- RobertWFogel, DouglasCNorth
> 
> 1992 -- GarySBecker
> 
> 1991 -- RonaldHCoase
> 
> 1990 -- HarryMMarkowitz, MertonHMiller, WilliamFSharpe
> 
> 1989 -- Trygve Haavelmo
> 
> 1988 -- MauriceAllais
> 
> 1987 -- RobertMSolow
> 
> 1986 -- JamesMBuchananJr
> 
> 1985 -- FrancoModigliani
> 
> 1984 -- RichardStone
> 
> 1983 -- GerardDebreu
> 
> 1982 -- GeorgeJStigler
> 
> 1981 -- JamesTobin
> 
> 1980 -- 
> 
> 1979 -- 
> 
> 1978 -- 
> 
> 1977 -- 
> 
> 1976 -- 
> 
> 1975 -- 
> 
> 1974 -- 
> 
> 1973 -- 
> 
> 1972 -- 
> 
> 1971 -- 
> 
> 1970 -- 
> 
> 1969 -- 
> 
------
ConsequentialIsm|980969011
8a9,22
> 
> ----
> 
> Your account of consequentialism seems a little unusual.  For starters, I don't think egoism is normally considered to be a kind of consquentialism.  For example, in ''Consequentialism and its critics'', the editor Samuel Scheffler starts off by saying that
> 
> : Consequentialism in its purest and simplest form is a moral doctrine which says that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the best overall outcome, ''as judged from an impersonal standpoint which gives equal weight to the interests of everyone.'' Somewhat more precisely, we may think of a consequentialist theory of this kind as coming in two parts.  First, it gives some principle for ranking overall states of affairs ''from an impersonal standpoint'' and then it says that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the highest ranked state of affairs that the agent is in a position to produce. (emphasis added).
> 
> There may be a few people who talk differently, but this certainly appears to be the standard conception of consequentialism (the less "pure" forms alluded to presumably being indirect forms of consequentialism, or views where the welfare of some individuals (but still individuals ''impersonally considered'') are considered to be more important (as in, for example, the kind of consequentialism David Brink presents in "The Separateness of Persons, Distributive Norms, and Moral Theory").
> 
> I think the same problem arises in your blurring of the distinction between consequentialist theories and deontological, or, more generally and simply, non-consequentialist theories.   It ''has'' in fact been argued, by David Cummiskey in ''Kantian consquentialism'', that although Kant was firmly against consequentialism, Kantian moral theory, "properly understood, generates an extremely compelling consequentialist normative theory".  However, I believe this is a very unusual position to take, and even if it makes sense, there is still a sensible class of positions to put up against consequentialist positions.
> 
> This class of positions is characterized by the idea that there are ''agent-relative'' or '' agent-centered'' reasons for action, whereas for consquentialism, as defined above, reasons for action are ultimately ''agent-neutral''.   Then egoism and deontology are seen as characteristically non-consequentialist.
> 
> These days it has become standard to distinguish between agent-centered ''restrictions'' and agent-centered ''prerogatives''.   I am tempted to agree, with Scheffler, that ultimately, agent-centered restrictions are difficult to defend. As you suggest against Kant, why should I not kill one innocent person if, by doing so, I can save the lives of many more innoncent persons in exactly the same objective circumstances?  On the other hand, agent-centered prerogatives seem much easier to defend, on the familiar grounds that consequentialist theories are morally too demanding.  Given the protean nature of indirect consequentialism, however, the field is very murky. --CalvinOstrum
------
WikiPediaFaq|980969037
67c67
< ''''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  But this should have created "AristotlE's" as one single link, shouldn't it have?
---
> ''''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  So why didn't what worked in the first paragraph also work in the second paragraph?
------
WikiPediaFaq|980969052
67c67
< ''''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  So why didn't what worked in the first paragraph also work in the second paragraph?
---
> '''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  So why didn't what worked in the first paragraph also work in the second paragraph?'''
------
RequestedArticles|980969144
6a7,8
> I have created NobelPrize as a new topic.
> 
------
RequestedArticles|980969234
7c7
< I have created NobelPrize as a new topic.
---
> I have created NobelPrize as a new topic, and I request anyone with an interest in any of the people there to write something! --JimboWales
------
NobelPrize/PhysicS|980969617
1,2c1,2
< A full list can be found [
< http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/index.html here].
---
> A full list can be found 
> [http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/index.html here].
10c10
< 1997 - StevenChu, ClaudeCohenTannoudji, WilliamDPhillips
---
> 1997 - StevenChu, ClaudeCohenTannoudji, WilliamDPhillips
------
ConsequentialIsm|980969643
22a23,24
> ----
> I think it's common enough to regard EgoIsm as a variety of consequentialism.  Just as data points, see [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/conseque.htm this article] and [http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/users/vaughan/text/lex/defs/consequentialism.html this one].  This is how I've been taught the notion and how I taught it (as a T.A.) to Ohio State undergrads.  But, granted, it does sound a little bit strange.  I would add some sort of note, at the very least, that not everyone would consider EthicalEgoism a variety of consequentialism. -- LarrySanger
------
RequestedArticles|980969972
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- OntOlogy -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|980970239
6a7
> We're up to 617 pages.  Very many of these have substantial and what appears to be reliable information.  I predict 1,000 by February 15.  WikiPedia is growing steadily in breadth and depth.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980970570
67c67,71
< '''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  So why didn't what worked in the first paragraph also work in the second paragraph?'''
---
> '''Q. This is very weird.  On OntOlogy, when using the name "AristotlE" as a possessive, in the first paragraph I wrote "AristotlE", followed by five single quote marks, followed by "s".  This produced "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e").  In the ''next'' paragraph, when I wanted to produce the same effect, I wrote the ''exact same thing,'' and instead of producing "Aristotle's" (with an upper case "e"), WikiWiki emboldened the whole paragraph after that point.  Instead, what I found I had to do was write "AristotlE", followed by ''just one'' single quote mark, followed by "s".  So why didn't what worked in the first paragraph also work in the second paragraph?'''
> 
> A.  The single-quote forms of bold and italic formatting do not always do what you'd expect when they are nested.  If you are doing special forms of formatting, you may want to use the <nowiki><i> and <b></nowiki> tags like <tt><nowiki><i>this will be italic</i></nowiki></tt> and <tt><nowiki><b>this will be bold</b></nowiki></tt>.  These tag-based forms are much easier to use than trying to remember whether to use 4, 5, or 6 single-quotes.  You can also use the tag-based forms over multiple lines of text, although this should be used sparingly.
> 
> :Could you reproduce the problem in the SandBox page?  I'll take a closer look to see if there was a bug or simply an unexpected rendering in this case.  --CliffordAdams
------
SandBox|980970804
4a5
> Problem from OntOlogy page:
5a7,9
> The core of MetaPhysics, ''ontology'' is the study of existence in general, or in AristotlE'''''s memorable phrase, the study of ''BeingQuaBeing.''  So ontology is the study of existing things insofar as they exist, or as to the aspect of ExistEnce.
> 
> While perhaps there's not any one thing such obscure phrases must mean, what they have come to mean, due to AristotlE'''''s influence, is the study of the most basic CategoriesOfBeing--and of "NonBeing" as well.  (MeinonG, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist.)  A "category of being" is a type or class of thing--''ThinG'' being used in its broadest possible sense--that cannot be reduced to (see ReductioN) or explicated (see ExplicatioN) in terms of any other category.  Among the many and varied categories that have been postulated over the millennia, some perennial favorites are ObjectS (presumably, PhysicalObjects), UniversalS, PropertieS, RelationS, EventS, TheMind (or something mental), and SeT''''s.
------
WikiPediaFaq|980970884
71a72,73
> 
> :''Done!  By the way, I thought <i>HTML italic</i> and <b>bold</b> tags didn't work on this wiki software.'' -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaFaq|980970921
73c73
< :''Done!  By the way, I thought <i>HTML italic</i> and <b>bold</b> tags didn't work on this wiki software.'' -- LarrySanger
---
> :''Done!  By the way, I thought <i>HTML italic</i> and <b>bold</b> tags didn't work on this wiki software.  At least, I seem to remember them being displayed a week or two ago.'' -- LarrySanger
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980974325
3c3
< 2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
---
> Syntax question:  Do we want lists such as these to look like this:
5,11c5,9
< 1999 -- RobertAMundell
< 
< 1998 -- AmartyaSen
< 
< 1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
< 
< 1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
---
>  2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
>  1999 -- RobertAMundell
>  1998 -- AmartyaSen
>  1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
>  1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980974395
10a11,12
> Or like this:
> 
17a20,21
> 
>  In the first case, the list is tauter, but lines do not wrap, so if a comment it added alongside a name it will just run off the side of the page.
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980974427
3c3
< Syntax question:  Do we want lists such as these to look like this:
---
> Form question:  Do we want lists such as these to look like this:
------
EsperantoLanguage|980976179
1c1
< Removed at Request of Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
---
> 
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|980976197
2,3d1
< 
< Removed at Request of Author: <i>Oleg326756@yahoo.com -- Oleg Izyumenko</i>
------
ConsequentialIsm|980978245
24c24,28
< I think it's common enough to regard EgoIsm as a variety of consequentialism.  Just as data points, see [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/conseque.htm this article] and [http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/users/vaughan/text/lex/defs/consequentialism.html this one].  This is how I've been taught the notion and how I taught it (as a T.A.) to Ohio State undergrads.  But, granted, it does sound a little bit strange.  I would add some sort of note, at the very least, that not everyone would consider EthicalEgoism a variety of consequentialism. -- LarrySanger
---
> I think it's common enough to regard EgoIsm as a variety of consequentialism.  Just as data points, see [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/conseque.htm this article] and [http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/users/vaughan/text/lex/defs/consequentialism.html this one].  This is how I've been taught the notion and how I taught it (as a T.A.) to Ohio State undergrads.  But, granted, it does sound a little bit strange.  I would add some sort of note, at the very least, that not everyone would consider EthicalEgoism a variety of consequentialism. -- LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> 
> Hmm, those two citations are of very poor quality.  In looking at standard collections of recent higher-quality essays from the research literature, such as those contained in the aforementioned ''Consequentialism and its critics'', or Philip Pettit's 1993 edited volume of 26 papers, it seems to me that all of them either implicitly or explicitly assume that consequentialism ultimately countenances only agent-neutral reasons.  I think the issue of agent-neutral versus agent-relative reasons is the crucial issue here, in any case.  I think WillWilkinson is right about this, and I think the community of moral philosophers essentially agree.   Consequently, I would submit that the term "consequentialism" ''should'' only be used to refer to theories which say that ultimately only agent-neutral reasons are of import.  Consequentialism should be the view that only consequences matter.  Consequences, ''period'', not consequences for me when I act, or you when you act.  -- CalvinOstrum
------
MakeaNewPage|980980001
3c3,5
< To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
---
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
> 
> But why? It looks stupid and it is harder to read.
------
MakeaNewPage|980980021
5c5
< But why? It looks stupid and it is harder to read.
---
> Sonic: But why? It looks stupid and it is harder to read.
------
NewTopics|980980683
5c5
< GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG
---
> GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
------
ErnestHemingway|980980986
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Hi! I have a great article about Ernest Hemingway, but unfortunately, it is too long for this page (it has about 68k in HTML). If you want to, you can have a look at it at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html and send me your comments afterwards. sonic_arcormail_de (replace first _ by @ and the other one by . to mail me)
------
ErnestHemingway|980981026
1c1
< Hi! I have a great article about Ernest Hemingway, but unfortunately, it is too long for this page (it has about 68k in HTML). If you want to, you can have a look at it at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html and send me your comments afterwards. sonic_arcormail_de (replace first _ by @ and the other one by . to mail me)
---
> Hi! I have a great article about Ernest Hemingway, but unfortunately, it is too long for this page (it has about 68k in HTML). If you want to, you can have a look at it at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html and help me make it shorter. sonic_arcormail_de (replace first _ by @ and the other one by . to mail me)
------
RoseParks|980983668
16a17,18
> ----
> Perhaps, JimmyWales, can help you there. :-).
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|980985622
1c1
< It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.  We prefer that you write BrilliantProse rather than PatentNonsense.
---
> It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.  We prefer that you write BrilliantProse rather than PatentNonsense.  Fnord.
------
ErnestHemingway|980985774
1a2,11
> 
> ----
> 
> Long articles should be divided into sections, and sections should be on different pages, possibly like this:
> 
>  /FamousatTwentyFiveThirtyaMaster
>  /FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar
> 
> If you break the article down into sections and place those on different pages, there will be no problem with having it be too long for this page.
> 
------
GreeK|980986438
6c6
< ''See also'':  GreekLanguage
---
> ''See also'':  GreekLanguage, HellenicGreece, GreekMythology
------
CryptanalysiS|980987088
9c9
< text, such as a letter beginning with "Dear Sir" or a computer session starting with "LOG IN." The last category represents the most favourable situation for the cryptanalyst in which he can
---
> text, such as a letter beginning with "Dear Sir" or a computer session starting with "LOG IN." The last category represents the most favourable situation for the CryptanalysT in which he can
18a19,24
> ----
> Famous attacks:
> 
> * EnigmA
> 
> * DeCss
------
MakeaNewPage|980987343
4c4
< 
---
> ----
5a6,7
> ----
> If you mean the convention of capitalizing one of the letters inside or at the end of a word, it's part of how the software works.  Last I heard, we're trying to rewrite the software so we can indicate links [[like this]] instead of LikeThis.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980987370
31c31,35
< Blah blah AlexanderTheGreat, Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
---
> From 492-449 BC the Persians made a series of unsuccesful attempts to conquer Greece.  The civilization that had developed their since the end of the bronze age was organized along entirely different lines than those of the Middle East, consisting of numerous small city-states.  Nonetheless they banded together and proved quite capable of dealing with the massive armies of their foe.
> 
> By the fourth century Persia had fallen into decline.  The campaigns of XenoPhon illustrated how very vulnerable it had become to attack by an army organized along Greek lines, but the Greek city-states had weakened each other irreparably through in-fighting.  However, in 338 the rising power of Macedonia overcame Greece, and under AlexanderTheGreat turned its attention to conquering Persia.  In little more than a decade the empire was conquered.
> 
> Blah blah Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|980987531
1c1
< It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.  We prefer that you write BrilliantProse rather than PatentNonsense.  Fnord.
---
> It's very easy to edit a wiki page.  Simply click on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of a wiki page.  This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the text of that wiki page.  Then simply type in whatever you want!  You can take credit for what you write (you can make your name into a wiki page: LarrySanger) or not.  Everything from the SubLime to the RidiCulous is possible.  We prefer that you write BrilliantProse rather than PatentNonsense.
------
HistoryOfLevant|980987854
31c31
< From 492-449 BC the Persians made a series of unsuccesful attempts to conquer Greece.  The civilization that had developed their since the end of the bronze age was organized along entirely different lines than those of the Middle East, consisting of numerous small city-states.  Nonetheless they banded together and proved quite capable of dealing with the massive armies of their foe.
---
> From 492-449 BC the Persians made a series of unsuccesful attempts to conquer Greece.  The civilization that had developed their since the end of the bronze age was organized along entirely different lines than those of the Middle East, consisting of numerous small city-states fielding citizen militiae.  Nonetheless they banded together and proved quite capable of dealing with the massive armies of their foe.
33c33
< By the fourth century Persia had fallen into decline.  The campaigns of XenoPhon illustrated how very vulnerable it had become to attack by an army organized along Greek lines, but the Greek city-states had weakened each other irreparably through in-fighting.  However, in 338 the rising power of Macedonia overcame Greece, and under AlexanderTheGreat turned its attention to conquering Persia.  In little more than a decade the empire was conquered.
---
> By the fourth century Persia had fallen into decline.  The campaigns of XenoPhon illustrated how very vulnerable it had become to attack by an army organized along Greek lines, but the Greek city-states had weakened each other irreparably through in-fighting.  However, in 338 BC the rising power of Macedonia overcame Greece, and under AlexanderTheGreat turned its attention eastward.  Persia was conquered in little more than a decade.
35c35,37
< Blah blah Seleucus, Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
---
> Alexander did not live long enough to conciliate his realm, and in the half-century following his death (323) it was carved up by his feuding generals.  The Antigonids established themselves in Macedonia, the Ptolemies in Egypt, and various small principalities appeared in northern Anatolia.  The greater share of the east went to the descendents of SeleucusNicator.  This period saw great innovations in mathematics, science, architecture, and the like, and Greeks founded cities throughout the east, which grew to be the world's first major metropolises.  Their culture did not, however, reach very far into the countryside.
> 
> Blah blah Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
------
NobelPrize/ChemistrY|980988216
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2000- AlanJHeeger, AlanGMacDiarmid, HidekiShirakawa 
------
NobelPrize/PhysiologyOrMedicine|980988284
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2000 - ArvidCarlsson, PaulGreengard, EricKandel 
------
NobelPrize/LiteraturE|980988312
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2000 - GaoXingjian 
------
ConsequentialIsm|980988314
28a29,30
> ----
> I'm very suspicious of any claim to the effect that words, particularly jargon, ''ought'' to mean anything; either they do or they don't.  If, as I think is clearly the case, there are ''some'' reasonably large portion of philosophers who use "consequentialism" to mean the broader concept than the way your sources use it, then the word is, as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not, ambiguous.  And the article should reflect that fact.  Besides, some word is needed, after all, for the concept that actions are to be evaluated based on their consequences, whether ''for'' everyone or ''for'' the agent only.  Utilitarianism and egoism have something in common that deontological theories don't have.  That's why "consequentialism" is sometimes used in this broader way. -- LarrySanger
------
NobelPrize/PeacE|980988353
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2000 - KimDaeJung 
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980988394
21c21
<  In the first case, the list is tauter, but lines do not wrap, so if a comment it added alongside a name it will just run off the side of the page.
---
> In the first case, the list is tauter, but lines do not wrap, so if a comment it added alongside a name it will just run off the side of the page.
68a69,86
> ----
> Other choices for lists include:
> 
> *2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
> *1999 -- RobertAMundell
> *1998 -- AmartyaSen  (Here is some sample long text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and so forth and longer until it will wrap around on almost anyone's browser.)
> *1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
> *1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
> 
> or even:
> 
> :2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
> :1999 -- RobertAMundell
> :1998 -- AmartyaSen  (Here is some sample long text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and so forth and longer until it will wrap around on almost anyone's browser.)
> :1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
> :1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
> 
> ...Both of which will wrap nicely.
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|980988601
86a87,88
> ---- 
> I'd say we should go for any of the wraping versions. if a text does not wrap it is too much a hassle for the reader. -- WojPob
------
SovietUnion|980989540
5c5
< The SovietUnion was the most genocidal regime in human history, murdering an estimated 62 million people.  The majority of these, some 42 million, were murdered by Stalin between 1929 and 1953.  After Stalin, the Soviet regime murdered over 6 million people within its own borders.  Perhaps the final act of murder was the VilniusMassacre, in which 14 people were killed by gunfire and tanks in Vilnius, Lithuania.  MikhailGorbachev ordered the killings just months after being awarded the NobelPeacePrize.
---
> The SovietUnion was the most genocidal regime in human history, murdering an estimated 62 million people.  The majority of these, some 42 million, were murdered by Stalin between 1929 and 1953.  After Stalin, the Soviet regime murdered over 6 million people within its own borders.  Perhaps the final act of murder was the VilniusMassacre, in which 14 people were killed by gunfire and tanks in Vilnius, Lithuania.  MikhailGorbachev ordered the killings just months after being awarded the NobelPrize.
------
EsperantoLanguage|980989805
0a1
> Until someone who knows about the topic decides to replace what was taken down, this'll keep the page from being empty.
1a3,16
> World's most-spoken ArtificialLanguage.  Created by LudovicLazarusZamenhof in 1887 as an attempt at a world language.  So far, best attempt yet.  An InflectedLanguage, with no genders and two cases, nominative and accusative.  The vocabulary draws mainly off RomanceLanguages, spelling is phonetic, and the morphology is of course extremely regular and easy to learn.
> 
>    ''esperi''             To hope
>    ''esperas''            Am, are, is hoping
>    ''esperis''            Was, were hoping
>    ''esperos''            Will be hoping
> 
>    ''esperanto(n)''       Hoper - nominative (accusative) noun
>    ''esperantoj(n)''      Hopers - nominative (accusative) noun
>    ''esperanta(n)''       Hoper's - nominative (accusative) adjective
>    ''esperantaj(n)''      Hopers' - nominative (accusative) adjective
> 
>    ''esperantino''        Hoper, female
>    ''esperantujo''        Land of hopers
------
ConsequentialIsm|980990775
30c30
< I'm very suspicious of any claim to the effect that words, particularly jargon, ''ought'' to mean anything; either they do or they don't.  If, as I think is clearly the case, there are ''some'' reasonably large portion of philosophers who use "consequentialism" to mean the broader concept than the way your sources use it, then the word is, as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not, ambiguous.  And the article should reflect that fact.  Besides, some word is needed, after all, for the concept that actions are to be evaluated based on their consequences, whether ''for'' everyone or ''for'' the agent only.  Utilitarianism and egoism have something in common that deontological theories don't have.  That's why "consequentialism" is sometimes used in this broader way. -- LarrySanger
---
> I'm very suspicious of any claim to the effect that words, particularly jargon, ''ought'' to mean anything; either they do or they don't.  If, as I think is clearly the case, there is ''some'' reasonably large portion of philosophers who use "consequentialism" to mean a broader concept than that meant by your sources, then the word is, as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not, ambiguous.  And the article should reflect that fact.  (While perhaps also acknowledging some popular distaste for one of the uses of the term.)  Besides, some word is needed, after all, for the concept that actions are to be evaluated based on their consequences, whether ''for'' everyone or ''for'' the agent only.  Utilitarianism and egoism have something in common that deontological theories don't have.  That's why "consequentialism" is sometimes used in this broader way. -- LarrySanger
------
ConsequentialIsm|980991547
30c30,34
< I'm very suspicious of any claim to the effect that words, particularly jargon, ''ought'' to mean anything; either they do or they don't.  If, as I think is clearly the case, there is ''some'' reasonably large portion of philosophers who use "consequentialism" to mean a broader concept than that meant by your sources, then the word is, as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not, ambiguous.  And the article should reflect that fact.  (While perhaps also acknowledging some popular distaste for one of the uses of the term.)  Besides, some word is needed, after all, for the concept that actions are to be evaluated based on their consequences, whether ''for'' everyone or ''for'' the agent only.  Utilitarianism and egoism have something in common that deontological theories don't have.  That's why "consequentialism" is sometimes used in this broader way. -- LarrySanger
---
> I'm very suspicious of any claim to the effect that words, particularly jargon, ''ought'' to mean anything; either they do or they don't.  If, as I think is clearly the case, there is ''some'' reasonably large portion of philosophers who use "consequentialism" to mean a broader concept than that meant by your sources, then the word is, as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not, ambiguous.  And the article should reflect that fact.  (While perhaps also acknowledging some popular distaste for one of the uses of the term.)  Besides, some word is needed, after all, for the concept that actions are to be evaluated based on their consequences, whether ''for'' everyone or ''for'' the agent only.  Utilitarianism and egoism have something in common that deontological theories don't have.  That's why "consequentialism" is sometimes used in this broader way. -- LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> 
> Suit yourself. I don't expect much in an "encylopedia" run by Objectivists!   -- CalvinOstrum
------
ConsequentialIsm|980995836
3c3
< Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with UtilitarianIsm, which is a mistake, as UtilitarianIsm is but one kind of consequentialism. Kinds of consequentialism can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" EgoIsm can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself is taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or the sum of sentient beings) is of the greatest moment. These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. Some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.
---
> Consequentialism is sometimes conflated with UtilitarianIsm, which is a mistake, as UtilitarianIsm is but one kind of consequentialism. Kinds of consequentialism--in a broad sense of 'consequentialism' that not all philosophers would countenance--can be distinguished by the subject who is supposed to enjoy the consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?" EgoIsm can be understood as individualist consequentialism according to which the consequences for the agent herself is taken to matter most. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be understood as collectivist consequentialism according to which the consequences for some large group (humanity perhaps, or the sum of sentient beings) is of the greatest moment. These views, while both consequentialist, can be in stark contrast. Individualist consequentialism may license actions which are good for the agent, but are deleterious to general welfare. Collectivist consequentialism may license actions that are good for the collectivity but deadly for individuals. Some environmentalists seem to take the entire environment or ecosystem to be the relevant patient of consequences. The entire universe might be the subject, the best action being the one that brings the most value into the universe, whatever that value might be.
34c34,36
< Suit yourself. I don't expect much in an "encylopedia" run by Objectivists!   -- CalvinOstrum
---
> Suit yourself. I don't expect much in an "encylopedia" run by Objectivists!   -- CalvinOstrum
> ----
> Just for the record, I don't regard myself as an Objectivist, and I will do my best not to let it be overrun by them.  :-)  Not that I have any serious beefs with Objectivists.  This wiki will become whatever its participants make it.  --LarrySanger
------
ConsequentialIsm|980998058
28a29
> 
29a31
> 
34a37
> 
36c39,44
< Just for the record, I don't regard myself as an Objectivist, and I will do my best not to let it be overrun by them.  :-)  Not that I have any serious beefs with Objectivists.  This wiki will become whatever its participants make it.  --LarrySanger
---
> 
> Just for the record, I don't regard myself as an Objectivist, and I will do my best not to let it be overrun by them.  :-)  Not that I have any serious beefs with Objectivists.  This wiki will become whatever its participants make it.  --LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> 
> You are at least a Fellow Traveller, as WillWilkinson seems also to be.  -- CalvinOstrum
------
ConsequentialIsm|981000319
44a45,48
> 
> ----
> 
> Maybe--but officially, I hold no views.  ;-) -- LarrySanger
------
AtlasShrugged/OwenKellogg|981001455
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the soory state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
> 
>  Owen Kellogg appears in:
>  /SectioN112 - Mentioned.
>  /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/OwenKellogg|981001468
1c1
< Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the soory state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
---
> Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the Manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the soory state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
------
AtlasShrugged/OwenKellogg|981001486
1c1
< Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the Manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the soory state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
---
> Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the Manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the sorry state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
------
AtlasShrugged/OwenKellogg|981001512
1c1
< Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the Manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the sorry state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
---
> Owen Kellogg is Assistant to the Manager of the Taggart Terminal in /NewYork.  He catches /DagnyTaggart's eye as one of the few competent men on staff.  After seeing the sorry state of the Ohio Division she decides to make him to its new Superintendent.  However, as soon as she returns to New York, Kellogg informs her that he is quiting his job.  He admits that he loves his work, but that's not enough to keep him.  He won't say why he is leaving or what he will do.
------
AtlasShrugged/PaulLarkin|981001876
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Paul Larkin is an unsuccessful, middle-aged businessman, a friend of the Rearden family, and a member of the /Looters.  In /SectioN121 Larkin visits /Philadelphia to warn /HankRearden of possible trouble from /Washington.  In /SectioN131 he meets with the other /Looters to work out a plan to bring Rearden down.  /JamesTaggart knows he is friends with /HankRearden and challenges his loyalty, and Larkin assures Taggart that he will go along with them.
> 
>  Paul Larkin appears in:
>   /SectioN121
>   /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/PhilipRearden|981002163
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Philip Rearden is the younger brother of /HankRearden.  He lives in his brother's home in /Philadelphia and is completely dependent on him.  He believes that the source of his sustenence is evil and would love to see him destroyed.  He has never had a career and spends his time perfunctorily working for various social groups.
------
AtlasShrugged/PhilipRearden|981002197
1c1,4
< Philip Rearden is the younger brother of /HankRearden.  He lives in his brother's home in /Philadelphia and is completely dependent on him.  He believes that the source of his sustenence is evil and would love to see him destroyed.  He has never had a career and spends his time perfunctorily working for various social groups.
---
> Philip Rearden is the younger brother of /HankRearden.  He lives in his brother's home in /Philadelphia and is completely dependent on him.  He believes that the source of his sustenence is evil and would love to see him destroyed.  He has never had a career and spends his time perfunctorily working for various social groups.
> 
>  Philip Rearden appears in:
>  /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardensMother|981002328
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /HankRearden's mother is unnamed (I think) in AtlasShrugged.  She lives with Rearden at his home in /Philadelphia.  She is involved in church-based charity work, and berates Rearden whenever she can.  She insults him by saying he was always selfish, even as a child.  She dotes on her weak son /PhilipRearden.
> 
>  Rearden's mother appears in:
>  /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/WesleyMouch|981002443
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A member of the /Looters and /HankRearden's man in /Washington.  Initially Wesley Mouch is the least powerful and least significant of the /Looters - the other members of this group feel they can look down upon him with impunity.
> 
>  Wesley Mouch appears in:
>  /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981002599
8a9
>  /JohnGalt
------
AtlasShrugged/JohnGalt|981002744
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The question "Who is John Galt" is repeatedly throughout AtlasShrugged.  Late into the book we learn the John Galt is the man who stopped the motor of the world and the leader of the /Strikers.  He is also the same character as /MysteryWorker.
> 
> There is a clothing store at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Village, Colorado called John Galt Ltd.  One presumes that, on occasion, a customer will ask, "Who is John Galt."
------
AtlasShrugged/Strikers|981003055
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The men of the mind who go on strike because they do not appreciate being exploited by the /Looters and demonized by a society who depends on them for their very existence.
> 
> The leader of the Strikers is /JohnGalt.
> 
> Other /Strikers include:
>  /FranciscoDAnconia
>  /RagnarDanneskjold
>  /RichardHalley
> 
> Characters who join the /Strikers in th course of the book include:
>  /HankRearden
>  /DagnyTaggart
------
AtlasShrugged/Strikers|981003120
1c1
< The men of the mind who go on strike because they do not appreciate being exploited by the /Looters and demonized by a society who depends on them for their very existence.
---
> The men of the mind who go on strike because they do not appreciate being exploited by the /Looters and demonized by a society who depends on them for its very existence.
10c10
< Characters who join the /Strikers in th course of the book include:
---
> Characters who join the /Strikers in the course of the book include:
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981003271
86a87,94
> 
> ----
> 
> I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I don't think a wiki is appropriate for a project like this. If your emphasis is on fast growth of the page database, you totally break all the existing structural systems of the wiki. For instance, RecentChanges is no longer functional. Secondly, wikis exist in a very [http://www.longnow.org long now]. You have time to consider what you add. A repository of information should be like this, I think. Encyclopaedia were invented by the Romans to summarize what the Greeks had taken centuries to come up with. Indeed, the Romans didn't derive much new; just bad summaries. Meanwhile, the Greeks were still chugging along deriving new things. 
> 
> It's more interesting to layer in more information, not just collect it, and then interpret the information. Wikis help you to '''collate''' the information into a reasonable order, and '''connect''' the information to '''derive''' new insights. These are valuable contributions--mere collection can be achieved through Google. But it takes time to resolve information. So, you have to move slower.
> 
> Quality is better than quantity. In my opinion, anyway. -- SunirShah
------
AtlasShrugged|981003434
2a3,4
> Readers should be warned that Atlas Shurgged is a mystery novel, and that this section and its numerous subsections contain a vast amount of information that will spoil the mystery.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnysFather|981005787
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Dagny's father (who is unnamed in AtlasShrugged) was the President of /TaggartTranscontinental prior to /JamesTaggart.  In /SectioN132 we learn he was "astonished and proud" of his daughter, but sad for her as well, and apparently not overly supportive of her desire to work for the railroad, though he did nothing to stop her.
> 
> Dagny's father is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN132
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981005792
94a95,104
> 
> ----
> 
> Too late!  We've already started!  :-)
> 
> I personally am very sympathetic with what you say here; I think quality is very important.  But if you look around, you'll see that quite a few pages here are of surprisingly good quality.  This suprises even me and I'm the one who pushed Jimbo to set up this wiki, and I am promoting it on NuPedia.  Perhaps you should have a look at NuPedia and see if that's more along the lines of what you would like to see; I suspect so.
> 
> One could plausibly argue against the substance of what you have to say above, though: the best way toward quality is, indeed, to open things wide and let many people participate and improve what's here.  Personally, I don't know if that's a very good argument; it's an empirical question, whether this sort of thing can work in the long run.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
> 
> Actually, we're just having fun, or I am.  WikiPedia is sort of a break from the more serious business of NuPedia for me.  But it might end up being a very valuable resource in itself.  Frankly, it doesn't much matter if it doesn't turn out to be a very valuable resource!  Regardless, we will have taught each other quite a lot.  I mean, I've already learned a fair bit just reading other people's articles! -- LarrySanger
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981005843
102c102
< One could plausibly argue against the substance of what you have to say above, though: the best way toward quality is, indeed, to open things wide and let many people participate and improve what's here.  Personally, I don't know if that's a very good argument; it's an empirical question, whether this sort of thing can work in the long run.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
---
> One could plausibly argue against the substance of what you have to say above, though: the best way toward quality is, indeed, to open things wide and let many people participate and improve what's here.  Personally, I don't know if that's a very good argument; it's an empirical question, whether this sort of thing can work in the long run.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
------
AtlasShrugged/EngineeR|981005911
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> EngineeR appears briefly in /SectioN112.  When /DagnyTaggart wakes up to find the /TaggartComet stalled on a siding, he explains to her why they stopped.  He represents the type of incompetent, initiativeless worker who is concerned only with following the rules so no one can blame hime for anything.
------
AtlasShrugged/EngineeR|981005929
1c1
< EngineeR appears briefly in /SectioN112.  When /DagnyTaggart wakes up to find the /TaggartComet stalled on a siding, he explains to her why they stopped.  He represents the type of incompetent, initiativeless worker who is concerned only with following the rules so no one can blame hime for anything.
---
> /EngineeR appears briefly in /SectioN112.  When /DagnyTaggart wakes up to find the /TaggartComet stalled on a siding, he explains to her why they stopped.  He represents the type of incompetent, initiativeless worker who is concerned only with following the rules so no one can blame hime for anything.
------
AtlasShrugged/FiremaN|981006144
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /FiremaN appears briefly in /SectioN112.  While /DagnyTaggart is trying to find out why the /TaggartComet has stalled, /FiremaN shows his amusement at how things like this happen.
------
AtlasShrugged/MrAyers|981006405
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /MrAyers is the head of the /AyersMusicPublishingCompany.  In /Section114 /DagnyTaggart calls him to inquire if /RichardHalley has written a fifth concerto.
>  
------
AtlasShrugged/MrAyers|981006421
1c1
< /MrAyers is the head of the /AyersMusicPublishingCompany.  In /Section114 /DagnyTaggart calls him to inquire if /RichardHalley has written a fifth concerto.
---
> /MrAyers is the head of the /AyersMusicPublishingCompany.  In /SectioN114 /DagnyTaggart calls him to inquire if /RichardHalley has written a fifth concerto.
------
AtlasShrugged|981006462
22a23
> * /Technology
------
AtlasShrugged|981007098
10a11,16
> Setting: 
> 
> Exactly when AtlasShrugged is meant to take place is kept deliberately vague.  There are numerous early 20th century technologies available, but the political situtation is clearly different from actual history.  It is as if history had changed around 1900, and the world went unimpeded down a gradual path towards socialism for perhaps 40 years, with no World War, and no rise of fascism in Europe.  There are many examples of early 20th century /Technology in Atlas Shrugged, but no post-war technologies such as jet planes, atomic weapons, helicoptors, or television.
> 
> Most of the action in Atlas Shrugged takes place in the /UnitedStates.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged|981007121
11c11
< Setting: 
---
> <b>Setting:</b>
------
AtlasShrugged/Technology|981007230
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <b>Real-world technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
>  Airplanes
>  Automobile
>  Diesel engines
>  Phonograph records
>  Radio
>  Telephone
> 
> </b>Fictional technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
>  /ReardenMetal
------
AtlasShrugged/Technology|981007239
9c9
< </b>Fictional technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
---
> <b>Fictional technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
------
AtlasShrugged/Technology|981007251
1c1
< <b>Real-world technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
---
> <b>Real-world technology in AtlasShrugged:</b>
9c9
< <b>Fictional technology in /AtlasShrugged:</b>
---
> <b>Fictional technology in AtlasShrugged:</b>
------
AtlasShrugged/MrsNathanielTaggart|981007507
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The wife of /NathanielTaggart is mentioned briefly in /SectioN132.  According to legend, Nathaniel Taggart put his wife up as collateral for a loan, which her consent.  She was a dignified southern lady from a good family, from which she was disinherited when she ran off with the Nat Taggart, still a poor adventurer at the time.
------
AtlasShrugged/NathanielTaggart|981007926
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A character meant to symbolize the so-called RobberBarons of America's industrial age.
> 
> Nat Taggart was the founder of /TaggartTranscontinental.  He built his railroad without any government handouts, and ran the business for no other reason than to turn a profit.  He began as a penniless adventurer and ended up as one of the wealthiest men in the country.  Many stories are told about him: that he once killed a state legislator who tried to use his office to destroy the railroad; that he once put his wife up as collateral for a loan.  He never earned money by force or fraud, and never apologized for becoming wealthy and successful.  He was one of the most hated men of his time.
> 
> Nathaniel Taggart is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber1|981007986
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /Section112, the man who tells /DagnyTaggart how long the train has been stopped after she wakes up.
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber1|981008006
1c1
< In /Section112, the man who tells /DagnyTaggart how long the train has been stopped after she wakes up.
---
> In /SectioN112, the man who tells /DagnyTaggart how long the train has been stopped after she wakes up.
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber2|981008221
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A passenger on the /TaggartComet in /SectioN112.  He is talking with /ConductoR, /FiremaN, and /EngineeR when /DagnyTaggart approaches to find out why the train has stopped.  When she acts as if this sort of problem is unusual and shouldn't happen, he tells her she doesn't understand railroads.
------
AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN|981008305
4a5,6
> Later, after Dagny instructs the train crew how to proceed, he asks a co-worker who she is, and learns she is the one who runs /TaggartTranscontinental.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber3|981008461
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An economics professor and a passenger on a train that passes /ReardenSteel in /SectioN121.  He gazes at the steel mill and focuses on the fact that /HankRearden ha sproudly put his name on the company.  He scoffs at this, dismissing the individual as unimportant.
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber4|981008544
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An journalist and a passenger on a train that passes /ReardenSteel in /SectioN121.  He gazes at the steel mill and focuses on the fact that /HankRearden has proudly put his name on the company.  He decides he will ridicule Rearden in a future column by calling him the sort of man who sticks his name on everything.
------
AtlasShrugged/PassengerNumber3|981008559
1c1
< An economics professor and a passenger on a train that passes /ReardenSteel in /SectioN121.  He gazes at the steel mill and focuses on the fact that /HankRearden ha sproudly put his name on the company.  He scoffs at this, dismissing the individual as unimportant.
---
> An economics professor and a passenger on a train that passes /ReardenSteel in /SectioN121.  He gazes at the steel mill and focuses on the fact that /HankRearden has proudly put his name on the company.  He scoffs at this, dismissing the individual as unimportant.
------
AtlasShrugged/WaiteR|981008606
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Serves drinks to the /Looters in /SectioN131.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981008648
20a21
>  /Strikers
------
AtlasShrugged/Strikers|981008720
10a11,12
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EllisWyatt
12c14,15
<  /DagnyTaggart
---
>  /McNamara
>  /OwenKellogg
------
AtlasShrugged/JohnGalt|981008749
3c3
< There is a clothing store at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Village, Colorado called John Galt Ltd.  One presumes that, on occasion, a customer will ask, "Who is John Galt."
---
> There is a clothing store at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Village, Colorado called John Galt Ltd.  One presumes that, on occasion, a customer unknowingly walks in and asks, "Who is John Galt."
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981008787
23c23
< 
---
> ----
------
EsperantoLanguage|981008932
3c3
< World's most-spoken ArtificialLanguage.  Created by LudovicLazarusZamenhof in 1887 as an attempt at a world language.  So far, best attempt yet.  An InflectedLanguage, with no genders and two cases, nominative and accusative.  The vocabulary draws mainly off RomanceLanguages, spelling is phonetic, and the morphology is of course extremely regular and easy to learn.
---
> Most-spoken of the ArtificialLanguages.  Created by LudovicLazarusZamenhof in 1887 as an attempt at a world language.  So far, best attempt yet.  An InflectedLanguage, with no genders and two cases, nominative and accusative.  The vocabulary draws mainly off RomanceLanguages, spelling is phonetic, and the morphology is of course extremely regular and easy to learn.
16c16,18
<    ''esperantujo''        Land of hopers
---
>    ''esperantujo''        Land of hopers
> 
> There was also another language, Ido, based on Esperanto that enjoyed a brief popularity in the early 1900s.
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981009089
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Phoenix-Durango is an old, small railroad located in the Southwest that has been insignificant for most of its existence.  However, the Phoenix-Durango grows rapidly when /EllisWyatt revives the economy of /Colorado, and /TaggartTranscontinental's /RioNorteLine fails to service Wyatt adequately.  Later, /JamesTaggart conspires to get the Phoenix-Durango regulated out of business.
> 
> The Phoenix-Durango is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN131 - Alluded to.
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenCoal|981009149
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A business founded by /HankRearden prior to the founding of /ReardenSteel.  It is mentioned in /SectioN121.
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenLimestone|981009165
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A business founded by /HankRearden prior to the founding of /ReardenSteel.  It is mentioned in /SectioN121.
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenOre|981009193
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The first business founded by /HankRearden.  It is mentioned in /SectioN121.
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|981009338
20a21
>  /Pennsylvania
------
AtlasShrugged/Pennsylvania|981009484
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Home of /ReardenSteel.  A newspaper ridiculed Rearden for starting a steel company, claiming "The historical cycle of steelmaking in Pennsylvania is running down."
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenSteel|981009684
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A company founded by /HankRearden.  Rearden bought and abandoned steel mill in /Philadelphia at a time when all the experts thought such a venture would be hopeless.  he turned it into the most reliable and profitable steel company in the country.  As /DagnyTaggart struggle to save /TaggartTranscontinental she becomes increasingly dependent on Rearden Steel.
> 
> Rearden Stell is mention in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN121
>  /SectioN131 - Alluded to.
------
AtlasShrugged/UnitedLocomotiveWorks|981009907
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An incompetent company that is supposed to deliver Diesel engines to /TaggartTranscontinental.  The order is delayed in perpetuity, and president of the company refuses to ever give a straight answer why this is so.
> 
> The United Locomotive Works is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN133
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|981009927
9c9
<  /UnitedLocomotiveWorks (/SectioN133)
---
>  /UnitedLocomotiveWorks
------
AtlasShrugged/WyattOil|981010271
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The oil company run by /EllisWyatt.  Ellis Wyatt's father had squeezed a living out of the oil fields in /Colorado, but when Ellis Wyatt took over the business took off.  He discovered a technique for extracting oil from wells that had been abandoned as dried up.  The success of Wyatt Oil that followed this discovery suddenly and unexpectedly turned /Colorado into the leading economy in the country.
> 
> Wyatt Oil traditionally relied on /TaggartTranscontinental's /RioNorteLine to ship its oil.  But when that company could not grow fast enough to keep up with the booming /Colorado economy, Ellis Wyatt started using the small but well-managed /PhoenixDurango instead.  This prompted /JamesTaggart to make deals with his friends in /Washington to shut the /PhoenixDurango down.
------
HalleysFifthConcerto|981010517
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> When /RichardHalley disappeared he had written only four concertos.  In /SectioN112 /DagnyTaggart, and enthusiastic fan of /RichardHalley's music, hears an unfamiliar theme being whistled by a /BrakemaN on the /TaggartComet.  She asks him what it is and he says Halley's Fifth Concerto.  When Dagny says Halley only wrote four concertos, the /BrakemaN says he made a mistake and denies knowing what the song was.
> 
> Later, Dagny calls /MrAyers to find out if Halley wrote a fifth concerto.  He says he did not.
> 
> Halley's Fifth Concerto is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN112
>  /SectioN114
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981010544
2c2
<  HalleysFifthConcerto (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
---
>  /HalleysFifthConcerto (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
------
AtlasShrugged/HalleysFifthConcerto|981010552
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> When /RichardHalley disappeared he had written only four concertos.  In /SectioN112 /DagnyTaggart, and enthusiastic fan of /RichardHalley's music, hears an unfamiliar theme being whistled by a /BrakemaN on the /TaggartComet.  She asks him what it is and he says Halley's Fifth Concerto.  When Dagny says Halley only wrote four concertos, the /BrakemaN says he made a mistake and denies knowing what the song was.
> 
> Later, Dagny calls /MrAyers to find out if Halley wrote a fifth concerto.  He says he did not.
> 
> Halley's Fifth Concerto is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN112
>  /SectioN114
------
HalleysFifthConcerto|981010574
1,7c1
< When /RichardHalley disappeared he had written only four concertos.  In /SectioN112 /DagnyTaggart, and enthusiastic fan of /RichardHalley's music, hears an unfamiliar theme being whistled by a /BrakemaN on the /TaggartComet.  She asks him what it is and he says Halley's Fifth Concerto.  When Dagny says Halley only wrote four concertos, the /BrakemaN says he made a mistake and denies knowing what the song was.
< 
< Later, Dagny calls /MrAyers to find out if Halley wrote a fifth concerto.  He says he did not.
< 
< Halley's Fifth Concerto is mentioned in:
<  /SectioN112
<  /SectioN114
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/HalleysFifthConcerto
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981010591
3,5c3,5
<  NationalAllianceofRailroads (/SectioN131)
<  NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (/SectioN131)
<  ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, /SectioN121, /SectioN131)
---
>  /NationalAllianceofRailroads (/SectioN131)
>  /NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (/SectioN131)
>  /ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, /SectioN121, /SectioN131)
8,10c8,10
<  SanSebastianMines (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
<  TaggartComet (/SectioN112, /SectioN113)
<  WyattOilFields (/SectioN111)
---
>  /SanSebastianMines (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
>  /TaggartComet (/SectioN112, /SectioN113)
>  /WyattOilFields (/SectioN111)
------
AtlasShrugged/NationalAllianceofRailroads|981010768
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An industry group that uses political pull to get its way.  /OrrenBoyle has friends on the National Alliance of Railroads, and he gets them to support legislation that will help ruin a competitor of /TaggartTranscontinental.
> 
> The National Alliance of Railroads if mentioned in:
>  /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries|981010851
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An industry group that uses political pull to get its way. /JamesTaggart has friends on the National Council of Metal Industries, and he gets them to support legislation that will hurt /ReardenSteel and help /AssociatedSteel.
>  
> The National Council of Metal Industries is mentioned in: 
> 
>  /SectioN131
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/NationalAllianceofRailroads|981010864
3,4c3,4
< The National Alliance of Railroads if mentioned in:
<  /SectioN131
---
> The National Alliance of Railroads is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN131
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981011244
104c104,109
< Actually, we're just having fun, or I am.  WikiPedia is sort of a break from the more serious business of NuPedia for me.  But it might end up being a very valuable resource in itself.  Frankly, it doesn't much matter if it doesn't turn out to be a very valuable resource!  Regardless, we will have taught each other quite a lot.  I mean, I've already learned a fair bit just reading other people's articles! -- LarrySanger
---
> Actually, we're just having fun, or I am.  WikiPedia is sort of a break from the more serious business of NuPedia for me.  But it might end up being a very valuable resource in itself.  Frankly, it doesn't much matter if it doesn't turn out to be a very valuable resource!  Regardless, we will have taught each other quite a lot.  I mean, I've already learned a fair bit just reading other people's articles! -- LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> Personally, I think wiki is a perfect tool for collection information, if only because of the ease of editing text.  That way information can go in quickly, and get validated or added to as necessary, without a lot of overhead.
> 
> I would say that SunirShah is wrong about this breaking the structure of wiki.  Rather, I think what it does is break the ''culture'' of wiki, and thus the old structure can't serve properly in their old roles.  But there's nothing to stop WikiPedia from developing its own style, with things like RecentChanges filling different niches.  And in fact, as much as I like wiki, I would say that's a good thing.  -- JoshuaGrosse
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981011317
109c109,111
< I would say that SunirShah is wrong about this breaking the structure of wiki.  Rather, I think what it does is break the ''culture'' of wiki, and thus the old structure can't serve properly in their old roles.  But there's nothing to stop WikiPedia from developing its own style, with things like RecentChanges filling different niches.  And in fact, as much as I like wiki, I would say that's a good thing.  -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> I would say that SunirShah is wrong about this breaking the structure of wiki.  Rather, I think what it does is break the ''culture'' of wiki, and thus the old structure can't serve properly in their old roles.  But there's nothing to stop WikiPedia from developing its own style, with things like RecentChanges filling different niches.  And in fact, as much as I like wiki, I would say that's a good thing.
> 
> Admittedly, though, Sunir has a lot more experience with wiki than I do. -- JoshuaGross
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981011334
111c111
< Admittedly, though, Sunir has a lot more experience with wiki than I do. -- JoshuaGross
---
> Admittedly, though, Sunir has a lot more experience with wiki than I do. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenMetal|981011469
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A metal alloy invented by /HankRearden.  It is lighter than traditional steel but stronger, and is to steel what steel was to iron.  It is described as bluish-green.
> 
> Initially no one is willing to use Rearden because no one wants to stick his neck out and be the first to try it.  Finally, /DagnyTaggart places an order for Rearden Metal when she needs rails to rebuild the dying /RioNorteLine.
> 
> The first thing made from Rearden Metal is a /Bracelet.
> 
> Rearden Metal appears in:
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN121
>  /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981011512
2,5c2,5
<  /HalleysFifthConcerto (/SectioN112, /SectioN114)
<  /NationalAllianceofRailroads (/SectioN131)
<  /NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (/SectioN131)
<  /ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, /SectioN121, /SectioN131)
---
>  /HalleysFifthConcerto
>  /NationalAllianceofRailroads
>  /NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries
>  /ReardenMetal
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981011530
0a1
>  /Bracelet
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenMetal|981011636
1c1
< A metal alloy invented by /HankRearden.  It is lighter than traditional steel but stronger, and is to steel what steel was to iron.  It is described as bluish-green.
---
> A metal alloy invented by /HankRearden.  It is lighter than traditional steel but stronger, and is to steel what steel was to iron.  It is described as greenish-blue.
10c10
<  /SectioN131
---
>  /SectioN131
------
AtlasShrugged/Bracelet|981011850
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The very first thing made from /ReardenMetal is a bracelet.  The bracelet symbolizes the value created by /HankRearden's long struggle to invent /ReardenMetal.  When he gives it to /LillianRearden as a present she says "It's fully as valuable as a piece of railroad rails."  However, Lillian fully grasps the significance of the gift - her snide remark is her way of denigrating her husband's ethos.
> 
> Later, at a party, when Lillian wears the bracelet as a joke and makes fun of it, /DagnyTaggart offers to buy it from her.
------
AtlasShrugged/Bracelet|981011892
3c3,6
< Later, at a party, when Lillian wears the bracelet as a joke and makes fun of it, /DagnyTaggart offers to buy it from her.
---
> Later, at a party, when Lillian wears the bracelet as a joke and makes fun of it, /DagnyTaggart offers to buy it from her.
> 
> The bracelet appears in:
>  /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981012177
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A copper mining project in /Mexico founded by /FranciscoDAnconia.  Francisco's reputation as a businessman is so great that investors flock to him, begging to invest money in the enterprise.  Investors include /JamesTaggart and /OrrenBoyle.  /JamesTaggart goes so far as to build a new branch of /TaggartTranscontinental, the /SanSebastianLine, to serve the mines, sinking $30 million into the project.  When the development of the mines appears complete, the Mexican government nationalizes them as well as the /SanSebastianLine, only to discover there is no copper and there never was.
> 
> The San Sebastian Mines appear in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN131
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981012208
1c1
< A copper mining project in /Mexico founded by /FranciscoDAnconia.  Francisco's reputation as a businessman is so great that investors flock to him, begging to invest money in the enterprise.  Investors include /JamesTaggart and /OrrenBoyle.  /JamesTaggart goes so far as to build a new branch of /TaggartTranscontinental, the /SanSebastianLine, to serve the mines, sinking $30 million into the project.  When the development of the mines appears complete, the Mexican government nationalizes them as well as the /SanSebastianLine, only to discover there is no copper and there never was.
---
> A copper mining project in /Mexico founded by /FranciscoDAnconia.  Francisco's reputation as a businessman is so great that investors flock to him, begging to invest money in the enterprise.  Investors include /JamesTaggart and /OrrenBoyle.  James Taggart goes so far as to build a new branch of /TaggartTranscontinental, the /SanSebastianLine, to serve the mines, sinking $30 million into the project.  When the development of the mines appears complete, the Mexican government nationalizes them as well as the San Sebastian Line, only to discover there is no copper and there never was.
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartComet|981012330
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Taggart Comet is /TaggartTranscontinental's flagship train.  It runs from /NewYork to /SanFrancisco and has never been late.
> 
> The Taggart Comet appears in:
>  /SectioN112
>  /SectioN113
------
AtlasShrugged/WyattOilFields|981012454
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Wyatt Oil Fields are in Colorado.  They are a bunch of old, abandoned oil wells that were revived by a new technique invented by /EllisWyatt.  This has almost single-handedly revitalized the economy of Colorado.
> 
> The Wyatt Oil Fields appear in:
>  /SectioN111
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981012478
9,11c9,11
<  /SanSebastianMines (/SectioN111, /SectioN131, /SectioN132)
<  /TaggartComet (/SectioN112, /SectioN113)
<  /WyattOilFields (/SectioN111)
---
>  /SanSebastianMines
>  /TaggartComet
>  /WyattOilFields
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981013358
105a106,107
> I think NuPedia is really good. I can see what you mean about this being a play area, though, but I think you might also benefit from a few other things that you can propogate back to NuPedia, like maybe MeatBall:BackLink""ing, MeatBall:AccidentalLink""ing, MeatBall:SoftSecurity, etc. That would be really cool. -- SunirShah
> 
111a114,119
> 
> I think that the rhythm will settle down in a few months. Right now, the excitement has outstripped the technology, as you have noticed from the UgLy links that are being made. Free-form linking may not be a bad idea here, but more thinking about naming conventions may be better.
> 
> I've been thinking lately about the differences between the technology of the wiki, the culture of a wiki, and the medium of a wiki. I'm fairly certain the culture of a wiki is necessary to keep it stable. Hence, MeatBall:SoftSecurity. But I'm interested in other successful models. Right now, I'm certain what's happening here is not good. It will hurt you in a year.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind. There are two audiences to write for on a wiki: the one today and the one five years from now. -- SunirShah
------
TimShell/TimeLine|981014437
3a4
>  - /Date010131
------
TimShell/Date010131|981014774
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2001, TimShell got his hair cut.  He also lifted weights for 15 minutes at /FitnessWest.  As is generally the case, he could not sleep after lifting weights (he is no longer baffled by this apparent paradox).  And so he stayed up late into the night doing all manner of wiki-related things.  Additionally on this day, TimShell broiled two turkey breast filets; he anticipated having turkey for breakfast and lunch the following day.  TimShell's stock were down 1.8% on the vigorous selloff the followed the Fed's bullish lowering of interest rates by 50 basis points.  TimShell is considering buying into this weakness, and has his eyes on Intel and Cisco, and the S&P 500 Index (SPY).
------
AnchorageAlaska|981014825
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> With about 247,000 residents according [http://www.muni.org/Services/Departments/Com/Research/popucvr.htm a 1998 estimate], Anchorage is the largest city in the state of AlaskA, comprising approximately half of the state's population.  Anchorage is situated in the south-central region of Alaska, 61 degrees latitude (about the same as Stockholm and St. Petersburg), -149 degrees longitude (about the same as Hawaii), on a triangular-shaped peninsula bordered on the east by the rugged, scenic, and eminently hike-worthy ChugachMountains, on the northwest by the KnikArm, and on the southwest by the TurnagainArm, both of which are arms of the CookInlet.
> 
> Despite having wide and treacherous mudflats rather than beaches, Anchorage is a major port.  Major industries include oil, tourism, and the military.  There are two strategically important military bases bordering Anchorage on the north: ElmendorfAirForceBase and FortRichardson.  Nearly all tourists pass through Anchorage at some stage of their journeys in AlaskA.  Not suprisingly, summer is tourist season, and downtown Anchorage, as well as the highways leading north and south of town, are typically teeming with tourists then.
> 
> Average summer temperatures are, approximately, 60-75 degrees Fahrenheit; average winter temperatures are about 0-20 degrees.  The weather on any given day and for entire seasons can be extremely unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures; others, just a foot or two of snow and constant and annoying (to residents) thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This forces Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days; then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  For months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return in the dark.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
> 
> Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness, and a love of the outdoors.
> 
> Following the massive 1964 GoodFridayEarthquake, there was set a limit on height of buildings in Anchorage; the tallest buildings are 21 stories high.  Though space is limited in the "Anchorage bowl" as locals call the peninsula on which the city is located, many parks, greenbelts, and other undeveloped areas can be found within the city itself, making it a particularly attractive city to live in for nature lovers.
> 
> There is a branch of the UniversityofAlaska in east-central Anchorage, the quality of which, in most departments, lags that of flagship University of Alaska-Fairbanks.  Despite the remoteness of the location, the arts thrive in Anchorage.  The city boasts a symphony orchestra, an opera company and concert association, and numerous independent performance groups.  There are even weekly sessions of IrishTraditionalMusic and other sorts of music.
------
AnchorageAlaska|981016624
1c1
< With about 247,000 residents according [http://www.muni.org/Services/Departments/Com/Research/popucvr.htm a 1998 estimate], Anchorage is the largest city in the state of AlaskA, comprising approximately half of the state's population.  Anchorage is situated in the south-central region of Alaska, 61 degrees latitude (about the same as Stockholm and St. Petersburg), -149 degrees longitude (about the same as Hawaii), on a triangular-shaped peninsula bordered on the east by the rugged, scenic, and eminently hike-worthy ChugachMountains, on the northwest by the KnikArm, and on the southwest by the TurnagainArm, both of which are arms of the CookInlet.
---
> With about 247,000 residents according [http://www.muni.org/Services/Departments/Com/Research/popucvr.htm a 1998 estimate], Anchorage is the largest city in the state of AlaskA, composing a bit less than half of the state's population.  Anchorage is situated in the south-central region of Alaska, 61 degrees latitude (about the same as Stockholm and St. Petersburg), -149 degrees longitude (about the same as Hawaii), on a triangular-shaped peninsula bordered on the east by the rugged, scenic, and eminently hike-worthy ChugachMountains, on the northwest by the KnikArm, and on the southwest by the TurnagainArm, both of which are arms of the CookInlet.
3c3
< Despite having wide and treacherous mudflats rather than beaches, Anchorage is a major port.  Major industries include oil, tourism, and the military.  There are two strategically important military bases bordering Anchorage on the north: ElmendorfAirForceBase and FortRichardson.  Nearly all tourists pass through Anchorage at some stage of their journeys in AlaskA.  Not suprisingly, summer is tourist season, and downtown Anchorage, as well as the highways leading north and south of town, are typically teeming with tourists then.
---
> Despite having wide and treacherous mudflats rather than beaches, Anchorage is a major port.  Major industries include oil, tourism, and the military.  There are two strategically important U.S. military bases bordering Anchorage on the north: ElmendorfAirForceBase and FortRichardson.  Nearly all tourists pass through Anchorage at some stage of their journeys in AlaskA.  Not suprisingly, summer is tourist season, and downtown Anchorage, as well as the highways leading north and south of town, are typically teeming with tourists then.
5c5
< Average summer temperatures are, approximately, 60-75 degrees Fahrenheit; average winter temperatures are about 0-20 degrees.  The weather on any given day and for entire seasons can be extremely unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures; others, just a foot or two of snow and constant and annoying (to residents) thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This forces Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days; then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  For months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return in the dark.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
---
> Average summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days; then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return in the dark.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
7c7
< Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness, and a love of the outdoors.
---
> Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness, and a love of the outdoors.  There is, even among businesspeople in Anchorage, a tendency to "dress down."  This, and a sort of frontier spirit that still lives on in Alaska, gives Anchorage a relatively casual, relaxed atmosphere compared to some other American cities.
9c9
< Following the massive 1964 GoodFridayEarthquake, there was set a limit on height of buildings in Anchorage; the tallest buildings are 21 stories high.  Though space is limited in the "Anchorage bowl" as locals call the peninsula on which the city is located, many parks, greenbelts, and other undeveloped areas can be found within the city itself, making it a particularly attractive city to live in for nature lovers.
---
> Following the massive 1964 GoodFridayEarthquake, there was set a limit on height of buildings in Anchorage; the tallest buildings are 21 stories high, but the city nonetheless has an attractive skyline, particular with the ChugachMountains, CookInlet, or an oft-visible MountMcKinley (also known as DenalI) as a backdrop.  Though space is limited in the "Anchorage bowl" as locals call the peninsula on which the city is located, many parks, greenbelts, and other undeveloped areas can be found within the city itself, making it a particularly attractive city to live in for nature lovers.  Over the past thirty years, however, many of these undeveloped areas have filled in with houses, strip malls, and other development.  Nonethless, there is an enormous amount of land under the Anchorage municipal control: some 1,955 square miles (about the size of Delaware).
11c11,15
< There is a branch of the UniversityofAlaska in east-central Anchorage, the quality of which, in most departments, lags that of flagship University of Alaska-Fairbanks.  Despite the remoteness of the location, the arts thrive in Anchorage.  The city boasts a symphony orchestra, an opera company and concert association, and numerous independent performance groups.  There are even weekly sessions of IrishTraditionalMusic and other sorts of music.
---
> There is a branch of the UniversityofAlaska in east-central Anchorage, the quality of which, in most departments, lags that of flagship University of Alaska-Fairbanks.  Despite the remoteness of the location, the arts thrive in Anchorage.  The city boasts a symphony orchestra, an opera company and concert association, and numerous independent performance groups.  There are even weekly sessions of IrishTraditionalMusic and other sorts of music.
> 
> There are other features of Anchorage that make it unique: the huge tidal range, second in the world; multiple, beautiful cross-country ski trails; the FurRendezvous festival, held each February; a huge portion of airplane pilots (with several airports and landing strips in the city or nearby); a very low population density for a city its size; frequent earthquakes; erupting volcanos nearby (to the southwest, in the AlaskaRange, there are active volcanos such as MountStAugustine, IliamnaVolcano, and others); its extreme youth (it was founded in 1915); and much else besides.  And despite all this, Anchorage is definitely an ''American'' city, replete with an enterprising business sensibility, large shopping malls, a lot of automobiles (one can't easily move about by foot and public transportation in the middle of winter), areas of town resembling suburbs, a downtown skyline, etc.
> 
> For more information, see the website of the [Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau http://www.anchorage.net/] or the [http://www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/Anchorage/ Municipality of Anchorage].
------
AlaskA|981016660
1c1
< Capital, Juneau.  Largest city, Anchorage (over 250,000 last time I checked).  There are places in Alaska that are just BLM land or National Forest land but they're more spectacular than many national parks in the the lower 48.  Every Alaska state park would be a national park in the lower 48.
---
> Capital, Juneau.  Largest city, Anchorage (see AnchorageAlaska).  There are places in Alaska that are just BLM land or National Forest land but they're more spectacular than many national parks in the the lower 48.  Every Alaska state park would be a national park in the lower 48.
------
AnchorageAlaska|981017416
1c1
< With about 247,000 residents according [http://www.muni.org/Services/Departments/Com/Research/popucvr.htm a 1998 estimate], Anchorage is the largest city in the state of AlaskA, composing a bit less than half of the state's population.  Anchorage is situated in the south-central region of Alaska, 61 degrees latitude (about the same as Stockholm and St. Petersburg), -149 degrees longitude (about the same as Hawaii), on a triangular-shaped peninsula bordered on the east by the rugged, scenic, and eminently hike-worthy ChugachMountains, on the northwest by the KnikArm, and on the southwest by the TurnagainArm, both of which are arms of the CookInlet.
---
> With about 247,000 residents according [http://www.muni.org/Services/Departments/Com/Research/popucvr.htm a 1998 estimate], Anchorage is the largest city in the state of AlaskA, composing a bit less than half of the state's population.  Anchorage is located in the south-central region of Alaska, 61 degrees latitude (about the same as Stockholm and St. Petersburg), -149 degrees longitude (about the same as Hawaii), northeast of the AlaskaPeninsula, KodiakIsland, and CookInlet, due north of the KenaiPeninsula, northwest of PrinceWilliamSound and ThePanhandleOfAlaska, and south of most everything else in the state (nearly due south of MountMcKinley''''/''''DenalI).  The city is situated on a triangular-shaped peninsula bordered on the east by the rugged, scenic, and eminently hike-worthy ChugachMountains, on the northwest by the KnikArm, and on the southwest by the TurnagainArm, both of which are arms of the CookInlet.
3c3
< Despite having wide and treacherous mudflats rather than beaches, Anchorage is a major port.  Major industries include oil, tourism, and the military.  There are two strategically important U.S. military bases bordering Anchorage on the north: ElmendorfAirForceBase and FortRichardson.  Nearly all tourists pass through Anchorage at some stage of their journeys in AlaskA.  Not suprisingly, summer is tourist season, and downtown Anchorage, as well as the highways leading north and south of town, are typically teeming with tourists then.
---
> Despite having wide and treacherous mudflats rather than beaches, Anchorage is a major port, as well as a terminus of the famous AlaskaRailroad.  Major industries include oil, tourism, and the military.  There are two strategically important U.S. military bases bordering Anchorage on the north: ElmendorfAirForceBase and FortRichardson.  Nearly all tourists pass through Anchorage at some stage of their journeys in AlaskA.  Not suprisingly, summer is tourist season, and downtown Anchorage, as well as the highways leading north and south of town, are typically teeming with tourists then.
5c5
< Average summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days; then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return in the dark.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
---
> Average daytime summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average daytime winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days, and then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return home in the dark.  Those who don't study or work next to a window can go all week long without seeing the sun.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
7c7
< Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness, and a love of the outdoors.  There is, even among businesspeople in Anchorage, a tendency to "dress down."  This, and a sort of frontier spirit that still lives on in Alaska, gives Anchorage a relatively casual, relaxed atmosphere compared to some other American cities.
---
> Anchoragites exemplify many of the qualities to be found among Alaskans generally: independence, friendliness, practical-mindedness, and a love of the outdoors.  There is, even among businesspeople in Anchorage, a tendency to "dress down."  This, and a sort of frontier spirit that still lives on in Alaska generally, gives Anchorage a relatively casual, relaxed atmosphere compared to some other American cities.  (These cultural characteristics are only more exaggerated the farther one moves out of the city into the rest of AlaskA.)
9c9
< Following the massive 1964 GoodFridayEarthquake, there was set a limit on height of buildings in Anchorage; the tallest buildings are 21 stories high, but the city nonetheless has an attractive skyline, particular with the ChugachMountains, CookInlet, or an oft-visible MountMcKinley (also known as DenalI) as a backdrop.  Though space is limited in the "Anchorage bowl" as locals call the peninsula on which the city is located, many parks, greenbelts, and other undeveloped areas can be found within the city itself, making it a particularly attractive city to live in for nature lovers.  Over the past thirty years, however, many of these undeveloped areas have filled in with houses, strip malls, and other development.  Nonethless, there is an enormous amount of land under the Anchorage municipal control: some 1,955 square miles (about the size of Delaware).
---
> There was a massive, incredibly destructive EarthQuake in 1964 called the GoodFridayEarthquake, and the earthquake danger has prompted a limit on the height of buildings in Anchorage; the tallest buildings are 21 stories high.  But the city has an attractive skyline nonetheless, particular with the ChugachMountains, CookInlet, or an oft-visible MountMcKinley (also known as DenalI) as a backdrop.  Though space is limited in the "Anchorage bowl" as locals call the peninsula on which the city is located, many parks, greenbelts, and other undeveloped areas can be found within the city itself, making it a particularly attractive city to live in for nature lovers (to say nothing of the attractions available just a short distance outside the city).  Over the past thirty years, however, many of these undeveloped areas have filled in with houses, strip malls, and other development.  Nonethless, there is an enormous amount of land under the Anchorage municipal control: some 1,955 square miles (about the size of Delaware).
11c11
< There is a branch of the UniversityofAlaska in east-central Anchorage, the quality of which, in most departments, lags that of flagship University of Alaska-Fairbanks.  Despite the remoteness of the location, the arts thrive in Anchorage.  The city boasts a symphony orchestra, an opera company and concert association, and numerous independent performance groups.  There are even weekly sessions of IrishTraditionalMusic and other sorts of music.
---
> There is a branch of the UniversityofAlaska in east-central Anchorage, the quality of which, in most departments, lags that of the flagship University of Alaska-Fairbanks.  Despite the remoteness of the location, the arts thrive in Anchorage.  The city boasts a symphony orchestra, an opera company and concert association, and numerous independent performance groups.  There are even weekly sessions of IrishTraditionalMusic and other sorts of music.
13c13
< There are other features of Anchorage that make it unique: the huge tidal range, second in the world; multiple, beautiful cross-country ski trails; the FurRendezvous festival, held each February; a huge portion of airplane pilots (with several airports and landing strips in the city or nearby); a very low population density for a city its size; frequent earthquakes; erupting volcanos nearby (to the southwest, in the AlaskaRange, there are active volcanos such as MountStAugustine, IliamnaVolcano, and others); its extreme youth (it was founded in 1915); and much else besides.  And despite all this, Anchorage is definitely an ''American'' city, replete with an enterprising business sensibility, large shopping malls, a lot of automobiles (one can't easily move about by foot and public transportation in the middle of winter), areas of town resembling suburbs, a downtown skyline, etc.
---
> There are other features of Anchorage that make it unique: the huge tidal range, second in the world; multiple, beautiful cross-country ski trails; the FurRendezvous festival, held each February; a huge portion of airplane pilots (with several airports and landing strips in the city or nearby); a very low population density for a city its size; frequent small earthquakes; spring windstorms ("ChinookWinds"); erupting volcanos nearby (to the southwest, in the AlaskaRange, there are active volcanos such as MountStAugustine, IliamnaVolcano, and others, that have coated the city with ash); its extreme youth (it was founded in 1915); and much else besides.  And despite all this, Anchorage is definitely an ''American'' city, replete with an enterprising business sensibility, large shopping malls, a lot of automobiles (one can't easily move about by foot and public transportation in the middle of winter), areas of town resembling suburbs (and two sizable actual suburbs, EagleRiver and ChugiaK), a downtown skyline, etc.
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981017506
119c119,121
< One thing to keep in mind. There are two audiences to write for on a wiki: the one today and the one five years from now. -- SunirShah
---
> One thing to keep in mind. There are two audiences to write for on a wiki: the one today and the one five years from now. -- SunirShah
> ----
> I think you're a bit jealous, Sunir.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981017561
121c121
< I think you're a bit jealous, Sunir.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> I think you're a bit jealous, Sunir.  :-)  Who and what will be hurt in a year?  Suppose no one is interested in WikiPedia in one year.  So what?  Who cares? -- LarrySanger
------
RequestedArticles|981017757
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- AnchorageAlaska -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
------
NewTopics|981017813
5c5
< GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
---
> AnchorageAlaska -- GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
------
UnitedStates|981017933
1,7d0
< The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
< 
< ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
< 
< - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
< 
< 
12a6
> * USStandardOfLiving
------
USStandardOfLiving|981017941
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
> 
> ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
> 
> - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
------
UnitedStates|981017965
6c6
< * USStandardOfLiving
---
> * /StandardOfLiving
------
USStandardOfLiving|981017997
1,5c1
< The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
< 
< ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
< 
< - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
---
> See UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981018012
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
> 
> ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
> 
> - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981020745
121c121,126
< I think you're a bit jealous, Sunir.  :-)  Who and what will be hurt in a year?  Suppose no one is interested in WikiPedia in one year.  So what?  Who cares? -- LarrySanger
---
> I think you're a bit jealous, Sunir.  :-)  Who and what will be hurt in a year?  Suppose no one is interested in WikiPedia in one year.  So what?  Who cares? -- LarrySanger
> 
> Seconded!  In fact, I think it is almost necessary that this early growth should be unsustainable.  The first thing that should happen to an encyclopedia is a filling in of all the easy, broad topics, and obviously that can't continue indefinitely.  Nor should it.  Once a competent review of physics appears, it makes ''sense'' that writing in that field should die off, even though it was really fun to those who participated in it.
> 
> After that wikipedia might settle in to a long, slow expansion, where new topics are mostly things like biographies and book reviews.  At that point people might lose interest.  But by then they'd already have surveyed out most of the simple topics, hopefully enjoying themselves and creating some text of value.  I don't think its any great tragedy the community doesn't last beyond the stated goals of wikipedia. -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
------
SetTheory|981032143
73a74,78
> COMMENT: The cardinals (constructed using AC) are linearly ordered (in fact well ordered for obvious reasons).  
> Under the above sort of definition, one loses the ability to say `either |X| <= |Y| or else |X| >= |Y|' 
> where <= and >= denote the usual cardinal inequalities.  This doesn't help its cause as an `intuitive' measure
> of `infinity size'.
> 
------
SetTheory|981034552
78a79,82
> COMMENT: One does not "lose the ability to say" this. What is
> true is that it cannot be proved without AC that any two cardinals are comparable. This is not to say that the cardinals
> cannot be defined without AC. 
> 
------
RequestedArticles|981049017
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
------
LudovicLazarusZamenhof|981051699
1c1
< 
---
> Inventor of EsperantoLanguage.
------
EnroN|981054351
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Enron is an energy and communications company based in HoustoN, TexaS.  Enron is involved in the transportation of natural gas through pipelines to markets throughout the United States; the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to markets in the northwestern United States; the marketing of natural gas, electricity and other commodities and related risk management and finance services worldwide; the development, construction and operation of power plants, pipelines and other energy related assets worldwide; and the development of an intelligent network platform to provide bandwidth management services and deliver high bandwidth applications. The Company also offers broadband intermediation and content services development.
> 
> According to FortuneMagazine Enron is the 62nd largest company in the world.  Enron was named "America's Most Innovative Company" by Fortune for five consecutive years, from 1996-2000.  It was #24 on Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work for in America" list of 2000.
> 
> Enron's CEO is KenLay.  Its COO is Jeffrey Skilling.
> 
> Enron headquarters are located at Enron Building, 1400 Smith Street, Houston, TX 77002.
------
EnroN|981054381
5c5
< Enron's CEO is KenLay.  Its COO is Jeffrey Skilling.
---
> Enron's CEO is KenLay.  Its COO is JeffreySkilling.
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055299
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> State Street Corporation is a bank holding company and is one of the world's leading specialists in serving institutional investors. State Street provides a full range of products and services for portfolios of investment assets. State Street focuses its services on institutional investors and investment management. Its customers include mutual funds and other collective investment funds, corporate and public pension funds, corporations, unions and not-for-profit organizations.
> 
> State Street employs over 17,000 people worldwide, more than one third of whom work in IT.  State Street's GlobalLink intranet by financial institutions all over the world to transfer funds and track capital flows.
> 
> State Street Corporation has been in business since 1792 and is one of the oldest companies in the United States.
> 
>  Resources:
>  (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from WiredMagazine)
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055333
7a8
>  <http://www.statestreet.com/, State Street home page>
------
SetTheory|981055342
73a74,77
> RESPONSE: What makes you think these equivalence classes actually exist within the framework of ZF?  I think the following proves they don't.  Take the equivalence class C containing {{}} and apply the axiom of unions to get a set U.  Then for any set X, {X} is in C and so X is a member of U.  In other words, U is ''a set of all sets'' which is well-known to be impossible within ZF.
> 
> That's not to say the cardinals don't exist, just that they can't be constructed in ZF, unless you use an alternate technique.  The standard alternate technique is to choose some representative from each equivalence class, typically the ordinals.  But I don't think its easy to do this if the ordinals don't hit every set, which they can't if trichotomy of cardinals doesn't hold. --JG
> 
88a93,94
> 
> RESPONSE: I should have been a little more specific.  I meant distinct cardinality in the narrow sense, where it is being defined in terms of ordinals.  My point was that, though every infinte set you will ever build can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers or something built by power-setting them, there must be other sets if the generalized continuum hypothesis is false, and ZF-AC asserts that it is.  However, I'm not entirely sure that the 1-to-1 correspondences can be constructed without AC, so this might be a mistake on my part.  I would ''love'' any info on that.
------
SetTheory|981055407
7c7
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets Typo here for "all of the sets". The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
---
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in all of the sets. The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055416
8,9c8,10
<  <http://www.statestreet.com/, State Street home page>
<  (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from WiredMagazine)
---
> 
>  [http://www.statestreet.com/, State Street home page]
>  [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from WiredMagazine]
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055429
10c10
<  [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from WiredMagazine]
---
>  [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from Wired Magazine]
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055446
9,10c9,10
<  [http://www.statestreet.com/, State Street home page]
<  [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html, An article from Wired Magazine]
---
>  [http://www.statestreet.com/ State Street home page]
>  [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/statestreet.html An article from Wired Magazine]
------
StateStreetCorporation|981055480
3c3
< State Street employs over 17,000 people worldwide, more than one third of whom work in IT.  State Street's GlobalLink intranet by financial institutions all over the world to transfer funds and track capital flows.
---
> State Street employs over 17,000 people worldwide, more than one third of whom work in IT.  State Street's GlobalLink intranet is used by financial institutions all over the world to transfer funds and track capital flows.
------
PhiloSophy|981056509
14c14
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals
---
> '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981056581
5c5,11
< - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
---
> - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
> 
> ----
> 
> I assume you are referring to (your) claim about the standard of living in the United States.  Do you really think you can just look up a "fact" like that in an almanac?  Get real! 
> 
> On the other hand, you can certainly look up the fact that Canada has been ranked number one on the United Nations Human Development Index for about six years running.  However, does ''that'' mean that ''Canada'' has the highest standard of living in the world?  No, of course not, although anyone without ideological blinkers on would be hard pressed to rank any countries higher, providing that climate was ignored. 
------
TheProblemOfOtherMinds|981056586
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The problem of other minds is the problem of determining how we know that there are minds associated with the bodies we see walking around among us.
> ----
> ''I wrote the above to demonstrate the WikiWiki concept to someone.''
------
AnchorageAlaska|981056777
5c5
< Average daytime summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average daytime winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days, and then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return home in the dark.  Those who don't study or work next to a window can go all week long without seeing the sun.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
---
> Average daytime summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average daytime winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days, and then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "/TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return home in the dark.  Those who don't study or work next to a window can go all week long without seeing the sun.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
15c15
< For more information, see the website of the [Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau http://www.anchorage.net/] or the [http://www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/Anchorage/ Municipality of Anchorage].
---
> For more information, see the website of the [Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau http://www.anchorage.net/] or the [http://www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/Anchorage/ Municipality of Anchorage].
------
AnchorageAlaska|981056824
5c5
< Average daytime summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average daytime winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days, and then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "/TheBush" than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return home in the dark.  Those who don't study or work next to a window can go all week long without seeing the sun.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
---
> Average daytime summer temperatures are, approximately, 55-70 degrees Fahrenheit; average daytime winter temperatures are about 5-20 degrees (warmer than many places in "TheLower48").  The weather on any given day and indeed for entire seasons can be unusually unpredictable.  Some winters feature several feet of snow and bitterly cold temperatures, while others, just a foot or two of snow and constant, annoying thaws, which puts dangerous ice on the streets.  (This has forced Anchoragites to be become rather good drivers.)  Summers are typically very mild and pleasant, though it can rain quite a bit then.  There isn't any beach-bathing in Anchorage, except at a few local lakes on the warmest summer days, and then those lakeside beaches can be extremely popular.  Aside from the winter cold, which most Alaskans don't mind, there are two primary nuisances associated with the seasons: in the summer, mosquitos (which are much worse out in "The Bush"--see AlaskA/TheBush--than in the city itself); in the winter, long nights and very short days.  Since Anchorage is at such a high latitude, for months in mid-winter, residents go to work in the dark and return home in the dark.  Those who don't study or work next to a window can go all week long without seeing the sun.  Consequently, SADs (SeasonalAffectiveDisorder) is an acknowledged problem in Anchorage and in AlaskA generally.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981057207
9c9
< I assume you are referring to (your) claim about the standard of living in the United States.  Do you really think you can just look up a "fact" like that in an almanac?  Get real! 
---
> I assume you are referring to the claim about the standard of living in the United States.  I would politely take issue with the notion that one can simply look up a "fact" like that in an almanac.
11c11,13
< On the other hand, you can certainly look up the fact that Canada has been ranked number one on the United Nations Human Development Index for about six years running.  However, does ''that'' mean that ''Canada'' has the highest standard of living in the world?  No, of course not, although anyone without ideological blinkers on would be hard pressed to rank any countries higher, providing that climate was ignored. 
---
> As a counterpoint, it is worth pointing out that Canada has been ranked number one on the United Nations Human Development Index for about six years running.  I would not claim that this means that ''Canada'' has the highest standard of living in the world, however.
> ----
> ''LarrySanger edited the above two paragraphs, doing his part to try to keep this wiki civil.  :-)''
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981059300
2a3,6
> '''February 1, 2001'''
> 
> TimShell found this cool image file: http://www.wikipedia.com/wikia.gif
> 
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981059357
6a7,8
> I uploaded it to the server.  I suspect we should resave it as a different file type. -- LarrySanger
> 
------
SetTheory|981060271
25c25,28
<    Axiom of infinite:         There exists a set X such that, if x is in X, so is {x}.
---
>    Axiom of infinite:         There exists a set X such that, if x is in X, so is {x}.  
> 
> ''This has been left in here uncorrected for a long time now.  Is the empty set infinite?''
> 
74a78,79
> 
> ''Except for the fact that you have ignored the phrase "of minimal rank".  Not all singleton sets {X} are sets '''of minimal rank''' equivalent to {{}}.  (Let's see how horribly messy we can make this page...)''
------
CityBerlin|981061508
4c4
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. 
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. The bavarian Capital in this time was Munich, which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT"
------
CityBerlin|981062622
4c4,8
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. The bavarian Capital in this time was Munich, which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT"
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. 
> ---
> ''The bavarian Capital in this time was Munich, which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT"''
> 
> Munich has ALWAYS been the capital of Bavaria. --WojPob
------
CityBerlin|981062645
5c5,7
< ---
---
> 
> 
> ----
------
HistoryOfEurope|981063754
25a26
> 
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981064654
13c13,16
< ''LarrySanger edited the above two paragraphs, doing his part to try to keep this wiki civil.  :-)''
---
> ''LarrySanger edited the above two paragraphs, doing his part to try to keep this wiki civil.  :-)''
> ----
> Yes, I believe one can look up per capita income in an almanac.
>  - Tim
------
HistoryOfEurope|981064764
19c19
< Philosophy, science and technology developed rapidly throughout. The church broke up and semi-secular governments started developing.  In the FrenchRevolution, people made a significant attempt to create a new government based on freedom and equality, instead launching the NapoleonicEra.  NapoleoN also destroyed the HolyRomanEmpire, leaving GermanY and ItalY to develop into nation-states by 1900.
---
> Philosophy, science and technology developed rapidly throughout. The church broke up and semi-secular governments started developing.  In the FrenchRevolution, people made a significant attempt to create a new government based on freedom and equality, instead launching the NapoleonicEra.  NapoleonBonaparte also destroyed the HolyRomanEmpire, leaving GermanY and ItalY to develop into nation-states by 1900.
------
SetTheory|981065622
80a81,82
> Oops, you're right.  I figured I'd probably do something wrong.  But in any case, can you guarantee that such equivalence classes exist within ZF?  I remember something about it being difficult, even if the above is wrong.  (Btw, this page will need some extensive reworking anyways).
> 
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981065870
15,16c15,17
< Yes, I believe one can look up per capita income in an almanac.
<  - Tim
---
> Yes, I believe one can look up per capita income in an almanac. - Tim
> 
> Standard of living is per capita income?  I think that's even further from a fact...at least, you would be hard-pressed to defend it.  If I was paid well, but had to work 20 hours a day in a poorly ventilated cardboard tube and eat rice-cakes, would I have a high standard of living?
------
LiliaPodkopayeva|981065911
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Lilia Podkopayeva is an Olympic gymnast.  She was born on August 15, 1978 in Donetsk, UkrainE.  She won two gold medals at the 1996 OlympicS in Atlanta.  She was also the 1995 World Champion and the 1996 European Champion.
> 
>  keywords: sports, gymanst, gymnastics, Olympics, people, Ukraine
------
GreeK|981066895
6c6
< ''See also'':  GreekLanguage, HellenicGreece, GreekMythology
---
> ''See also'':  GreekLanguage, HellenicCivilization, RomanEmpire, ByzantineEmpire, GreecE, GreekMythology
------
BalL|981067176
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A ball is a round object that is used in sports and games.  Balls are usually spherical but can be other shapes, such as ovoid.  In most games using balls, the play of the game follows the state of the ball as it is hit, kicked, or thrown by players.
> 
> Balls were used in ancient history by the early Egyptians and the ancient Greeks and Romans.
> 
> In modern times balls have been used in machinery.  The ball bearing is a device used to reduce the friction of miving parts in a wide variety of machines.  Ball bearings use hardened steel balls.
> 
> Popular games involving balls include:
>  BasebalL
>  FootbalL, or SocceR
>  AmericanFootball
>  DodgebalL
>  TenniS
>  GolF
>  BasketbalL
------
BalL|981067193
5,6d4
< In modern times balls have been used in machinery.  The ball bearing is a device used to reduce the friction of miving parts in a wide variety of machines.  Ball bearings use hardened steel balls.
< 
14c12,14
<  BasketbalL
---
>  BasketbalL
> 
> In modern times balls have been used in machinery.  The ball bearing is a device used to reduce the friction of miving parts in a wide variety of machines.  Ball bearings use hardened steel balls.
------
BalL|981068022
14c14
< In modern times balls have been used in machinery.  The ball bearing is a device used to reduce the friction of miving parts in a wide variety of machines.  Ball bearings use hardened steel balls.
---
> In modern times balls have been used in machinery.  The ball bearing is a device used to reduce the friction of moving parts in a wide variety of machines.  Ball bearings use hardened steel balls.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981068357
17c17,19
< Standard of living is per capita income?  I think that's even further from a fact...at least, you would be hard-pressed to defend it.  If I was paid well, but had to work 20 hours a day in a poorly ventilated cardboard tube and eat rice-cakes, would I have a high standard of living?
---
> Standard of living is per capita income?  I think that's even further from a fact...at least, you would be hard-pressed to defend it.  If I was paid well, but had to work 20 hours a day in a poorly ventilated cardboard tube and eat rice-cakes, would I have a high standard of living?
> ----
> ''LarrySanger has a sneakin' suspicion that this dispute has been a SemanticDispute from the beginning.''
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981068795
19c19,21
< ''LarrySanger has a sneakin' suspicion that this dispute has been a SemanticDispute from the beginning.''
---
> ''LarrySanger has a sneakin' suspicion that this dispute has been a SemanticDispute from the beginning.''
> 
> Well, when I say "far from a fact", I don't mean false...just not true. :)
------
SemanticDispute|981069538
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
> 
> It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).
> 
> It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).
> 
> As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
------
SemanticDispute|981069586
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioNs of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
SemanticDispute|981069598
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioNs of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
DefinitioN|981069632
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An account of the meaning of a word.
> 
> ''(To be greatly expanded.)''
------
SemanticDispute|981069656
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
SemanticDispute|981069666
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT'''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
SemanticDispute|981069677
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT'''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
SemanticDispute|981069697
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
------
SoCrates|981069754
9c9,15
< Socrates' reasoning and philosophy, and the questions they raised not only about ephemeral things but also political, moral, and legal matters drew the ire of the community's leaders who, fearing he was leading the young people of the city astray, held a vote and determined that he should be condemned to death, after a trial in which Socrates, instead of putting on an eloquent defense, called into question the whole basis for the trial.  The judges were unmoved.  Socrates' followers encouraged him to flee, but he refused on principle, and took the poison (hemlock) himself.  (Sound familiar?  Yes, this story has been reenacted in part or in whole, time and time again; those who do not learn from history are most certainly bound to repeat it.)  Socrates died at the age of 70.
---
> Socrates' reasoning and philosophy, and the questions they raised not only about ephemeral things but also political, moral, and legal matters drew the ire of the community's leaders who, fearing he was leading the young people of the city astray, held a vote and determined that he should be condemned to death, after a trial in which Socrates, instead of putting on an eloquent defense, called into question the whole basis for the trial.  The judges were unmoved.  Socrates' followers encouraged him to flee, but he refused on principle, and took the poison (hemlock) himself.  (Sound familiar?  Yes, this story has been reenacted in part or in whole, time and time again; those who do not learn from history are most certainly bound to repeat it.)  Socrates died at the age of 70.
> 
> ''Note: Athenian trials did not have judges, merely juries.  At the time Athens had been going through some difficult stuff, notably the thirty tyrants which included several of Socrates' friends, though he himself refused to condone it.  Even so, the jury was not nearly as pitiless as the above suggests - the vote on the guilt came out very close to 50-50, and they had not chosen the sentence yet.''
> 
> ''In Athenian trials, the sentence was chosen between suggestions from the two parties.  The prosecution of course chose execution.  The reason this was taken was that Socrates' suggestion was, rather than the expected exile, a fine so small it may as well have not been there.  Now the verdict was nearly unanimous, but this time on a matter of principle: guilty men must be punished.''
> 
> ''All in all: the jury chose wrong, and executed an innocent man as a result.  But it is wrong to cast them as a bunch of pitiless judges, or imply that they cared nothing for justice, as neither is true.  Part of the tragedy of Socrates' death is that neither he, nor the jury, was really at fault.  The above text should probably reflect this.''
------
WikiPediaFaq|981069791
73c73
< :''Done!  By the way, I thought <i>HTML italic</i> and <b>bold</b> tags didn't work on this wiki software.  At least, I seem to remember them being displayed a week or two ago.'' -- LarrySanger
---
> :''Done!  By the way, I thought <i>HTML italic</i> and <b>bold</b> tags didn't work on this wiki software.  At least, I seem to remember them being displayed a week or two ago.  Also, another example can be found in the first paragraph of SemanticDispute.  One can't use two sets of four single quote marks in the same paragraph, it seems.'' -- LarrySanger
------
SemanticDispute|981069913
7c7
< As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
---
> As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
------
SemanticDispute|981070276
3c3
< It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).
---
> It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the claim that a dispute is "genuine" (see GenuineDisputes).
7c7
< As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
---
> As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose Joshua maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.  In this case, Tim and Joshua have (suffer, are engaging in) a semantic dispute.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981070383
21a22,23
> ----
> ''LarrySanger would like to point out that, according to TheLawOfNoncontradiction, if something ain't true, it's false.
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981070508
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981070557
23c23
< ''LarrySanger would like to point out that, according to TheLawOfNoncontradiction, if something ain't true, it's false.
---
> ''LarrySanger would like to point out that, according to TheLawOfNoncontradiction, if it ain't true, it's false.''
------
LasVegas|981071227
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The largest city in NevadA.  Though incorporated in 1911, Las Vegas started its rise to world fame in the 1940s, when developers began building gambling casinos in the middle of the parched desert.  It is called "Sin City" due to the popularity of legalized gambling and prostitution (to say nothing of other, illegal sins).  In the last ten years or so, many huge, extravagant casinos have been built, and the emphasis has turned from gambling and other "adult" pursuits to entertainment for both adults and children.  Consequently, the city has enjoyed an enormous boom both in population and in tourism.
------
LarrySanger|981071276
1c1
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Home town is AnchorageAlaska.  Presently living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
------
SemanticDispute|981071598
1c1
< A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.
---
> A DisAgreement is a ''semantic dispute'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement disagree about whether a particular claim is true, (2) they agree on all material facts, but (3) they disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue (they have different understandings of the MeaninG of a word, the words are associated with different ConcepT s).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all; briefly, (2) and (3) together explain (1).
3c3
< It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the claim that a dispute is "genuine" (see GenuineDisputes).
---
> It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all.  But very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the claim that a dispute is "genuine" (see GenuineDisputes).
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981072544
22c22
< ----
---
> 
23a24,25
> 
> But that isn't true.  The sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we decide on some value of x.  Indeed, the whole point of a SemanticDispute is that it's claiming such a sentence has a truth value before everyone has agreed on what value x should take.  After, of course, TheLawOfNoncontradiction holds, but not before.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981072723
25c25,27
< But that isn't true.  The sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we decide on some value of x.  Indeed, the whole point of a SemanticDispute is that it's claiming such a sentence has a truth value before everyone has agreed on what value x should take.  After, of course, TheLawOfNoncontradiction holds, but not before.
---
> But that isn't true.  The sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we decide on some value of x.  Indeed, the whole point of a SemanticDispute is that it's claiming such a sentence has a truth value before everyone has agreed on what value x should take.  After, of course, TheLawOfNoncontradiction holds, but not before.
> 
> Btw, I would love for some day in the future, it being standard for people to say "But this is just a SemanticDispute!  Can't you see you're just being playing Tim and Joshua?"  To be able to introduce myself as TheProverbialJoshua would be beyond neat.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981073433
25,27c25
< But that isn't true.  The sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we decide on some value of x.  Indeed, the whole point of a SemanticDispute is that it's claiming such a sentence has a truth value before everyone has agreed on what value x should take.  After, of course, TheLawOfNoncontradiction holds, but not before.
< 
< Btw, I would love for some day in the future, it being standard for people to say "But this is just a SemanticDispute!  Can't you see you're just being playing Tim and Joshua?"  To be able to introduce myself as TheProverbialJoshua would be beyond neat.
---
> That's not the law of non-contradiction, that's TertiumNonDatur.  And it doesn't always hold.  For instance, the sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we assign a value to x.  That's the very essence of semantics.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981074298
25c25,27
< That's not the law of non-contradiction, that's TertiumNonDatur.  And it doesn't always hold.  For instance, the sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we assign a value to x.  That's the very essence of semantics.
---
> That's not the law of non-contradiction, that's TertiumNonDatur.  And it doesn't always hold.  For instance, the sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we assign a value to x.  That's the very essence of semantics.
> 
> When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- LarrySanger
------
NewTopics|981074421
5c5
< AnchorageAlaska -- GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GerMany -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
---
> AnchorageAlaska -- GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GermanY -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981074475
27c27
< When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- LarrySanger
---
> When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the trivial point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence. -- LarrySanger
------
EuroCurrency|981074544
3c3
< The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxembourG. 
---
> The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxembourG. The monetary policy of the EuroCurrency region is conducted by the EuropeanCentralBank, which has its HQ in FrankfurT, GermanY. 
------
EuroCurrency|981074565
3c3
< The currently participating countries are: GerMany, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxembourG. The monetary policy of the EuroCurrency region is conducted by the EuropeanCentralBank, which has its HQ in FrankfurT, GermanY. 
---
> The currently participating countries are: GermanY, FrancE, ItalY, SpaiN, NetherLands, BelGium, AustriA, FinLand, PortuGal, IreLand, LuxembourG. The monetary policy of the EuroCurrency region is conducted by the EuropeanCentralBank, which has its HQ in FrankfurT, GermanY. 
------
BalL|981074728
7c7
<  FootbalL, or SocceR
---
>  FootBall, or SocceR
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981074914
1c1,3
< Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers.
---
> Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  Actually, the latter formulation is known as ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  If we're being careful, we won't formulate it this way.  Instead, we'll say the law is: for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.
> 
> The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers; there are many who deny ThePrincipleOfBivalence, however.
------
WarsaW|981075002
5c5
< WarsaW is notable among EuropE's capital cities not for its size, its age, or its beauty but for its indestructibility. It is a phoenix that has risen repeatedly from the ashes of war. Having suffered fearful damage during the Swedish and Prussian occupation of 1655-56, it was again assaulted in 1794, when the Russian army massacred the population of the right-bank suburb of Praga. In 1944, after the WarsaW Uprising failed, by Hitler's order the city was razed; the left-bank suburbs, controlled by the Germans, were emptied of their remaining population; and the buildings were systematically reduced to rubble by fire and dynamite. In 1945, however, the people of WarsaW, the Varsovians, returned, and the city resumed its role as the capital of Poland and the country's centre of social, political, economic, scientific, and cultural life. Many of the historic streets, buildings, and churches have been restored exactly according to their original forms.
---
> WarsaW is notable among EuropE's capital cities not for its size, its age, or its beauty but for its indestructibility. It is a phoenix that has risen repeatedly from the ashes of war. Having suffered fearful damage during the Swedish and Prussian occupation of 1655-56, it was again assaulted in 1794, when the Russian army massacred the population of the right-bank suburb of Praga. In 1944, after the WarsaW Uprising failed, by AdolfHitler's order the city was razed; the left-bank suburbs, controlled by the Germans, were emptied of their remaining population; and the buildings were systematically reduced to rubble by fire and dynamite. In 1945, however, the people of WarsaW, the Varsovians, returned, and the city resumed its role as the capital of Poland and the country's centre of social, political, economic, scientific, and cultural life. Many of the historic streets, buildings, and churches have been restored exactly according to their original forms.
------
ThePrincipleOfBivalence|981075037
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  In other words: for any proposition P, it is not the case both that [P] is true and that [not-P] is true.
> 
> This is closely related though distinct from TheLawOfNoncontradiction and TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.
------
PoleS|981075062
4c4
< Before World War II the Polish lands were noted for the richness and variety of their ethnic communities. In the provinces of Silesia, Pomerania, and Masuria (then in GermanY) there was a significant minority of Germans. In the southeast, Ukrainian settlements predominated in the regions east of Chelm and in the Carpathians east of Nowy Sacz. In all the towns and cities there were large concentrations of Yiddish-speaking Jews. The Polish ethnographic area stretched eastward: in LithuaniA, BelaruS, and western UkrainE, all of which had a mixed population, PoleS predominated not only in the cities but also in numerous rural districts. There were significant Polish minorities in Daugavpils (in LatviA), Minsk (in BelaruS), and Kiev (in UkrainE).
---
> Before World War II the Polish lands were noted for the richness and variety of their ethnic communities. In the provinces of Silesia, Pomerania, and Masuria (then in GermanY) there was a significant minority of Germans. In the southeast, Ukrainian settlements predominated in the regions east of Chelm and in the Carpathians east of Nowy Sacz. In all the towns and cities there were large concentrations of Yiddish-speaking Jews. The Polish ethnographic area stretched eastward: in LithuaniA, BelaruS, and western UkrainE, all of which had a mixed population, PoleS predominated not only in the cities but also in numerous rural districts. There were significant Polish minorities in Daugavpils (in LatviA), MinsK (in BelaruS), and KieV (in UkrainE).
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981075128
3c3
< The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers; there are many who deny ThePrincipleOfBivalence, however.
---
> The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers; there are many who deny ThePrincipleOfBivalence, however.  See also TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.
------
ThePrincipleOfBivalence|981075322
1c1
< A proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  In other words: for any proposition P, it is not the case both that [P] is true and that [not-P] is true.
---
> For any proposition P, either [P] is true or [P] is false; there are no propositions that are neither true nor false.
3c3
< This is closely related though distinct from TheLawOfNoncontradiction and TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.
---
> This is closely related though distinct from TheLawOfExcludedMiddle and TheLawOfNoncontradiction.
------
TheLawOfExcludedMiddle|981075408
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> For any proposition, either it or its contradictory obtains; for any proposition P, either P or not-P.
> 
> If we're being careful, we'll distinguish this from ThePrincipleOfBivalence.
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981075493
1c1
< Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  Actually, the latter formulation is known as ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  If we're being careful, we won't formulate it this way.  Instead, we'll say the law is: for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.
---
> Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  If we're being careful, we won't formulate it this way, in terms of truth.  Instead, we'll say the law is: for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.
3c3
< The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers; there are many who deny ThePrincipleOfBivalence, however.  See also TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.
---
> The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers.  See also TheLawOfExcludedMiddle and ThePrincipleOfBivalence.
------
FiLm|981075586
1c1
< FilmHistory -- FilmCriticism
---
> FilmHistory -- FilmCriticism -- AcademyAwards
------
TertiumNonDatur|981075624
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Tertium non datur'' is Latin, used by Germans among others, for ThePrincipleOfBivalence.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981075884
27c27
< When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the trivial point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence. -- LarrySanger
---
> When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  Fair play, if you mean to say that Tim's claim isn't, in fact, a proposition. -- There, I've supplied brief entries explaining these terms to the uninitiated. -- LarrySanger
------
ThePrincipleOfBivalence|981075963
3c3
< This is closely related though distinct from TheLawOfExcludedMiddle and TheLawOfNoncontradiction.
---
> This is closely related to though distinct from TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.  See also TheLawOfNoncontradiction.
------
LoGic|981076125
3c3
< earliest study of reasoning can be attributed to Aristotle.
---
> earliest study of reasoning can be attributed to Aristotle.  Two of the most important principles of logic are TheLawOfNoncontradiction and TheLawOfExcludedMiddle.
13c13
< The ultimate goal of logic, if it can be said to have a goal, is valid argumentation (see ValidIty).
---
> The ultimate goal of logic, if it can be said to have a goal, is valid argumentation (see ValidIty).
------
ItalY|981076386
1,3c1,3
< Italia ¥Italy¤ is a republic in the 
< south of EuropE© It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
< MediterraneanSea©
---
> Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
> south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
> MediterraneanSea.
5c5
< It is one of the countries that uses EuroCurrency©
---
> It is one of the countries that uses EuroCurrency.
7c7
< The capital is Roma ¥Rome¤; the economic capital is Milano ¥Milan¤ in the north©
---
> The capital is Roma (Rome); the economic capital is Milano (Milan) in the north.
10c10
< Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times© Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY© The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Turino and FiorentinA©
---
> Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times. Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY. The latter include AC Milan, AS Roma, Juventus Torino and FiorentinA.
------
GiovanniPensa|981076580
1c1
< Lives is Italy.
---
> Lives is ITaly.
------
GiovanniPensa|981076593
1c1
< Lives is ITaly.
---
> Lives is Italy.
------
ValidIty|981077166
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In logic, an argument is said to be ''valid'' (noun: ''validity'') iff it is the case that, if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion ''must'' be true.  There are many other ways to formulate this basic definition: the premises entail the conclusion; it cannot be the case both that the premises are true and the conclusion false; the falsehood of the conclusion entails the falsehood of at least one premise; etc.
> 
> Validity is not to be confused with SoundNess; a sound argument is not only valid, its premises are true as well.  Not all valid arguments are "valid" in the LooseAndPopularSense of this word, meaning "good": not all valid arguments (valid, as this term is used in logic) are good, or successful.  Here is an example of a valid but very bad argument:
> 
> 1. If Jimbo is wrong, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
> 2. Jimbo is wrong.
> 3. Therefore, I am a monkey's uncle.
> 
> This follows one of the most common valid ArgumentForm''''s, ModusPonens: if it's the case that P implies Q, and P is the case, then we can infer that Q.  Whenever P implies Q and P is the case, then Q ''must'' be the case.  So, if it ''really were true'' that Jimbo's wrongness implied my having simian relations (which of course it's not), ''and'' it were true that Jimbo is wrong (plausible), then it would ''have to be'' the case that I am a monkey's uncle.
------
ValidIty|981077252
1c1
< In logic, an argument is said to be ''valid'' (noun: ''validity'') iff it is the case that, if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion ''must'' be true.  There are many other ways to formulate this basic definition: the premises entail the conclusion; it cannot be the case both that the premises are true and the conclusion false; the falsehood of the conclusion entails the falsehood of at least one premise; etc.
---
> In logic, an argument is said to be ''valid'' (noun: ''validity'') if, and only if, it is the case that, if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion ''must'' be true.  In other words, a valid argument is one where the premises make the conclusion ''have to be'' true.  There are many other ways to formulate this basic definition: the premises entail the conclusion; it cannot be the case both that the premises are true and the conclusion false; the falsehood of the conclusion entails the falsehood of at least one premise; etc.
------
SoundNess|981077284
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A ''sound'' argument is not only valid (see ValidIty), its premises are true as well.
------
ValidIty|981077301
5,7c5,7
< 1. If Jimbo is wrong, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
< 2. Jimbo is wrong.
< 3. Therefore, I am a monkey's uncle.
---
> :1. If Jimbo is wrong, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
> :2. Jimbo is wrong.
> :3. Therefore, I am a monkey's uncle.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981077523
27c27,45
< When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  Fair play, if you mean to say that Tim's claim isn't, in fact, a proposition. -- There, I've supplied brief entries explaining these terms to the uninitiated. -- LarrySanger
---
> When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  Fair play, if you mean to say that Tim's claim isn't, in fact, a proposition. -- There, I've supplied brief entries explaining these terms to the uninitiated. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Income is the most commonly used measure of standard of living.  An alternative measure is purchasing power, closely related to income but adjusted for taxaxtion.
> 
> Consumption per capita by nation, 1985, as a percentage of US total:
> 
>  United States: 100
>  West Germany: 70
>  France: 70
>  Italy: 65
>  Japan: 65
>  United Kingdom: 65
>  Austria: 60
>  Finland: 60
>  Soviet Union: 30
> 
> Figures are rounded off.  Data first pubslihed by A. Bergson, "The USSR Before the Fall: How Poor and Why," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:4 (Fall 1991), p. 29-44, 31.  Reprinted in JulianSimon's 'The State of Humanity'.
> 
> 
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981077645
29c29
< Income is the most commonly used measure of standard of living.  An alternative measure is purchasing power, closely related to income but adjusted for taxaxtion.
---
> Income is the most commonly used measure of standard of living.  An alternative measure is comsumption, closely related to income but adjusted for taxaxtion.
43c43
< Figures are rounded off.  Data first pubslihed by A. Bergson, "The USSR Before the Fall: How Poor and Why," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:4 (Fall 1991), p. 29-44, 31.  Reprinted in JulianSimon's 'The State of Humanity'.
---
> Figures are rounded off but accurate.  Data first published by A. Bergson, "The USSR Before the Fall: How Poor and Why," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:4 (Fall 1991), p. 29-44, 31.  Reprinted in JulianSimon's 'The State of Humanity'.
------
PhiloSophy|981077655
3a4,6
> '''IntroductoryMaterial:'''
> WhyPhilosophize -- PhilosophicalMethod
> 
------
WhyPhilosophize|981078333
1c1,41
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I assume you’re signed up for this class because you want to learn about philosophy.  Whether or not that’s the case, the purpose of this class is to introduce you to philosophy.  And the purpose of this first chapter is to give you an idea of what philosophy is, and why anyone should want to study it.  I am going to assume that you have thought a little, but not a <<i>i</i>><i>lot</i></<i>i</i>>, about <<i>i</i>><i>some</i></<i>i</i>> philosophical topics.
> 
> I could, but will not, simply start by giving a definition of "philosophy."  It will be better instead to start by getting clear on what <<i>i</i>><i>motivates</i></<i>i</i>> someone to start doing this activity called "philosophizing" -- what motivates people to start thinking very deeply about life and the universe.  Only when you understand why people take up philosophy will you be able properly to understand what philosophy is.  So let me begin by explaining why people take up philosophy.
> 
> We find ourselves believing things that we don’t understand.  This is perhaps strange to say but it’s true.  There are all kinds of very basic beliefs we have, about God, ourselves, the natural world, human society, and human productions.  But all too often, we don’t understand <i>what</i> it is we believe, and we don’t understand <i>why</i> we believe it.  We have, as I will say, questions about <i>meaning</i> of our beliefs and questions about the <i>justification</i> or <i>rationality</i> of our beliefs.  And we don’t <i>like</i> not understanding.  Let me give you some examples.
> 
> If you are like most Americans then you grow up believing in some sort of God.  Most (but not all) of you would probably assent to the proposition, "God exists."  But how many of you know <i>exactly</i> what it is you mean by the word "God"?  Probably you’ve thought <i>some</i> about it: "Well," you tell yourself, "God is the creator of the universe, and he’s supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing; and he’s supposed to be some sort of spiritual and personal being."  Suppose you believe all that.  So now are you <i>really</i> persuaded that you <i>know</i> what God is?  Aren’t there a lot of questions you’d have to have answered before you could say you know just exactly what God is?  For example, wouldn’t you have to know what it means for a <i>spiritual</i> being to create anything?  We have experience of bodies building houses and ships, but minds, as far as we know, create nothing but thoughts and decisions -- other mental things -- not <i>physical</i> <i>objects</i> like mountains, streams, and animals!  And wouldn’t you have to know what it <i>means</i> to say that God is all-powerful, or all-knowing?  Does that mean that God can create a rock he can’t lift?  Surely these aren’t simple questions.
> 
> Now these sorts of questions are only questions about what the proposition, "God exists," <i>means</i>.  But very many people don’t understand <i>why</i> they believe this.  They have been taught it; they assume it, and act as though it were true.  Some of you, those of you who <i>do</i> believe that God exists, of course <i>have</i> thought about why you believe this, and perhaps you have reasons, or explanations, such as the following.  I have a simple faith and that is enough; I firmly believe the Bible, my parents, and my clergyman when they all together affirm that God exists; I believe I have had an experience of, and felt the influence of, God in my life; I believe the universe could not have existed, especially not without the great variety of life we see around us, if God had not created and designed it; or perhaps you believe it for a combination of these reasons, or for other reasons.
> 
> But at least in certain moments, when we are being perfectly honest with ourselves, we realize, or most of us do, that we are not <i>quite</i> sure whether this belief in God is <i>perfectly</i> justified.  No doubt there are some sorts of people who are relatively unquestioning -- simple people, probably the salt of the earth and good folk -- and <i>those</i> people manage never, or hardly ever, to question their belief in the existence of God.  But if you’re in this class I think I can assume that you are not that sort of person.  At the very least, I think I can assume that you are interested in getting <i>very</i> <i>clear</i> on why belief in God is, or perhaps is not, justified or rational.  You want to see the arguments on both sides.
> 
> When you start asking, "What is God?" and "Is belief in the existence of God rational?" and you’re uncomfortable because you’re not persuaded you know the answers, then you are motivated to do philosophy.  In particular, you are motivated to study one area of philosophy called "philosophy of religion," which we will spend some time studying this quarter.
> 
> Now let me give another example of discomforting puzzlement that might lead you to philosophy.  This time the puzzles are in ethics, the study of right and wrong.  Again, there are puzzles about both meaning <i>and</i> justification.  Do you know what you <i>mean</i> when you say that cheating is wrong?  Don’t simply say, "It’s something that’s bad -- that you shouldn’t do."  Obviously then you’ll have to answer, "What do you mean by ‘bad’ and by ‘should’?"  We use these sorts of words all the time, these and other evaluative words like "good," "bad," "pretty," "ugly," "useful," and "useless."
> 
> Here the questions of meaning and justification are inextricably bound together.  I can’t say <i>why</i> I think cheating is wrong until I know <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>means</i> to say it’s wrong; and very likely, once I have said what it means, I’ll know why I think it.  The same goes with many other moral questions, about killing and letting die, about personal responsibility, about sex, about choice of career, about a million other things we live with every day.  To know <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>means</i> to say they are right, or wrong, is to know <i>why</i> they are right, or wrong.
> 
> And of course nearly everyone finds themselves with beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong, the proper purpose or goal of a human life, and so on.  But hardly anyone really understands these beliefs or knows <i>why</i> they have them, or whether they are really rational to have them.
> 
> You <i>can</i>, and some people do, go through life without answering moral questions.  But I would go so far as to suggest that <i>because</i> some people have not thought certain moral questions through, they end up behaving immorally.  And then they use an easy sort of skepticism, or relativism, according to which each person invents his own morality, to justify whatever behavior he wants to get away with.  That is a profoundly anti-philosophical attitude.
> 
> And even if, as it probably the case with many of you, you believe yourself to be a generally good person but you also think that there is no objectively correct morality, you’re still stuck with a lot of puzzles.  For example, do you really think that if someone were to accuse you of being not just a bad person, but a <i>really</i> bad person -- an <i>evil</i> person -- that your accuser would simply be expressing his opinion, and that it is just true for him and not for you?  Isn’t there <i>some</i> sense in which he is incorrect, period?  Or consider the belief system of a typical Nazi-era German fascist, the sort of person who thought it was acceptable to kill millions of Jews just for being Jews: do you really think that those people <i>simply</i> had a different moral point of view from your own?  Isn’t there <i>some</i> sense in which those people were incorrect, period?
> 
> Questions about God and ethics are only the tip of the philosophical iceberg.  If you find yourself dissatisfied with your fundamental ignorance about God and ethics, believe me, there are <i>many</i> other things about this universe that you are also fundamentally ignorant about.  Philosophers are in the business of investigating <i>all</i> <i>sorts</i> of those things.  Even things that, perhaps, you had not thought to ask yourself about.
> 
> If you study philosophy very much you will soon discover <i>just</i> <i>how</i> <i>many</i> of your basic concepts you don’t understand.  For instance, do you know what it means to say that one thing <i>causes</i> another?  Do you know what rationality is?  Do you have a firm grasp on what space and time are?  Are you quite sure you know what you mean by the word "beauty"?  And so on, and on, and on.  The number of these most <i>basic</i> questions is breathtakingly huge.
> 
> And those are just the questions about meaning.  Then you have to consider all the questions about justification you might not have thought about.  Do you know why you think the sun will rise tomorrow?  Do you think you’re perfectly justified in believing this?  Perhaps, but try spelling out the reason.  You probably, if you’re like most people, think you have free will -- you’re not determined or fated to do what you do, you have the ability to choose freely.  But are you absolutely sure that this is correct?  We live, by all appearances, in a world governed by strict laws, that scientists describe.  Could your decisions be governed by the same sort of strict laws?  If you think not, then <i>why</i> not?  You probably think that the government should be doing some things and it shouldn’t be doing other things.  But why?  As a philosopher you will not simply list the things you think government should do; you will say <i>why</i> you thinks the government should do those things.  You will explain the purpose of <i>any</i> government, of having any official authority at all.
> 
> If you think carefully about this, you will find that your life is deeply informed by <i>all</i> <i>sorts</i> of basic assumptions you make.  If you made radically different assumptions, you just wouldn’t be able to go on thinking and living as you have been.  That’s one reason why some people are scared, or angered, by philosophical questions.  These questions are <i>powerful</i>, precisely in the following sense: if you change your mind about one of these really fundamental questions, then you might have to change how you think about the world, and even how you live.  You might have change religions or become entirely unreligious; you might have to act entirely different in order to conform with new ideas of morality you have; you might have to think much more carefully, and rationally, in order to live up to new standards of justified belief you accept; and those are just <i>some</i> of the more dramatic changes.  Other, more subtle effects are too numerous to mention.
> 
> After all that you should understand pretty well, I think, the basic impulses that lead someone to start philosophizing.  So let me list the main points I’ve made so far.
> 
> (1) We find ourselves with some basic, important beliefs, for example about God and morality.
> 
> (2) There are two sources of puzzlement, or discomforting ignorance, that leads people to philosophize about these beliefs: first, not knowing the <i>meaning</i> of the beliefs; and second, not knowing whether the beliefs are really <i>justified</i> or <i>rational</i>.
> 
> (3) No doubt people exist who lack almost all such puzzlement, but even <i>their</i> lives are deeply shaped and informed by their beliefs.
> 
> (4) But those people who are attracted to philosophy through the more dramatic topics like God and morality soon realize that the number and variety of beliefs that they don’t <i>really</i> understand is breathtakingly enormous.
------
WhyPhilosophize|981078400
1c1
< I assume you’re signed up for this class because you want to learn about philosophy.  Whether or not that’s the case, the purpose of this class is to introduce you to philosophy.  And the purpose of this first chapter is to give you an idea of what philosophy is, and why anyone should want to study it.  I am going to assume that you have thought a little, but not a <<i>i</i>><i>lot</i></<i>i</i>>, about <<i>i</i>><i>some</i></<i>i</i>> philosophical topics.
---
> I assume you’re signed up for this class because you want to learn about philosophy.  Whether or not that’s the case, the purpose of this class is to introduce you to philosophy.  And the purpose of this first chapter is to give you an idea of what philosophy is, and why anyone should want to study it.  I am going to assume that you have thought a little, but not a <i>lot</i>, about <i>some</i> philosophical topics.
3c3
< I could, but will not, simply start by giving a definition of "philosophy."  It will be better instead to start by getting clear on what <<i>i</i>><i>motivates</i></<i>i</i>> someone to start doing this activity called "philosophizing" -- what motivates people to start thinking very deeply about life and the universe.  Only when you understand why people take up philosophy will you be able properly to understand what philosophy is.  So let me begin by explaining why people take up philosophy.
---
> I could, but will not, simply start by giving a definition of "philosophy."  It will be better instead to start by getting clear on what <i>motivates</i> someone to start doing this activity called "philosophizing" -- what motivates people to start thinking very deeply about life and the universe.  Only when you understand why people take up philosophy will you be able properly to understand what philosophy is.  So let me begin by explaining why people take up philosophy.
41c41
< (4) But those people who are attracted to philosophy through the more dramatic topics like God and morality soon realize that the number and variety of beliefs that they don’t <i>really</i> understand is breathtakingly enormous.
---
> (4) But those people who are attracted to philosophy through the more dramatic topics like God and morality soon realize that the number and variety of beliefs that they don’t <i>really</i> understand is breathtakingly enormous.
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|981078410
2a3,4
> I really like the wrapping version with dots.  The only reason I didn't use it in the first place is simple ignorance.  I didn't know it was possible! We can refactor this page soon. --JimboWales
> 
88c90
< I'd say we should go for any of the wraping versions. if a text does not wrap it is too much a hassle for the reader. -- WojPob
---
> I'd say we should go for any of the wraping versions. if a text does not wrap it is too much a hassle for the reader. -- WojPob
------
PhilosophicalMethod|981078513
1c1,115
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So I say that puzzlement about the <i>meaning</i> and <i>rationality</i> of beliefs leads people into philosophy.  But into only philosophy?  After all, doesn’t the same sort of puzzlement lead people into <i>other</i> subjects as well?  Being puzzled about the <i>meaning</i> and <i>rationality</i> of beliefs about physical goings-on might lead me to study physics; or about God might get me into religious studies; or about fellow human beings, into psychology, sociology, or anthropology.  So I can’t say that philosophy is just "the study of the <i>meaning</i> and <i>rationality</i> of beliefs."  Because other subjects study that too, not just philosophy.
> 
> But after the examples I’ve given, and just considering your own personal experience with philosophy before this class, you may well feel there is <i>something</i> that distinguishes philosophical questions from purely religious, purely mathematical, and purely scientific questions.  There’s something that sets philosophy apart from these other disciplines, that really makes it special.
> 
> If you think this, you’re right.  There is something that makes philosophical questions special: namely, the methods that are used to answer them.  Let me give a definition of "method":
> 
> A <i>method</i> of doing some activity is a systematic or patterned way of doing that activity.
> 
> And so a method of doing philosophy, or a <i>philosophical</i> <i>method</i>, is a systematic or patterned way of answering philosophical questions.  Now right from the start I want to make it very clear that there is not just <i>one</i> method that philosophers use to answer philosophical questions.  But it is possible to draw some valid generalizations about philosophical methods.  It’s only after come to grips with those generalizations that we can really understand what makes philosophical questions unique.  And then we might also be able to understand what makes them particularly fascinating, in a way that questions about science and mathematics often are not.  Which is, of course, not to say that science and math may not be interesting in <i>other</i> ways.  I’m saying that there’s something <i>peculiar</i> about the philosophical questions, that inspires a <i>peculiar</i> philosophical curiosity or interest.
> 
> So now I’ll explain some of those general features about all different sorts of philosophical methods.  The first is something we’ve already seen: simple <i>doubts</i> about accepted beliefs.  Philosophy, it has been said, begins in wonder.  We get the initial impulse to philosophize, as I said, from the suspicion that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.  But philosophy absolutely does <i>not</i> end there.  In fact, that wonder by itself hardly constitutes doing philosophy at all.
> 
> The second step is <i>extremely</i> important: we <i>formulate</i> our doubts in questions to be answered, or problems to be solved.  The more clearly the question or problem is stated, the easier it will be to make genuine progress in coming to some sort of resolution.
> 
> So it is not enough simply to wonder, for example, "Do I really have free will?"  If you state that problem, the problem of freedom and determinism, in such a simple way, you’ll be apt simply to answer, "Well sure I do," and leave it at that.  And then you aren’t doing philosophy.  So what more do you need, in order to formulate the <i>problem</i> well?  You need to state <i>as</i> <i>clearly</i> <i>as</i> <i>you</i> <i>possibly</i> <i>can</i> exactly what the source of your discomfort is.  So in the case of freedom and determinism, you might say something like the following:
> 
> "Suppose that the universe operates according to deterministic causal laws, that is, that for everything that happens, there are some laws which made it necessary that thing, and only that thing happened.  So all events are determined.  Suppose also that this general principle applies to our choices.  Our choices are events in, parts of, the natural world, and so we should fully expect to find a complete causal explanation of those too, explaining why we <i>had</i> to make those choices and no others.  So all our choices are, on that accounting, determined or necessary.  But suppose next that we have a very keen sense that what we choose, we choose voluntarily; we <i>could</i> have chosen otherwise than we did choose.  In short, we think we have free will.  But how is it possible, or <i>is</i> it possible, that our choices might be causally determined <i>and</i> free at the same time?"
> 
> Now that’s the basic problem of freedom and determinism.  It’s an example of the <i>initial</i> statement of a philosophical problem.  It’s enough to let us all see that there really does seem to be a <i>genuine</i> <i>problem</i> that we would like to have solved.  A lot of philosophers and ordinary people are apt, after explaining their puzzlement in this initial way, to dive right in and start trying to solve the problem.  They immediately start giving arguments, pro and con, on different sides of the issue.
> 
> There is an admirable tendency among a relatively <i>small</i> number of philosophers not to be so quick, but to spend <i>more</i> time trying to get <i>extremely</i> clear on what the problem is all about.  An excellent example of such a philosopher is the Englishman G. E. Moore, who lived and worked in the first half of this century.  When addressing a question such as, "Is Existence a Predicate?" Moore almost never simply said, "Yes" or "No" and defended his answer.  In fact, in an article entitled "Is Existence a Predicate?" Moore begins this way: "I am not at all clear as to the meaning of this question.  Mr. Kneale says that existence is not a predicate.  But what does he mean by the words ‘Existence is not a predicate’?"   I think Moore’s sort of tendency, to get <i>very</i> <i>clear</i> on what philosophical problems amount to, is something all philosophers would do well to emulate.
> 
> So to take our example of freedom vs. determinism: how could our statement of the problem be clarified?  Well, one thing that I said was that "for everything that happens, there are some laws which made it necessary that thing, and only that thing happened."  But what exactly is the sense of the word "necessary" at work here?  Or in another place, I said "we have a very distinct impression that what we choose, we choose voluntarily; we <i>could</i> have chosen otherwise than how we did."  But what is the strength of this "could have"?  The idea appears to be that it is in some sense <i>possible</i> for us to choose otherwise; but in <i>what</i> sense of "possible" is it possible?
> 
> These are not easy questions.  It takes practice to know how to ask and how to deal with them.  But right now I think you can probably agree with me that an enquiry into the problem of freedom and determinism, or any philosophical problem, can only <i>benefit</i> from getting very clear about exactly what the problem is, and what the terms used to formulate the problem mean.  So that’s the second step in any philosophical method: formulation of the philosophical problem to be solved.
> 
> The third step is to enunciate a theory, or to offer a definition, which constitutes an attempt to solve the problem.  Very often, a philosophical theory by itself can be stated quite briefly, in just a sentence or two; all the surrounding philosophical text is offered by way of hedging, explanation, and argument.
> 
> So now let’s change the example.  I’ll give you an example of a philosophical theory.  This theory is meant to answer the question, "What actions are right?" or perhaps "What principle may we use to tell whether actions are right?"  John Stuart Mill, another English philosopher, offered this answer: "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals <i>utility</i>, or the <i>greatest</i> <i>happiness</i> <i>principle</i>, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."   So according to Mill, the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences; if they tend to cause happiness they’re right, and if they tend to cause unhappiness they’re wrong.
> 
> Regardless of whether you agree with that, you can see at least that it answers the question; in that it does answer the question, "What actions are right?" it is the sort of <i>perhaps</i>-enlightening answer that we’d like from philosophers.
> 
> One might loosely interpret Mill’s "greatest happiness principle" as a definition of "right action."  In other words, you might regard it as saying what we really mean, or perhaps what we ought to mean, when we say that something is right.  It is often useful to regard philosophers as offering definitions in this way.  I should add though that this way of thinking about what philosophers do is very controversial.  In fact, some philosophers, especially recently (meaning, in the twentieth century), have concluded that it is <i>impossible</i> to formulate good definitions of philosophical terms.  So instead of "definitions" they speak of "theories," or "accounts," or "analyses."  So one might say, with less controversy, that Mill has a theory or an account of right action.  But I personally will tend to talk of "definitions" of different words or concepts.
> 
> Whatever the word, the fact is that philosophers have been and continue to be in the business of making big generalizations about things like right action: saying what <i>all</i> right actions have in common, or saying what characterizes <i>only</i> right actions.  But not all solutions to philosophical problems consist of such definitions or generalizations.  Sometimes what is called for is a certain sort of <i>explanation</i>.  Not a <i>causal</i> explanation, but an explanation, for example of how two different views, which seem to be contrary to one another, can be held at the same time, consistently.  Call this a <i>philosophical</i> explanation.
> 
> Take the freedom and determinism problem again.  Here what is needed is not, specifically, a definition of "free will" or of "determined action."  No doubt those definitions would really help in offering a solution to the problem.  But the solution itself would consist of <i>one</i> of the three following.  First, an explanation <i>how</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> that we might have free will and yet also be determined to choose what we do, in other words an explanation of how freedom and causality are compatible.  Or, second, an explanation of how it is that free choices are an <i>exception</i> to deterministic, scientific laws.  Or, third, an explanation of why it <i>appears</i> that we have free choices, even though we really don’t.  Any of these three sorts of explanations, if you did them right, would be essential parts of a solution to the problem of freedom and determinism.  So there you have a problem, and its solution is not simply a definition of some basic philosophical concept.  As I said, not all philosophical solutions are definitions.
> 
> Here’s another example showing the same thing.  There’s a very difficult problem in philosophy called "the problem of induction."  Induction is a kind of reasoning -- it’s a way we get from reasons to conclusions.  So induction works like this -- to work with an example, we’ll take the sun rising -- we have experience of the sun rising every day.  There’s never been a day in human memory when the sun did <i>not</i> rise.  Therefore, we say, it will rise tomorrow.  Now this is a little argument, a piece of reasoning, and basically we’re arguing like this: if something has been observed over and over to be a certain way, then the next time it is observed, it will be that way again.  This is called <i>inductive</i> <i>reasoning</i>.
> 
> The problem of induction is basically this: <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>the</i> <i>next</i> <i>time</i> <i>you</i> <i>see</i> <i>the</i> <i>thing</i> <i>it</i> <i>won’t</i> <i>be</i> <i>different</i>?  For example, how do you know the sun <i>won’t</i> rise tomorrow?  The obvious first answer here is: the sun has <i>always</i> risen.  But that just begs the next question: how do you know that tomorrow won’t be the first exception?  Bertrand Russell, yet another English philosopher, tells the story of a chicken who is fed every day for its life.  Every day the farmer steps out to the henhouse and scatters chicken feed to the chicken.  So the chicken would be very reasonable to believe that <i>tomorrow</i> the farmer will come and feed the chicken.  But tomorrow, instead, the farmer goes out to the henhouse and wrings the chicken’s neck for dinner.  As Russell concludes, "More refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." 
> 
> So the basic problem of induction is <i>how</i> we can know that the future will resemble the past.  Notice that this requires perhaps a very complicated sort of explanation.  A mere definition won’t do the job.  Once again, even if a definition, say, of "induction," would be very important in the explanation, the definition would not be all we needed to solve the problem.
> 
> Anyway, that’s the third step in any method of philosophizing: a solution to the problem must be offered; and depending on the problem, the solution can be either a definition or a philosophical explanation.
> 
> We’re not done yet.  Alas, we’re <i>far</i> from being done.  Philosophy consists of much more than simply having doubts, formulating problems, and coming up with solutions.  Remember, after all, what gives rise to the philosophical impulse; remember what motivates us to philosophize.  We have doubts about what our beliefs mean, and whether they’re really rational.  Those same doubts are very likely going to visit us again if we simply stop with the first, or easiest, solution that offers itself to us.  For example, suppose you really liked Mill’s greatest happiness principle.  And you say to yourself, "That’s just dandy -- ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness.’  I hadn’t thought about it, but that’s what right actions <i>are</i>.  Boy I feel a lot better now.  Now I know what right action is!"
> 
> If that’s how you think, you’re really making a mistake, and you’re not doing philosophy.  The reason is that you have to <i>justify</i> your answer -- you have to say <i>why</i> you think this is what right action is.  And your justification, or reasons, had better be good.  Because if they aren’t, you aren’t any better off than when you started having philosophical doubts in the first place.  Those doubts may, and probably should, be visited upon you again!
> 
> [Halfway done]
> 
> So here then is the <i>fourth</i> step of any philosophical method worth its salt: arguments must be offered for the definitions or explanations proposed.  What is an argument?  Here’s a definition:
> 
> An <i>argument</i> is a set of statements, one of which (the <i>conclusion</i>), it is said or implied, follows from the others (the <i>premises</i>).
> 
> So think of arguments as bundles of reasons -- often not just a list, but highly interconnected reasons -- followed by the claim they are reasons for.  The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion, and the whole thing together is an argument.
> 
> Philosophers are, or at least they should be, really good at giving arguments.  They are constantly demanding and offering arguments for different claims they make.  Now what’s the point of all that?  Here’s the point: it’s only a good <i>argument</i>, a clear, organized, and <i>sound</i> statement of <i>reasons</i> <i>to</i> <i>believe</i> <i>something</i>, that will ultimately cure us of the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy.  Only good arguments will satisfy our doubts.  If you are willing to be satisfied with an answer without any good arguments, without any good supporting reasons, then (for whatever this is worth), you do not have a philosophical temperament.  You may have the questioning nature and the doubts that lead people to do philosophy, but you do not have the argument-wielding nature that really characterizes the heart of philosophy.
> 
> Let me give you an example of an argument.  Say you have some doubts about religious matters, and you ask the question: "Does God really exist?"  Your answer is, we will say, "Yes."  Now how might you argue for your answer?  Here is a very common, popular argument, called <i>the</i> <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>design</i>.  It goes like this.
> 
> The universe is made up of a huge variety of things, inanimate and living, natural and artificial -- from the hills and the oceans, to the houses and ships on them, from the stars and planets, to the cities and highways.  All of this huge variety of things is, as scientists well know, operating in a splendid order or harmony, much like a very complicated machine, only much more complicated and well-planned than anything that we humans have ever invented.  Like a machine, this order or harmony could not have just sprung into existence all on its own; like a machine, it must have had a designer.  Moreover, since the universe is so complicated and well-planned, this designer must be incredibly intelligent; and since everything is so well-made for the habitation of humans (generally speaking), this designer must be very benevolent.  And of course, as the creator and planner of the entire universe, this designer must be extremely powerful.  So the universe must have had a designer which is incredibly intelligent, very benevolent, and extremely powerful; and this designer is what we call <i>God</i>.  Therefore, God exists.
> 
> That’s called "the argument from design."  We will study it again when we study philosophy of religion.  But you can see, I think, that it offers a series of interconnected reasons to believe that there does exist the sort of entity that we call "God."  Now this sort of argument is just exactly what philosophers want from each other.  To deserve our consideration, the argument doesn’t have to be <i>perfect</i>.  It might have some problems.  In fact it might be a <i>really</i> <i>bad</i> argument.  But on the face of it, there should be something rather persuasive about it.  That gives us something to analyze and talk about.  And that’s what philosophers do quite a bit: they talk about each others’ arguments.
> 
> So we still aren’t done.  There is an important element of philosophical method, the fifth, that we need to explain.  This is the element of <i>criticism</i>.  And this is where other people come in.  We offer definitions and explanations in solution to problems; we argue for those solutions; and then other people come along and, often, devastate those solutions, throw us into doubt again, and force us to come up with better solutions.  This exchange and resulting revision of views is called <i>dialectic</i>.  Dialectic is simply philosophical conversation amongst people who do not always agree with each other about everything.
> 
> Now you can do this sort of harsh criticism on your own.  You don’t <i>absolutely</i> need other people to tell you what might be wrong with your views, especially if you are a very self-critical sort of person.  But others can help greatly, especially if you share many important assumptions with the person offering the criticisms.
> 
> Perhaps this sounds rather obvious to anyone who has gone around the block once arguing about God, morality, free will, and stuff like that.  But this is perhaps the most disconcerting part of philosophy for people just starting to study the subject.  It’s quite different from other subjects that study general aspects of the universe, like natural science and mathematics; in those other disciplines, the experts all agree about the fundamentals.  But in philosophy, which concerns the <i>most</i> fundamental aspects of the universe, the experts all <i>disagree</i>.  And in disagreeing they are following this fifth step of philosophical method, to offer and deal with criticisms of proposed solutions.  Or as I said, to engage in dialectic.
> 
> The entire history of philosophy is a long -- <i>millenia</i>-long -- philosophical dialectic.  There is practically no philosophical question which has not been asked; practically every possible solution has been proposed.  And yet philosophers go on arguing with each other.  And it certainly looks like they aren’t going to stop, either.
> 
> This is what makes philosophy so disconcerting for beginners, who aren’t used to the alleged experts disagreeing about everything.  If there is no general agreement, then what’s the point in studying the subject?  If there is no truth to be had, why go to the trouble of coming up with solutions and arguments?
> 
> This is a very common concern and it needs to be directly addressed at the outset.  Suppose you have this concern -- we’ll put it like this, in the form of an argument:
> 
> (1) For almost every problem in philosophy, philosophers throughout history have offered conflicting solutions.
> 
> (2) Moreover, there has been no progress toward general agreement.
> 
> (3) Moreover, there does not appear to be any progress toward general agreement at present.
> 
> (4) Therefore, there is no truth to be found in philosophy; and hence there is no point in studying philosophy.
> 
> First of all, notice that during those thousands of years of philosophical conversations, all of those philosophers did not give up <i>simply</i> on grounds that they disagreed with each other.  In fact, historically, disagreement has been a great motivating impetus to philosophical work.  The fact that Descartes said something different from Locke is often looked on by philosophers not as discouraging but as something to be excited about: both men had such great minds, so if one of them was mistaken it must have been a deep, important, interesting mistake.
> 
> Second, and more importantly, notice that the conclusion of this argument just doesn’t follow from the premises.  In other words, the premises might all be perfectly true, but the conclusion doesn’t necessarily then <i>have</i> to be true.  An example from another academic discipline might help here.  Suppose Tom, Dick, and Harry are all arguing about the origin of Mars’ moon Deimos.  Tom thinks it is a captured asteroid; Dick thinks it formed out of the primordial cloud of dust that formed Mars; and Harry think it broke off from Mars when Mars was struck by a gigantic asteroid.  Now I personally have no idea of the respective plausibility of each of these views.  But one thing I can say is that the mere fact that Tom, Dick, and Harry disagree does <i>not</i> mean there’s no truth to be found about the subject.  If we went back in time to the right moment in planetary history, we could <i>see</i> that Deimos was formed in one way and not the others.  There’s a fact about the matter even if Tom, Dick, and Harry don’t know it yet.
> 
> I want to suggest that the problems of philosophy are like that.  I mean that philosophical problems are, on the one hand, very difficult issues to resolve, and it’s very easy to disagree about them; but, on the other hand, the mere fact that there is disagreement doesn’t, all by itself, mean that there is no philosophical truth to be found.
> 
> But admittedly, philosophical problems are extremely difficult to sort out in a clear-headed way.  Unfortunately, we can’t simply make observations and design experiments to test philosophical definitions and explanations.  Observations and experiments are used by scientists to arrive at a consensus; similarly, rigorous proofs based on axioms and definitions are used by mathematicians to arrive at consensus there.  But, except in the philosophical subdiscipline of <i>logic</i>, philosophers do not have any such consensus-building techniques.  All we have are words -- words that express those same, not-very-well-understood concepts that we are confused about.
> 
> So there are at least two basic reactions to the phenomenon of philosophical disagreement.  First, you might simply give up before you start.  Or, second, you might try to increase the degree of clarity and rigor with which you think about philosophical questions.  I think I <i>have</i> observed some very important advances in philosophy, and they are almost always due to applying ever-increasing amounts of clarity and rigor to the subject -- they involve exploring every unexplored avenue, thinking about every unconsidered possibility, understanding all the assumptions that lie behind a view, taking apart arguments in very careful detail, and so on.  I think that many philosophers, throughout history, have shown at least that certain solutions that <i>other</i> philosophers have proposed were wrong.  And it took clear thinking to do that.  That much at least is a kind of philosophical progress.
> 
> However it is that you ultimately react to the phenomenon of philosophical disagreement, at least do yourself this favor.  For the space of this quarter, assume that there <i>is</i> some philosophical truth to be found.  Keep your mind open to that possibility.  If you shut yourself off from that possibility you will not be able to keep an interest in philosophy, and you won’t be able to get half out of it what you might.  For the space of this quarter, don’t regard an inquiring philosophical nature as naive.  If it helps, remember this: some of the finest, most brilliant minds in the world have <i>not</i> thought that trust in the existence of philosophical truth was naive.
> 
> Now we’ve gotten a little off track.  I have talked for the past half hour explaining five very general features of all philosophical methods.  Or you might think of these five steps I’ve given as steps in one general philosophical method.  Here then are those steps again:
> 
> Step 1.  Doubt.  Notice doubts that you have about the meaning or justification of some common, everyday belief you have.
> 
> Step 2.  Formulate problem.  Formulate those doubts in a philosophical problem, or question.  Explain the problem very clearly and carefully.
> 
> Step 3.  Offer solution.  Offer a solution to the problem: either a definition, or a philosophical explanation.
> 
> Step 4.  Argument.  Give an argument or several arguments supporting the solution.
> 
> Step 5.  Dialectic.  Present your solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help them judge their own.
> 
> Now this little five-step method is, as you might expect, highly simplified and idealized.  No one does, or should, follow these steps in exactly this order.  A lot of times for philosophers it’s not doubt about their own beliefs that gets them thinking; a lot of times it’s doubt about what <i>other</i> people say that does it.  And some philosophers really put the cart before the horse: they examine a solution and arguments for it, and only after doing that, they go back and ask what problem it was they were trying to solve.  And surely there are a lot of people who plunge right into philosophical debates, and by the seat of their dialectical pants figure out what the problem is, what solutions have been offered, and what the arguments on all sides have been.
> 
> All that having been said, in many cases it probably is best to proceed as systematically as possible, and not go to the next step until the prior step is completed.  That may be most <i>efficient</i> way, at least.  It might not be the most fun.  But here the words of the great French philosopher Descartes come to mind: "Like a man who walks alone and in the shadows, I resolved to go so slowly and use so much circumspection in all things that, if I never advanced but slightly, I would at least avoid falling." 
> 
> Now as I said a while ago, what motivates us to take up philosophy is doubts about the meaning and justification of our beliefs.  But then I said that <i>other</i> disciplines, such as the natural sciences, study that as well.  I asked what it is that distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines; and I said they differ in the <i>methods</i> they use.  So now that I have stated some generalizations about philosophical method, I am ready to say how philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines.
------
PhiloSophy|981078567
5c5
< WhyPhilosophize -- PhilosophicalMethod
---
> WhyPhilosophize -- PhilosophicalMethod -- DefinitionOfPhilosophy
------
DefinitionOfPhilosophy|981078593
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Consider first how to distinguish philosophy from science -- from disciplines like physics and chemistry.  Well, it’s <i>not</i> part of philosophy to do experiments.  Experiments play little, if any, role in the solution of philosophical problems.  Now someone might object to this, if he knows much about the intersection of philosophy and science.  He might say, "But philosophers are often referring to and interpreting the scientific work of physicists, who do experiments about space and time and quantum mechanics.  And they are often referring to experimental work done in psychology when they discuss philosophy of psychology."
> 
> There’s no doubting that philosophers sometimes <i>interpret</i> and <i>refer</i> <i>to</i> experimental work of various kinds -- especially in the philosophies of the different sciences.  For example, in philosophy of physics, or philosophy of psychology.  But that’s not surprising of course: the purpose of those branches of philosophy, branches like philosophy of physics, is to help interpret the philosophical aspects of experimental work.  But at any rate it’s not the <i>philosophers</i>, in their capacities <i>as</i> philosophers, who do the experiments.
> 
> There is a basic historical reason why philosophy is not experimental.  Originally, "philosophy" meant simply "the love of wisdom."  The "philo-" part comes from the Greek word <i>philein</i>, meaning to love, and the "-sophy" part comes from <i>sophia</i>, or wisdom.  Originally the scope of philosophy was <i>all</i> abstract intellectual endeavor.  Even up until early modern times, the people we now call "scientists" were referred to as "natural philosophers," i.e., philosophers who study nature.  Over the years, the scope of philosophy has gotten smaller and smaller, as different sciences have spun off and become independent disciplines in their own right.  Some relatively early "spin-offs" were physics and chemistry; more recently, just within the past 100 years, psychology has spun off.
> 
> So of course one might wonder how thinkers knew or sensed that a new discipline was to be treated as independent from philosophy.  The answer is that the discipline began to be prosecuted using rigorous methods of observation and experimentation.  Philosophy in its core sense, the sense that remains today, is essentially something that one should be able to do from one’s armchair, surrounded, at most, by some books that scientists write.  But be careful thinking about this.  I <i>emphatically</i> do not mean that philosophy is totally non-observational, or non-empirical.  Certainly philosophy makes use of, in a really essential way, observations about the world.  But they are, we might say, very <i>general</i> observations -- observations like "It seems to me I make free choices" and "It seems to me that killing another person, if ever necessary, requires a really good excuse."  Observations like this take a great deal of investigation to make; they require careful attention.  But most (not all) philosophical topics require no more <i>specialized</i> knowledge than the average educated person has; except perhaps <i>specialized</i> knowledge about philosophy itself.
> 
> So philosophy is not experimental and its observations are only very general, broad observations.  And that is what makes it different from natural sciences like physics, and social sciences like psychology.  So mind you, some people confuse philosophy and psychology, but they are different.  Philosophy does study the mind (and it also studies other things <i>besides</i> the mind, too), just as psychology does.  But the study of the mind involved in doing psychology involves careful, specific observation of particular mental phenomena, and experimentation; philosophers think about more general aspects of the mind, questions like, "What is consciousness?  What is the mind itself?"
> 
> All right, then what distinguishes philosophy from religious studies, which also is not experimental?  Some parts of religious studies -- parts of theology, anyway -- clearly <i>are</i> philosophical.  Parts of theology, which ask about what God is and how to prove that God exists, clearly overlap with what philosophers call "philosophy of religion."  And that’s not a problem.  Similarly, classics, or study of ancient Greece and Rome, studies the Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato, and so classics overlaps with an area of philosophy, namely history of Greek philosophy, to that extent.  And that’s not a problem either.  It doesn’t muddy the concepts either of philosophy or of classics.  But what about that other part of religious studies, the <i>empirical</i> part, which often focuses on comparative study of different world religions?  Well, that part of religious studies can be distinguished from philosophy in just the way that any other social science can be distinguished from philosophy.  Namely, it involves specific observations of particular phenomena, here particular religious practices, and philosophy does not.
> 
> So perhaps now you can see how philosophy differs from various of the sciences, psychology, and religious studies.  But how does philosophy differ from mathematics?  <i>It</i> certainly is not experimental.
> 
> Mathematics differs from philosophy for other reasons.  For one thing, it uses some very specific, rigorous methods of proof that philosophy may try to emulate sometimes, but rarely, if ever, succeeds in duplicating.  As a result, mathematicians hardly ever disagree about results.  But philosophers disagree about their methods and their methods are not always nearly as rigorous as the methods mathematicians use.  And dialectic, while surely a part of progress in mathematics, does not play the <i>same</i> <i>sort</i> of prominent role that it plays in philosophy.
> 
> A more straightforward way to distinguish philosophy from mathematics is this.  Math, beyond a certain basic level, requires some <i>extremely</i> specialized knowledge, which can be obtained only by dint of extremely hard labor and concentration.  It is not the sort of discipline that can be pursued with the knowledge that the average educated person has.  Philosophy, to be pursued right, sometimes does require hard labor and concentration, but at least a philosopher can explain his question, with not <i>too</i> much difficulty, to an intelligent nonphilosopher in under ten minutes.
> 
> So I’m suggesting that philosophy is a discipline that draws on knowledge that the average educated person has, and does not make use of experimentation and careful observation; though it may interpret philosophical aspects of experiment and observation.  OK, so this tells you what philosophy is <i>not</i>.  The question now is what philosophy <i>is</i>.
> 
> But I have already suggested an answer to that question.  Namely, it is a discipline that examines the meaning and justification of certain of our most basic, fundamental beliefs, according to a certain general method which I explained at length.  If there’s anything that is unclear about this, it is, I think, what we might mean by these words: "basic, fundamental beliefs."  Is there any way I might make that clearer?
> 
> Well, try this out for size.  A belief is fundamental if it concerns those aspects of the universe which are <i>most</i> <i>commonly</i> found, which are found everywhere: the <i>universal</i> aspects of things.  Philosophy studies, for example, what <i>existence</i> <i>itself</i> is.  What could be more universal than that -- than existence itself?  It also studies value -- the goodness of things -- in general.  And surely in human life we find the relevance of value or goodness everywhere.  I don’t mean just moral goodness, though that’s very important, but even more generally, goodness in the sense of anything that is actually desirable; the sense, for example, in which an apple, a painting, and a person can <i>all</i> be good.  (Well, if there is a single sense in which they are all called "good.")
> 
> Of course, physics and the other sciences study some very universal aspects of things; but it does so experimentally.  Philosophy studies those aspects that can be studied without experimentation.  And those are aspects of things that are very general indeed; to take yet another example, philosophers ask what physical objects as such are, as distinguished from properties of objects and relations between objects, and perhaps also as distinguished from minds or souls.  Physicists proceed as though the notion of a physical body is quite clear and straightforward -- which perhaps in the end it will found to be -- but at any rate, physics <i>assumes</i> that, and then asks questions about how all physical bodies behave, and then does experiments to find out the answers.  Philosophy just doesn’t work that way.
> 
> With all of what I’ve said so far as background, I’ll offer a definition.  I should make one more remark first, though: as philosophers disagree about everything, one of their points of disagreement is about what philosophy is.  So don’t go around thinking that the following is the generally agreed-upon definition of philosophy, because it isn’t.  What it is, is a well thought out definition which, I am confident, most philosophers would acknowledge as at least a good and plausible attempt.  Anyway, here goes.
> 
> <i>Philosophy</i> is the study of the meaning and justification of beliefs about the most general, or universal, aspects of things; a study which is carried out not by experimentation or careful observation, but instead typically by formulating problems carefully, offering solutions to them, giving arguments for the solutions, and engaging in dialectic about all of the above.
> 
> I’m not going to tell you that this is a perfect definition, because I’m sure it isn’t.  But I think it should give you a pretty good idea of what "philosophy" means.
------
PhilosophicalSubdisciplines|981078712
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <i>Logic</i>: the study of the standards of correct argumentation and definition.
> 
> <i>Metaphysics</i>: the study of the most basic categories of things, such as existence, objects, properties, and so forth.
> 
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>Religion</i>: the study of the meaning of the concept of God and of the rationality of belief in the existence of God.
> 
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>Mind</i>: the study of the nature of the mind, and its relation to the body and the rest of the world.
> 
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>Language</i>: the study of the concepts of meaning and truth.
> 
> <i>Epistemology</i>: the study of knowledge, its nature, possibility, and justification.
> 
> <i>Value</i> <i>Theory</i>: the study of the meaning of "good" and the relation between fact and value.
> 
> <i>Ethics</i>: the study of what makes actions right or wrong, and of how theories of right action can be applied to special moral problems.
> 
> <i>Political</i> <i>Philosophy</i>: the study of basic topics concerning government, including the purpose of the state, political justice, freedom, the nature of law, and the justification of punishment.
------
IntroductoryMaterial|981078758
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Material in this section should be aimed at introducing philosophy to nonphilosophers.
------
LoGic|981078910
13a14,15
> 
> See also DefinitionOfLogic; DeductionAndInduction; ArgumentForms; MeaningAndDefinitions.
------
DefinitionOfLogic|981078927
1c1,51
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Today we’re going to study a subdiscipline of philosophy called <i>logic</i>.  This is basically the study of argument -- by which we mean, not angry disagreements or fisticuffs, but instead <i>the</i> <i>giving</i> <i>of</i> <i>reasons</i> <i>to</i> <i>believe</i> <i>things</i>.  So recall from last time the definition of "argument":
> 
> An <i>argument</i> is a set of statements, one of which (the <i>conclusion</i>), it is said or implied, follows from the others (the <i>premises</i>).
> 
> It’s extremely important in this class that you understand what arguments are, and that you distinguish them from other things.  To give an argument is to give evidence, and then draw a conclusion from it; it is to give reasons to believe something, and then to state the belief.  The statements that give expression to the evidence, or the reasons, are all called the <i>premises</i>.  The thing one argues <i>for</i> is called the <i>conclusion</i>.  You can think of a whole argument as a set of statements, comprising premise or premises, and the conclusion.
> 
> Now, there are <i>other</i> kinds of sets of statements besides arguments, such as explanations.  Logic does not, or not primarily, concern itself with explanations.  For example, suppose I offer an explanation for why there are tides: I talk about the gravitational effect of the moon and the sun on the oceans, and so on.  Now, <i>that</i> isn’t an argument.  It is an <i>explanation</i>.  In <i>that</i> case, I’m explaining why there are tides.  I’m not trying to convince you <i>that</i> there are tides.  We have already agreed that there are tides.  The question the explanation answers is <i>why</i> there are.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose I argue for the following claim: "God exists."  In other words, "God exists" is the conclusion of an argument I make.  In that case I am <i>not</i> explaining why there is a God.  If I tried to explain why there is a God, I would be <i>assuming</i> that there is a God.  But if what I’m doing is <i>arguing</i> for the existence of God, then I’m not <i>assuming</i> that he exists; rather, I’m trying to <i>convince</i> you, or a skeptic anyway, that God exists.
> 
> So I think you can see the difference between an argument and an explanation.  On the one hand, the function or purpose of an argument is to convince people who might be doubting the conclusion.  On the other hand, the function or purpose of an explanation is to give the cause of some phenomenon which we observe, or are willing to assume actually occurs.  To put it even more briefly, the purpose of an argument is to <i>persuade</i>, while the purpose of an explanation is to <i>explain</i>.
> 
> Just as a hammer is the tool of the carpenter’s trade, an <i>argument</i> is the tool of the philosopher’s trade.  And, as I said last time, it shouldn’t be too hard to see why philosophers work so much with arguments: philosophers carry to heroic lengths the human tendency to doubt sometimes the deepest, most fundamental of our beliefs.  Because they want to overcome all of these doubts, they offer and examine arguments for various claims: the arguments are supposed to be what will rid us of the doubts.  If we accept what we know is an excellent argument for a conclusion, and we’ve refuted all the plausible arguments <i>against</i> that conclusion, then we’re very well-positioned to say that we <i>know</i> that the conclusion is true.  Arguments, then, have the potential to give us  <i>knowledge</i> and to rid us of doubts; that’s why arguments are so important.
> 
> But just as there are good and bad hammers, there are good and bad arguments.  In fact, I imagine that there are a lot more bad arguments in the world than there are bad hammers.  Let me give you an example of a bad argument.  Suppose I wanted to argue for the claim that <i>all</i> <i>killing</i> <i>is</i> <i>wrong</i>.  And suppose I was giving this argument to a bunch of people who supported the death penalty: they think that <i>some</i> killing is fine, as punishment of the worst murderers, say.  So I argue as follows:
> 
> If one should never do X, all X is wrong.  (X can be any action.)
> 
> One should absolutely never kill.
> 
> Therefore, all killing is wrong.
> 
> Would the supporters of the death penalty be impressed by this argument?  Of course they wouldn’t.  They would say, "You’re begging the question.  In your argument, you say that one should absolutely never kill.  But to prove <i>that</i> you’d have to prove that all killing is wrong -- which is what you’re trying to argue for.  We disagree with your conclusion: we think that <i>some</i> killing is <i>not</i> wrong.  And so of <i>course</i> we are going to disagree with your premise, that one should absolutely never kill.  No indeed, in some cases one actually <i>should</i> kill: it’s our grim duty, an unfortunately necessary part of justice."
> 
> So you can see that my argument just isn’t going to work against those people.  In it, I presuppose the conclusion: in other words, one of the premises <i>assumes</i> that the conclusion is true.  This is an error in arguing.  The <i>kind</i> of error has a name: <i>begging</i> <i>the</i> <i>question</i>.  If my argument begs the question then in my argument I assume the very thing that I’m trying to argue <i>for</i>.  Of course an argument that begs the question won’t, or shouldn’t, convince anyone: if I assume what I’m arguing for, anyone who assumes differently will be unimpressed.
> 
> Begging the question is one of the ways that arguments can go wrong.  There are many, many other ways; and those most common ways that arguments can go wrong are called <i>fallacies</i>.  So begging the question is one kind of fallacy.  You should make sure that you are not committing any fallacies yourself, when you argue.
> 
> Let me give you another example of a fallacy.  Suppose I argue like this:
> 
> Ted is a good tennis player.
> 
> Therefore, Ted is good -- a morally good person.
> 
> Here the problem is that the word "good" has different meanings, which is to say that it is an <i>ambiguous</i> word.  In the premise, we say that Ted is good <i>at</i> <i>some</i> <i>particular</i> <i>activity</i>, in this case tennis.  But in the conclusion we say that Ted is a <i>morally</i> good person.  Those are clearly two different senses of the word "good."  And so of course the premise might be true, while the conclusion would still be false: Ted might be the best tennis player in the world, but a rotten person morally speaking.  Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called <i>the</i> <i>fallacy</i> <i>of</i> <i>ambiguity</i>.
> 
> Now you’re just going to have to trust me that there are zillions of other fallacies.  Whole books have been written cataloging fallacies -- all the different kinds of ways that arguments can go wrong.  Today we’re going to be less ambitious: we’re going to outline, in broad generalities, how arguments can <i>go</i> <i>right</i>.  In other words, I’m going to introduce you to the study of <i>good</i> arguments, non-fallacious arguments -- which is to say that I’m going to introduce you to <i>logic</i>.
> 
> Here is a definition of "logic":
> 
> <i>Logic</i> is the study of good arguments and definitions; in particular, it is the study of (1) forms of arguments and their parts, (2) the qualities (of arguments) of validity, cogency, and soundness, (3) how to construct, identify, interpret, and evaluate various kinds of arguments, and (4) how to construct and evaluate definitions.
> 
> Traditional treatments of logic have included discussion of not just arguments, but the varieties and standards of definitions, as well.  And the way I’ll present it, logic will include discussion of <i>both</i> arguments <i>and</i> definitions.
> 
> I want to introduce you to some of the most fundamental logical concepts, for two reasons.  The first is that logic is one of the basic branches of philosophy, and so if I’m going to introduce you to all, or almost all, of the basic branches of philosophy, I’d better introduce you to logic.  The second reason is practical: namely, logic will help you understand better the rest of philosophy.  So it also has practical value.
> 
> There is a good reason why logic will help you understand the rest of philosophy.  I said last time that it is doubt about the meaning and justification of certain fundamental beliefs that motivates us to do philosophy.  Well, very often to extricate us from these doubts what are needed are <i>definitions</i> that explain the meaning of our basic concepts, and <i>arguments</i> to justify, or give reasons for, various beliefs that we’re not quite sure about.  Logic states the standards of good definitions and good arguments: it gives us the tools to see whether various proposed definitions, or arguments, are any good or not.  It helps us to avoid fallacies.
> 
> So let’s go back to the definition of "logic" I gave, and examine its various parts, leaving aside part (4), about definitions, for now.
> 
> Logic, like mathematics and physics, has a theoretical part and an applied part.  Parts (1) and (2) of the definition together describe the theoretical part of logic, and (3) describes the applied part.  And just as a nonmathematician learning physics should study mathematics in order to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> mathematics well, a nonlogician in <i>any</i> task that requires reasoning, such as confirming rational beliefs, should study logic to learn how to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> logic well.  Moreover, like mathematics and physics (and many other things), you have to do quite a bit of <i>practice</i> if you want to gain any facility in using logic.  Logic is a bit unlike other parts of philosophy in that way: in studying books in <i>other</i> areas of philosophy, such as ethics and metaphysics, you’ll rarely see <i>problems</i> at the end of the chapter.  But you might very well do problems in logic, in order to learn how to use logic.  (Of course, that’s not to say that practice, of various sorts, would not help one to learn other areas of philosophy better.  It’s just that the practice would be practice thinking the problems through.)
------
DeductionAndInduction|981079013
1c1,131
< Describe the new page here.
---
> First, logic is the study of <b>the</b> <b>forms</b> <b>of</b> <b>arguments</b> <b>and</b> <b>of</b> <b>the</b> <b>parts</b> <b>of</b> <b>arguments</b>.  What exactly do I mean by the phrase <i>form</i> <i>of</i> <i>argument</i>?  The basic notion can be introduced with an example.  Here’s an example of an argument:
> 
> <b>A</b>	All humans are mortal.  Socrates is human.  <i>Therefore</i>, Socrates is mortal.
> 
> We can rewrite argument A by putting each sentence on its own line:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>B</b>	All humans are mortal.
> 
> 	Socrates is human.
> 
> 	<i>Therefore</i>, Socrates is mortal.
> 
> Now, to demonstrate the important notion of the <i>form</i> of an argument, I will substitute letters for similar items throughout <b>B</b>, like this:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>C</b>	All S is P.
> 
> 	<i>a</i> is S.
> 
> 	<i>Therefore</i>, <i>a</i> is P.
> 
> All I have done in <b>C</b> is to put "S" for "human" and "humans," "P" for "mortal," and "<i>a</i>" for "Socrates"; and there we have the <i>form</i> of the original argument in <b>A</b>.  So argument form <b>C</b> is the form of argument <b>A</b>.  And each individual sentence of <b>C</b> is the <i>sentence</i> <i>form</i> of its respective sentence in <b>A</b>.  So if you want a definition of "form," you can use this (though it’s not exactly a rigorous definition): The <i>form</i> of an argument is what you get after you replace different words, or sentences, that make up the argument with letters; the letters are called <i>variables</i>.  Just like variables can stand for various numbers in math, variables can stand for various words, or sentences, in logic.  All right, now argument forms like <b>C</b> are very important in the study of logic.  And the <i>parts</i> of argument forms -- by which I mean such sentence forms as the first line -- "All S is P," are equally important.  In a logic class you would learn how to determine what the forms of various sentences and arguments are; we do not have time for that, but I think you can at least understand the basic concept of logical form.  That’s all I want you to understand right now: what logical form is.
> 
> There is a very good reason why attention to argument and sentence forms is important.  The reason is this: <i>Form</i> <i>is</i> <i>what</i> <i>makes</i> <i>an</i> <i>argument</i> <i>valid</i> <i>or</i> <i>cogent</i>.  That’s very important and it bears repeating: form is important because it determines whether an argument is valid or not, or cogent or not.  So next let’s look at part (2) of our definition of "logic," which concerns validity and cogency.
> 
> Part (2) says this: logic is the study of <b>the</b> <b>qualities</b> <b>of</b> <b>validity</b>, <b>cogency</b>, <b>and</b> <b>soundness</b>, <b>and</b> <b>strength</b>.  Roughly, if an argument is valid or cogent, then the conclusion really does follow from the premises; in other words, <i>if</i> the premises are true, <i>then</i>, it follows that, the conclusion is true; in yet other words, the premises (if true) actually give one good reason for believing the conclusion.
> 
> Now, there are two different ways that the conclusion can follow from the premises: the argument can be <i>valid</i> or it can be <i>cogent</i>.  Those are the two ways.  These are different, and mutually exclusive properties; an argument cannot be both valid and cogent.  But if an argument <i>is</i> one or the other, then the conclusion does follow from the premises.
> 
> Here then is what "valid" means.  I will define and discuss "cogent" later.
> 
> An argument is <i>valid</i> if, and only if, when the premises are all true, then the conclusion <i>must</i> be true.
> 
> And validity is the property of being valid.  Now, validity is a conditional notion.  Look at the definition of "valid": it does not say that the premises have to be true.  It doesn’t say that the conclusion has to be true.  But it <i>does</i> say that <i>if</i> the premises are true, <i>then</i> the conclusion has to be true.  As far as validity is concerned the premises might be completely and obviously false!  So let me show you an argument that is valid, but which has totally false premises:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>D</b>	All dogs have eight legs.
> 
> 	The President is a dog.
> 
> 	<i>Therefore</i>, the President has eight legs.
> 
> This is, strange to say, a perfectly valid argument.  Remember, in logic, "valid" doesn’t mean anything more than what we define to mean.  So the fact that an argument is valid, in logic, does <i>not</i> necessarily mean that it is a <i>good</i> argument.  In fact, it might be a really <i>bad</i> argument, just like argument <b>D</b>.  But argument <b>D</b> is, at least, <i>valid</i>.  What does that mean, in this case?  Something like this: suppose it were <i>true</i> that all dogs had eight legs; and suppose, just suppose, that the President really were a dog; well, in that absurd imaginary world, the President would have to have eight legs.  The conclusion <i>has</i> to be true, if the premises are true.  So the argument is valid, even though it has false premises.  Not to mention a false conclusion.
> 
> But just a bit ago I said that <i>form</i> is what makes an argument valid.  But I also said that a valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true -- or here’s a way to put it more briefly: the premises make the conclusion <i>necessary</i>.  Now put these two propositions together: 
> 
> Form makes an argument valid.
> 
> If an argument is valid, then the premises make the conclusion <i>necessary</i>.
> 
> Putting these two claims together, you can see that
> 
> Form makes an argument such that the premises make the conclusion <i>necessary</i>.
> 
> Another way of putting this thought is by saying that you can see whether the premises make the conclusion necessary <i>just</i> <i>by</i> <i>looking</i> <i>at</i> <i>the</i> <i>form</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>argument</i>.  That’s why form is so important.  Look, for example, at form <b>C</b>.  In fact, <i>any</i> argument that follows the form <b>C</b> is valid: you can see that just by reading <b>C</b>.  Now look at <b>D</b> -- it fits that form and is valid.  Or to take another example, look at this argument:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>E</b>	All dogs are canines.
> 
> 	Fido is a dog.
> 
> 	<i>Therefore</i>, Fido is a canine.
> 
> And since <b>E</b> follows form <b>C</b>, it’s a valid argument.  Its conclusion <i>must</i> be true if its premises are true.
> 
> All right, that is enough, I hope, to introduce you to the notion of <i>validity</i>.  Validity is a really basic, essential notion in logic, since it is a basic requirement for an argument to be good.  But validity by itself isn’t enough to make an argument good.
> 
> What more is needed?  True premises.  So suppose we have a valid argument with true premises.  Then, we will say, we have a <i>sound</i> argument.  Here’s a definition:
> 
> An argument is <i>sound</i> if, and only if, (1) the argument is valid and (2) all of its premises are true.
> 
> So suppose we have a sound argument.  An excellent example is <b>B</b>.  In this case we have an argument where, first, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must be true; <i>and</i>, second, it so happens that the premises <i>are</i> all true.  What follows?  That the conclusion must be true.  That’s the dandy thing about soundness: if you know an argument is sound, then you <i>know</i> that the conclusion of the argument is true.  By definition, all sound arguments have true conclusions.  So soundness is a very good quality for an argument to have.
> 
> Now, the premises of an argument can give you reason to believe its conclusion, without making the conclusion <i>necessary</i>.  Suppose you have an argument in which the premises make the conclusion <i>probably</i> true.  That might still be a good argument.  Such an argument we call <i>cogent</i>.  So here’s a definition of "cogent":
> 
> An argument is <i>cogent</i> if, and only if, supposing the premises are all true, then the conclusion is <i>probably</i> (but not <i>necessarily</i>) true.
> 
> And cogency is the property of being cogent.  Now, exactly what "probably" means is a matter of considerable debate in philosophy.  And we simply do not have time to examine that debate right now.  Still, you can understand what I mean reasonably well.  Here, for example, is a cogent argument:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>F</b>	There is a barrel jammed full of ordinary marbles, of different 	colors.
> 
> 	Without looking, I pulled out 100 marbles from various holes in 	the lid; 95 of the marbles I pulled out were red.
> 
> 	Therefore, the next marble I pull out, without looking, from 	another hole in the lid, will be red.
> 
> This is, I claim, a cogent argument.  That means that <i>if</i> the two premises are true, then <i>probably</i> the conclusion is true; for all I know it doesn’t <i>have</i> to be true.  And notice this: maybe I’m lying and there is no barrel, or maybe all of the marbles were blue.  But that wouldn’t matter to my claim that the argument is <i>cogent</i>.  If the argument is cogent, then <i>supposing</i> the premises to be true, the conclusion is probably true.  Like validity, cogency is a <i>conditional</i> property.
> 
> And also like validity, the cogency of an argument can be assessed by examining the form of the argument.  Consider, for example, the form of argument <b>F</b> -- we might say it basically follows something like this pattern:
> 
> 
> 
> <b>G</b>	95% of observed F’s were G.
> 
> 	<i>Therefore</i>, probably, the next F observed will also be G.
> 
> I’m saying that practically any argument that follows form <b>G</b> will be cogent.  Now, there are some complications that I am ignoring here; for example, suppose we’re working with a deck containing 100 cards, and we know in advance that five of them are special cards called "jesters."  All the other cards cards are called "royalty."  Then, suppose it’s true that 95% of drawn cards were royalty; well in that case, the five cards that are left are jesters!  So in that case the premise would lead you conclude that the next observed card will <i>not</i> be royalty -- <i>exactly</i> <i>the</i> <i>opposite</i> of what argument <b>G</b> would say.  If we were studying inductive logic (as you would in Philosophy 150), then we would go into this in more detail.  We would talk about background assumptions, about a random sample, having a large enough sample size, and so forth.  But for now let’s stick with the simpler story.  For simplicity we can say that any argument that follows form <b>G</b> is cogent.  Just bear in mind that <b>G</b> is a simplification.
> 
> Now just as you added true premises to a valid argument to get soundness, you can add true premises to a cogent argument to get a <i>strong</i> argument.  So we can define strength, for arguments, as follows:
> 
> An argument is <i>strong</i> if, and only if, the argument is cogent and all of its premises are true.
> 
> Similar things to what I said about soundness can be said about strength.  If you know an argument is strong, then you know that, if the premises are true, then its conclusion is probably true; and since you <i>do</i> know that its premises are true, then you know that its conclusion <i>is</i> probably true.
> 
> Basically, what we mean <i>by</i> "good argument" is simply "sound or strong argument."  If you have offered a sound or strong argument in defense of your view -- a philosophical conclusion -- then you have stated a <i>true</i> view, or at least a <i>probably</i> true view.  And the premises of your argument <i>support</i>, or, with some sophisticated complications aside, <i>justify</i> your belief in the conclusion.  So that’s why good argument are so important: in philosophy, a good argument is the closest thing we have to a guarantee that a belief is true.  If you’re armed with a good argument you have helped to justify your belief in the conclusion, and remove doubts about it.
> 
> Now we’re ready to understand a very important distinction in philosophy.  Namely, the difference between <i>deduction</i>, or <i>deductive</i> <i>logic</i>, and <i>induction</i>, or <i>inductive</i> <i>logic</i>.  Here are some definitions:
> 
> <i>Deductive</i> <i>logic</i> is the study of arguments that aspire to be, at least, valid.
> 
> <i>Induction</i> <i>logic</i> is the study of arguments that aspire to be, at least, cogent.
> 
> The reason I have these in terms of what the arguments "aspire" to be is that an argument can be properly the subject of deductive logic even though it’s <i>not</i> valid or cogent; it can be studied by logic even though it fails to be what it aspires to be.  Anyway, then, deduction is concerned with validity; induction is concerned with cogency.  So in deductive logic you’ll study forms of arguments such that the conclusion <i>must</i> be true if the premises are true; and in inductive logic you’ll study forms of arguments such that the conclusion is <i>probably</i> true if the premises are true.  That’s the difference between deduction and induction, and deductive logic and inductive logic.
> 
> Now remember that we started this excursion into validity and so forth by way of explaining the definition of "logic" I gave.  So let’s get back to that.  Logic is the study of <i>what</i> <i>makes</i> something a good argument; but it is also the study of <i>how</i> <i>to</i> <i>tell</i> whether or not an argument is any good.  Studying logic is a little like studying medicine.  In medical school one studies <i>what</i> <i>makes</i> a person healthy, as well as <i>how</i> <i>to</i> <i>tell</i> whether a person is healthy.  In logic and medicine (and many other fields generally), one learns the <i>standards</i> something (such as good arguments and healthy people) must meet, as well as <i>how</i> <i>to</i> <i>tell</i> whether those standards are met in particular cases (of arguments and people, for example).
> 
> So now here’s the third part of the definition of "logic": logic is the study of <b>how</b> <b>to</b> <b>construct</b>, <b>identify</b>, <b>interpret</b>, <b>and</b> <b>evaluate</b> <b>various</b> <b>kinds</b> <b>of</b> <b>arguments</b>.  Let me just take up each one of these words, "construct," "identify," "interpret," and "evaluate" in turn.
> 
> To begin with the <i>construction</i> of arguments.  We do all, or at least should, construct arguments for our beliefs.  We back up what we say, with reasons.  We marshall evidence, state our grounds for belief, and give justifications.  Someone who <i>never</i> does these things would be, I think, just irrational and unthinking, but I doubt there is any person here who is so irrational and unthinking that he, or she, <i>never</i> does these things.  However that may be, logic is, in part, the study of how to <i>construct</i> one’s own arguments well, so that they display the aforementioned virtues of validity or cogency, and soundness or strength.  So logic will help you do what you do already -- only better.
> 
> Logic is also the study of how to <i>identify</i> arguments, about a <i>huge</i> variety of different subject matters.  This is very important for being able to <i>use</i> logic in everyday life; the first step in assessing the arguments of others is to <i>identify</i> when and where others have made arguments.  After all, not all nonfiction writing you come across does contain arguments.  So to evaluate a passage from a logical point of view, first you’ve got to learn how to distinguish argumentative prose -- writing containing arguments -- from mere rhetoric, explanations, the giving of examples, and other kinds of nonargumentative prose.  
> 
> Logic is, finally, the study of how to <i>interpret</i> and <i>evaluate</i> actual, real-life arguments -- arguments of various kinds.  In other words, to study logic is, in part, to study how to restate arguments you find in their real-life contexts (once you <i>have</i> found them) in a very clear manner, and then to judge whether those arguments are valid or cogent, first of all, and if so, whether they are also sound or strong.
> 
> Learning the construction, identification, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments are all important parts of learning logic, and well worth practicing, but in this course we won’t have time to do that.  We will, as is the case with a lot of philosophy, have learn those things by <i>doing</i>.  But there is, after all, a <i>great</i> deal that one can learn about logic by doing it.
------
ArgumentForms|981079073
1c1,119
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I said that whether an argument is valid or not depends on the <i>form</i> of the argument.  Now, for that reason, in logic, what one studies a <i>lot</i> is different valid argument forms.  So let me give you some examples of valid argument forms.
> 
> The first is called by a Latin name: <i>modus</i> <i>ponens</i>.  That makes the argument form sound a lot more daunting than it really is.  Modus ponens is really simple -- perhaps the simplest sort of argument:
> 
> <i>Modus</i> <i>Ponens</i>
> 
> If P, then Q.
> 
> P.
> 
> Therefore, Q.
> 
> Here’s an example of an argument that fits the form <i>modus</i> <i>ponens</i>:
> 
> 
> 
> If love conquers all, then love conquers Attila the Hun.
> 
> Love conquers all.
> 
> Therefore, love conquers Attila the Hun.
> 
> Or here’s another example:
> 
> 
> 
> If democracy is the best system of government, then everyone should vote.
> 
> Democracy is the best system of government.
> 
> Therefore, everyone should vote.
> 
> So basically the idea is to make an "if-then" claim -- these are called <i>conditional</i> claims -- and then affirm the "if" part, or the <i>antecedent</i>, and then conclude with the "then" part, or the <i>consequent</i>.
> 
> Suppose that we tried instead to affirm the "then" part of the conditional, the consequent, first, and conclude with the "if" part, the antecedent.  Believe it or not, this argument has a name:
> 
> <i>Affirming</i> <i>the</i> <i>consequent</i>.
> 
> If P, then Q.
> 
> Q.
> 
> Therefore, P.
> 
> It’s called "affirming the consequent" because in arguing this way one does indeed affirm the consequent in the second premise ("Q" is the consequent of the conditional claim, "If P, then Q").  This is a fallacy.  If you argue this way you will be making a mistake.  You should be able to see that with an example.  You know that oxygen is required for fire.  So suppose we argue like this:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here.  (Since oxygen is required for fire.)
> 
> There is oxygen here.
> 
> Therefore, there is fire here.
> 
> You can see that that way of arguing doesn’t work.  But now consider a slightly different argument:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here.
> 
> There is no oxygen here.
> 
> Therefore, there is no fire here.
> 
> Now, that argument <i>does</i> work.  It is perfectly valid: indeed, if there is no oxygen here, then we <i>can</i> conclude validly that there’s no fire here.  This argument has a different form, which is complementary to modus ponens; it too has a Latin name:
> 
> <i>Modus</i> <i>Tollens</i>
> 
> If P, then Q.
> 
> Not Q.
> 
> Therefore, not P.
> 
> We’ve already given one example of modus tollens; here’s another example: 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lizzy was the murderer, then she owns an axe.
> 
> Lizzy does not own an axe.
> 
> Therefore, Lizzy was not the murderer.
> 
> Let’s just suppose that the premises are both true.  All right, if Lizzy was the murderer, then she really must have owned an axe.  And it’s a fact that Lizzy does not own an axe.  What follows?  That she wasn’t the murderer.
> 
> Suppose you want to say: well, the first premise is false!  If Lizzy was the murderer, then she wouldn’t necessarily have to have owned an axe; maybe she borrowed someone’s.  Now, that might be a legitimate criticism of the argument, but notice that it doesn’t mean the argument is <i>invalid</i>.  An argument can be valid even though it has a false premise!  Remember, we are distinguishing an argument’s <i>validity</i> from its <i>soundness</i>.  To be sound, an argument has to be both valid <i>and</i> <i>have</i> <i>true</i> <i>premises</i>.  Our Lizzy argument is unsound, because it has a false premise; but it is perfectly valid, because, even though they’re not, <i>if</i> both premises were true, then the conclusion <i>would</i> <i>have</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> true.  You see, a lot of beginning logic students get confused about validity, and don’t see how an argument with false premises can be valid.  But they are confusing validity with soundness.  An argument with false premises can be <i>valid</i>, but it cannot be <i>sound</i>.
> 
> All right, let’s get back to argument forms.  Here’s another argument form:
> 
> <i>Disjunctive</i> <i>syllogism</i>
> 
> Either P or Q.
> 
> Not P.
> 
> Therefore, Q.
> 
> The reason this is called "disjunctive syllogism" is that, first, it is a syllogism -- a three-step argument, and second, it contains a disjunction, which means simply an "or" statement.  "Either P or Q" is a disjunction; P and Q are called the statement’s <i>disjuncts</i>.
> 
> 
> 
> Either I will choose soup or I will choose salad.
> 
> I will not choose soup.
> 
> Therefore, I will choose salad.
> 
> And here’s another example:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the Browns win or the Bengals win.
> 
> The Browns don’t win.
> 
> Therefore, the Bengals win.
> 
> Basically we’re told that it has to be one or the other that’s true; then we’re told that it’s not the one; so we infer that it has to be the other that’s true.
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981079147
44a45,56
> ----
> 
> I propose the following for this page.  As I understand it, this page is a subpage under 'UnitedStates', and so it should be about the standard of living of the UnitedStates.
> 
> The standard of living of the UnitedStates is among the highest in the world.  By measures of material wealth such as PerCapitaIncome or PerCapitaConsumption, the UnitedStates ranks higher than all but a handful of small city-state countries.  Of course, StandardOfLiving should be measured by more than just those factors: other factors include legal structure (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), crime (which is higher in the UnitedStates than in many other high-income countries), etc.  
> 
> Concerns may also be raised as to whether <i>averages</i> are the best way to coompare the standard of living, as opposed to Pareto indexes of some sort.  Some oil rich countries like Iraq may have a high <i>average</i> level of income, even though ordinary people aren't doing any of the consuming!  Measures which take into account, in some fashion, inequality, should
> probably be considered.
> 
> I think this is a thoughtful way to write about the issues, rather than to simply argue about them. It is possible to achieve balance.  --JimboWales
> 
> 
------
MeaningAndDefinitions|981079151
1c1,75
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Now we’re going to switch gears rather abruptly and look at the two closely related topics of <i>meaning</i> and <i>definitions</i>.  I especially want us to consider definitions in their philosophical context, because philosophers are constantly asking for definitions, or accounts, or analyses -- at this point it matters little what to call them -- of various philosophical concepts such as existence, causality, meaning, knowledge, goodness, justice, beauty, art, and so on.  In fact, you might regard it as the <i>essential</i> task of philosophy, to clarify the most pervasive concepts descriptive of the universe and human life.
> 
> Now, just as arguments can be good or bad, definitions can be good or bad.  So we will spend some time thinking about what makes a good definition good, and what makes a bad definition bad.  But before that we should discuss a little the topic of meaning, a topic we will return to later this quarter.  A definition is, after all, supposed to give us the <i>meaning</i> of a word; so naturally there are certain aspects of the topic of definition that cannot be understood until we understand a few things about meaning.
> 
> Let’s begin by drawing a distinction, between the <i>extension</i> and the <i>intension</i> (both spelled with an "s") of a word.  This is very similar to a distinction you might already be familiar with -- between a word’s <i>denotation</i> and <i>connotation</i>.  But for clarity let’s stick with "extension" and "intension."
> 
> The <i>extension</i> of a word is the set of things it extends to, or applies to.  So the extension of the word "dog" includes all the dogs in the world: Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on.  The extension of the phrase "people in Sanger’s class this evening" includes all the people sitting in this class right now.  Now, that this is a sense of the word "meaning" should be understandable.  The meaning of a word is, sometimes, just the things that the word picks out, or applies to.  So let’s get a nice example on the table.  The phrase "Sanger’s fingers" picks out exactly eight objects (doesn’t include his thumbs, we’ll say).  All right?  So these objects right here are the <i>extension</i> of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."
> 
> You can think of a word’s, or a phrase’s, <i>intension</i> as a description, or set of properties, which applies to each member of the word’s extension, and which distinguishes those things from everything <i>not</i> in the extension.  This is a rather complicated definition, but it’s not too difficult of a concept.  Here’s an example: what would be the intension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers"?  Well, two properties: first, the property of being a finger; second, the property of being possessed by Sanger.  Those two properties together make up the intension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."  Anything that has both of those properties is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers"; so for example as I hold up my left pointer finger, I can observe that it has the property of being a finger, and that it is possessed by Sanger; so the intention of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers" applies to my left pointer finger; and so my left pointer finger is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."  Moreover, anything that is not a finger, or not possessed by Sanger, is <i>not</i> part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."
> 
> I’m saying all this now simply to help you understand better the difference between a word’s extension and its intension.  To help drive the point home, let me give you another example.  Take the word "bachelor."  The extension of this word is <i>all</i> <i>and</i> <i>only</i> <i>the</i> <i>bachelors</i> <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i>.  The extension of this word would include, I imagine, several hundreds of millions of men.  Kind of sad if you think about it.  Anyway, the <i>intension</i> of this word isn’t <i>nearly</i> so large; in fact, it can be stated very briefly, because it includes just two properties: the property of being a <i>man</i>, and the property of being <i>unmarried</i>.  So all bachelors are unmarried men; and <i>only</i> bachelors are unmarried men.
> 
> All right, now remember that I said that a definition of a word is an attempt to state the <i>meaning</i> of the word.  With this background, I think you can see that the sort of definition that we’re interested in, in philosophy, is one that identifies the <i>intension</i>, not the <i>extension</i> of the word.  An excellent definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man."  A less-than-excellent definition of the same word would be a list of names of all of the men in the world who are bachelors.  Aside from being practically impossible, such a list is just not what we’re looking for.  Because, after all, what we are interested in is a description of what all those things we call "bachelors" have in common, which distinguishes them from all non-bachelors.
> 
> Now I come to a different topic about meaning: namely, two different ways in which the meanings of words can be <i>unclear</i>.  Words can be unclear in the sense of being <i>ambiguous</i>, or in the sense of being <i>vague</i> (or, it so happens, in <i>both</i> senses).
> 
> So let’s begin with ambiguity.  One and the same word can have many distinct meanings; so the word is, as we say, <i>ambiguous</i>.  We’ve just encountered some great examples of an ambigious words, the word "meaning" itself can mean "extension" or "intension."  The word "unclear" can mean "ambiguous" or "vague."  But let’s get a more ordinary example of an ambiguous word.  Try this for size.  "Bank": as a noun, this can mean either a financial institution where you put your money, or the edge of a river where you might go fishing; and it can mean other things still when used as a verb.  Now, the different meanings that a word can have are its <i>senses</i>.  So "financial institution" is one of the <i>senses</i> of the word "bank," and "edge of the river" is another <i>sense</i>.  So you can see that if a word is ambiguous, then it has more than one sense.  Sometimes there are some rather fine distinctions that can be drawn between different senses of the same word.  For example, take the word "good"; this can mean "useful," as in "That’s a good hammer," or "exemplary," as in "She is a good student," or "moral," as in "They are good people."  No doubt "good" has other senses as well.
> 
> Now, in philosophy, it is <i>extremely</i> important, <i>before</i> one starts trying to come to grips with some deep, important philosophical term, that one specify just exactly <i>what</i> sense of the term one is examining.  For example, I might ask, "What does ‘good’ mean?" but I can’t even begin to answer until I have said <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of "good" I mean.  So discussions of philosophical concepts, especially in the past eighty years or so, have often begun by talking about the different senses in which a word may be used.
> 
> So much, then, for ambiguity.  That’s one way in which meanings can be unclear.  There is another way, which is <i>different</i> from ambiguity, namely <i>vagueness</i>.  Here the stock example is "bald."  Some men are definitely bald, and there’s no debating the matter; for example, Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard of <i>Star</i> <i>Trek</i>: <i>The</i> <i>Next</i> <i>Generation</i>).  Other men are definitely <i>not</i> bald; for example, President Clinton.  And then there are a bunch of men, you know, the sort of men who carefully comb a scanty amount of hair over their scalps, about whom we don’t know whether to say they’re bald or not.  There just isn’t any clear <i>line</i> between being bald and not being bald.  Another good example of a vague concept is the concept of a <i>heap</i> -- two or three grains of sand is not a heap, but a thousand is.  So how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?  There isn’t any clear line.
> 
> Now, when you look at a man with thinning hair, or a small pile of sand, and you don’t know whether to call the man "bald," or the sand a "heap," then you have found a <i>borderline</i> <i>case</i>.  So we can make a general principle, which in fact might work as a definition of the word "vague."  Here it is: to say a term, or a concept, is <i>vague</i> is to say it has borderline cases; in other words, cases where there is no clear fact of the matter whether the concept applies or not.  Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding Huskies and wolves: are they dogs, or aren’t they?  It’s not clear: so we can say that they are <i>borderline</i> <i>cases</i> of dogs.  This isn’t to say they <i>are</i> dogs, and it’s not to say that they <i>aren’t</i> dogs.  It’s to say that our concept of doghood isn’t clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case.
> 
> It turns out that vagueness is important philosophically.  Suppose we want to come up with a definition of "right" in a <i>moral</i> sense of this term.  Generally, we can say that we want a definition to cover actions that are <i>clearly</i> right, and exclude actions who are <i>clearly</i> wrong; but then what do we do with the borderline cases of actions that aren’t clearly right and aren’t clearly wrong?  Surely there <i>are</i> such cases.  What philosophers often say is that we should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear, on just those cases that are borderline cases.   Others say that we have an interest in making our definitions <i>more</i> precise than ordinary language, or our ordinary concepts, would by themselves allow.  Well, having mentioned that issue, I’m just going to sidestep it.  You should just be aware that some philosophers want their definitions to be unclear in precisely those areas in which the ordinary concept to be defined is unclear; while other philosophers want their definitions to be <i>more</i> <i>precise</i> than the ordinary concepts.
> 
> Now I have introduced the notions of ambiguity and vagueness.  These are not dangerous, difficult, or skeptical notions; to say that many, or perhaps even most, words are both ambiguous <i>and</i> vague is not to say that they have no meaning.  It is to say, first, that many individual words <i>many</i> <i>distinct</i> senses; and, second, that those senses are often, in ordinary language, not <i>so</i> precise as to be able to allow us to rule that the word does or doesn’t apply in every case.  So certainly, a word that is both ambiguous and vague can have loads of meaning.
> 
> Now let’s discuss definitions.  Suppose we have decided on some word, or concept associated with the word, to define.  Suppose also that we have identified <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of the word we’re interested in, and we have noted clear cases, some unclear cases, and some borderline cases of the application of the word.  So we ask: how can this word be defined?  We already know that we want a description of the <i>intension</i> of the word: that is, we want an account of the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension. But in fact, why don’t we just define "definition" that way? --
> 
> The <i>definition</i> of a concept, or of (a given sense of) a word or phrase, is a description of its intention -- that is, the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension of the word; the extension is all the things that the concept, word, or phrase applies to.
> 
> Now, some philosophers have some criticisms of this sort of definition of the word "definition"; or perhaps it would be better to say that some philosophers think that it is, for various reasons, <i>impossible</i> to give definitions of most concepts, words, and phrases.  We don’t have time, or the conceptual resources, to explore these criticisms.  And even if those philosophers are right, they will, most of them, still acknowledge that in philosophy we should do <i>something</i> <i>like</i> give definitions of important philosophical concepts.  So for our purposes, in just getting introduced to philosophy, it will do just fine.  So a definition is, to put it very briefly, a description of the intension of a word.  When you have stated the intension of a word, you have defined it.
> 
> Now if you go and look at some introductory logic textbooks, you might see a list of <i>kinds</i> of definitions, such as "lexical" definitions, "stipulative" definitions, "ostensive" definitions, and so on.  But we have little reason to consider all of those different categories of definitions; we are primarily interested in one sort, what might be called a <i>intensional</i> (again, spelled with an "s") definitions.
> 
> So now about intensional definitions specifically.  Now I just gave you a definition of "definition."  Well, really that was a definition of "intensional definition."  That is the sense of the word "definition" that we defined; so you already know what an intensional definition is because I just told you.  What I want to do is to give you some idea about how you might go about formulating an intensional definition.  And since this is a class about philosophy we will use an example from philosophy -- in particular our example is from the field of metaphysics.
> 
> Suppose you wanted to give a definition of <i>causality</i>, or <i>causation</i>.  You want to know what it means to say that the white ball <i>causes</i> the eight ball to roll into pocket, or that heat <i>causes</i> water to boil, or that the moon’s gravity <i>causes</i> the earth’s tides, or that a hard blow to the arm <i>causes</i> a bruise.  What does all this talk of "causes" mean?  You have some rough idea of the <i>extension</i> of the term "causality": namely, you’re familiar with all sorts of particular cause-and-effect relations.  I just listed a bunch for you.  The set of all those particular cause-and-effect relations is the extension of the term "causality."  But what properties do all these particular cause-and-effect relations have in common?  We say heat causes boiling, and punching causes bruising; so what do these two relations have in common, that we can both call them <i>causal</i> relations?
> 
> Well, we can begin by taking a clue from the ancient Greeks, who treated concepts to be defined as <i>species</i>, or a specific category, of a <i>genus</i>, or a general category.  So we begin by asking: what is the <i>genus</i> of causality, the general category into which it falls?  In other words, what <i>sort</i> of thing is causality?  That might sound like an impossibly abstract and difficult question, that nobody can answer -- what sort of thing is causality?  Who knows?
> 
> Well, here’s an answer: causality is a <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>relationship</i>, or simply <i>relation</i> for short.  We do, after all, speak of causal <i>relations</i> between things.  The causality relation is the relation that holds between what we call a "cause" and what we call an "effect."  So causality is a relationship, a relation, just as (to take another example) similarity is a relation.  You know, suppose we say Jack and Jill are similar in appearance; then we say there is a certain relationship, the relation of <i>similarity</i> between them.  So similarity is one kind of relation; and causality is another kind of relation.
> 
> So we can say that, taking causality as a <i>species</i>, then the <i>genus</i> of that species is relation.  But we are not even close to being done in giving a definition of "causality," because obviously we would have to know what <i>kind</i> of relation causality is.  There are lots of different kinds of relations out there -- similarity, being larger than, being warmer than, being next to, and so on -- and so we need to have some way to distinguish the <i>causality</i> relation from these other kinds of relations.
> 
> Now suppose we did come up with some properties that allowed us to distinguish causality from all those other relations.  They would be the distinguishing properties of causation.  Those distinguishing properties would be called, by the ancient Greeks, the <i>differentia</i> of the species.  The differentia of a species are the properties that the species has, and that <i>other</i> members of the genus do <i>not</i> have.  So the differentia of a species are the <i>distinguishing</i> <i>characteristics</i> of the species.
> 
> This can be clarified with another hackneyed example.  Suppose we wanted to define the phrase "human being."  Following the Greeks we say that human beings are members of a <i>species</i>.  So we ask what the genus, or general category, of the species is; and the Greeks (but not us -- go with it for now) would say that the genus is <i>animal</i>.  So the genus is animal and the species is human being.  Now we ask: what are the <i>differentia</i> of the species, that is, the distinguishing characteristics, that is, the properties that human beings have, that other animals don’t have?  Well, the Greeks said, it’s <i>rationality</i>.  The things that humans have that other animals don’t is <i>rationality</i>.  So rationality is the differentia of the human species, according to the Greeks; and so an old Greek like Aristotle would be prone to say, "Man is the rational animal."  And he meant to be giving a <i>definition</i> of "man," or of "human being."
> 
> So if we’re looking for a definition of a philosophical concept like causality, we might begin like this: "Causality is a relation that ... ."  The question then is what goes after the "that."  Now, so as not to let you die of suspense, I’ll just give you an example of a definition of causality; it may not be a good definition, in fact I’m sure it isn’t.  But it’s a plausible attempt.  So here it is:
> 
> <i>Causality</i> is a relation that holds between events, where the first event (called the <i>cause</i>) precedes the second (called the <i>effect</i>), and where events <i>like</i> the first are <i>consistently</i> <i>followed</i> by events like the second.
> 
> So when we say there’s a causal relation between heat and water boiling, we say: the heating came before the boiling; and whenever water is heated sufficiently, then it boils, so that sufficient heating is always, or consistently, followed by boiling.  So we can say that causality has a rather complex differentia: it’s a relation that holds between events; moreover, the first event precedes the second; and finally, events like the first are consistently followed by events like the second.  So, according to this definition, those three rather complex properties together make up the differentia of the species causality.
> 
> This is, in fact, a rather crude attempt at a definition of "causality."  But it should give you an example of the <i>sort</i> of thing that we’re looking for in a definition of a philosophical concept.  The whole point of going into all this stuff about causality is to give you an example about how you might formulate an intensional definition of a philosophical concept.
> 
> All right, we now have one last topic to discuss, and that is the way that definitions can go wrong.  Just as arguments can go wrong in various ways (remember, we called those <i>fallacies</i>), definitions too can go wrong in various ways.  So I am simply going to list five ways that definitions in philosophy can be inadequate.  Bear in mind I am saying this is how definitions can go wrong <i>in</i> <i>philosophy</i>.  For <i>other</i> purposes the following definitions may be fine.
> 
> First, a definition is no good if it simply gives a one-word synonym.  For example, suppose I define the word "virtue" -- an important word in ethics -- just using the word "excellence."  It might be perfectly true that all virtues are excellences and all excellences are virtues, but the word "excellence" by itself is <i>not</i> a good definition of "virtue," in philosophy.  If this isn’t just obvious to you, consider this.  Suppose you are asking me for enlightenment on what virtue is; you know how the word "virtue" is used in English, but you don’t really understand the basic nature of virtue.  Then I tell you: "virtue" means "excellence."  Now what is stopping you from asking, "But what does ‘excellence’ mean?"  Surely, if you’ve got a basic philosophical confusion about what "virtue" means, then you’ve <i>also</i> got a basic philosophical confusion about what "excellence" means.  If you’re confused about one then you’re confused about the other; so it won’t do to define one simply by stating the other!
> 
> The second sort of error is closely related to the first.  A definition is no good in philosophy if it uses a very near synonym in the definition.  For example, suppose I define "beautiful" as "possessing aesthetic value."  The words "beautiful" and "aesthetic" are very nearly the same in meaning; so if I’m deeply confused, or curious, about beauty, then I am of course going to be confused or curious about the aesthetic.  And it is totally unenlightening to be told that what is beautiful possesses aesthetic value.  We already knew <i>that</i>.  The question is what general characteristics are possessed by all beautiful objects, or all objects that have aesthetic value.  Here’s another example: suppose I define "good" as "possessing valuable characteristics."  "Good" and "valuable" are near synonyms, so it won’t do to define "good" using the term "valuable."  Again, if we’re confused about goodness, we are no doubt also confused about what’s valuable -- about <i>what</i> <i>characteristics</i> <i>are</i> in general valuable.
> 
> There is a general name for the first two sorts of error: in either case we may say that the definition offered is <i>circular</i>.  A circular definition is somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about.  I think you can already see, then, that giving a good definition of philosophical terms is going to be very difficult, if we’re going to avoid giving a <i>circular</i> definition.
> 
> Anyway, on to the third sort of error that definitions are prone to.  They can be <i>too</i> <i>broad</i>.  Suppose I define "bachelor" as "unmarried male."  On first glance this might look all right, but it applies to a lot of <i>other</i> things besides bachelors: for example, male dogs, and male babies.  Those are unmarried males but they aren’t bachelors.  So definitions should not be too broad, and a definition is too broad if (and you can treat this as a definition of the words "too broad") it applies to things that are not part of the extension of the word defined.
> 
> The fourth sort of error is complementary to the third: they can be <i>too</i> <i>narrow</i>.  That is, they can <i>exclude</i> some things that they <i>should</i> apply to.  In other words, they don’t describe some members of the word’s extension.  Here’s an example of a narrow definition: "piece of furniture" means "object that is used to sit on."  The trouble with this definition is that some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for exaple, we put objects on them (like tables) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth.  So even though <i>some</i> pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not <i>all</i> furniture is used to sit on.  We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like "used to put feet up on" or "used to put household objects on," for example.  That would make the extension of the definition bigger -- that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word "furniture" to describe.
> 
> Let me give you examples of definitions that are too broad, and too narrow, in <i>philosophy</i>.  Suppose I defined "causality" as "relation where one thing precedes another thing."  This is way too broad.  All sorts of things precede other things without causing them.  For example, the sinking of the Titanic preceded the Vietnam War, but the sinking of the Titanic certainly did not cause the Vietnam War.  So "relation where one thing precedes another thing" applies to all sorts of relations that aren’t <i>causal</i> relations.
> 
> Now here’s a philosophical definition that is too <i>narrow</i>.  "Right action" means "telling the truth."  Surely, telling the truth is almost always right.  But right actions very often don’t involve telling the truth at all.  For example, it is right for me to pay back my debts; but when I do this I am not telling the truth; I can pay back debts, and so do something right, without saying anything at all.  So a definition of "right action" as "telling the truth" is way too narrow; the definition is going to have to include a lot more than just truth-telling.
> 
> That brings us to the fifth and final way definitions can go wrong: they can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.  Suppose I defined "love" as "the insensible quivering of the soul."  This is absolute nonsense, and totally useless as a definition in philosophy, however nice it might be in poetry (although I doubt it).  Given a definition like this one has the right to ask: but <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the insensible quivering of the soul?  How would I recognize it?  Is my soul insensibly quivering right now?  And so on.  I’m sure you get the idea.  Definitions should be stated in plain, straightforward language that can be understood by the people to whom you’re giving the definition.
------
MetaPhysics|981079309
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An introduction to metaphysics can be found in SomeMetaphysicalQuestions.
------
SomeMetaphysicalQuestions|981079319
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Today I am going to introduce one of the most fundamental and most difficult areas of philosophy, namely <i>metaphysics</i>.  It is sometimes difficult to understand what the issues even <i>are</i>, in metaphysics.  So I’m going to start with a fairly simple example that I’ll use to introduce the problems of metaphysics.
> 
> Imagine now that you’re in a nice bright room, and in the middle of this room there is a table, and in the middle of the table there is a big, fresh, juicy red apple.  Now I’m going to ask a bunch of questions about this apple -- all of them examples of <i>metaphysical</i> questions.  This will, hopefully, help us understand better what metaphysics is.  Now don’t be worried if you don’t follow all of the questions that I ask.  I’m throwing a bunch of them at you at once in order to give you some general impression of what metaphysical questions are like.
> 
> The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: you can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on.  It occupies space and time and has a variety of properties.  So now suppose we ask: What does it mean to say that the apple is a physical object?  In other words, <i>what</i> <i>are</i> physical objects?  This might seem like the sort of question to which one <i>can’t</i> give an answer.  I mean, what could you possibly use to explain what physical objects are?  But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are.  They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties?  Or are they substances which <i>have</i> those properties?  That’s called the problem of substance.
> 
> OK, here’s another sort of question.  I said that the apple has <i>properties</i>, like being red, being big, being juicy -- those are each properties of the apple.  But what does it mean to say that redness is a <i>property</i>?  How are properties different from objects?  Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness.  But apples and redness are totally different sorts of items, of things, of entities.  You can pick up and touch apples, but you can’t pick up and touch redness -- well, except in the sense that you can pick up and touch red <i>things</i> -- like apples!  So what’s the difference between objects, like apples, and properties, like redness?  How can we best think about what properties <i>are</i>?  This is something we’ll talk about, called <i>the</i> <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>universals</i>.
> 
> And here’s another question about what physical objects are: When <i>in</i> <i>general</i> can we say that physical objects <i>come</i> <i>into</i> <i>being</i> and when they <i>cease</i> <i>to</i> <i>exist</i>?  Now surely the apple can <i>change</i> in lots of ways without ceasing to exist.  It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple.  But if I ate it -- well then the apple wouldn’t just have changed.  It would no longer exist.  So there are some questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change.
> 
> Now this apple is supposed to exist in space (it’s on the table in this room) and in time (it wasn’t on the table a week ago and it won’t be on the table a week from now).  But what does this talk of "space" and "time" mean?  Can we say, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is located?  Well, suppose the apple, and every other physical object in the universe were to entirely removed from existence: then would space, that "invisible grid" still exist?  Some people say not -- they say that without physical objects, space would not exist, because space is the framework in which we understand how physical objects are related to each other.  So, no objects, no space.
> 
> Then there are other very different sorts of problems in metaphysics.  The apple is one sort of thing; now if I’m in the room, and I say I have a mind, I’m surely going to say that my mind is a different sort of thing from the apple.  I might say that my mind is immaterial, but the apple is a material object.  Here’s another difference: it sounds a little strange to say that my mind is located in any <i>particular</i> <i>place</i>; maybe we could say it’s somewhere in the room; but the apple is obviously located in a particular place, namely on the middle of the table.  And so on.  It <i>seems</i> clear that minds are fundamentally different from physical bodies.  But if so, how can something mental, like a decision to eat, cause a physical event to occur, like biting down on the apple?  How are the mind and body causally interconnected if they are two totally different sorts of things?  This is called the <i>mind</i>-<i>body</i> <i>problem</i>, something we’ll be studying in a few weeks when we study something called "the philosophy of mind."  The philosophy of mind used to be, and sometimes still is, considered part of metaphysics.
> 
> OK, I’m done giving you examples of metaphysical problems.  And I’ve just given you a <i>few</i> examples.  There are many, many more problems where those came from; for example, the problem of free will and determinism has often been considered part of metaphysics.
> 
> Now, I want to say something before I try to give a definition of the word "metaphysics."  Of all philosophical subjects, metaphysics is bound to look most <i>pointless</i>.  I am sure that some of you, when you heard the questions I just asked, were asking yourselves, "What on earth is the point of even <i>wondering</i> about stuff like this?"  So let me just remind you about what the task of philosophy is.  The task of philosophy is to <i>really</i> <i>get</i> <i>to</i> <i>understand</i> the meaning and justification of our most <i>basic</i> beliefs.  And metaphysics asks questions about <i>the</i> <i>most</i> basic of our beliefs.  Metaphysics is often thought to be the <i>most</i> <i>fundamental</i> part of philosophy.  If my saying that doesn’t help you get over the suspicion that this is all just hifalutin nonsense, just wait.  I am hoping that you will gain some <i>personal</i> <i>experience</i> of how questions in metaphysics underlie, and deeply inform, many other more obviously important questions in philosophy.  So insofar as how you answer metaphysical questions makes a big difference for how you answer other obviously important questions in philosophy, metaphysical questions are themselves important.
------
MetaPhysics|981079388
1c1
< An introduction to metaphysics can be found in SomeMetaphysicalQuestions.
---
> An introduction to metaphysics can be found in SomeMetaphysicalQuestions.  See also MetaphysicsAndOntology.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981079390
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Poor people in America are middle-class by the standards of much of the developed world and upper-middle class, even wealthy, by the standards of the ThirdWorld.
> 
> The poor in America own many luxuries.
> 
> 62.5% of America's poor own at least one automobile per household, while 13.6% own two or more automobiles per household.  There are 344 automobiles per 1000 poor Americans, roughly the same ratio for the total population of the UnitedKingdom.  A poor American is nearly 50% more likely to own a car than the average Japanese.
> 
> Over 95% of America's poor households own one or more televisions.  49% have air conditioning.  30.7% have microwave ovens.  56% have washing machines. 99.1% have refrigerators.  81.3% have telephones. (Data from 1987)
> 
> America's poor enjoy indoor plumbing.  98.2% of America's poor households have flush toilets.  In this respect America's poor compare favorably to the averagre household in other developed nations: 94% in the UK, 93% in West Germany, 89% in Italy, 88% in Spain, 83% in France, and 46% in Japan. (Data from 1980)
> 
> America's poor are well fed.  In almost all cultures people's first choice of food is meat, while other foods are eaten when meat is not available.  Meat consumption is therefore a good measure of how well people are eating.  America's poor eat more meat than the average person in other devleped countries.  As a percentage of consumption by poor Americans, West Germany totaled 75, France 70, Italy 62, UK 57, Japan 39. (Data from 1977)
> 
>  - Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).
------
MetaphysicsAndOntology|981079409
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So now let’s talk a bit about the field of metaphysics in general, before we consider some particular metaphysical problems.  And let’s begin with the origin of the word "metaphysics."  Now, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote a number of books which together he called the <i>Physics</i>.  The way that the books of Aristotle were organized in an early edition, there was another set of books that were placed right after the physics.  These books seemed to concern a really basic, fundamental area of philosophical inquiry, which up to that time did not have any particular name.  So early Aristotle scholars called those books "ta meta ta physika," which means "the books that come after the physics."  So that’s where we get the word "metaphysics."  Metaphysics is supposed to be the subject of those books by Aristotle which were called, collectively, the <i>Metaphysics</i>.  So etymologically, what "metaphysics" means is "the subject that the <i>Metaphysics</i> of Aristotle is about."
> 
> But this just begs the following question: What were those books by Aristotle about?  The books were divided into three parts, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science.  So ontology, theology, and universal science are regarded as the three traditional branches of metaphysics.  We aren’t going to go into this division of metaphysics in much depth because I don’t think it is very helpful.  But just to explain, very briefly, what these three terms at least <i>mean</i>.  (1) "Ontology" is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  If you don’t know what that means, you’re not alone; more about it in just a bit.  (2) "Theology" means, here, the study of God or the gods (remember, we’re talking about ancient Greeks here) and of questions about the divine.  (3) "Universal science" is supposed to be the study of so-called first principles, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the Law of Non-Contradiction: "A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, and in the same respect."  Our apple cannot both exist and not exist.  So that was the Aristotelian conception of metaphysics.
> 
> Metaphysics has changed a lot since then, over the many centuries of its existence.  Problems that were not originally considered metaphysical were added to metaphysics.  Other problems that were for centuries considered metaphysical problems are now pretty much relegated to their own separate subheadings in philosophy.  For example, there are a lot of problems that used to be considered part of metaphysics, but are now more commonly considered parts of the philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, and philosophy of science.  So needless to say, it would take us a <i>long</i> time even to <i>state</i> all the problems that have, at <i>one</i> time or another, been considered part of metaphysics.
> 
> But you might be asking this: Can we give some rough-and-ready account of what made all of these different problems "metaphysical" problems?  I think so.  We could give the following very rough, inexact definition of "metaphysics": Metaphysics is the study of any of the most fundamental philosophical beliefs, on which many other philosophical beliefs rest.  
> 
> And you could ask this too.  Suppose we consider only the <i>core</i> metaphysical problems.  The core problems would be the ones which have <i>always</i> been considered metaphysical and which have <i>never</i> been considered <i>not</i> metaphysical.  Is there something that distinguishes <i>those</i> problems?
> 
> I would think that most of such problems are part of Aristotle’s first branch of metaphysics, or <i>ontology</i>, and ontology, remember, is supposed to be the study of existence, or as Aristotle says, "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  So I’m saying the <i>core</i> metaphysical problems are, at least mostly, problems about "being <i>qua</i> being."  But this must be frustrating to hear because you don’t know what "being <i>qua</i> being" means!  I’ll give a go at explaining what it means, and that way you can learn what "ontology" means.
> 
> First I need to explain what the word "being" means here.  I would suggest the following as a rough gloss:
> 
> A <i>being</i> is anything that can be said to "be" <i>in</i> <i>various</i> <i>senses</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>word</i> "<i>be</i>."
> 
> Now, you remember from last time that many words are ambiguous -- which means they have various different senses.  "Be" is a word, like many other words, that has different senses.  So there are different senses of the word "be," and accordingly, there are different <i>kinds</i> of beings.  Because, as I said, a <i>being</i> is anything that can be said to "be" <i>in</i> <i>various</i> <i>senses</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>word</i> "<i>be</i>."
> 
> The different kinds of being are called <i>categories</i> of being.  Let’s go through a few of these categories of beings.  That should give you an idea of what we’re talking about when we use the words "being" and "category" of being.  Just bear in mind that different philosophers make different lists of the fundamental categories of being; and one of the basic questions of ontology is: "Just what are the fundamental categories of being?"  Anyway, in no particular order, here are at least <i>some</i> categories of being.
> 
> First category.  Physical objects.  Physical objects are beings; certainly they are said to <i>be</i> in the simple sense that they <i>exist</i> all around us.  So a house is a being, a person’s body is a being, a tree is a being, a cloud is a being, and so on.  They are beings because, and in the sense that, they are physical objects.  You might also call them bodies, or concrete things, or maybe "substances" -- but the word "substance" has some special philosophical meanings as we'll see.  For a neutral term I’ll usually use either "object" or "body."
> 
> Second category.  Minds.  Minds -- those the parts of us that think and perceive -- are beings.  Each of us, we say, has a mind, a mind that exists or has being.  So each of our minds is a being.  Now I don’t mean to imply that minds are necessarily a <i>different</i> <i>category</i> of beings from physical objects.  But many people have thought so and you probably think so yourselves.  More about that in a few weeks.
> 
> Third category.  Classes.  We can talk about human beings, and planets, and engines as classes of things.  In the class of human beings is all of the human beings; or, to use terminology from last time, the extension of the term "human being."  In the class of planets would be Mercury, Venus, the Earth, etc. -- all the planets that there might be in the universe.  I’m saying that classes, in addition to each of their members, are often taken to be beings.  Surely we can say that in some sense, the class of engines <i>is</i>, or has being.
> 
> Fourth category.  Properties.  The redness of our red apple on the table is a <i>property</i>.  You could also call it an <i>attribute</i> of the apple.  Everyone in this room, I think, has the property of having hair.  So very roughly put, a property is just a quality that describes an object.  Of course that won’t do as a <i>definition</i> of the word "property" because, like "attribute," "quality" is a near-synonym of "property."  And remember, it’s not particularly helpful to give philosophical definitions using near synonyms.  But these synonyms can at least help us to get a fix on the concept we’re talking about.  I’m just going to blur over any distinctions that have been drawn between the terms "property," "attribute," and "quality"; for purposes of introducing this material the distinctions don’t matter.  Anyway, whenever you talk about the size, color, weight, composition, and so forth, of an object, you’re talking about the object’s properties.  My claim then is that properties are beings; the redness of the apple is something that <i>is</i>.
> 
> Fifth category.  Relations.  The apple is in a relation to the table it sits on.  So we can say that there is a relation between the apple and the table -- namely, the relation of "sitting-on."  So we can say that that relation has being.  Or how about this: the World Trade Center is taller than University Hall.  "Being taller than" is a relation between the two buildings.  And we can say that <i>that</i> relation has being as well.  It exists.
> 
> Relations are like properties in that both of them are supposed to be <i>abstract</i>.  Now let me explain what that means.  Something is abstract if it does not exist in any particular place, but instances, or members, of it <i>can</i> exist in many different places.  For example, lots of different things have the property of redness: lots of things are red.  And we find the relation "sitting on" all over the place: lots of things sit on other things.  So the property, redness, and the relation, sitting-on, do not exist in any one <i>particular</i> place.  So if we want to say that properties and relations <i>are</i>, or have being, clearly we want to say they have a different sort of being from the sort of being that physical objects, like rocks and trees, have.  So that’s where this word "abstract" comes in.  We apply the word "abstract" to properties and relations to mark the fact that if they exist, they don’t exist in space or time, but that instances of them <i>can</i> exist in many different places.  Redness itself is not supposed to exist anywhere, but our apple is red, and lots of roses are red; and that’s why we say that redness <i>itself</i>, as opposed to instances of redness, is abstract.
> 
> On the other hand the apple, and an individual rose, are said to be <i>concrete</i>.  This means basically that they aren’t abstract: they are particular individuals, located at a place and a time.  So if you want a definition, to say that something is concrete is to say that it is a particular individual that is located at a particular place and time.
> 
> I’ve just explained the difference between abstract and concrete.  Many philosophers say that properties and relations have an abstract existence, and that physical objects have a concrete existence.  So now consider, aren’t those two different ways in which a thing can be said to "be," or to have being, or to exist?  I think you can see that "being" is an ambiguous word.  We have found two examples of different senses of the words "being" or "existence."
> 
> Let’s get back to the question of what "ontology" means.  I said it was, in the words of Aristotle, "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  Well, the word "qua" means "with regard to the aspect of."  So ontology is the science of being with regard to the aspect of being -- so it’s the study of <i>beings</i> insofar as they exist.  Ontology is concerned with the different senses of "being," or in yet other words, with the different fundamental categories of beings and the ways in which the things in the things in those categories can be said to exist.  So from this we can derive some examples of ontological questions.  First: what does it mean to say a physical object exists?  Second: what sorts of beings are physical objects anyway?  Third: what sorts of beings are an object’s properties or relations?  And fourth: when does an object go <i>out</i> of existence, as opposed to merely <i>changing</i>?  
> 
> In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981079412
0a1,2
> * America's Poor
> 
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981079448
11c11
< America's poor enjoy indoor plumbing.  98.2% of America's poor households have flush toilets.  In this respect America's poor compare favorably to the averagre household in other developed nations: 94% in the UK, 93% in West Germany, 89% in Italy, 88% in Spain, 83% in France, and 46% in Japan. (Data from 1980)
---
> America's poor enjoy indoor plumbing.  98.2% of America's poor households have flush toilets.  In this respect America's poor compare favorably to the average household in other developed nations: 94% in the UK, 93% in West Germany, 89% in Italy, 88% in Spain, 83% in France, and 46% in Japan. (Data from 1980)
------
PhiloSophy|981079494
3a4,5
> LarrySanger has donated the context of LarrysText to WikiPedia.  Please go to LarrysText to discuss what to do with it.
> 
------
LarrysText|981079595
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> All these pages I've uploaded this evening are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
------
LarrysText|981079610
1c1
< All these pages I've uploaded this evening are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
---
> All these pages I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
------
PhiloSophy|981079628
4c4
< LarrySanger has donated the context of LarrysText to WikiPedia.  Please go to LarrysText to discuss what to do with it.
---
> LarrySanger has donated the content of LarrysText to WikiPedia.  Please go to LarrysText to discuss what to do with it.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981079654
15c15
<  - Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).
---
>  * Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981079661
15c15
<  * Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).
---
> * Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).
------
ExistencE|981079716
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See TheExistenceOfPhysicalObjects.
------
TheExistenceOfPhysicalObjects|981079725
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So now let’s talk a bit about the field of metaphysics in general, before we consider some particular metaphysical problems.  And let’s begin with the origin of the word "metaphysics."  Now, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote a number of books which together he called the <i>Physics</i>.  The way that the books of Aristotle were organized in an early edition, there was another set of books that were placed right after the physics.  These books seemed to concern a really basic, fundamental area of philosophical inquiry, which up to that time did not have any particular name.  So early Aristotle scholars called those books "ta meta ta physika," which means "the books that come after the physics."  So that’s where we get the word "metaphysics."  Metaphysics is supposed to be the subject of those books by Aristotle which were called, collectively, the <i>Metaphysics</i>.  So etymologically, what "metaphysics" means is "the subject that the <i>Metaphysics</i> of Aristotle is about."
> 
> But this just begs the following question: What were those books by Aristotle about?  The books were divided into three parts, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science.  So ontology, theology, and universal science are regarded as the three traditional branches of metaphysics.  We aren’t going to go into this division of metaphysics in much depth because I don’t think it is very helpful.  But just to explain, very briefly, what these three terms at least <i>mean</i>.  (1) "Ontology" is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  If you don’t know what that means, you’re not alone; more about it in just a bit.  (2) "Theology" means, here, the study of God or the gods (remember, we’re talking about ancient Greeks here) and of questions about the divine.  (3) "Universal science" is supposed to be the study of so-called first principles, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the Law of Non-Contradiction: "A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, and in the same respect."  Our apple cannot both exist and not exist.  So that was the Aristotelian conception of metaphysics.
> 
> Metaphysics has changed a lot since then, over the many centuries of its existence.  Problems that were not originally considered metaphysical were added to metaphysics.  Other problems that were for centuries considered metaphysical problems are now pretty much relegated to their own separate subheadings in philosophy.  For example, there are a lot of problems that used to be considered part of metaphysics, but are now more commonly considered parts of the philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, and philosophy of science.  So needless to say, it would take us a <i>long</i> time even to <i>state</i> all the problems that have, at <i>one</i> time or another, been considered part of metaphysics.
> 
> But you might be asking this: Can we give some rough-and-ready account of what made all of these different problems "metaphysical" problems?  I think so.  We could give the following very rough, inexact definition of "metaphysics": Metaphysics is the study of any of the most fundamental philosophical beliefs, on which many other philosophical beliefs rest.  
> 
> And you could ask this too.  Suppose we consider only the <i>core</i> metaphysical problems.  The core problems would be the ones which have <i>always</i> been considered metaphysical and which have <i>never</i> been considered <i>not</i> metaphysical.  Is there something that distinguishes <i>those</i> problems?
> 
> I would think that most of such problems are part of Aristotle’s first branch of metaphysics, or <i>ontology</i>, and ontology, remember, is supposed to be the study of existence, or as Aristotle says, "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  So I’m saying the <i>core</i> metaphysical problems are, at least mostly, problems about "being <i>qua</i> being."  But this must be frustrating to hear because you don’t know what "being <i>qua</i> being" means!  I’ll give a go at explaining what it means, and that way you can learn what "ontology" means.
> 
> First I need to explain what the word "being" means here.  I would suggest the following as a rough gloss:
> 
> A <i>being</i> is anything that can be said to "be" <i>in</i> <i>various</i> <i>senses</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>word</i> "<i>be</i>."
> 
> Now, you remember from last time that many words are ambiguous -- which means they have various different senses.  "Be" is a word, like many other words, that has different senses.  So there are different senses of the word "be," and accordingly, there are different <i>kinds</i> of beings.  Because, as I said, a <i>being</i> is anything that can be said to "be" <i>in</i> <i>various</i> <i>senses</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>word</i> "<i>be</i>."
> 
> The different kinds of being are called <i>categories</i> of being.  Let’s go through a few of these categories of beings.  That should give you an idea of what we’re talking about when we use the words "being" and "category" of being.  Just bear in mind that different philosophers make different lists of the fundamental categories of being; and one of the basic questions of ontology is: "Just what are the fundamental categories of being?"  Anyway, in no particular order, here are at least <i>some</i> categories of being.
> 
> First category.  Physical objects.  Physical objects are beings; certainly they are said to <i>be</i> in the simple sense that they <i>exist</i> all around us.  So a house is a being, a person’s body is a being, a tree is a being, a cloud is a being, and so on.  They are beings because, and in the sense that, they are physical objects.  You might also call them bodies, or concrete things, or maybe "substances" -- but the word "substance" has some special philosophical meanings as we'll see.  For a neutral term I’ll usually use either "object" or "body."
> 
> Second category.  Minds.  Minds -- those the parts of us that think and perceive -- are beings.  Each of us, we say, has a mind, a mind that exists or has being.  So each of our minds is a being.  Now I don’t mean to imply that minds are necessarily a <i>different</i> <i>category</i> of beings from physical objects.  But many people have thought so and you probably think so yourselves.  More about that in a few weeks.
> 
> Third category.  Classes.  We can talk about human beings, and planets, and engines as classes of things.  In the class of human beings is all of the human beings; or, to use terminology from last time, the extension of the term "human being."  In the class of planets would be Mercury, Venus, the Earth, etc. -- all the planets that there might be in the universe.  I’m saying that classes, in addition to each of their members, are often taken to be beings.  Surely we can say that in some sense, the class of engines <i>is</i>, or has being.
> 
> Fourth category.  Properties.  The redness of our red apple on the table is a <i>property</i>.  You could also call it an <i>attribute</i> of the apple.  Everyone in this room, I think, has the property of having hair.  So very roughly put, a property is just a quality that describes an object.  Of course that won’t do as a <i>definition</i> of the word "property" because, like "attribute," "quality" is a near-synonym of "property."  And remember, it’s not particularly helpful to give philosophical definitions using near synonyms.  But these synonyms can at least help us to get a fix on the concept we’re talking about.  I’m just going to blur over any distinctions that have been drawn between the terms "property," "attribute," and "quality"; for purposes of introducing this material the distinctions don’t matter.  Anyway, whenever you talk about the size, color, weight, composition, and so forth, of an object, you’re talking about the object’s properties.  My claim then is that properties are beings; the redness of the apple is something that <i>is</i>.
> 
> Fifth category.  Relations.  The apple is in a relation to the table it sits on.  So we can say that there is a relation between the apple and the table -- namely, the relation of "sitting-on."  So we can say that that relation has being.  Or how about this: the World Trade Center is taller than University Hall.  "Being taller than" is a relation between the two buildings.  And we can say that <i>that</i> relation has being as well.  It exists.
> 
> Relations are like properties in that both of them are supposed to be <i>abstract</i>.  Now let me explain what that means.  Something is abstract if it does not exist in any particular place, but instances, or members, of it <i>can</i> exist in many different places.  For example, lots of different things have the property of redness: lots of things are red.  And we find the relation "sitting on" all over the place: lots of things sit on other things.  So the property, redness, and the relation, sitting-on, do not exist in any one <i>particular</i> place.  So if we want to say that properties and relations <i>are</i>, or have being, clearly we want to say they have a different sort of being from the sort of being that physical objects, like rocks and trees, have.  So that’s where this word "abstract" comes in.  We apply the word "abstract" to properties and relations to mark the fact that if they exist, they don’t exist in space or time, but that instances of them <i>can</i> exist in many different places.  Redness itself is not supposed to exist anywhere, but our apple is red, and lots of roses are red; and that’s why we say that redness <i>itself</i>, as opposed to instances of redness, is abstract.
> 
> On the other hand the apple, and an individual rose, are said to be <i>concrete</i>.  This means basically that they aren’t abstract: they are particular individuals, located at a place and a time.  So if you want a definition, to say that something is concrete is to say that it is a particular individual that is located at a particular place and time.
> 
> I’ve just explained the difference between abstract and concrete.  Many philosophers say that properties and relations have an abstract existence, and that physical objects have a concrete existence.  So now consider, aren’t those two different ways in which a thing can be said to "be," or to have being, or to exist?  I think you can see that "being" is an ambiguous word.  We have found two examples of different senses of the words "being" or "existence."
> 
> Let’s get back to the question of what "ontology" means.  I said it was, in the words of Aristotle, "the science of being <i>qua</i> being."  Well, the word "qua" means "with regard to the aspect of."  So ontology is the science of being with regard to the aspect of being -- so it’s the study of <i>beings</i> insofar as they exist.  Ontology is concerned with the different senses of "being," or in yet other words, with the different fundamental categories of beings and the ways in which the things in the things in those categories can be said to exist.  So from this we can derive some examples of ontological questions.  First: what does it mean to say a physical object exists?  Second: what sorts of beings are physical objects anyway?  Third: what sorts of beings are an object’s properties or relations?  And fourth: when does an object go <i>out</i> of existence, as opposed to merely <i>changing</i>?  
> 
> In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
------
OntOlogy|981079817
11c11
< * Are ObjectS ultimately bundles of properties or instead SubstancE''''s?
---
> * The ProblemOfSubstance: Are ObjectS ultimately bundles of properties or instead SubstancE''''s?
------
ProblemOfSubstance|981079858
1c1,57
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Let’s move onto the next issue, <i>the</i> <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>substance</i>.  Now we face another, perhaps more fundamental problem: What <i>are</i> objects anyway?  Is it possible to say anything enlightening about the meaning of talk of objects, of things, of bodies, of substances (I’m going to use these terms interchangeably)?  You might not think anything interesting could be said about this question, but we did manage to say something enlightening about the meaning of existence.  So let’s give it a try.
> 
> Let’s go back to our example of the apple.  I propose to ask: What is <i>the</i> <i>apple</i> <i>itself</i>?  First of all, you might wonder now what it is that we’re supposed to be confused about.  You know what apples and tables and trees, and other bodies, are; you eat and bump into them all the time.  So maybe the notion of an object is <i>primitive</i>: it can’t be explained any further.  <i>Primitive</i>, that’s a term that is useful to introduce when we’re doing metaphysics.  A word is primitive if it is meaningful but not capable of being defined.  But at least we should try to see if the notion of a body can be explained in terms of <i>something</i> <i>else</i>.
> 
> So you might say: what about fundamental particles, maybe quarks?  Don’t they explain the notion of a body, since fundamental particles make up bodies?  Well, that’s not what I mean.  Fundamental particles are, after all, <i>other</i> <i>bodies</i>.  So the question is, is there any other <i>category</i> <i>of</i> <i>being</i> that can be used to explain what physical objects are?
> 
> And so here you might say: I have <i>no</i> <i>idea</i> what other category of being could be used to explain the notion of a body.  But sure you do.  What about properties and relations?  Bodies have properties and relations, and it seems that we can describe bodies only by mentioning their properties and relations.  The <i>only</i> way we can talk about the apple, it seems, is by describing its properties, or how it is related to other things.  For example, we can say the fact that it is an apple is a property of the object on the table; its redness is a property; its size and composition are properties; its being on the table is a relation; its being in the room, and being bigger than other apples, are also relations.  So it appears that the only way we have of talking about the apple is to mention its properties and relations.  And similarly with all other bodies.
> 
> So let’s go back to the question: "What <i>are</i> objects anyway?"  Now we can say what general sort of answer we’re looking for: we want to know how objects, or bodies, or whatever you want to call them, are related to their properties and relations.  Let’s leave aside relations now for simplicity.  So I’m just going to ask this: What is the relationship between objects and their properties?  This is supposed to tell us better exactly what objects <i>are</i>.
> 
> And this question, "What is the relationship between objects and their properties?" can be explained further.  As follows: "Are objects just <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i> a collection of properties, or are objects not the same as, but <i>different</i> <i>from</i> their properties?"  This appears to be a fairly strict dichotomy: either objects <i>are</i> the same as collections of properties, or they are <i>not</i> the same.  And so there are two theories of the nature of objects.  The <i>bundle</i> <i>theory</i>, on the one hand, holds that objects are nothing more than collections of properties.  The <i>substance</i> <i>theory</i>, on the other hand, holds that objects are something over and above their properties, namely substances.  So let me explain each of these two theories a little bit better.  Then after I explain each one briefly, we’ll look at some arguments for and against each theory.
> 
> According to the substance theory, a physical object is something <i>over</i> <i>and</i> <i>above</i> the properties that inhere in it.  That’s philosopher’s talk -- to speak of properties as "inhering" in a thing.  It just means that the thing has those properties.  Anyway, according to the substance theory, in at least <i>some</i> sense the substance can exist <i>without</i> its properties.  Even if it’s physically impossible that a substance would lack any properties at all, we can speak of the substance itself <i>as</i> <i>distinguished</i> <i>from</i> its properties.  Now the substance considered all by itself, considered without any reference to its properties, is what has been called a "bare particular."  It’s "bare" because it is considered without any properties, and it’s "particular" because it’s not abstract.  More about "bare particulars" in a minute.  So there you have a very basic introduction to what the substance theory says.  It says there’s a basic difference between substances, or bare particulars, and the properties that inhere in those substances.
> 
> Now for an equally basic introduction to the bundle theory.  According to the bundle theory a physical object is a bundle, or collection, of properties.  Hence, you cannot even <i>conceive</i> of a propertyless object: the object <i>just</i> <i>is</i> its properties, and so if you take away its properties you take away the object itself.  Think of the apple: but don’t think of its color; don’t think of its shape; don’t think of the fact that it’s a kind of fruit; don’t think of the cells that its made of; don’t think of its taste; and so on.  Think of the apple, but <i>don’t</i> think of any of its properties.  Is that <i>possible</i>?  The bundle theorist says: No!  Not possible!  So the apple is no more than a collection of properties.  There isn’t any more to the apple than that.  In particular there is no "substance" that these properties "inhere in."
> 
> So which theory of objects is correct, the substance theory or the bundle theory?  Well, let’s look at some arguments on both sides.  First, for the substance theory.  Let’s begin with something we might call the <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>grammar</i>.  This has as its conclusion that the substance theory is correct.  The argument goes something like this.  When we say, for example, "Snow is white," there is a subject, <i>snow</i>, and we are saying of <i>it</i> that it is white.  It makes no grammatical sense to speak of "whiteness" disembodied, without snow (or <i>some</i> subject) that <i>is</i> white.  The only way to make a meaningful claim about anything is to speak of a subject, and we predicate various properties <i>of</i> this subject.  When we talk about physical objects, at least, this subject of predication is called the <i>substance</i>.  So in order to make meaningful claims about physical objects, we have to refer to substances; but we make meaningful claims about objects all the time; therefore, substances exist.
> 
> Now, I suspect that this argument from grammar is no good.  The bundle theorist definitely would reject it.  Let me explain why.  The argument says: <i>just</i> <i>because</i> there is a <i>grammatical</i> subject in a sentence, we are referring to what might be called a <i>metaphysical</i> subject, a substance.  But how does that follow?  It doesn’t seem to follow.  Well, OK, the argument from grammar gets at least the following right: in order to make meaningful statements about bodies, we have to talk about subjects.  But why couldn’t a subject in a meaningful statement refer to a bundle of properties?  For example, consider the statement, "Snow is white."  Why couldn’t we be saying that a field of snow is just a bundle of properties like being made up of ice crystals, being cold, being a few feet deep, etc.  And then we say of something about this bundle of properties, that it <i>includes</i> the property of being white.  That seems like a reasonable way of understanding this claim that snow is white.  And we don’t have to talk about any substances.  So that’s a way to show that we can make meaningful statements about bodies <i>without</i> referring to substances.
> 
> Here’s a second argument for the substance theory.  It would go like this.  Whenever we conceive of one of an object’s properties, like the redness of the apple, we <i>have</i> to conceive of the object that <i>has</i> that property.  You can’t conceive of redness, or any other property, <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>itself</i>.  The point is that whenever you think of a property, you have to think of it as a property <i>of</i> something.  And well, what it’s a property <i>of</i> is just a substance.  There is no conceivable thing such as redness all by itself, or being four inches wide all by itself -- that’s nonsense.  It’s always a <i>substance</i> that is red, or that is four inches wide.  Therefore, substances exist.
> 
> This might be a slightly better argument, but it also doesn’t seem to be valid.  The main claim in the argument is that, since -- here’s the big premise -- we can’t think of properties all by themselves; therefore -- here’s the conclusion -- they must be properties <i>of</i> <i>substances</i>.  But does that conclusion follow from the premise?  I don’t think so.  Why couldn’t we say: they just have to be associated with a bundle of other properties, which bundle we call an object, or a body?  Do you see the point?  An individual property, we might concede, can’t exist by itself.  But that doesn’t mean that substances have to exist: maybe these bodies that exist are just bundles of properties, and an individual property can’t exist <i>separately</i> <i>from</i> <i>such</i> <i>a</i> <i>bundle</i>.
> 
> Philosophers are pretty sophisticated in their own way and they can think up all sorts of ways to defend their views.  So the substance theorist might have some ways of backing up these arguments.  But we don’t have time to get into it too deeply, so let’s move on and consider some arguments <i>against</i> the substance theory.
> 
> First, there’s the problem of knowing what the relation is between a substance and its properties.  For example, what’s the relation between the apple, considered as a substance, and its redness?  The substance theorist may say: well, a property <i>inheres</i> in a substance.  That’s the word he uses: "inheres."  A property’s inherence in a substance is kind of like being part of the substance.  But it’s definitely different from just being a part.  When I say, for example, that the apple is red, I’m saying that redness inheres in the apple.  But then what is inherence?  How much sense does that make?  It seems all I can say is that it’s what I mean when I say the apple is red!  But that’s not very helpful.  So what exactly is the relation between the substance, an apple, and its property, the redness?  That’s the first problem.
> 
> Well, here the substance theorist may just say that the name of the relation is "inherence," and that inherence is a primitive concept.  It can’t be explained any further, but it doesn’t need to be explained any further.  It’s like this: we know what it means to say that the apple has the property of redness, or the property of being juicy.  It doesn’t matter that we can’t explain what this talk of a substance "having" properties, or a property "inhering in" a substance, amounts to in any <i>other</i> terms.  We have to start somewhere -- we can’t define everything, or if we try we’ll run out of words!
> 
> So suppose the substance theorist manages to wriggle out of that problem.  But here’s a second problem, which is probably more serious.  We might say that the very notion of a thing with no properties, a "bare particular," as I said, is absurd.  We just cannot conceive of a thing without any properties.  As soon as we get the fuzziest notion of a thing in mind, we are thinking of <i>some</i> property or other!  The problem isn’t just that it’s physically impossible that we might stumble across a bare particular, or a propertyless thing on our way to class.  The point is that the very <i>notion</i> of a propertyless thing is impossible: we just have no such notion.
> 
> That at least is what the bundle theory’s advocate might say.  And we are now getting into arguments <i>for</i> the bundle theory.  In fact we can say that the second argument <i>against</i> the substance theory is just our main argument <i>for</i> the bundle theory.  I’m just going to make one argument for the bundle theory, and it’s at least a lot like this second argument I gave against the substance theory.
> 
> So the argument for the bundle theory goes like this.  The basic idea is that <i>however</i> <i>we</i> <i>might</i> <i>choose</i> <i>to</i> <i>conceive</i> <i>of</i>, <i>or</i> <i>describe</i> <i>a</i> <i>thing</i>, it will be a conception, or a description, of a <i>property</i> of a thing.  In other words, <i>there</i> <i>is</i> <i>nothing</i> <i>that</i> <i>can</i> <i>be</i> <i>described</i>, or even conceived, about a thing, which is not a property of the thing.  (Or a relation of the thing, but remember we’re ignoring relations for simplicity’s sake.)  We cannot have the slightest idea of any aspect of the thing which is <i>not</i> a property of it.
> 
> So what does that imply?  It implies that we cannot have any conception whatsoever of a "bare particular."  As the English philosopher John Locke said, a substance by itself, apart from its properties, is something "I-know-not-what."  The only way that we can conceive of an object is by conceiving of its properties.
> 
> Therefore to conceive of an object <i>just</i> <i>is</i> to conceive of a bundle of properties.  The only conception we <i>can</i> have of an object is as a bundle of properties.  The bundle theory wins out, on this view, simply because it’s the only game in town: the only way we can conceive of things is <i>as</i> bundles of properties.  We couldn’t imagine a bare particular, a propertyless substance, even if we tried.  So the bundle theory is correct and the substance theory is wrong.
> 
> I and I think most philosophers these days think this argument, or one a lot it, is a very powerful argument.  How could the substance theorist reply?  How could we hold onto the substance theory if we have no conception of substance <i>as</i> <i>distinct</i> <i>from</i> properties and relations?
> 
> Well, as far as I can tell, the best that we can do is that we can say we have a very basic sort of idea of substance.  Namely, substance is the subject in which properties inhere.  There’s a basic idea we can have.  So the substance theorist might say this: all right, fine, we conceive of substances by conceiving of their properties, but I the substance theorist continue to say that the thing we are conceiving <i>of</i> is the <i>thing</i> <i>that</i> <i>has</i> <i>those</i> <i>properties</i>.  And that thing is different from the properties.  So we can have a notion of a substance as "the subject in which properties inhere."  The substance theorist would maintain that we should just content ourselves that we are surrounded by lots of examples of subjects in which properties inhere.  All the bodies around us are subjects in which properties inhere.  I’m sure the bundle theorist would not at all be satisfied with that, but let’s just leave it at that.
> 
> Finally, let’s consider what arguments might be raised against the bundle theory.  There are several, but I’m going to bring up just one.  It’s about what it means to talk about a <i>bundle</i> <i>of</i> <i>properties</i>.  You have to admit that when you first hear it, it sounds kind of mysterious.  The apple is supposed to be a <i>bundle</i> of properties, redness, being four inches wide, juicyness, and so on.  But if there isn’t a substance that underlies all these properties, then what exactly is the relation supposed to be between the properties of a thing?  The apple is both red and juicy, right?  According to the bundle theorist, there is no <i>substance</i> that is the apple.  There’s just a "bundle" of properties like being red and being juicy.  So how does it happen that all of the properties of the apple on the table happen to be found together?  The bundle theorist says they are "bundled" together, that they are a <i>collection</i>.  But how are they tied together?  What collects them together?  Why should it be that redness and juicyness just happen to be found together on top of the table?
> 
> The substance theory can explain this but the bundle theory doesn’t seem to be able to.  The substance theory says: redness and juicyness are two properties that are found together on top of the table, because <i>it’s</i> <i>the</i> <i>apple</i> <i>that’s</i> <i>red</i> <i>and</i> <i>juicy</i>.  And the apple is a substance in which those two properties inhere.  If we like the bundle theory, it seems we have to throw up our hands and say, "I <i>don’t</i> <i>know</i> why bunches of properties are found associated together."
> 
> Well, to be honest with you I’m sure <i>actual</i> bundle theorists would have something clever to say in reply.  But we’ll have to cut them off in the interests of time.
> 
> If you have found all of this stuff about the problem of substance baffling, let me see if I can make it a little bit clearer by giving a <i>completely</i> <i>different</i> sort of example.  A concluding example, I’m not going to spend too much time on this.  Have you ever wondered what your mind, or your soul, is?  You can identify individual thoughts, individual feelings, in your mind.  But do you know what the mind is, that has these thoughts and feelings?  You can imagine all sorts of mental goings on, but can you imagine <i>the</i> <i>mind</i> <i>itself</i>?  I don’t think so.  The only way we have of understanding, by introspection, what our minds are is by considering various particular thoughts, feelings, decisions, and so forth <i>in</i> our minds.
> 
> So then suppose someone comes up and says: well, you really don’t have a mind, or a soul -- at least, you don’t have any mind or soul that is distinct from your thoughts.  So all there are is a series of thoughts and feelings that are associated with your body.  There’s no mind that’s something over and above your thoughts and feelings.  This would be the view of someone who held a bundle theory about the mind.  The Scottish philosopher David Hume held a theory of mind like this.
> 
> Now I think some of you might want to protest strongly and say, "I most certainly do have a mind, or soul, which is distinct from my thoughts and feelings -- why, that mind is just exactly what I call my <i>self</i>.  Hume seems to want to deny that I have a self!  That’s absurd, and even a little offensive!"  Now if you have this reaction, then you have a substance theory of mind.  You think that there is something -- you may not know what but <i>something</i>  -- which <i>has</i> the thoughts and feelings, and the thoughts and feelings are <i>in</i> your mind, in about the same way that properties inhere in a substance.
> 
> Philosophers have talked, as you might have guessed, about both <i>physical</i> substances, or bodies, and <i>mental</i> substance, or minds.  And as I think you can see, the problem of substance arises in both the physical and the mental realms.  I’m going to have to leave the discussion there, as difficult as it is.
------
ProblemOfUniversals|981079917
1c1,85
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Universals are either properties, relations, or types.  Last time I didn’t talk about types, but I should mention them now.  Now recall that last time I listed five different categories of being.  Of course, there are others.  <i>Types</i> are another category of being.  A human is a type of thing; a cloud is a type of thing; and so on.  An instance of a type is called a <i>token</i> of that thing; so I am a token of a human being; the letter "A" that I just uttered is a token of the first letter of our alphabet; the apple on the table is a token of the type, apple.
> 
> Remember now that one of the categories of being that I did list was <i>classes</i>.  Of course we can talk about the <i>class</i> of human beings, just as we can talk about the <i>type</i>, human being, or humanity.  But you might ask: how do <i>classes</i> differ from <i>types</i>?  Are these really two different categories of being?  Well I’m not sure; perhaps there isn’t any substantial difference.  But there is a difference in how we <i>talk</i> about types versus how we talk about classes.  Here’s the difference.  I say that I am a <i>token</i>, or an <i>instance</i>, of the type, <i>human</i> <i>being</i>.  But notice that I say instead that I am a <i>member</i> of the class of human beings.  We would not say that I am a "member" of the type, human beings.  I’m a token, or an instance, of the type.  So the difference is: types have tokens, or instances; classes, on the other hand, have members.  And if you think about it, to say that something is a <i>member</i> of something is different from saying that it’s an <i>instance</i> of something; that’s an intuitive way to put it, isn’t it?  That a member is different from an instance?  Anyway, whether or not types are definitely different from classes or they aren’t, I am going to treat them differently.  And I am going to consider types universals, along with properties and relations.  So universals include types, properties, and relations, as I said, but not classes.  However, I should add that all <i>four</i> items are generally considered <i>abstract</i> in the sense that I defined last time.
> 
> So let me give some examples of universals: there are types, like doghood; properties, like redness; and relations, like betweenness; those are all universals.  Not <i>this</i> <i>particular</i> dog, <i>this</i> <i>particular</i> red thing, or <i>this</i> <i>particular</i> object that is between other objects; those are all particulars, and <i>instances</i> of universals.  Doghood, redness, and betweenness are common to many different things.  So a universal is something that can have instances; but it doesn’t make sense to talk about an <i>instance</i> of a particular.
> 
> You can also think of universals as the <i>referents</i> of general terms.  In other words, they are what we refer to, when we use general words like "doghood," "redness," and "betweenness."  By contrast, we refer to particulars by using proper names, like "Fido," or definite descriptions that pick out just one thing, like "that apple on the table."  So I hope I have said enough to explain the difference between universals and particulars.
> 
> Now last time we asked, "What are objects?" and we gave two theories of objects.  We asked about the basic nature of objects, and we called that the problem of substance.  This time we are going to ask about the basic nature of <i>universals</i>.
> 
> So here is the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>universals</i>.  I’m going to try to explain what this problem is.  The problem of universals may be most briefly stated as a question: "What <i>are</i> universals?"  What are they in general?  Or, if you want it expanded a little bit: "What <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>beings</i> are types, properties, and relations?"  This is, in a way, similar to our question from last time: "What sort of beings are objects?"  And remember that as far as metaphysics goes, we have no other way to describe objects than by their relations to their properties and relations.  When we tried to determine what was meant by this question "What are objects?" ultimately we interpreted that question as asking, "What are objects in relation to their properties and relations?"  OK, in the same way, when I ask what universals are, I am asking: "What are universals in relation to particular objects?"  So you might be able to see that the problem of universals is complementary to the problem of substance.  The problem of substance has you trying to explain what substances are in relation to universals; the problem of universals has you trying to explain what universals are in relation to objects.  So when we ask, "What are universals?" a clearer way of putting the question is this: "What is the relation of universals to particular objects?"
> 
> You might be wondering: Why is this a problem?  Well, I don’t expect you to see why it’s a problem just yet.  First let me list three facts about universals.  They will help you to see what the problem is.  These are similar to, but <i>not</i> the same as, the three points made on p. 354 of the reading.  These are facts that, no matter <i>what</i> our theory of universals is, if universals really are said to <i>exist</i>, then our theory about universals have at least to be consistent with, and even to explain, these facts.  In other words, you can take these three facts as background assumptions; and that means that if we come up with a theory which contradicts these background assumptions, we toss the theory out.  It’s no good.  Definitely we have to have <i>some</i> background assumptions, or else we wouldn’t have any tools to evaluate <i>any</i> theory of universals.
> 
> So here are the three facts.  Actually, I’ve already hinted at some of these, including the first.  The first fact is: Universals, if they exist, can be <i>multiply</i> <i>instantiated</i>.  What that means is that, if we’re talking about a universal, we’re talking about something that can have instances; if a universal has an instance, then we say it is instantiated.  For example: the type <i>horse</i> is instantiated by all the horses in the world; <i>flying</i> <i>horse</i> is a type of thing, though, that is not instantiated, which means there are no instances of it.  But the point is, it at least <i>makes</i> <i>sense</i> to speak of instances of horses, <i>and</i> of flying horses, whether or not there are any instances.  So universals, whatever else we think about them, have to be the sorts of beings that can be multiply instantiated.  This means a theory of universals has to <i>make</i> <i>sense</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> <i>that</i> universals can be multiply instantiated.  So for example if we come up with a theory of universals where the things that are supposed to be universals <i>aren’t</i> multiply instantiated, then the theory can be thrown out.
> 
> Here’s the second fact about universals: If universals exist, then we can form concepts of them, and when we do, we form a concept of something abstract.  In other words, when we think of, to change our example, dryness, we are thinking of something abstract.  Granted, when we conceive of dryness, we might imagine a particular dry thing, like the Sahara Desert.  But even though we imagine it, we understand that the Sahara Desert <i>isn’t</i> <i>dryness</i> <i>itself</i>.  It’s just an instance of dryness.  Whenever we have an example of a universal in mind, we know very well that the example isn’t the same thing as the universal itself; the Sahara isn’t dryness itself.  That doesn’t make any sense.  The point then is that to conceive of universals is to conceive of abstract things.  So what does this mean for theories of universals?  It means that if, according to some theory we’re looking at, universals <i>aren’t</i> abstract, then the theory should be thrown out.  Or if, according to a theory, it’s hard to see how we can even conceive of universals, then the theory should be thrown out.  Or suppose we come to the conclusion that, just as a matter of fact, we <i>can’t</i> conceive of abstract things; suppose we conclude that we can conceive only of particulars.  Then we should conclude that universals don’t exist.  So once again: If universals exist, we can form concepts of them, and when we do form concepts of universals, we are conceiving of something abstract, not particular.
> 
> Here’s the third fact.  If universals exist, then general terms, like "redness," "betweenness," and "doghood," refer to universals.  If there are abstract properties, relations, and types, then they are the sorts of beings that general terms refer to.  This makes perfect sense, once you understand it.  The word "redness" for example doesn’t refer just to the red apple here.  If abstract properties exist, then the word "redness" refers to an abstract property, not just one instance, because after all there are other instances of redness besides this apple.  Similarly, the word "dog," a type of object, doesn’t refer just to my mom’s dog Buffy; it refers to the <i>type</i>, dog, which can be instantiated in any number of our canine friends.  So general terms are supposed to refer to universals.  And if, according to a theory of universals, general terms <i>don’t</i> refer to universals, then that theory should hold that universals don’t exist.  That’s the proposal: according to this third alleged fact about universals, any theory which holds that universals really do exist had better have a way for general terms to refer to universals.  Really, what would universals be good for if we didn’t have them around for our general terms to refer to?  That might sound flippant but actually there’s some truth to it.
> 
> So there you have three basic facts that I am claiming are supposed to hold true of universals, if universals exist.  There might be other facts, other constraints we might want to put on theories of universals, but we’ll ignore them for now.
> 
> With these facts in mind, let’s see how we might update a statement of the problem of universals.  I said the problem in its simplest formulation was just the question, "What are universals?"  Now I’ll give you another way to put the problem.  Maybe putting it this way will make it more obvious how it’s supposed to be a <i>problem</i>.  Here’s the question: "What are these curious beings which can be multiply instantiated, which we conceive of when we conceive of abstract attributes of things, and to which general terms refer?"  Now remember also that I said the problem was explaining what the relation of universals to objects was.  So we can put the problem like this: "Can we give any sort of <i>general</i> <i>account</i> of what universals are, in their relation to objects, such that these three facts about universals come out to be true?"
> 
> If you still don’t understand what the problem is, you’ll get a much better idea of what it is after you have looked at some theories of universals.  So let’s now look at some theories of universals.  We are going to begin with the theory which was advanced by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.
> 
> Plato’s theory of universals is also called "Platonism," or "Platonic realism about universals," or just "realism" for short.  But don’t confuse it with other doctrines called "realism" in philosophy.  The word "realism" is extremely ambiguous -- has a gazillion different senses in philosophy and also outside of philosophy.  I’m going to prefer the term "Platonism."  Anyway, according to Platonism, universals exist in a realm that is separate from space and time; universals have a sort of ghostly or heavenly mode of existence.  We never see or otherwise come into sensory contact with such Platonic universals.  They definitely do not exist at any distance, in either space or time, from your bodies.  Obviously they don’t exist in the way that ordinary physical objects exist.  Nonetheless these universals <i>do</i>, according to Plato, <i>exist</i>.  
> 
> Let’s call these sorts of universals, after Plato, <i>forms</i>.  They are also called <i>ideas</i>, but Plato’s universals certainly aren’t ideas in the mind; don’t be confused by that terminology; let’s just stick with calling Plato’s universals "forms."  Also, for simplicity we will use this word "form" <i>only</i> to mean Plato’s sort of universals.  That means that if you end up rejecting Plato’s theory of universals then you could say: The forms, Platonic forms, do not exist.  Or perhaps you should say instead: Talk of "forms" is nonsense.
> 
> Now let’s see how Platonism is supposed to solve the problem of universals.  Here’s the question to ask: What relation do the forms have to physical objects?  They aren’t <i>spatially</i> or <i>temporally</i> related to objects, right? -- No, the forms are not spatio-temporal items.  So what sort of relation do the forms have to physical objects?  Different views are possible here and Plato himself is hard to pin down.  We might say, first, that the forms are <i>archetypes</i>, meaning original models, of which particular objects and properties are copies.  So <i>this</i> apple is a copy of the <i>form</i> of applehood.  <i>This</i> particular redness here is a copy of the <i>form</i> of redness.  And so forth.  Particulars are then supposed to be copies of the forms.  (Whatever "copy" is supposed to mean here; we’ll discuss <i>that</i> in a little bit.)  Anyway, that’s one way that the forms might be related to particular instances of objects and properties and so on.  Another way they might be related, for Plato, is that particulars are said to <i>participate</i> in the forms, and the forms are said to <i>inhere</i> in the particulars.  This talk of "participation" and "inherence" is admittedly kind of mysterious.  What does it mean to say this apple participates in applehood?  What does it mean to say applehood inheres in this apple?  We don’t get very enlightening answers from Plato.  But we’ll talk a little bit more about that in a second.
> 
> Let’s consider how Platonism deals those three facts about universals that we listed.  First, are Platonic forms capable of being multiply instantiated?  Sure.  Plato did think that there were some forms that weren’t instantiated at all, but that doesn’t by itself mean that the forms <i>couldn’t</i> be instantiated.  On the one account, forms can have lots of copies -- or on the other account, they can inhere in lots of things.  On either account, the forms are capable of being instantiated by many different things.  But as we were just saying, it’s just not clear what either account of instantiation amounts to.  For example, what does it mean to say that this particular apple is a <i>copy</i> of the form of applehood?  Does it mean the apple <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>shape</i> <i>as</i> the form?  Probably not; the form, after all, isn’t supposed to have a shape because it’s not spatial, remember?  And what does it mean to say that apple <i>participates</i> in applehood?  Is it like membership in a club or something?  It’s not clear.  Well, let’s not try to get into it very deeply.  I just want you to know that this is a basic problem for Plato’s theory: exactly how are we supposed to spell out Plato’s views on how particulars instantiate the forms?
> 
> How does Platonism do with regard to the second fact about universals?  The idea here is: if we can conceive of universals, then we have to be able to conceive of the forms.  When I think of redness in general, then according to Plato, I am thinking of the <i>form</i> of redness.  Well, OK, maybe that’s possible somehow; but this raises another problem: how on earth did we get the concept of something, a form, that exists neither in space nor in time?  The forms are supposed to exist in a special realm of the universe, apart from space and time.  How could I have any concept of them, then?  I didn’t get the concept via sense-perception.  You can’t <i>see</i> the forms.  I can see the apple, and its redness, but those things merely <i>participate</i> in the forms, or they’re just <i>copies</i> of the forms; and to conceive of <i>this</i> apple and <i>this</i> redness is not to conceive of applehood or redness-in-general.  We do not have any <i>empirical</i> evidence that forms even exist; in fact it’s hard to think of what such evidence <i>could</i> <i>be</i>.  So Plato ends up saying that our souls are <i>born</i> with the concepts of the forms, and we just have to be <i>reminded</i> of those concepts from back before we were born, back when our souls were in close contact with the forms in the Platonic heaven.  This theory is, however, very hard to take seriously.
> 
> Well, so far Platonism wouldn’t appear to be doing very well in accounting for these facts about universals.  So let’s see if it can do any better in explaining the third fact.  Would it make sense to say that forms are what general terms refer to?  Sure, I think so.  Platonism probably does best on this count.  Forms are just the perfect sort of items for our general terms to refer to.  When we speak of "applehood" or "redness" we are talking about something like Platonic forms: that sounds plausible, anyway.  In fact, some people have said that Platonism gets all its plausibility from the fact that when we talk about redness, for example, we <i>seem</i> to be referring to something that is apart from space and time, but which has lots of specific instances.
> 
> Still, problem like what participation is, and how we can have any concept of the forms, would appear to be very difficult.  I don’t want to give you the impression that Platonism is rejected by everyone now, because in fact it <i>does</i> still have its defenders.  But we would do well to consider some theories that aren’t quite so strange.
> 
> So next let’s consider Aristotle’s theory of universals.  Aristotle was Plato’s student.  And just as a historical tidbit let me add that Socrates was the teacher of Plato: so there is a very famous line of succession that included the three greatest ancient Greek philosophers.  It went: Socrates taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle, and the three of them together are responsible for the birth of Western philosophy as we know it.  The whole line of succession occurred between 500 BC and 300 BC. 
> 
> Anyway, to Aristotle’s theory of universals.  Aristotle disagreed with Plato by saying that universals <i>do</i> exist in space and time.  They exist all around us.  So then what is a universal, according to Aristotle?  Well, I’ll say something in reply to that question, but I won’t promise that you will find it enlightening.  Aristotle thought universals are simply types, properties, or relations that are common to a number of different instances.  Moreover, universals exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things (he said they exist <i>in</i> <i>re</i>, which means simply "in things"), never apart from things.  Beyond this Aristotle said that a universal is something <i>identical</i> <i>in</i> <i>each</i> <i>of</i> <i>its</i> <i>instances</i>.  So all red things are similar in that there is the <i>same</i> <i>universal</i> <i>redness</i> in each red thing.  There is no Platonic form of redness, standing apart from all red things; instead, in each red thing there is the same universal, redness.
> 
> Now let’s look at how Aristotle’s theory deals with those three facts about universals that we listed.
> 
> First of all, the universal is multiply instantiated, so it appears.  It is, after all, <i>one</i> <i>and</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>universal</i>, <i>applehood</i> which appears in each apple.  But here I think you can see a problem: honestly, how can we make sense of <i>exactly</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> thing being <i>in</i> all of these different objects?  Because that’s what the theory says; to say that different deserts, the Sahara, the Atacama, and the Gobi are all dry places, is just to say that the exact same being, the universal dryness, occurs at each place.  Universals must be awfully strange entities if <i>exactly</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> universal can exist in many places and times at once.  Or so one might think.  But maybe that’s not so troubling; it seems troubling if you expect universals to be like physical objects, but remember, we’re talking about a totally different category of being.  Maybe it’s not so strange, then, to say that the exact same universal, dryness, occurs all over the earth at once; after all, there’s nothing strange about saying that different deserts can be dry at the same time.
> 
> OK, how does Aristotle’s theory deal with fact number two?  Are Aristotelian universals what we conceive of when we conceive of universals?  Perhaps.  Now let me explain something about how we form concepts, according to Aristotle.  Think of a little girl just forming the concept of human beings.  How does she do it?  Well, when we form the concept of a universal on Aristotle’s theory, we <i>abstract</i> from a lot of the instances we come across.  We as it were mentally extract from each thing the quality that they all have in common.  So how does the little girl get the concept of a human being?  She learns to ignore the details, tall and short, black and white, long hair and short hair, male and female, etc.; and she pays attention to the thing <i>that</i> <i>they</i> <i>all</i> <i>have</i> <i>in</i> <i>common</i>, namely, humanity.  On Aristotle’s view, the universal <i>humanity</i> is <i>the</i> <i>same</i> in all humans (i.e., all humans have <i>that</i> <i>exact</i> <i>same</i> <i>property</i> in common); and this allows us to form a concept of humanity that applies to all humans.
> 
> OK, the third fact: Are Aristotelian universals the sorts of things we <i>refer</i> <i>to</i> when we use general terms, like "redness" and "humanity"?  Again, perhaps.  The idea is that when we refer to humanity, we refer to <i>the</i> <i>type</i>, <i>human</i> <i>being</i>, that appears identically in each human.  We don’t refer <i>simply</i> to <i>all</i> <i>the</i> <i>humans</i>, but instead the type, human being, which is the same in each human.
> 
> Aristotelianism (that’s a fancy long word for "Aristotle’s theory"), on the whole, sounds pretty plausible, I think.  Except that there may be something peculiar in this talk of the exact same universal being in each thing.  So how might one think if one opposed both the views of both Plato and Aristotle on universals?
> 
> Well, the people who oppose both Plato’s theory and Aristotle’s theory tend to be rather hard-headed, intellectually speaking.  They don’t like all this spooky talk of "forms," which exist in some never-never land apart from space and time.  They don’t even like this talk of qualities that can exist in many different things at once, as Aristotle has it.  These people would prefer if we just talked about particular things, thank you very much, because that’s all there are -- particular things.
> 
> This view has a name: <i>nominalism</i>.  So nominalism is the view that universals <i>don’t</i> <i>exist</i>.  No abstract properties, relations, or types exist!  That’s what they say.  Since nominalists deny that universals exist, they don’t have to worry about explaining those facts about universals that I listed.  But that doesn’t mean that nominalists still have nothing to explain.  Because, clearly, they have lots of explaining to do.  Their position is really very strange!  I mean, consider this little argument: We <i>do</i> say, correctly, that this apple, lots of roses, and many sportscars are all "red"; so there is a property they have in common, namely redness; therefore there is a property; properties are universals, so universals exist.
> 
> How do nominalists reply to that sort of argument?  Whatever they say, they sure as heck do <i>not</i> want to admit that anything universal exists; everything that exists, they say, is located in space and time.  So we’ll just have to see if the nominalists have anything to say in reply to that argument.  Now, the word "nominalism" comes from from <i>nominalis</i>, which means, in Latin, "pertaining to names."  The first nominalists said that only general <i>terms</i> or names exist -- no general <i>qualities</i> exist for those terms to refer to.  Just the names.  So we can say the <i>name</i> "redness" exists, but there is no <i>universal</i>, redness, to which it refers.  What <i>does</i> the term "redness" refer to, then?  Perhaps any <i>particular</i> red thing, and perhaps <i>the</i> <i>collection</i> <i>of</i> <i>all</i> <i>the</i> <i>red</i> <i>things</i>.  This is called <i>extreme</i> <i>nominalism</i>: the view that universals do not exist, and that general terms (such as "humanity" and "redness") stand for either particular objects or collections of particular objects (such as "all humans" and "all red things").
> 
> Now if you’re a very worldly sort of person, who wants to say that whatever exists, can only exist in space and time surrounding us here and now, then nominalism might appeal to you.
> 
> But nominalism definitely has some problems; I’ll explain two of them.  So here’s the first problem.  If a universal is <i>just</i> <i>a</i> <i>name</i>, then all that the three humans, John, Mary, and Sally have in common, is that they are <i>called</i> "humans."  There is no property, <i>humanity</i>, that they have in common.  That seems very hard to accept!  After all, we need only ask: <i>why</i> are they all called humans?  We don’t just <i>say</i> that John, Mary, and Sally are all humans for no reason at all: we say so for <i>some</i> reason, don’t we?  But it is because each of them is an instance of the <i>type</i>, humanity, so you might say.  Or maybe you would want to say: each of them is called "human" because each is a rational animal.  But at any rate, they each appear to have some properties in common that <i>make</i> them all human!  For example: they all have highly-developed minds; they walk on two legs; they talk; and so on.  It certainly does look like <i>there</i> <i>are</i> <i>some</i> <i>properties</i> <i>that</i> <i>John</i>, <i>Mary</i>, <i>and</i> <i>Sally</i> <i>have</i> <i>in</i> <i>common</i> -- which are what we call universals.  And their having these properties in common is explains why they are all called "humans."
> 
> The point is that any nominalist worth his salt is going to have to come up with <i>some</i> way of answering the following: why is it that things that are described by the same general term <i>appear</i> to have many properties <i>in</i> <i>common</i>, even though in fact (as the nominalist says), they <i>don’t</i> have any properties in common?  I’m not saying that extreme nominalists haven’t tried to solve this problem, because indeed that have tried.  I’m just saying it’s a very hard problem for them to solve.
> 
> Let’s move on to a second problem for extreme nominalism.  According to extreme nominalism, general terms refer only to particular objects or collections of them, right?  That’s what I said anyway.  But surely when we talk about, for example, the redness of the apple, we don’t mean <i>the</i> <i>apple</i> <i>itself</i>, but instead a <i>property</i> of the apple, namely <i>its</i> <i>redness</i>.  Suppose extreme nominalism denies that <i>that</i> exists.  Then it seems to be denying that this apple has the particular shade of red that it <i>obviously</i> has!  That just seems insane.  It seems as clear as anything can be, that this apple has a certain color, which we call red; after all, we can <i>see</i> the color!  Or to take another example: if I say that B is between A and C, but I deny that between-ness exists, then I seem to be saying that B’s-being-between-A-and-C doesn’t exist; because that would be an instance of between-ness.  So it would seem we should reject extreme nominalism because it denies that <i>instances</i> of properties and relations can exist, when it is as obvious as anything that at least <i>instances</i> of properties and relations exist!  Even if we can’t see or otherwise experience <i>abstract</i>, or <i>general</i> properties, surely at least we can experience instances of them; and it’s pretty hard to deny the existence of something that appears to be staring you in the face!
> 
> So now let’s look at two less extreme examples of nominalism.  We won’t spend too much time on these two theories.  Now these two theories both deny that universals exist, which is why they are versions of nominalism.  But instead of saying that general terms refer to particulars, or collections of particulars, they say that general terms refer to <i>something</i> <i>else</i> -- namely, images, or concepts.  So let’s begin with imagism.  <i>Imagism</i> is the view that universals are mental images, pictures in the mind; or that general terms refer to such images.  So the general term "humanity" means an image of a human being in my mind.  "Redness" means a mental picture I have of a patch of red.  Now, notice that there is a distinction between mental images and concepts.  I can have an image of a thing in mind, but that doesn’t mean that I am conceiving of the type of thing it is: I can be imagining what a person looks like without thinking specifically of the concept of what a person is.  The image is different from the concept.  Images generally are different from concepts.  So then here’s the second version of nominalism, called <i>conceptualism</i>: this is the view that universals are <i>concepts</i>, or that general terms refer to concepts.  So triangularity <i>itself</i> is a <i>concept</i> -- of a closed, three-sided figure.  The universal, humanity, is the <i>concept</i> of a rational animal.  To be human, then, is to be an instance of that concept that you have in your mind.
> 
> I think you may see that these are initially plausible views -- especially conceptualism.  But there are various problems that can be raised for both imagism and conceptualism, and there is one objection which I think we can use to reject both views immediately.  Namely: images and concepts are <i>of</i> <i>something</i>.  So if I have an image of a triangle, or a concept of triangularity, it is an image or concept of <i>that</i>.  So we cannot <i>identify</i> images or concepts with what they represent.  What we want to know is the type, or the property, or the relation, <i>that</i> they represent.  So if I have an image of a triangle in my head, or if I conceive of triangularity, and I ask <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>universal</i>, <i>triangularity</i>, then I want to know what sort of thing this image is an image <i>of</i>, or what the concept is a concept <i>of</i>.  That image or concept in my mind can’t be triangularity, because the image or concept is supposed to <i>represent</i> triangularity.  So to sum up, we might have images, or concepts, <i>of</i> universals, but clearly the universals are <i>different</i> <i>from</i> any images or concepts we might have <i>of</i> them.
> 
> Nominalism, at least the way I have presented it to you, would appear to be generally a very dubious theory, after we consider the objections to it.  Now I’m going to ease our way into the final theory, which is called <i>the</i> <i>resemblance</i> <i>theory</i>, and which in my opinion at least has the best chance of being true.  I’m going to introduce some terminology and motivate the theory, before I present it.
> 
> Remember our second reason for rejecting extreme nominalism: we said that surely at least <i>instances</i> <i>of</i> properties and relations exist!  So this redness, this particular redness of this particular apple, or this instance of humanity, Mary, exists.  Why not then admit <i>that</i> much, that <i>the</i> <i>instances</i> exist: <i>this</i> instance of redness, <i>this</i> instance of between-ness, <i>this</i> instance of humanity.  Specific instances of types, properties, and relations are called <i>tropes</i>.  So tropes are <i>particulars</i>, because they aren’t multiply instantiated.  There just one instance of each trope.  Now although they are particulars, it’s hard to say that they are <i>concrete</i>.  Take Mary’s humanity: of course <i>Mary</i> is a concrete thing, located in a particular place in space and time, but Mary’s <i>humanity</i>?  It sounds strange to say that that is <i>located</i> at all; rather, it’s the type of thing she is, and it’s just strange to say that the type of thing she is is located somewhere.  Or take maybe a better example: London is north of Paris; so London’s-being-north-of-Paris is a trope.  Right?  It’s a particular instance of "being-north-of."  But <i>where</i> is that particular relation?  Is it at London?  At Paris?  Somewhere in the English Channel?  That’s just a strange question.  London’s-being-north-of-Paris doesn’t seem to be a <i>concrete</i> thing at all.  So even though it is a particular, it is, we might say, an <i>abstract</i> <i>particular</i>.  The redness of this apple is a particular, but it’s not concrete in the way that the apple is; so we say either that this redness is a <i>trope</i>, or more descriptively, that it is an abstract particular.  "Trope" and "abstract particular" are two different names for the same category of being.
> 
> So then the suggestion now is to say: tropes exist; but universals do <i>not</i> exist, if conceived of as something <i>over</i> <i>and</i> <i>above</i> tropes.  So the redness of the apple, the ball, and the flower each exist; but there is not something <i>in</i> <i>addition</i> to each of those things, some ghostly <i>redness</i> <i>in</i> <i>general</i>, which is somehow the same in each object.  Now in saying that tropes exist, we’re not quite done explaining the resemblance theory, but that’s an important part of it.  If the resemblance theory <i>is</i> a solution to the problem of universals, then we should still expect some answer to questions like this: What <i>is</i> redness <i>itself</i>?  Surely we aren’t saying that redness itself is any <i>specific</i> <i>instance</i> of redness.  Well then, what is it?
> 
> Try out this answer: "If I am not allowed to say that redness is any specific instance of redness, then I can still say that redness is the collection of all the particular instances of redness.  So the universal, <i>redness</i>, would be a collection, of all the particular rednesses in the world.  And, by the same token, humanity would be the collection of all the instances of humanity in the world."  Well, this answer might fly, but we still have a problem.  It is the same problem that was visited upon extreme nominalism: Sure, we can go ahead and say that the collection of all the redness tropes is what we mean by "redness in general"; but <i>why</i> do we call apple, the ball, and the flower all "red"?  We can say that each particular redness is a trope, and that those tropes exist; but why are they all tropes <i>of</i> <i>redness</i> as opposed to any other property?
> 
> Well, here’s a way to answer that question: we say that these three tropes, the redness of the apple, of the ball, and of the flower, <i>resemble</i> each other.  Moreover, we can simply <i>look</i> at the three side-by-side and <i>see</i> the individual colors, and <i>see</i> that the individual colors resemble each other.  Similarly in the case of John, Mary, and Sally: the reason we call <i>all</i> of them "humans" is that their individual properties <i>resemble</i> each other.  So in general here’s our theory: types, properties, and relations are <i>particular</i> <i>attributes</i>, or <i>tropes</i>, or <i>abstract</i> <i>particulars</i>, of objects; tropes are capable of resembling each other, and when a large number of tropes do resemble each other, we each formulate concepts and names which we use to apply to <i>all</i> of the tropes on account of the resemblance each of us sees.  But nothing genuinely <i>universal</i> exists; there are only (1) particulars including objects and their tropes, and (2) particular collections of tropes, and (3) particular resemblances between particular tropes, or between groups of tropes.  These three existence claims together make up the <i>resemblance</i> <i>theory</i>, which could also be called the <i>trope</i> <i>theory</i>.
> 
> Notice how the resemblance theory is different from <i>Aristotle’s</i> theory.  Aristotle said that a universal is <i>the</i> <i>same</i> in each object; but on the resemblance theory, each trope is quite distinct from each other trope.
> 
> The reading goes on to discuss this theory, but we are going to have to leave the discussion there.  A lot of philosophers these days <i>do</i> find something like the resemblance theory as presented here attractive.  But trust me, a lot more can be said on all sides.  In fact, it is not uncommon to find whole graduate-level courses <i>just</i> on the problem of universals.  But onto the next problem.
------
MetaPhysics|981080031
1a2,3
> 
> One important topic in metaphysics is IdentityAndChange.
------
IdentityAndChange|981080047
1c1,53
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Next we’re going to talk about something we’ll call <i>the</i> <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>change</i>.  Let’s begin with a definition of the word "change."  First, notice that when an object changes, it always changes <i>in</i> <i>some</i> <i>particular</i> <i>way</i>.  A baby grows up, and so changes in the respects of size and maturity; a snake sheds its skin, and so changes in the respect of the skin it has.  So here’s a definition of "change":
> 
> An object O changes with respect to property P iff ("iff" means "if, and only if") O has P at one time and at a later time O does not have P.
> 
> That’s what it means for a thing to change: it has a property at one time and later it does not have that property.  If a banana becomes brown we say: at one time the banana is yellow; several days later the banana is not yellow, but instead brown.  I figure this is all fairly straightforward.  No big mysteries here.  No problems yet.
> 
> But what about the sort of change after which a thing is <i>destroyed</i>?  When a person dies, we don’t say that the person’s life has <i>changed</i>.  We don’t go around saying, "Harry just isn’t the same sort of guy after he died."  We say that Harry’s life has <i>ended</i>.  Or when a building is demolished, we don’t say that the building <i>changes</i>; we say that it is <i>destroyed</i>.  So what sort of events, on the one hand, result in a mere change, and what sort of events, on the other hand, result in a thing’s destruction, in the end of its existence?  Now <i>that’s</i> the problem we’re going to take up; we can call it the problem of change and identity.
> 
> I am going to elaborate by telling an old story.  One day in ancient times a ship was christened "the Ship of Theseus," or "the Theseus" for short, and it was launched into the Aegean Sea.  As the years wore on the Theseus started getting creaky and weak and otherwise less-than-perfect.  So as boards started getting particularly creaky, they were removed and put into a warehouse, and replaced with new boards.  Then masts started tottering, and so soon they were warehoused and replaced with new masts.  And in this way, after fifty years, there is a ship moored in the harbor, but this ship now has all new boards, masts, everything.  So is the ship in the harbor now -- call it S2 -- <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>ship</i> as the ship that was in the harbor fifty years ago -- call that original ship S1?  In other words, is the ship we’re looking at now really the Ship of Theseus?
> 
> There’s one answer which is a little too easy and quick.  You might say: "No, of course not.  The Theseus has changed a lot.  So it’s not the same ship.  At the end of your life you’re not going to be the same person you were when you were a teenager.  You’re going to change a lot in the meantime."  Now if this is how you want to answer, then let me tell you that you’re not answering the question that I wanted you to answer.  I’m talking about a sense of the word "same" in which an old woman <i>is</i> the same person at the end of her life as she is at the beginning of her life.  Definitely, the word "same" has such a sense.  After all, we implicitly depend on it when we say, for example, "She has changed a lot."  In order for someone to change a lot, there has to be <i>one</i> <i>person</i> who underwent the changes.
> 
> Look at it this way.  Go back to our definition of "change."  I said an object changes with respect to a property if the object has that property at one time and at a later time the object does not have the property.  What changes is <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> <i>that</i> <i>an</i> <i>object</i> <i>has</i> <i>a</i> <i>property</i>.  The only way that that fact <i>can</i> change is if the object remains in existence.  So you can think of a continuing object as the <i>ground</i> of change, or the arena where change occurs, as it were.  So to get back to the Theseus, the question is: Has the Theseus merely changed <i>a</i> <i>lot</i>, or is the Theseus gone and a new ship now in its place?
> 
> Maybe you’ll say, "Sure; it’s just a refurbished Theseus, greatly changed to be sure, but still the Theseus."  If you think that, then consider an addition to our story.  Suppose someone buys all the planks and masts and whatnot that is stored in the warehouse, and out of all of those materials, and no other materials, he builds a ship according to the same plans that were used to build the ship christened the Theseus.  And this ship, call it S3, is launched and sits on the other side of the harbor where we find S2.  Might we not say that S3 is the same as S1 -- that this recently-constructed ship is the same ship as the ship originally called "the Theseus"?  After all, S3 was built out of the <i>same</i> <i>materials</i>, and according to the <i>same</i> <i>plans</i>, as S1.
> 
> But then we have a problem.  We can’t say that <i>both</i> S2 <i>and</i> S3 are the same ship as S1, the original Theseus.  Because if they were both the same as S1, then they would have to be the same as each other.  Right?  That’s a rule about identity: if x=y, and x=z, then y=z.  And S2 and S3 are clearly different ships: they are sitting on opposite sides of the harbor now!  So we have three choices: either, first, S2 is the same ship as S1; or, second, S3 is the same ship as S1; or, third, <i>neither</i> is the same ship as S1, and S1 has ceased to exist.  How do we decide what is correct in this case?
> 
> It’s hard to tell.  Well, let’s get some more theory on the table.  Whenever we make an identity claim -- I mean a claim which states that two things are the same -- we almost always use <i>two</i> <i>different</i> <i>descriptions</i>.  Not always -- sometimes we say "x=x," like "I am myself," but such claims are not particularly interesting or informative.  The interesting identity claims are claims where we use two different descriptions for one and the same thing.  For example, take these two descriptions: "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star."  Sometimes you can look in the sky just before dawn and see a very bright point of light in the sky -- that has been called "the Morning Star."  And then also you can look in the sky just after sunset and see a very similar bright point of light -- that has been called the "the Evening Star."  In fact, the Morning Star is identical to the Evening Star -- both are the planet Venus!  So they are "two" things only in description; in fact they are one and the same thing under two different descriptions.
> 
> Now it’s a similar case with S1, S2, and S3: those are three different abbreviations, which stand for descriptions.  "S1" means the ship which sat in the harbor 50 years ago, newly christened "the Theseus."  "S2" means the ship which sits in the harbor now with the new planks.  "S3" means the ship which sits in the harbor, recently constructed out of the old planks.  So when we ask a question like "Is S2 the same as S1?" we can be understood to mean this: "Is the ship which sits in the harbor now, with the new planks, <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>ship</i> as the ship which sat in the harbor 50 years ago, newly christened ‘the Theseus’?"  Do those two descriptions pick out or refer to the same thing, or don’t they?
> 
> Philosophers aren’t interested in the Ship of Theseus problem because it’s an interesting little puzzle.  In fact, it’s just an <i>example</i> of a more basic problem.  The more basic problem is this: How do we decide that X is the same as Y, where "X" describes something at one time, and "Y" describes something at a later time?  If you like we can call this the problem of identity over time, or alternatively, the problem of change.
> 
> Well, the German philosopher Leibniz came up with a law, called Leibniz’s Law, and maybe it can help us answer the question.  Leibniz’s Law can be stated as follows:
> 
> X is the same as Y iff X and Y have all the same properties and relations; thus, whatever is true of X is also true of Y, and vice-versa.
> 
> So let’s apply Leibniz’s Law to the Ship of Theseus problem.  S2 is the same as S1 if, and only if, S2 and S1 have all the same properties and relations.  Well, <i>does</i> the ship now in the harbor have all the same properties and relations as the ship that was in the harbor 50 years ago?  Here you might be tempted to say, "Clearly not!  They have <i>lots</i> of different properties.  So they can’t be the same ship."  Does that sound convincing?  Well, suppose we consider the property: "contains mast #1."  Mast #1 is one of the masts that the original Ship of Theseus had.  So S1 definitely had this property.  But S2 is not equipped with mast #1, but instead has, we’ll say, mast #2 in its place.  So S2 must be different from S1.  That’s the argument.
> 
> I think this argument is fallacious.  Why?  Because if this argument worked, then, for anything at all, <i>any</i> property that has changed from the last time we looked at a thing would mean that the thing doesn’t exist anymore, and there’s a new thing in its place!  Every little change in every little property would mean the whole thing is destroyed!  I mean, suppose we look at ST1 just a couple of years after it was built.  Say just one mast has been replaced then.  Will we say that the ship is a different ship <i>just</i> <i>because</i> <i>one</i> <i>mast</i> <i>was</i> <i>replaced</i>?  Surely not.  But the ship that’s floating on the ocean for a couple of years <i>does</i> have different properties, it appears, from the original Theseus.  So it looks like Leibniz’s Law would have us say that it’s a different ship.  Now you might see all this and conclude, "Well, Leibniz’s Law must not be a law at all, but a false claim!  X and Y do not need to have all the same properties to be the same thing."  So should we reject Leibniz’s Law?
> 
> I don’t think so.  We <i>can</i> save Leibniz’s Law, like this.  We can say: properties are to be described as occurring at particular times, or as we will say, they are <i>indexed</i> <i>to</i> <i>times</i>.  A property that is described as at a particular time is, we’ll say, "temporally-indexed."  So let me give you an example.  We can say that S1 has mast #1 <i>in</i> <i>600</i> <i>BC</i>.  If we say what time the ship has the mast, then we have indexed the property of having the mast to that time.  We say the ship <i>has</i> the mast then: but then we use the word "has" tenselessly.  That means we don’t say that it <i>at</i> <i>present</i> has the mast; rather, we say it "has" (put the word "has" in quotes) the mast at 600 BC.  We aren’t claiming that the ship has the mast at any <i>other</i> time; just at <i>that</i> time.  But if it were a later time, say 550 BC, <i>that</i> <i>very</i> <i>same</i> <i>ship</i> could "have" -- remember, we’re talking about a tenseless "have" -- it could, at that later time, "have" mast #1 <i>in</i> <i>600</i> <i>BC</i>.  In other words, that very same object has, at <i>all</i> times, all the <i>temporally</i> <i>indexed</i> <i>properties</i> it ever has throughout its entire lifetime.  That’s how, in 550 BC, the same ship could have the property "<i>has</i>" <i>mast</i> #<i>1</i> <i>in</i> <i>600</i> <i>BC</i>.  So suppose we say that all properties and relations are indexed to particular times, and all objects have, at all times, all the indexed properties, and relations, they ever have.  Well, this gives us a way to save Leibniz’s Law from the objection we gave.
> 
> We could say that S1 has the property "has mast #1 in 600 BC."  Then we <i>could</i> say, if we thought that S2 were the same as S1, that S2 also has the property "has" mast #1 in 600 BC.  Do you see?  If S2 is the same as S1, then  S2 can have these two properties at the same time: the first, "<i>has</i>" <i>mast</i> #<i>1</i> <i>in</i> <i>600</i> <i>BC</i>, and the second, <i>does</i> <i>not</i> "<i>have</i>" <i>mast</i> #<i>1</i> <i>in</i> <i>550</i> <i>BC</i>.  And we could also say that S1, the original Theseus, has the same two properties.  The original Theseus has the property "<i>has</i>" <i>mast</i> #<i>1</i> <i>in</i> <i>600</i> <i>BC</i>, and also has the property <i>does</i> <i>not</i> "<i>have</i>" <i>mast</i> #<i>1</i> <i>in</i> <i>550</i> <i>BC</i>.  Let me see if I can put this in plain English: S1 <i>now</i> has the property that it <i>will</i> have mast #2; and S2 <i>now</i> has the property that it <i>did</i> have mast #1.  Then we can say that S1 and S2 have all the same <i>temporally</i> <i>indexed</i> <i>properties</i>.  Then according to Leibniz’s Law, they would be the same ship.
> 
> And it goes without saying that, through the same sorts of contortions, S1 and <i>S3</i> <i>might</i> have the same temporally indexed properties.  And then according to Leibniz’s Law, <i>they</i> <i>instead</i> would be the same ship.
> 
> So can Leibniz’s Law help us decide whether it’s S2 or S3 that is the same as the original Theseus?  I hate to tell you but the answer is "No."  Leibniz’s Law says that some ships are the same just in case they have all the same properties and relations -- or, rather, the same <i>temporally</i> <i>indexed</i> properties and relations.  And how are we going to decide that they have all the same temporally indexed properties and relations?  Leibniz’s Law is no help when it comes to that decision.
> 
> Well, here is my suggestion.  Which is not original to me -- it has become a common thing to say about the Ship of Theseus.  Whether we want to call S1 the same as S2, or the same as S3, or different from both, depends on <i>what</i> <i>purposes</i> we have in calling something the "same" or not.  For example, if the owner of S2 wants to say that S2 is properly called "the Theseus," because that will increase its value, that’s a legitimate purpose.  Or if S2 is sold into different hands, then it might make practical sense to regard it as a new ship; then maybe we could let the owner of S3 call that ship "the Theseus."  Or perhaps owner of S2 made all the changes on the old Theseus and wants credit for the result; it would make sense for him to rename the ship and consider it a new ship.  So I think there just isn’t any fact of the matter about whether S2 or S3 is the same ship as S1; I think that’s a matter that’s up to us, to our convenience, and what purposes we have for considering things the same or different.
> 
> I should say, after this discussion of the problem of change, that in many cases, there’s little <i>practical</i> question about when something goes out of existence.  For most human beings, when the human heart has stopped beating and the brain has stopped functioning, you’re dead and you’re not going to be revived.  When you’ve eaten the apple, it’s gone.  When your old car is crushed into a cube at a junkyard, your car doesn’t exist anymore.
> 
> Now I want make a few very brief remarks about the so-called problem of <i>personal</i> <i>identity</i>.  Basically, the problem is the problem of change as applied to <i>people</i>.  Usually, there’s no trouble saying that, for example, a little girl in 1920 is the same as an old woman in 1998.  The same person is just described two different ways, first as a little girl and second as an old woman.  In fact, we are confident enough of our ability to reidentify people over time that we are given Social Security numbers that are supposed to last us from when we get them until we die many years later.  So it’s not likely to seem <i>mysterious</i> just exactly why we call the old woman in 1998 the same person as that little girl in 1920.
> 
> So to see any <i>problem</i> about personal identity, we have to think up some rather contrived science fiction cases.  Aune  gives a typical sort of example of such a case -- in fact, his example is less contrived than most, which usually seem to involve brain or mind transplants.  Anyway, Aune’s case goes something like this.  Some guy is out flying and crashes his plane.  The doctors think he’s a very important person; so, armed with this newfangled bionics technology, they reconstruct him.  All that remains of the original pilot is the top of his head.  The reconstruction is a success; the top of the pilot’s head continues to function, with a totally new body.  The question then is: Is this newly-constructed human being <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>human</i> <i>being</i> as the original pilot?  Most people, I suppose, don’t really know what to say, when they first hear such a case.
> 
> I am not going to discuss this case: I just wanted to explain it, so you can think about it, and then make one remark, the following remark.  Namely, that, since we have hardly ever encountered any cases that are even <i>remotely</i> as difficult to deal with as this, it’s not surprising that we aren’t quite sure what to say about such cases.  It seems to me that those weird science fiction cases are <i>borderline</i> <i>cases</i> of the notion of <i>being</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>human</i> <i>being</i>.  You remember from our discussion of vagueness what a borderline case is?  It’s a case in which our ordinary concept just isn’t clear enough to let us decide whether the concept does or doesn’t apply.  So in the case of the reconstructed pilot, my view is that our notion of "being the same human being" just isn’t clear enough to let us rule definitively that the reconstructed human being <i>is</i>, or <i>isn’t</i>, the same as the original pilot.
> 
> The same, I might add, can be said of the Ship of Theseus.  Our concept of "being the same ship" just isn’t clear enough to let us rule definitively that S2 is the same as S1; so if we find it convenient we might just arbitrary say that they are the same ship.  But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that we are simply applying our ordinary concept, because our ordinary concept of the sameness of ships over time doesn’t say anything about that case.
> 
> Well, that’s all I wanted to say about identity and change -- two sample relations.  There are a lot of topics in metaphysics we haven’t considered at all.  But we have at least understood some basic facts about our red apple.  We can say: when we say the red apple exists, we means that it is located in space and time, in the world that we are part of.  The apple itself, we might say, is a substance, and its redness is a property.  The redness of the apple is a trope, which resembles the redness of playground balls and flowers.  And though the apple can get soft and rotten while remaining the same apple, once it’s eaten, it is destroyed.
------
PhiloSophy|981080122
10c10
< LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
---
> LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfReligion -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
------
PhilosophyOfReligion|981080160
1c1
< Major Christian Philosophers:  BaruchSpinoza -- SorenKierkegaard -- MaxWeber -- ReneDescartes -- DavidHume -- BoethiuS
---
> Major philosophers of religion:  BaruchSpinoza -- SorenKierkegaard -- MaxWeber -- ReneDescartes -- DavidHume -- BoethiuS
3c3,19
< Er, Spinoza was a Christian philosopher?  He was a pantheistic Jew!  I don't know if Weber was religious at all (he theorized about religion); and Hume of course is famous for being an atheist, though in fact he might have been an agnostic or even a closet believer.  (The ''Dialogues'' aren't very clear about this.)
---
> "Philosophy of religion" means "the study of the meaning and justification of fundamental religious claims, particularly about the nature and existence of God."  Philosophy of religion is classically regarded as part of metaphysics, since according to most conceptions of God, if God exists he’s in an important category of being different from the rest of the universe.  Right?  God isn’t a body and he isn’t any ordinary sort mind.  Moreover, remember that metaphysics concerns basic beliefs which underlie many other philosophical beliefs -- and well, religious claims, as we all know, often underlie views about what we can know, how we can get knowledge, and how we should live.  So all that is why philosophy of religion has been, traditionally, regarded as a branch of metaphysics.  But more recently the philosophy of religion has been instead regarded as a subject unto itself.
> 
> Before we get into the subject itself I want to make something clear.  I am <i>not</i> trying to attack your religious beliefs; I think you do have a right to believe, and not to believe, whatever you want.  As I conceive of it, the purpose of the <i>philosophical</i> study of the philosophy of religion is not either to support or to undermine religion, but rather to examine the meaning and justification of belief in God to the best of our ability.  Now some people are very threatened by <i>any</i> sort of clarification of their religious views, whether about the meaning of those views, or about whether those views can be supported by good reasons.  If you are such a person, I implore you to change your attitude, if for no other reason than that some extremely religious people study the very questions we’re going to ask.  For example, all the questions we’re going to ask are studied in depth at prominent Catholic universities, where sections about the philosophy of religion are included in introductory philosophy courses, which courses are taught by priests and other firm believers.
> 
> So to the subject itself.  There are a lot of philosophical questions that can be asked about religious beliefs.  But my view is that there are just two <i>really</i> important questions in this field.  They are: (1) What is God, i.e., what is the meaning of the word, "God"?  (2) Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist?  Still, there are <i>other</i> questions studied in the philosophy of religion.  For example: What, if anything, would be good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred?  Or: Is it possible for belief in God’s existence to be <i>rational</i> even though one merely has <i>faith</i> that God exists?  Or: What might it mean for God to be "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" as in Christian theology?  But I think the two questions I listed are most <i>fundamental</i>.  In saying they are most fundamental, I mean that the other questions in the field either contribute to answering one or the other or both of these questions, or else they are relatively unimportant.  I mean, <i>surely</i> the most important questions we have to ask about religion are what God <i>is</i>, and whether we have any reason to believe God does or does not <i>exist</i>.
> 
> So let’s examine the two questions in a bit more depth.  To begin with the first: What is God, i.e., what is the meaning of the word, "God"?  Now, what would count as an answer to this question?  A definition, no doubt; maybe other sorts of answers would be acceptable, but what we would naturally expect is a definition.  Now remember something from our discussion of definitions.  <i>Before</i> we give a definition of a term we want to know what <i>sense</i> of the term we want to define.  I might ask, "What is the definition of ‘bank’?" but until I said that I meant financial institutions rather than edges of rivers you’d be confused about what concept it was that I wanted defined.
> 
> Now, aren’t there different senses of the word "God"?  Surely there are.  The word is used in different ways by different people.  So before we try to answer the question, "What is God?" by giving a definition, first we have to get clear on which conception of "God" we are trying to define!  Some people believe that there is <i>more</i> <i>than</i> <i>one</i> God.  They are called <i>polytheists</i>.  For example, the ancient Greeks were polytheists, officially anyway, polytheists.  We aren’t going to concern ourselves with the merits of polytheism.  Some people believe there is only <i>one</i> God.  That belief is called <i>monotheism</i>.  But there is a <i>huge</i> number of different kinds of monotheism.  Some people have the rather strange view that there is one God but God is simply <i>everything</i> <i>that</i> <i>exists</i>; in other words the whole universe is God.  This view is called <i>pantheism</i>.  Some people believe that only one God exists, but that God is like a watchmaker who wound up the universe and now does not intervene at all, not even to answer prayers: they are called <i>deists</i>.  The old French Enlightenment <i>philosophes</i>, like Voltaire, were deists.  OK, so where do ordinary Christians fit into this?  They are <i>theists</i> proper.  <i>Theism</i> is the view that exactly one God exists, which is an eternally existent spirit, which exists apart from space and time, and which is the creator of the world, and is therefore all-powerful; and usually this being is also thought to be all-knowing and all-loving.
> 
> So let us suppose that we decide we are interested in finding out what the word "God" might refer to, <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>sense</i> <i>in</i> <i>which</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>used</i> <i>by</i> <i>theists</i>.  In other words, we decide we are not interested in any polytheistic sorts of gods, or a pantheistic sort of god, or a deistic sort of god.  What we want to get some grasp on is what the God of Abraham and Jesus is.  And suppose we decide on the definition of "God" that informs the stated definition of theism.  So we say that "God" means "an eternally existent spirit which exists apart from space and time, which is the creator of the world, and is therefore all-powerful, and which is also all-knowing and all-loving."  But then there are a lot of questions to be answered <i>about</i> <i>this</i> <i>definition</i>.  For example, what does it mean for a <i>spirit</i> to create anything?  What does "all-powerful" mean?  There is no shortage of questions that philosophers -- both believers and nonbelievers, mind you -- have about the very idea, the very concept, of the God in whose existence theists believe.  We will discuss such questions in a little bit.
> 
> But first let me introduce the second question that I said was so fundamental in the philosophy of religion: Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist?  Now, what would count as an answer to <i>this</i> question?  Well, of course, the words "Yes, we do" or "No, we don’t"; but then these words should be followed by supporting arguments, and the conclusions of the arguments would be either "God exists" or "God does not exist."  We will discuss several arguments that God exists, and one major argument that God does <i>not</i> exist.
> 
> I’ve already introduced the names of different kinds of belief that God exists.  We can give a general description of someone who does not believe that God exists -- we can say they are <i>nonbelievers</i>.  Nonbelievers come in two varieties.  Those who believe that God does not exist are <i>atheists</i>, and their view is called <i>atheism</i>, whereas those who believe neither that God exists <i>nor</i> that God does not exist are called <i>agnostics</i>, and their position is <i>agnosticism</i>.  Some people who don’t think very much about the philosophy of religion tend to think that all nonbelievers are atheists, thus entirely ignoring a very importantly different position that some people take on the question of whether or not God exists, namely agnosticism.  In its original sense, agnosticism is the view that we, humans, <i>cannot</i> <i>know</i> whether or not God exists.  But there are some other views, which are not as extreme as that, which I am lumping in with agnosticism in that original sense.  For example, if I say that <i>I</i> <i>personally</i> do not know, at present, whether or not God exists, then I am an "agnostic" in a looser sense of that word.  I would even lump in with the agnostics those people who simply have no views about God, haven’t thought very much about it, and don’t care.  I doubt there are very many such people these days, but those people too may be called "agnostics" in a loose sense of that term.
> 
> In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of <i>theism</i>, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of <i>atheism</i>, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument <i>against</i> the existence of God.  But we are <i>not</i> going to be considering the merits of <i>agnosticism</i>.  This is simply due to time constraints.  But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism.  Agnostics claim that the existence of God <i>cannot</i> be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor.  It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in <i>not</i> <i>thinking</i> <i>about</i> whether or not God exists.  In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists?  No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even <i>thinking</i> about whether or not God exists.  And I’m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time.  Well anyway, <i>we</i> are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry.  And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981080211
1c1,3
< * America's Poor
---
> <b>America's Poor</b>
> 
> * Global comparisons
------
GoD|981080245
3c3
< There are a large number of different concepts of the divine, and this fact is reflected in the many NamesGivenToTheDivine.
---
> There are a large number of different concepts of the divine, and this fact is reflected in the many NamesGivenToTheDivine.  WhatIsGod, anyway?
------
WhatIsGod|981080288
1c1,67
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So what is God?  I am that some of you might have the reaction: "I don’t know -- no one knows.  And that’s as it should be.  God is totally beyond the comprehension of mere finite beings such as ourselves, and we should not go about pretending that we <i>can</i> know what God is."  If this is your view, I’m not going to tell you that you are wrong, but I <i>am</i> going to point out a little paradox about your position.  Namely, if you think that the nature of God is <i>totally</i> unknown, but you nevertheless say you believe that God exists, then you cannot even say what it is that you are believing in.  Honestly, how much sense does this make, if I say, "I believe that God exists, but I have absolutely no idea of what God is"?  If you don’t see the paradox, let me draw a comparison.  Suppose I say to you, "I believe that flibits exist, but I have absolutely no idea of what flibits are."  How would you react to that?  You’d probably say that I was babbling.  If I have <i>absolutely</i> no idea of what flibits are, then I’m talking <i>nonsense</i> if I say that I believe that flibits exist.
> 
> If I say that I believe that something exists, I have to <i>some</i> conception -- not necessarily a perfect conception, but <i>some</i> conception -- of what that thing is.  So I will make a bold assertion, which I think is absolutely incontrovertible: If you claim to believe that God exists, then unless you are talking nonsense, you must have <i>at</i> <i>least</i> <i>some</i> <i>minimal</i> conception of what God is.
> 
> Now when I put it like that -- <i>at</i> <i>least</i> <i>some</i> <i>minimal</i> conception -- then maybe you’ll concede that you have at least <i>that</i> much of an idea of what God is.  After all, if you have anything like a traditional Christian belief, then in fact you <i>do</i> have some conception of what God is: God is an eternally existent spiritual being who created the world, and so forth.  In fact, if you are indeed a traditional Christian, you may want to add to this, and say, "There is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so that there are three aspects to God, and while we may not know the precise meaning of this doctrine, nonetheless we can know that it is true."  Well, however all that is, we don’t want to complicate the discussion with particular doctrines of particular versions of theism; what we want to look into is what the God of any traditional Jewish, Christian, or Islamic faith is; if you prefer, we want to know what sort of being God the Father is.
> 
> Now we have already seen, after discussing the problem of substance and the problem of universals, that these "What is" questions often oversimplify or cover up more specific sorts of questions.  And it’s no different when we ask, "What is God?"  So how can this question be cashed out?  What is it exactly that we are asking when we ask this?  If all we wanted were a definition of "God," well, we’ve got that; so what more do we need?
> 
> What we need is to <i>understand</i> the definition.  It’s one thing to give the traditional sort of definition of "God," but it’s quite another really to understand what it is supposed to be describing.  Now let’s read the definition, as I formulated it, again: "God is an eternally existent spirit which exists apart from space and time, which is the creator of the world, and which is therefore all-powerful, and which is also all-knowing and all-loving."  There are a lot of aspects of the definition that need at least <i>some</i> explanation.  There are, as I see it, two different kinds of questions we might raise about aspects of the definition.  First, what do various important terms in the definition really mean?  Second, how could we possibly get the very <i>concepts</i> of certain properties, described by those terms, properties which are not properties of <i>anything</i> in our ordinary everyday experience?   So what I will do next is present a few of these questions.  I’m not going to be exhaustive at all in this list of problems, these are just samples.  I will begin with two relatively minor problems and then present one much more important, overarching problem.
> 
> First, we say that God is <i>eternally</i> existent.  Now some people would take this to mean that God is <i>timeless</i> -- categories of past, present, and future just don’t apply when we’re talking about God.  But other people would say that "eternal existence" means, instead, that God exists <i>at</i> <i>all</i> <i>times</i>.  In other words.  If God is eternally existent, he <i>has</i> <i>already</i> existed for an <i>infinite</i> amount of time, and he <i>will</i> continue to exist for an infinite amount of time  -- his existence never began and will never end.
> 
> So let’s take a look at this <i>latter</i> concept of eternity.  It is, I suppose, rather common to observe that we finite human beings cannot really conceive of the infinite.  If that were the case, then we could not understand what God’s eternity was; an eternity is an infinite amount of time.  But others say we have <i>some</i> notion of an infinity -- at least a <i>potential</i> infinity.  The idea here is that we <i>do</i>, after all, have the notion of a series that begins and has not ended.  A series of times that has begun and not ended is <i>potentially</i> infinite.  But does this give us a full-bodied notion of an <i>actual</i> infinity, which is what God is supposed to be?
> 
> Well just suppose we say, "No -- in fact, we can’t understand what an actual infinity is.  Therefore we can’t understand what eternity is."  In that case, part of what God is, is to <i>be</i> eternal, then we cannot understand what God is -- or at least, we cannot understand <i>that</i> <i>aspect</i> of what God is.  Now, we want to have some notion of what God is that is adequate or robust enough for us to be able to say we understand what we <i>mean</i> when we say that God exists.  Right?  We aren’t just <i>babbling</i>, when we say that God exists: and the mere fact, if it is a fact, that we don’t understand eternal existence, may not, by itself, be enough to show that we don’t know what we’re talking about when we say that God exists.  Maybe we could still make sense of the claim, "God exists," <i>without</i> any clear notion of eternal existence.  Or maybe we could make do by understanding God’s eternity by way of our closely related concept, of a potential infinity.
> 
> Here is a second problem.  We say that God is "all-powerful," or to say the same thing, <i>omnipotent</i>.  Some philosophers have brought up some puzzles which are supposed to cast some doubt on whether the notion of omnipotence is really very clear.  The <i>basic</i> notion can be understood well enough it seems: something is omnipotent, or all-powerful, if the being can do anything you think of.  Well, OK, here’s something I seem to be able to think of: a square circle.  I may not be able to <i>imagine</i> a square circle, and I know very well that such a notion is self-contradictory.  But I know what a square circle would be: a shape that is both square and circular.  But if God can do <i>anything</i>, then he could create an actual square circle, couldn’t he?  Or how about this rather hackneyed problem: Is God’s omnipotence such that he could create a stone that he could not lift?  Well, he’s omnipotent, so he could create anything; but if he created this stone, then he couldn’t lift it.  It doesn’t solve the problem to say that, <i>just</i> <i>as</i> <i>a</i> <i>matter</i> <i>of</i> <i>fact</i>, God <i>doesn’t</i> make square circles, or stones he can’t lift.  Because the question isn’t whether or not God <i>does</i> such things, but whether he <i>could</i> do such things.  The claim that God is omnipotent is, after all, a claim about what is <i>possible</i>, about what God has the <i>ability</i> to do, not about what is <i>actual</i>.
> 
> I suspect we would be right to think that this puzzle about omnipotence really isn’t very serious.  What theologians and philosophers often say is that God can do whatever is <i>logically</i> <i>possible</i>.  God can’t create contradictions, they say, but that’s no <i>real</i> limitation of God’s power; to talk about an <i>actually</i> <i>existent</i> <i>contradiction</i> is just nonsense, they claim.  I personally think that’s a fair assessment.  I mean, if we say that, indeed, God cannot create a stone he cannot lift, or that God cannot create an actually existent square circle, is that really any serious limitation of God’s power?  I doubt it.  So we could say that God can do anything that does not imply a contradiction.
> 
> Well, not all questions about the nature of God are as apparently frivolous as this.  Indeed, by comparison, the next problem is rather serious, large, and complex.  I can sum up this problem in the following question: How are we to understand what <i>sort</i> of thing God is?  Well, consider these three things we say about God: first, God is a <i>spirit</i>; second, God is the <i>creator</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i>; and third, God exists <i>apart</i> <i>from</i> <i>space</i> <i>and</i> <i>time</i>.  All three of those things are said of the <i>same</i> <i>being</i>.  And the fact that all three are said of the same being gives rise to some very difficult puzzles about the sort of thing that God is supposed to be.
> 
> For a moment let’s just take the first claim, that God is a spirit, by itself.  "God is a spirit."  Now, what does this term "spirit" mean?  Please note: if we regard our definition of "God" as a genus-and-difference definition, then the <i>genus</i> of God is "spirit."  Right?  God is a particular kind of spirit.  The rest of the definition of "God" is supposed to tell us <i>what</i> <i>kind</i> of spirit God is.  So, if we don’t understand what <i>spirits</i> are supposed to be, then in a very strong sense we have no grasp on what <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i> <i>God</i> <i>is</i>.  So we had <i>better</i> understand what it means to say that God is a spiritual being, or else we clearly won’t have an adequate handle on what sort of thing God is supposed to be.
> 
> Suppose then we say that the word "spirit" means simply <i>mind</i>.  We know what minds are, because we are all intimately acquainted with our own minds.  I then have a concept of what God is: God is a mind, like my own mind, only much more powerful.  Now if we say this -- that God is a mind -- then clearly we have some explaining to do.  Let us now bring up the second and the third claims about God that I listed:  God is the <i>creator</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i>; and God exists <i>apart</i> <i>from</i> <i>space</i> <i>and</i> <i>time</i>.   So now what we are saying is that it is a <i>mind</i> that created the world, and this <i>mind</i> exists apart from space and time.  But how can we understand what a mind is supposed to be that <i>creates</i> <i>physical</i> <i>bodies</i> <i>out</i> <i>of</i> <i>nothing</i>, and which exists <i>timelessly</i>?  Let me elaborate the problems here.
> 
> Do we understand what it means for a <i>mind</i> to create anything physical?  Look here, we do have a notion of what minds can do, based on observation of our own minds.  Our own minds can think thoughts, perceive the world, experience feelings, make decisions.  The decisions we make result in the actions <i>of</i> <i>our</i> <i>bodies</i>.  The only way in which we are familiar with minds impacting the world is via the bodies that are associated with those minds; in other words, it’s only when we decide something, or have a strong feeling that causes us to act out of excitement or anger, that our minds cause our bodies to act.
> 
> But now compare that with what is being claimed about God.  God is supposed to be a spirit, which at present we are understanding to be a <i>mind</i>, a divine mind; this divine mind is supposed to have <i>created</i> <i>physical</i> <i>objects</i>, the physical objects that make up the universe, <i>out</i> <i>of</i> <i>nothing</i>.  We certainly do not have any experience of minds creating physical objects out of nothing.  And from a first-person perspective, we have not a clue as to what that would even be <i>like</i>.
> 
> Now, I suppose what we do, in order to understand the notion of a mind creating something out of nothing, is to use our imaginations in a certain way.  We imagine someone thinking very hard, with nothing in front of him; and then the next moment there <i>is</i> something, like a tree, in front of him; and, whatever this would mean, we imagine that his thoughts have <i>caused</i> the tree to appear in front of him.  And remember, since God is suppose to be <i>just</i> a mind, without a body, that we shouldn’t imagine a <i>human</i> <i>being</i> sitting there and looking like he’s concentrating hard just before this tree pops into existence.  That wouldn’t be an accurate representation of the situation.  We would have to imagine a <i>mind</i>, somewhat like our own mind, <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>itself</i> causing the tree to pop into existence.  Now, we may be able to <i>imagine</i> this, in a way; but the question is whether we really are imagining <i>a</i> <i>mind</i> <i>creating</i> <i>a</i> <i>tree</i> <i>out</i> <i>of</i> <i>nothing</i>.  Because, when we get to the part about a particular decision that <i>causes</i> <i>the</i> <i>tree</i> <i>to</i> <i>appear</i> <i>out</i> <i>of</i> <i>thin</i> <i>air</i>, we draw a blank.  We have <i>absolutely</i> <i>no</i> <i>experience</i> of anything like that sort of decision.  So I would doubt that, in fact, what we really are doing is <i>imagining</i> the creation of the tree with a mere decision.
> 
> So that is one problem about the notion that God is a mind -- namely, it is hard <i>really</i> to understand the very notion that a <i>mind</i> can create physical objects out of nothing.  We might <i>imagine</i> that we understand this, but I don’t think we really do understand it.
> 
> But now here is another problem about the notion that God is a mind.  Now we said that God exists eternally, and that "eternal" has two different interpretations, meaning either existing <i>timelessly</i> or existing <i>at</i> <i>all</i> <i>times</i>.  Well, suppose, as many people do, that God’s mind is supposed to exist <i>timelessly</i>.  In other words, when we think about what this divine mind is supposed to be, we can’t apply categories like "past," "present," and "future" to it.  God’s mind does not pass from earlier thought to later thought; he doesn’t make plans and then, later, act on those plans.  To say those things would be to imply that God’s mind does not exist timelessly.
> 
> But see here, this makes the very notion of the divine mind <i>exceedingly</i> strange.  Think now of how you understand what your own mind is: it is, as far as you can ascertain, a series of experiences, thoughts, judgments, feelings, decisions, and so forth, coming one after another.  We are saying that God’s mind, or rather the mind that is identical to God, <i>has</i> <i>no</i> <i>such</i> <i>series</i> of thoughts, decisions, and so forth.  Because the divine mind is timeless: the categories of before and after just don’t apply here.  So it is hard to say that the divine mind even <i>has</i> such things as thoughts and judgments, because a thought, in any sense of this word that we are familiar with, is, presumably, something that has a beginning and an end.  God’s mind is sitting in the same state for all of eternity.  A very complex, grand, incomprehensible state.  It is hard to call this state, or any part of it, a thought or a decision or anything like that.
> 
> It’s worse than that, though.  Because ordinary traditional Christianity, for example, holds that we can pray to God and God answers prayers; that God speaks to prophets and perhaps even to us individually, sometimes; and so forth.  But in order for God to do these things, God must, at least in <i>some</i> sense, exist in time.
> 
> Let’s step back now and consider what is being claimed about God.  God is a mind, but this mind differs <i>radically</i> from the human mind, because, first, it has the ability to create physical objects out of nothing, just with a thought; and, second, it does not have any series of thoughts at all, but remains in the same mental state, apart from time, or as it were throughout eternity.  And yet, straining our powers of interpretation, God is supposed <i>also</i> to perform individual acts, such as doing miracles and answering prayers, at <i>particular</i> <i>times</i>.  Those, at least, are the claims we’re examining at present.  They stem from the basic notion that the sort of thing that the divine spirit is, is a <i>timeless</i>, <i>creative</i> <i>mind</i>.
> 
> But honestly, then, can we really call this being, that differs so radically from the human mind, a <i>mind</i> at all?  If God is in a single state throughout eternity, and with a pure spiritual act can create a tree, then surely it would be, as Hume says, an <i>abuse</i> <i>of</i> <i>terms</i> to call God a mind.  Minds have successive thoughts -- thoughts that succeed one another -- God is no such thing.  God is supposed, at least by many people, to be unitary, and simple, and unchanging.  And so we would be most accurate not to call the divine spirit a <i>mind</i> but instead to stick with the word "spirit."
> 
> Well, I’ll bet you know what I’m going to say next.  Remember, what we’re trying to figure out now is what <i>sort</i> of thing God is.  We say that he’s a spirit; and we have concluded, for the time being, that God’s spirit is not a mind.  What, then, <i>is</i> a spirit, if it isn’t a mind?  Do we have a concept of this non-mental spirit, and if we do, then how did we come by this concept?
> 
> Now there are some people who will throw up their hands at this point and say, "Too many questions!  This is pointless!  No, God is not knowable.  God is a mystery.  We do not understand what God is.  Maybe people who have visions and go into mystical ecstacies and so forth can, somehow, understand what God is, by coming into some close contact with God.  But ordinary people using our finite, ordinary, worldly concepts just cannot fathom what is divine and otherworldly."  People who say they believe that God exists, but who also believe that we cannot have any concept of what God is, except by a very unusual sort of experience, are known as <i>mystics</i> and their view is called <i>mysticism</i>.  The unusual sort of experience which they say gives them some insight on the nature of God is called a <i>mystical</i> experience.
> 
> How are we to react to mysticism?  Well, I can tell you anyway how <i>I</i> react.  The trouble with mysticism, as far as I can make out, is something I’ve already hinted at.  Namely, if the mystic thinks we can have <i>no</i> <i>concept</i> <i>of</i> <i>God</i> <i>whatsoever</i>, then it is <i>contradictory</i> for the mystic to claim to believe that God exists.  If I have a belief that something exists, then I have to have a <i>concept</i> of the thing that exists.  If I believe that Elvis still exists among us, then I have to have some acquaintance with who Elvis is supposed to be.  If I hold that unicorns exist, I have to have a concept of a magical horse with a horn.  And so forth.  But if I have <i>absolutely</i> <i>no</i> <i>concept</i> <i>whatsoever</i> of God, then it is <i>literal</i> <i>nonsense</i> for me to say that I believe that God exists.  Beliefs, in order to <i>be</i> beliefs, must have contents.  It is nonsense to say that I believe in something of which I have no notion whatsoever.
> 
> It seems to me that the only way I could, as an extreme mystic, honestly maintain that I believe in God, is if I have a mystical experience and come to experience directly what God is.  Then I may not be able to describe what God is to other people, but, having had an experience of what God is, my concept of God has some content.  Then, when I say that I believe that God exists, I can be understood to mean: "That indescribable divine being which I experienced exists."  I am just not going to take the time to examine the plausibility of this view.  Really, this attitude is beyond the purview of philosophy: if the nature of God cannot be described or conceived of by ordinary concepts, then evidently there is nothing for any philosopher, who like myself is equipped <i>only</i> with ordinary concepts, to examine.  I suppose I might try to try to raise some objections to the very idea that someone <i>has</i> any mystical experiences; but I am not going to try to do that.  That would take us far afield.
> 
> But why not accept a less extreme mysticism, a moderate mysticism if you will, according to which <i>a</i> <i>few</i> <i>things</i> can be understood about God.  That, for example, God created the universe; that God is spiritual; and so on.  In other words, we can understand the gist of the definition of "God" that I gave before; but we cannot understand the details.  The idea then is that we have some vague, fuzzy notion of what God is, but we cannot elaborate, when pressed, on many essential parts of this notion, such as what a "spirit" is that is not a mind, and so forth.  I will leave it up to you as to whether you ought to think that any such vague notion is good enough, so that indeed you <i>can</i> honestly think that you have a notion of God.  I won’t tell you what to think about that.
> 
> But some of you <i>may</i> hear all this and say, "By George, this is excellent reason to reject mysticism.  If a mystical view of God really does mean that I don’t know what I’m believing in, and thus that I really can’t honestly be said to have a belief at all, then I am going to compare God more directly to humans.  I will say that God is <i>not</i> "timeless," but that he <i>does</i> have successive thoughts, feelings, decisions, and so forth.  That is, after all, more consistent with many elements of a traditional faith."
> 
> This point of view on the nature of God may be described by a term often constrasted with "mysticism," namely <i>anthropomorphism</i>.  The term "anthropomorphism" comes from two Greek words, <i>anthropos</i> meaning man, and <i>morphos</i> meaning shape or form; so "anthropomorphism" describes any belief according to which something non-human, such as God, animals, and plants, is thought of as being like human beings.  Usually this term is taken as a term of abuse -- an insult.  It doesn’t <i>have</i> to be taken that way, but I think it usually is.  So if you call someone an "anthropomorphite" you are accusing him of being a little stupid or silly in a way, because he thinks that something that is totally non-human is like human beings.  For example, when children attribute feelings to thunderstorms -- "The thunder is mad at us," they say, not understanding that, unlike humans, the weather doesn’t have feelings.  Hardly anyone believes that God has a human body, but of course many people historically <i>have</i> believed that their gods had bodies and that those gods could roam the earth.  We could use the phrase "physical anthropomorphism about God" to mean the belief that God has a body.  But then we might also use "spiritual anthropomorphism about God," meaning that God has a mind something like a human’s.
> 
> The idea then is that we get our concept of God’s qualities -- his ability to create, his knowledge, his feelings for us, and so forth -- by <i>analogy</i> with experience of our own minds.  Of course, even the anthropomorphite isn’t going to say that God’s mind is <i>exactly</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> as a very smart human mind, of course.  There are some extremely important differences.  But God’s mind is enough like our minds that we can make good sense of the claim that the sort of thing that God is, is indeed a mind.  Now we’ve already looked at some of the problems for this view, and I don’t plan to go over any others.  If you think those problems, and other similar problems we might raise, can be overcome, that’s fine.  I’ve just given that view a name, spiritual anthropomorphism, in order to contrast it with mysticism.
> 
> But what if I conclude, after trying to make sense of what God is, that the word "God" is really nonsense?  What if after consideration I decide that I really <i>can’t</i> understand what people are talking about when they use this word?  There are a good many philosophers this century who have come to this conclusion -- philosophers like the Englishman A. J. Ayer, and other so-called positivists.  I mean, suppose that I do my very best, trying to understand what this definition of "God" is supposed to mean.  And I end up saying to myself: "The extreme mystical conception of God is not a conception of anything at all; the moderate mystical conception of God is too flimsy, because it just gives up explaining what the definition’s terms mean at a certain point; and the anthropomorphic conception of God is totally implausible simply because it is not a conception of a <i>mind</i> at all.  Therefore, as far as I can tell, no good sense <i>can</i> be made of this word, ‘God’."  For convenience, let’s call this the <i>no</i> <i>concept</i> view of "God" talk; it’s the view that we, or I anyway, have no genuine concept of what "God" is supposed to mean.  Now if I come to that position, am I an atheist, an agnostic, or what?
> 
> Maybe this view could best be considered a kind of agnosticism, for the following reason: it rejects both the belief that God exists <i>and</i> the belief that God does not exist.  But this is a totally different sort of view from an ordinary agnostic.  An ordinary agnostic does believe she has some at least rough-and-ready conception of God; she simply doesn’t know whether or not such a being exists.  Either she hasn’t decided; or she thinks the evidence is equally weighted on both sides and she thinks it’s most responsible to suspend judgment; or, in the most extreme case, she thinks she <i>cannot</i> know whether or not such a being exists.  Those are the usual sorts of agnosticism.
> 
> But if I take the no concept view, and say that talk of God is really just nonsense, it’s not as though I have trouble making up my mind whether or not God exists; it’s not even as though I believe that the existence of God cannot be known.  Rather, I would not think the question, "Does God exist?" made any sense at all.  For the question, "Does God exist?" to makes sense, the word "God" would have to be given some good meaning.  So if my opinion is that the word "God" in fact <i>cannot</i> be given good meaning, or at least that I don’t understand its meaning, then I would give you blank stare if you asked me whether God exists.  As far as I’m concerned, the question of whether God exists is ultimately no more comprehensible than the question of whether flibits exist.  So I would neither affirm, nor deny, <i>nor</i> suspend judgment on the question of the existence of God.  It would be better to say that I would want to unask the question.  All this is why I think that the no concept view is best regarded as a distinct, fourth view in addition to theism, agnosticism, and atheism.
> 
> Let me be fair to the theists among us now.  I am quite sure that defenders of traditional religions including Christianity would, after our discussion so far, want to say that the no concept view is unduly critical, fastidious, or exacting.  Such people will, I suppose, either believe that moderate mysticism is correct, and provides a sufficiently clear notion of God for human purposes; or that spiritual anthropomorphism is correct, and that it really does give us a way to conceive of the divine mind.
------
PhiloSophy|981080372
19c19
< '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
---
> '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
FaithAndRationality|981080402
1c1,27
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Next we will examine the question: "Do we have any good reason to believe that God exists, or does not exist?"  I said before that answers to this question are in the affirmative or the negative, and are or should be supported by arguments, either with the conclusion that God <i>does</i> exist, or with the conclusion that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  But there is a certain position on this question which does not involve arguments for or against the existence of God, and I want to talk a little bit about it.  I mean the view that one should simply have faith, or perhaps that faith is itself, somehow, good reason to believe in God.
> 
> The view that one should simply have faith that God exists is called <i>fideism</i>.  You may be surprised to hear that fideism is indeed studied by philosophers of religion.  But what is there to <i>study</i> about faith?  We just have it -- we have faith by the grace of God, as fideists would say -- or we don’t.  So what’s to study?  Well, two things.  First, what <i>is</i> faith?  And second, is faith <i>rational</i>?
> 
> Now a little about the first question, what is faith?  Some people are wont to say, "I take the existence of God on faith," or "Faith is my reason for believing."  I think these statements are, strictly speaking, incorrect.  Now let me explain they seem to imply that religious faith is something <i>different</i> from the belief that God exists.  But faith isn’t <i>different</i> from believing that God exists: it just <i>is</i> the belief that God exists.  Still, if I say I have <i>faith</i> that God exists, I am talking about a particular <i>kind</i> of belief in God, am I not?  It is, after all, possible to believe that God exists without having <i>faith</i> that God exists.  Right?  Suppose I say I have a battery of arguments that <i>prove</i> that God exists, and I support my belief rationally with those arguments; and I absolutely deny that I have <i>faith</i> that God exists.  I think that makes sense.  So what makes faith that God exists different from other kinds of belief that God exists?  What is faith really?
> 
> In order to answer that question I think there’s another interesting question to ask.  Is it something about the <i>belief</i> <i>itself</i> that makes faith different, or is it something about the <i>relation</i> of that belief to other things one believes?  Is it, for example, the <i>strength</i> of the belief in God that makes faith different, or is it how that belief is related to other things one believes, that makes the belief not just any belief, but <i>faith</i>?  If you think a little about it, I think you can see that it <i>isn’t</i> anything about the belief considered by itself that makes the belief faith.  It is, rather, the fact that the belief is accepted <i>without</i> <i>any</i> <i>reasons</i>.  In other words, what makes a kind of religious belief not just belief, but <i>faith</i>, is the fact that the belief is not supported by arguments, or reasons, or evidence.  Or most generally: there are no <i>other</i> beliefs that one has, which one thinks makes one’s belief that God exists <i>more</i> <i>probably</i> <i>true</i>.
> 
> So here then is the claim: If I have <i>faith</i> that God exists, then I believe that God exists, but I do not claim to have any other beliefs which make it more probably true that God exists.  Faith is belief without reasons.  Hence, fideism may be stated as the view that one ought to believe that God exists, but one should to base that belief on any other beliefs; one should, instead, accept it without any reasons at all.  At least <i>initially</i>.  There are some kinds of moderate fideism which say that one should have faith to begin with, and only then, when one’s faith is strong enough, go out in search of reasons to believe.
> 
> Now to the second question I wanted to ask about faith, namely, can faith be rational?  I think this depends on what you mean by the word "rational."  If, in order a belief to be rational, I <i>must</i> have reasons for the belief, then faith is, by definition, not rational.  And in that sense, fideism specifically recommends that one <i>not</i> be rational.  The question, then, is whether this is a very good notion about rationality.
> 
> Let me give you an example of a belief which is rational but for which you have no reasons.  Suppose you are suffering from an insistent and painful headache, and you tell me, "Geez I’ve got a splitting headache."  I say, "What are your reasons for believing that?"  You tell me, "Well, I just <i>feel</i> it."  So I demand to know what reasons you have for thinking that you feel the headache.  And so naturally you reply, "<i>Reasons</i> for thinking I <i>feel</i> the headache?  That’s ridiculous!  I have no reasons.  I just feel the pain!"  Then suppose I accuse you of being irrational.  I say, "You are believing something without reasons.  That’s irrational."  Do you think I would be correct?
> 
> Surely not.  Surely you can believe, without reasons, that you feel a headache, and be entirely rational in this belief.  In fact I would say you’d be nuts if you <i>didn’t</i> have the belief -- if, somehow, you felt a powerful headache and yet were somehow able to convince yourself that you weren’t feeling a headache.  That would, I think, be irrational.  So here’s my point: It is <i>possible</i>, in at least <i>some</i> cases (surely not in <i>all</i> cases), to be rational in a holding belief even though one has no reasons for the belief.  I think that <i>very</i> <i>many</i> beliefs require reasons in order to be rational.  But there are <i>some</i> beliefs which do <i>not</i> require reasons in order to be rational.
> 
> So is religious faith rational?  That depends on whether, indeed, reasons to believe in God <i>are</i> required for <i>that</i> belief to be rational.  Now, some recent philosophers, most prominently the American William Alston, have argued that belief in God <i>is</i> a "basic belief" -- in other words, faith can be rational even though it is not supported by reasons.  How can Alston say that?  Well, he says that some people have certain religious experiences, in which they can, as it were, perceive that God exists, or they can feel God’s presence.  And just like belief that you feel the pain, you don’t need reasons to believe that you are experiencing God’s existence when you feel his presence.  So Alston is, I think, fairly called a moderate mystic, in the sense I defined earlier.  Here’s the idea.  Suppose you think you can come into some sort of immediate contact with God -- you think you feel God’s presence.  Then the idea is that you don’t have to have <i>reasons</i> to believe that you feel God’s presence.  The belief, that you do indeed feel God’s presence, is nevertheless rational.  You have what might be called "rational faith."  That, at least roughly put, is Alston’s sort of view.
> 
> Now needless to say, if you don’t believe you have such experiences, or if you think that these experiences are just a kind of vivid imagination, then you won’t be at all impressed by Alston’s view.  And then you will maintain that, if belief in God is to be rational, it <i>must</i> be supported by reasons.  In other words, if you disagree with Alston, you will maintain that the belief in God is in that large class of beliefs which <i>do</i> require reasons in order to be rational.  That doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be an agnostic or an atheist.  You could still be a theist.  You’d simply maintain that you <i>do</i> have evidence supporting your theism, you <i>do</i> have reasons to believe that God exists.
> 
> So what if you think about all this long and hard, and you come to a conclusion.  You say to yourself, "Alston is wrong; we can’t <i>simply</i> say, without any reasons, we can feel the presence of God in nature and in our lives, and then expect to be <i>rational</i> in our belief in God.  Belief in God has to be backed up by arguments in order to be rational.  Faith, blind faith, is irrational; and so fideism recommends irrationality.  I’ll accept all that.  But see here, I don’t care about rationality.  Or rather, I want to be rational when it comes to my career, my family, and so forth; but when it comes to religious life, rationality is <i>not</i> <i>a</i> <i>virtue</i>.  So, even if faith is irrational, that doesn’t matter.  In fact, it might be a virtue to believe in God irrationally!  My very irrationality would show my devotion to God!"
> 
> There are people, including probably some people in this class, who think this way.  I won’t discuss this attitude, except to make one remark.  Namely, that it is not at all clear to me that it is possible to compartmentalize your life, so that you say that irrationality is all right in religious matters, but not in more ordinary matters.  I simply fear that if you permit yourself to be irrational in religious matters, you will also, under excitement or duress, permit yourself to be irrational in non-religious matters.
> 
> So suppose you then take an even <i>more</i> extreme view, and say, "Who cares?  I never thought rationality was important at all."  That is a view that I won’t dignify: I don’t think that <i>anyone</i> holds that view <i>really</i>.  <i>Everyone</i> cares about the rationality of <i>some</i> of their beliefs, I don’t care who you are or how strongly you deny it.  If you do deny it, I will tell you that you aren’t thinking hard enough about who you are and what your actual attitudes are, or how you live your everyday life.  So don’t go around saying that you don’t care about irrationality <i>at</i> <i>all</i>, because you most certainly do.  What I think <i>is</i> possible, though, as I said, is that you think that irrationality in <i>some</i> areas of your life, for example when it comes to religion and love and weekend activities, is OK.  And I am simply raising the question as to whether you will be able, <i>successfully</i>, to compartmentalize your attitudes this way.  Maybe you can.  Some people <i>seem</i> to be able to, anyway.
> 
> This is all just food for thought for you; as always you have the right to think whatever you like.  All right, that’s all I’m going to say about the rationality of faith.  Next what I am going to talk about are some positive reasons to believe that God exists -- in other words, <i>arguments</i> which have as their conclusion the claim, "God exists."
------
GoD|981080452
7a8,9
> 
> A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered.
------
WikiPediaFaq|981080473
73a74,81
> 
> Bold and italic tags work, along with the <nowiki><tt></nowiki> and <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tags.  Most other tags don't work in the wiki--many of them are unnecessary (like paragraph or list tags) or difficult to allow safely.  (Many tags can be misused with Javascript.)  Some tags will be added in future versions.  (I've already added em, strong, and code tags.) 
> 
> The problem in the page you quoted is that the five single-quotes after AristotlE were matched by the five single-quotes after SeT (at the end of the paragraph).  The single-quote formatting was never really meant to be used for separating page names from trailing letters.  (It was a recently-discovered quirk of wiki formatting.)
> 
> This wiki has a special feature for separating wiki page links (or any other kind of link) from trailing letters.  You can type <tt><nowiki>SeT""s</nowiki></tt> to get SeT""s, <tt><nowiki>LoGic""s</nowiki></tt> for LoGic""s, etc.  Just add two double-quote characters immediately after the link and it will be removed in the output.  (The two-double-quote convention was chosen since it is easy to type, but is unlikely to be used accidentally.)  Note that the two double-quotes are only special if they immediately follow a link--simply typing "" in ordinary text will display two double-quotes.
> 
> I hope that the need for these conventions will disappear soon, as I'm working on new ways to form wiki links.  (See WhichWikiShouldWeUse for details.)  --CliffordAdams
------
ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981080521
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There are two kind of arguments for the existence of God: ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod, and TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod.  We shan't speculate on whether the latter belong to the former.
------
ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981080534
1c1,33
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Today we are going to go over arguments for, and against, the existence of God.  And so what we are going to be studying next is what has been called <i>natural</i> <i>religion</i> or <i>natural</i> <i>theology</i>.  "Natural religion" means "religion based on reason and ordinary experience."  This is distinguished from <i>revealed</i> <i>religion</i>, which is religion based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds.  The philosophy of religion does not include much study of revealed religion.
> 
> I want to begin by looking first at two <i>bad</i> arguments for the existence of God.  I won’t take too long on them.  But I want at least to explain them and say why I, and many other philosophers, think these two arguments are so obviously bad.
> 
> The first is called the <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>consensus</i>, or <i>from</i> <i>common</i> <i>consent</i>.  It goes like this.  Throughout the world, in all lands, people believe in some God.  And not just now, but in the past, a belief in some God was a very common part of daily life.  So the person who denies that God exists is opposing the common consent of all of humanity, that God exists.  Who are we to oppose such an enormous consensus?  Therefore, God exists.
> 
> I think you can see why I say this is a bad argument.  First of all, it’s not even the case that <i>everyone</i> in <i>all</i> times has believed that God exists.  There have been dissenters, atheists, everywhere.  Secondly, look at all the different <i>versions</i> of God that people believe in: the gods of the ancient Greeks are very different from the Hindu gods, which are very very different indeed from the spirits that some Africans traditionally worship, which are of course very different still from the Judeo-Christian God.  At the very best the most one could say is that <i>some</i> <i>higher</i> <i>power</i> <i>of</i> <i>some</i> <i>sort</i> has been <i>commonly</i>, although not universally, thought to exist.
> 
> But neither of the two foregoing reasons are the best reason to think that this argument from consensus is a bad argument.  The best reason to think it’s a bad argument is that, so to speak, 50 million Frenchmen <i>can</i> be wrong.  The mere fact that there is widespread, but not universal consensus about something does not, by itself, prove anything.  One might just as plausibly say that, since in medieval Europe most people though the Earth was flat, therefore, probably, the Earth was flat.  That just doesn’t follow!
> 
> Now surely the fact that some manner of religious belief is so widespread is a very <i>interesting</i> fact, well <i>worth</i> <i>study</i>.  I would not want to deny that.  But the idea that one can infer that God exists, especially the God of Abraham and Jesus, is, I think, kind of silly.  I think we can do much better than this.  If you think you need an argument in order to be a rational theist, there are several far better arguments to be found.
> 
> Let’s look next at another bad argument.  Now this one isn’t so obviously bad.  In fact, I think that some of you probably find it plausible, and you may resent me, somewhat at least, for saying it’s an obviously bad argument.  But I fully intend to explain to you why I think this argument is indeed no good.
> 
> The second, then, is the <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>morality</i>.  Here goes.  It is God, God alone, who decides what is right and wrong.  God’s commands are the only and ultimate standard of morality.  So, if one supposes that God does not exist, then one is doomed to a life without moral standards.  One will have no reasons to think that lying, stealing, or even murder are wrong.  That means that, as a nonbeliever, one contributes to the corruption of oneself, others, and the entire culture.  According to the famous catchphrase, "If God is dead, then everything is permitted."  In other words, if we no longer believe that God exists, then we will think we are morally permitted to do anything; and that will corrupt us.  To avoid such moral corruption, and to have stable standards of morality, we must believe that God exists.  Therefore, God exists.
> 
> Now there is one important premise that this argument rests on -- namely, that God’s commands are the only possible standard of morality.  This implies a theory of ethics, which is called <i>theological</i> <i>ethics</i>, or alternatively, the <i>divine</i> <i>command</i> <i>theory</i>.  According to theological ethics, something is right just in case God commands it; something is wrong just in case God forbids it; and something is morally permissible just in case God neither commands nor forbids it.
> 
> I am going to present one common objection to theological ethics.  I’m stealing this objection from Socrates, who first came up with it.  Namely this: do we want to say that an action is right because God commands it, or do we want to say, instead, than God commands an action because it is right?  Look, if we say that actions are right <i>because</i> <i>God</i> <i>commands</i> <i>them</i>, then we can’t explain why God commands what he does.  On the other hand, if we say that God commands right actions <i>because</i> <i>they</i> <i>are</i> <i>right</i>, then we’re saying that what makes actions right isn’t just the fact that God commands them.  Rather, God <i>sees</i> that an action is right, and commands us to do it <i>because</i> it is right.  If we accept theological ethics as our only ethical theory, then there’s no moral explanation for why God commands what he does.  If God had commanded us to murder each other, then that would be right -- by definition.
> 
> You might object to that, and say that of course God <i>wouldn’t</i> command us to murder each other.  That’s just ridiculous, you’ll say.  But <i>why</i> is it ridiculous?  If you say, "Because God commanded us to love each other, not murder each other," you’re arguing in a circle.  You’re saying that God commanded us not to murder -- why? -- because God commanded us not to murder.  Or else, if you’re not arguing in a circle like this, then you’re saying <i>there</i> <i>just</i> <i>is</i> no reason why God commands what he does.
> 
> My proposal is that there is something about human nature, about human happiness, and about the universe we live in that makes murder wrong; God recognizes these facts and, having recognized them, commands us not to murder each other.  Now if you disagree, and if you accept theological ethics, then look at what you’re saying: you’re saying, "There is <i>nothing</i> about human nature, <i>nothing</i> about human happiness, <i>nothing</i> about the universe that explains, or accounts for, why murder is wrong.  Or rather, the <i>only</i> thing that explains why murder is wrong is that God forbids it; and there’s no reason for him to forbid it, nothing about us or our world."  I am hoping you can see that that is a very implausible view.
> 
> So what if we do say that God has reasons for commanding and forbidding what he does?  Then we say: God’s reasons, the facts about our humanity and our universe that lead him to legislate what he does, are what make actions right and wrong.  For example, suppose he forbids us to murder because murder is totally contrary to human happiness.  Then we may say: the reason that murder is wrong is that it is totally contrary to human happiness.  Do you see?  Then <i>God’s</i> reasons for saying loving each other is right will be just the same as <i>our</i> reasons for thinking loving each other is right.
> 
> The point then is that morality is, strictly speaking, conceptually separable from what God commands.  In order to understand what is right and wrong, we need only understand what God’s reasons for commanding things would be, if God were to exist.  And that does not even require that God exists.
> 
> So in light of this, let us examine a claim brought out earlier: "If God is dead, then everything is permitted."  Do you see now at least <i>why</i> <i>I</i> say that this claim is mistaken?  If God were to have any reasons for what he forbids, those reasons are what make the forbidden things wrong.  So it is perfectly possible to understand that we might lead moral lives, and accept very strong moral standards, <i>even</i> <i>if</i> we deny that God exists.  We do not have to believe in God in order be rational in accepting moral principles.
> 
> In fact, later on this quarter we are going to spend a week and a half on issues in ethics, all strictly from a secular point of view.  <i>Ethicists</i>, at least, certainly do not think they are out of work if they deny that God exists.
> 
> So I think this argument from morality is fallacious.  Please notice, in saying this, I am not implying in any way, shape, or form, that God does <i>not</i> exist!  I am also not denying in the least that God’s commands are always right.  What I am denying, rather, is that it is God’s commands <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>themselves</i> which make actions right; I think that those commands would have to have some reasons behind them.  And those reasons are what make the actions right.  So I am simply saying that the argument from morality is not a good argument that God does exist.  You can, as a theist, find <i>much</i> better reasons to support your belief in God.
------
TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981080606
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Next we will look at three venerable, traditional arguments for the existence of God.  Some people call these "proofs" of the existence of God.  You can call them "proofs" if you like, just don’t think that using that word, "proof," will magically transform them into knock-down drag-out excellent arguments.  You should examine them on their merits and see if they really <i>are</i> proofs properly so-called; look and see whether they <i>do</i> prove what they are supposed to prove.
> 
> And before I turn to those three arguments, I should add that there are <i>other</i> arguments that have been offered for the existence of God, which I am <i>not</i> mentioning.  Not because I think they’re no good, but because we don’t have time to explain and evaluate them properly.  In fact, we are going to have to go pretty quickly through those arguments that we do examine.  Anyway, though, you can find some of those arguments that I am not going to go over on pp. 436-55 of the Hospers selection.  And you can find more sympathetic presentations of those same arguments in any number of textbooks about philosophy and about the philosophy of religion in particular.
> 
> The three arguments I’m going to present are the <i>ontological</i> <i>argument</i>, the <i>cosmological</i> <i>argument</i>, and the <i>teleological</i> <i>argument</i>.
> 
> * TheOntologicalArgument
> * TheCosmologicalArgument
> * TheTeleologicalArgument
------
TheOntologicalArgument|981080632
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> And so without further ado, let’s turn to the ontological argument.  By the time we finish talking about it, I think you’ll be able to see why it’s called "the ontological argument."  Obviously, the argument has something to do with ontology, with the study of existence.  Anyway, the following version of the argument is due to the Medieval philosopher, St. Anselm.  Here goes:
> 
> There are various kinds of so-called <i>perfections</i>.  Size, intelligence, beauty, power, benevolence, and so forth -- all these qualities we naturally regard as perfections.  And we all understand that there are various degrees of these perfections.  What is more intelligent is more perfect as regards intelligence; what is more beautiful is more perfect as regards beauty; and so forth.  Now, we have a concept of God, as that which has all perfections to the greatest degree conceivable.  Indeed, our notion of God is of something than which nothing greater, nothing more perfect, can be conceived.  If we ever conceive of some greater degree of perfection, than we previously conceived of, then we must regard God as having that greater degree.  So when we conceive of God, we conceive of something which is the greatest conceivable being.
> 
> But now just for the sake of argument, I want you to suppose two things.  Pay attention and keep these in mind.  The first supposition: we have a concept of the greatest conceivable being, God.  The second supposition: this concept of God exists <i>only</i> <i>in</i> <i>our</i> <i>minds</i>.  St. Anselm says that these two suppositions contradict each other.  How does he show that?  As follows.  Our supposition is that we have a notion of the greatest conceivable being, and that this most perfect conceivable being does not, in fact, exist in the world.  But in that case our concept of God is a concept of a being that is only imaginary; so it is not a concept of the greatest <i>conceivable</i> being -- why?  Because a being that <i>actually</i> <i>exists</i> is a greater being, more perfect, than a being that merely exists in our <i>minds</i>, of course.  Existence is a perfection, just like power, beauty, and so forth.  So if we conceive of the greatest conceivable being, we must conceive of a being <i>that</i> <i>exists</i>.  A being that didn’t exist wouldn’t be the <i>greatest</i> conceivable being.  So the second supposition, that the concept of God exists <i>only</i> <i>in</i> <i>our</i> <i>minds</i>, contradicts the first supposition, that we have a concept of God.  Hence, if we have a concept of God, then God necessarily exists.  And we do have a concept of God.  Therefore, God necessarily exists.
> 
> Now, there are a lot of things that we could be, and have been, said about this argument.  I’m just going to focus in on a few.  The basic trouble seems to be that we have, it appears, simply <i>conceived</i> <i>God</i> <i>into</i> <i>existence</i>.  Surely it’s very strange to think that all we have to do is to conceive of God as existing, and it follows from that alone that we have good reason to believe that God exists.  But let’s not jump the gun here; I’m going to present three traditional objections and then present another one of my own.
> 
> One traditional criticism of the argument is that existence is not a perfection, because existence is not a <i>property</i>.  If existence were a property of items, including God, then it might be a perfection.  But since it’s not a property, it cannot be a perfection; only properties of things can be perfections of things.  Now, we have previously encountered this notion, that existence is not a property, in our discussion of metaphysics.  I rather doubt that this view is correct.  There are better objections to be made, then, that do not depend on dubious presuppositions like this.
> 
> So a second traditional criticism is to say that, even if existence is a property, it is nonetheless <i>still</i> not a perfection.  Either something exists or it doesn’t; there aren’t any <i>degrees</i> of existence.  Something can’t be <i>more</i> <i>or</i> <i>less</i> existent.  So that’s a reason to think that existence isn’t a perfection.  But to this St. Anselm might reply that, even granted that there aren’t degrees of existence, surely existence <i>is</i> more perfect than nonexistence; and in any case, something that exists is <i>greater</i> than something that doesn’t.  That is certainly plausible.  So let us look for more objections.
> 
> So here’s a third, famous objection to the ontological argument, raised by Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo.  Gaunilo invited us to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island; I don’t know what would make the island perfect, but say it’s sunny, green, great beaches, skiing in the hills, who knows.  No such island exists, right?  But in that case we aren’t thinking of the <i>greatest</i> conceivable island, because the <i>greatest</i> conceivable island would <i>exist</i>, as well as having all those other desirable properties.  Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist.
> 
> Of course, this is a silly argument.  But, Gaunilo says, this argument no worse than Anselm’s.  In the same way, you could, if you wanted to, "prove" the existence of the most perfect hamburger, the most perfect dumpster, or the most perfect toilet.  That’s absurd!  But Anselm’s argument isn’t any worse than these.  So Anselm’s argument isn’t any good either.
> 
> I’m going to offer a fourth objection, an objection of my own.  For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to restate the argument.  It would take me too long, and it would be too hard to follow, for me to explain <i>why</i> I think my restatement is equivalent to St. Anselm’s original argument.  So you’re just going to have to trust me that it is the same as Anselm’s original.  So here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the greatest conceivable being (call it B1) exists only in the mind.
> 
> 2. But we can conceive of a being (call it B2) that is <i>greater</i> than any being that exists only in the mind.
> 
> 3. So, we can conceive of a being (namely, B2) that is greater than B1 (since we are supposing that B1 exists only in the mind).
> 
> 4. But then we can conceive of a being that is greater <i>than</i> <i>the</i> <i>greatest</i> <i>conceivable</i> <i>being</i> (B1) which is a contradiction.
> 
> 5. Therefore, our supposition in (1) is wrong; the greatest conceivable being <i>really</i> exists, and not only in the mind.
> 
> That’s the argument.  Here’s my criticism: I think that (4) does not follow from (3).  I fully admit premise (3).  Yes, since we are supposing that B1 exists only in the mind, we can conceive of a being (namely, B2) that is greater than B1.  In other words, we can imagine that that being, God, which, as we suppose in premise (1), exists only in the mind, did not <i>only</i> exist in the mind, but also in reality.  Sure, we can imagine that.  But <i>that</i> <i>doesn’t</i> <i>mean</i> that we can conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being!  Why would St. Anselm think that that follows?
> 
> Well, according to (3), we can conceive of a being that is greater than B1; and B1, remember, is <i>the</i> <i>greatest</i> <i>conceivable</i> <i>being</i>.  So naturally you’d think that (3) entails (4), that we can conceive of a being that is greater than <i>the</i> <i>greatest</i> <i>conceivable</i> <i>being</i>.  But B1 isn’t <i>the</i> <i>greatest</i> <i>conceivable</i> <i>being</i>, itself; B1 is a <i>concept</i> of the greatest conceivable being.  It’s an <i>idea</i> <i>we</i> <i>have</i> of the greatest conceivable being.
> 
> Why do I say that?  Look at premise (1) again.  It says: "Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the greatest conceivable being (call it B1) exists only in the mind."  (Anselm’s phrase is: "Exists in the understanding alone.")  Now what is this thing, B1, which we say exists only in the mind?  <i>What</i> <i>is</i> it?  Is it <i>the</i> <i>greatest</i> <i>conceivable</i> <i>being</i>, itself, or is it, more <i>precisely</i> stated, <i>a</i> <i>concept</i> of the greatest conceivable being?  Clearly, it’s only the <i>concept</i> that can exist in the mind.  We would never admit that the greatest conceivable being <i>itself</i> might somehow exist only in our minds.  That wouldn’t make any sense!  In other words, when we say that the greatest conceivable being exists "in the mind," or "in the understanding alone," we just mean that we have a concept of the greatest conceivable being.  And then we use the words "greatest conceivable being" as short for "<i>concept</i> <i>of</i> the greatest conceivable being."  Make sense?
> 
> So here’s my criticism summed up.  St. Anselm’s argument, as I presented it, claims, in premise (3), that we can conceive of a being that is greater than B1.  But B1 is just a <i>concept</i>; even if it is the concept of the greatest conceivable being, it’s nonetheless still a concept.  And so of course we can conceive of lots of things greater than that <i>concept</i>.  But premise (4) doesn’t follow from <i>any</i> of the foregoing -- it just doesn’t follow that I can conceive of something greater than the greatest conceivable being.  All that follows is that I can conceive of something greater than <i>my</i> <i>concept</i> of the greatest conceivable being.  Which is no big surprise!
> 
> There are other versions of the ontological argument besides St. Anselm’s.  So maybe one of those other versions would do better.
------
TheCosmologicalArgument|981080703
1c1,47
< Describe the new page here.
---
> But let’s leave the discussion there and look at a second argument for the existence of God, namely, the <i>cosmological</i> <i>argument</i>, also known as the <i>first</i> <i>cause</i> argument for the existence of God.  Thomas Aquinas, the most famous philosopher of the Middle Ages, had a simple version of this argument.
> 
> The cosmological argument infers the existence of God from claims about <i>the</i> <i>entire</i> <i>universe</i>.  The basic idea is that God must exist since the entire universe needs a cause; the very existence of the universe requires some explanation, and an act of God, namely creation, is that explanation.  So let me present the argument.
> 
> Consider some event in the universe -- let’s say, the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It had to have a cause, no doubt a very complex cause, but some cause.  Such as protests in East Berlin; they helped cause the fall of the Wall.  But then of course those protests in East Berlin had to have some cause.  And <i>those</i> causes had some causes, and so forth.  There is one enormous chain of events in the universe, with the earlier events causing the later events.  So now we have to ask ourselves: Did this chain of causes have a <i>beginning</i>?  Yes or no?
> 
> Let’s not try to resolve that question now.  But rather than just <i>assume</i> that the universe had a beginning, let’s just <i>ask</i>: <i>Did</i> this chain of causes making up the universe have a beginning?  Now, our conclusion is going to be the same whether we say "Yes" or "No."
> 
> So suppose on the one hand that there <i>was</i> a first event, which started the entire chain of causes and effects which make up all the events in the universe.  Astronomers today commonly think that there was such an event, called the "Big Bang."  The universe began with an enormous explosion of matter and energy from a superdense point.  But then of course <i>the</i> <i>Big</i> <i>Bang</i> was another event in the universe.  If we say it is "the first event" we still want <i>some</i> explanation for the event.  Why did it happen?  It had to have <i>some</i> first cause.  We call this first cause, the thing that caused that first event, <i>God</i>.  God created the universe; so God exists.
> 
> Now let’s suppose on the other hand that there was no first event; the universe has already existed an infinite amount of time, and will continue to exist an infinite amount of time.  Nevertheless we might ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?  (This is Leibniz’s famous question.)  Why is there this particular whole infinite chain of causes and effects, rather than some <i>other</i> chain, or no chain at all?  There has to be <i>something</i> that explains this.  What?  Evidently whatever explains it has to be something that is necessary in itself, which carries the explanation for its <i>own</i> existence in itself, as it were.  So we can say that a necessary being, that caused the universe, exists.  This being we call God; hence God exists.
> 
> So we come to the same conclusion, that God exists, whether or not we suppose there was a first event in the universe.  Therefore, God exists.
> 
> Well, is this argument any good?  A lot of believers have thought so.  But, not surprisingly, it has been subjected to some very hard objections.  Again, we are just going to review a <i>few</i> of the objections that philosophers have raised.  Even if you think that none of these objections succeed, they do at least have the effect of  <i>clarifying</i> exactly how the argument is supposed to go.
> 
> First objection.  Remember that in the argument as I presented it, either the universe had a first event, or has existed from eternity.  So suppose that the universe had a first event.  According to the cosmological argument, this first event had to have some cause -- which means, <i>some</i> <i>event</i> <i>which</i> <i>caused</i> <i>the</i> <i>first</i> <i>event</i>.  Now can we even make any sense of that?  The proposal is: there was a first event; but this first event had to be caused by <i>another</i> <i>event</i>.  But don’t causes have to precede their effects?  Surely.  But then what we are calling the "first event" is not actually the first event, because there is another event, which preceded it and caused it to occur -- and that is a contradiction.
> 
> Well, you might say, that objection is no good, because by the words "first event" we mean <i>first</i> <i>event</i> <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>physical</i> <i>universe</i>.  We can say that the <i>cause</i> of the first event in the physical universe, namely, God’s act of creation, is not <i>itself</i> in the physical universe.  It was a <i>spiritual</i> act, which resulted in the first <i>physical</i> event.
> 
> Second objection.  But then we ask: <i>why</i> think that there had be a cause, spiritual or otherwise, of the first event?  Why can’t there be an uncaused event?  What people are likely to say is that the very notion of an uncaused event is absurd; and so they enshrine their view about causality in something that has been called <i>the</i> <i>Principle</i> <i>of</i> <i>Causality</i>.  The Principle of Causality is simply that every event has a cause; there is a cause of everything that happens.  Now, we could talk about this principle for a long time; but for our purposes, suffice it to say that a lot of philosophers do not see why this so-called Principle of Causality has to be true at all.  Isn’t it at least <i>possible</i> that an event, especially an event like the Big Bang, might not have a cause at all, but that it <i>simply</i> <i>exists</i>?  If you think that it’s <i>impossible</i> that the Big Bang didn’t have a cause, the question for you is: where is the contradiction in saying that there was no cause?  In other words, why do you think the Principle of Causality is always true?  Perhaps you might come up with an argument for it.  Or perhaps you will just stubbornly maintain that it can and indeed must be held <i>without</i> any argument.  We could talk about that a lot more, but let’s leave that discussion there.
> 
> Now this second objection applies only to the case where the universe had a first event.  What about the case where the universe has existed from eternity?  That brings us to the:
> 
> Third objection.  If you say, on the other hand, that universe has existed from eternity, I might say: in that case it makes no sense to speak of the <i>cause</i> of the universe.  Why?  Because causes precede their effects.  If you say the universe has existed <i>forever</i>, consider then -- is there a time <i>before</i> forever?  Of course not, that doesn’t make any sense.  So it equally makes no sense to speak of the cause of an eternal universe; that cause would have to exist <i>before</i> something that had no beginning!  There is no such thing as a <i>cause</i> of an eternal universe.  All right, even if we concede that point, we can still insist: there has to be some manner of <i>explanation</i> or <i>reason</i> for why the universe even exists, and why it is as it is, and not radically different from how it is in fact.  Here again we might bring up another principle to dignify our curiosity.  This time it is the Principle of Sufficient Reason.  Basically this says that there is a sufficient reason or explanation for everything.  This principle was formulated by the German philosopher Leibniz.  He wrote: "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases."  Everything has a reason for its existence, and for why it is as it is, and not otherwise.
> 
> The cosmological argument simply applies the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the very fact of the universe.  So it allows us to ask: Why does <i>something</i> exist, rather than <i>nothing</i>?  And the principle allows us to demand an answer.  And the answer, the theist says, is: God created the universe.  That is a sufficient reason for the existence and nature of the universe.  But notice, if we want to get around the objection I started this third objection with, we can’t say that this reason isn’t a <i>causal</i> explanation.  God’s creation of the universe <i>explains</i> why the universe is here; but the act of creation did not precede the existence of the universe.  After all, remember that God is supposed to be, on many accounts, timeless: so it would make sense to say that a spiritual act of creation is timeless as well.
> 
> At this point you might be scratching your head in puzzlement.  What exactly are we <i>talking</i> about in talking about a timeless, spiritual act of creation, which explains the universe, but which is not a <i>causal</i> act?  Is there anything in our experience at all <i>like</i> this sort of "timeless explanation"?  Well what about laws of nature?  Force equals mass times acceleration, and so forth.  Laws of nature are timeless; or, alternatively, they apply at all times, not just at particular times.  And of course we can use laws of nature to explain things.  So natural laws are one kind of timeless explanation we are familiar with.  We can say: physical objects move the way they do because the laws that one studies in physics apply to those objects.  Similarly biology studies the laws that explain the growth and behavior of living beings.  Ultimately, a perfect, complete science would explain a <i>lot</i> about the universe.
> 
> But a complete science couldn’t explain why <i>particular</i> bodies have been arranged in the <i>particular</i> way they have been; it couldn’t explain why there was something rather than nothing; and it couldn’t explain those laws of nature themselves.  So we need God to explain those things.
> 
> Now, again, just as we raised objections to the Principle of Causality, we might just as well raise objections to the Principles of Sufficient Explanation.  Why think <i>it</i> is correct?  Why not simply think, for example, that the arrangement of matter in the universe <i>simply</i> <i>is</i> <i>as</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i>?  Maybe it is, as philosophers say, a "brute fact."  Similarly with the laws of nature governing that matter: once you get to the broadest laws, that apply to the greatest number of things in the universe; once you have come up with some grand unified theory of everything; then there is no further question to be raised, as to <i>why</i> the laws of nature are as they are.  Natural laws simply <i>are</i>, and there is no why.  Well, that’s what some people say anyway.  I will leave it to you to think about all this.
> 
> Fourth objection.  If we accept the cosmological argument, as we have seen, then we have to accept either the Principle of Causality, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason.  All right, but then why not apply such principles to <i>God</i>?  Consistency would seem to require us to do so.  In other words, why not think that <i>God’s</i> <i>existence</i> requires some cause, or at least some sufficient reason?  Even a little child can understand this point.  A little girl asks: "Why does everything exist?"  Her mother replies: "God created it all."  And then the little girl asks: "But what created God?"  In other words, to say that God created the universe <i>doesn’t</i> <i>put</i> <i>an</i> <i>end</i> <i>to</i> <i>the</i> <i>little</i> <i>girl’s</i> <i>curiosity</i>. Her mommy might say, "God creates himself."
> 
> But now mommy’s being a little disingenuous.  If she means that God <i>causes</i> <i>his</i> <i>own</i> <i>existence</i>, then she is saying something absurd: since a cause must precede its effect, and the effect in this case would be God’s coming-into-existence, God would have to exist before he came into existence; which is a contradiction.  The point is that, if God either exists at all times, or timelessly, then in either case God never <i>comes</i> <i>into</i> <i>being</i>.  So God isn’t the sort of thing that can be caused to come into existence.  Because God never does "come into existence."
> 
> But maybe we could say that, in some sense, God is a <i>sufficient</i> <i>reason</i> for his own existence.  Be careful now -- I’m not saying that God <i>causes</i> himself.  I’m saying that God’s existence is a sufficient explanation of his own existence.  But here, really, we might wonder: what exactly is the claim here?  That something can <i>explain</i> <i>its</i> <i>own</i> <i>existence</i>, but not causally?  This is straining our powers of understanding -- at least it strains <i>my</i> powers of understanding.  Maybe there is a way to make sense of what it means to say that something could explain its own existence.  But I can’t tell you what it is.
> 
> So finally suppose, instead of saying that God explains himself, we say that God is the sort of thing that needs no cause or explanation or reason.  God exists, as some philosophers like to say, <i>necessarily</i>.  In other words, God is the sort of thing that <i>must</i> exist; it is a contradiction to suppose that God does <i>not</i> exist.  If God exists <i>necessarily</i>, then there is no need to apply the Principle of Causality or the Principle of Sufficient Reason to him; since God <i>must</i> exist, he isn’t the sort of thing that can be caused, or that requires any explanation.  So the claim is: God’s existence requires no cause or explanation.
> 
> Here’s how one might reply to that.  There are two ways to reply.  First, I might maintain that there are no exceptions to the principles.  After all, I’m not sure why it is that the <i>fact</i>, if it is a fact, that God <i>necessarily</i> exists is supposed to make it any less pressing for us to explain God’s existence.  Indeed, now we get to ask <i>another</i> question, namely, why is it that God doesn’t merely exist, but that he <i>necessarily</i> exists?  Do you see the point?  If God <i>must</i> exist, then why don’t we have to explain why he <i>must</i> exist?
> 
> Second, I might say: why not think that <i>the</i> <i>universe</i> exists necessarily?  Why not think that the sum total of everything that exists, <i>must</i> exist, and <i>must</i> be as it is and not otherwise?  In that case, then the universe’s existence requires no cause or explanation, and we don’t have to talk about God at all.  Since the cosmos has to exist, we don’t have to go around looking for explanations of its existence, or the natural laws that govern it.
> 
> I think you can see that, all together, these different replies to the cosmological argument make it difficult for the argument’s defender to hold onto it.  I’m not saying that that can’t be done, because some religious philosophers have indeed used this argument and come up with elaborate replies to the objections I’ve raised.
------
TheTeleologicalArgument|981080720
1c1,29
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It is called "teleological" from <i>telos</i>, the Greek word meaning "purpose or end."  As we will see, the argument refers to the purposes or ends which we see all around us in the world.  It is also called "the argument from design."  And it goes like this.
> 
> Look around the world, and observe how everything fits together in one enormous, beautiful system.  The planets orbit the sun, the earth rotates on its axis, and the moon orbits the earth, creating regular seasons, days, and ocean tides.  The continents each contain complex, rich ecosystems which are themselves marvels of organization and interdependency.  And as we look at individual organisms our amazement increases: every being seems designed to carry out the functions that are natural to it.  Hawks are equipped with excellent eyesight in order to catch small prey; camels are equipped with water-retaining humps for long treks through the desert; and humans are equipped with minds that allow them to think of ways to protect their relatively weak, hairless, slow bodies.  When we think about the universe in this way, we are struck with how every part of it seems to be <i>well</i>-<i>designed</i>, as though there were an architect or engineer behind it.  So much in the world seems to have a <i>purpose</i> behind it.  And how can things have <i>purposes</i>, without an intelligence giving them those purposes?  Indeed, the universe is like one giant machine.  And so, just as machines have designers, the universe must have had a designer with certain purposes for its creation.
> 
> This designer must have been a mind, in order to have those purposes; but this mind would have to be infinitely intelligent, because it designed absolutely everything in the universe.  And since this mind created the universe, it would also have to be infinitely powerful.  Finally, this mind has adapted nature so that, if we live well, we can be happy; so this mind must be benevolent.  That means then that there is a mind, infinitely intelligent, powerful, and benevolent, that designed and created the universe.  And that is just what we mean by "God."  Therefore, God exists.
> 
> Unlike the cosmological argument, the teleological argument allows us to infer various things about the <i>nature</i> of God.  The cosmological argument only allows us to conclude that a "first cause" exists; but it’s not clear that that "first cause" has to be a personal God, a God of a sort which we would want to praise and worship.  The teleological argument, on the other hand, is supposed to tell us that God is intelligent and loving.  That is one reason why a lot of Christians use design arguments to support their belief; scientifically-minded believers, especially, see evidence of design, by a caring God, all around them.  So the teleological argument is supposed to give us reason to believe in the sort of God that is worth worshipping.
> 
> But let’s turn to the inevitable criticisms of the argument.  The first criticism should not take long to state, just because it should be familiar to almost all of you.  Namely, that there was this guy named Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution, which explains the <i>appearance</i> of design in the universe, but the theory of evolution doesn’t require a designer.  In other words, in showing how the biological world might have, or has, evolved from lower life forms, Darwin (and of course almost all biologists after him) showed why there <i>appears</i> to be design in the world; and at the same time he showed that there is no need to suppose that there was an actual <i>designer</i> to explain this appearance of design.
> 
> In short, the reason that Darwin and the theory of evolution is as hated as they are, by some religious people, is that they undermine support for the teleological argument.  The appearance of design, say the evolutionary theorists, does not require a designer.  But notice, the teleological argument is only <i>one</i> argument of God.  So, <i>even</i> <i>if</i> the theory of evolution undercuts support for the teleological argument, that <i>doesn’t</i> mean that there is no way to rationally justify belief in God.  There are <i>plenty</i> of other arguments.  Much less is the theory of evolution in any way, shape, or form an argument <i>against</i> the existence of God.  At worst, from the theist’s point of view, the theory of evolution makes just <i>one</i> argument for the existence of God less plausible.
> 
> And the theory of evolution is, I might add, <i>totally</i> <i>compatible</i> with the view that God designed and created the universe.  He would simply have chosen to create the natural world gradually.  Some Christians even say that God guides the process of evolution.
> 
> But critics of the teleological argument, anyway, say that the theory of evolution does show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises; the argument has been shown invalid.  In other words, the premises of the teleological argument may be true, while the conclusion is false.  The proposal is: there is indeed a huge lot of appearance of design; but the claim that no God exists is entirely compatible with that appearance, because the appearance of design can be explained adequately by the theory of evolution.
> 
> Here is a second criticism of the teleological argument.  David Hume is famous for coming up with a series of powerful criticisms.  But I’m going to focus in on what I believe is Hume’s most devastating criticism.
> 
> I told you that the design argument is supposed, by its defenders, to prove the existence of the sort of God that is worth worshipping, right?  Well, Hume called that into question.  Be forewarned, the following is rather irreverent; but that’s because Hume himself was a very irreverent person.
> 
> Suppose we admit that, indeed, there had to be some intelligent design behind the existence of the universe.  But notice <i>how</i> we came to this conclusion: it was by <i>drawing</i> <i>an</i> <i>analogy</i>, a comparison, between machines like auto engines and the universe and its parts.  The universe and its parts are like auto engines in that both look like they have been <i>designed</i>.  So we concluded that the mind of God must be somewhat like the human mind; simply much greater and more powerful.
> 
> But why do we say that there is just <i>one</i> God?  If we are arguing by analogy, why don’t we say that there is a committee of Gods that has designed the universe?  Maybe Zeus designed space and the sky and the weather; Poseidon designed the oceans and lakes; Demeter designed the earth; and so on.  What reason do we have, as far as the teleological argument goes, to think that there is just one God?  No doubt some scientifically unsophisticated peoples have thought that there are many gods precisely <i>because</i> <i>of</i> something like the design argument.  Sensibly, different gods are then assigned to different aspects of the universe; the division of labor makes sense.  Creating a universe is a big job!
> 
> And why say that God is <i>perfect</i>?  If the universe is like a machine, then maybe our God is really kind of a second-rate deity, who copied the plans of some more brilliant deity -- in just the way that an engineer might borrow the designs of some fellow engineer.
> 
> For that matter, why couldn’t God be a child, and our world is just his first attempt at worldmaking, an attempt of which he is now embarrassed?  The teleological argument tells us nothing to confirm or deny such a possibility.  Or perhaps when God created the universe he was a very old deity, and was about to die, and then after creating the universe he died.  The designers of machines die all the time.  If <i>all</i> <i>that</i> <i>we</i> <i>know</i> <i>about</i> <i>God</i> is that God designed the universe, and so is like the designers of machines, then we have no way of knowing that God is <i>immortal</i>.
> 
> I think you get the idea.  Suppose that we admit that God is like the designer of machines; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that the <i>Christian</i> God exists.  And I honestly do not know how the defender of the teleological argument can get around that objection.
------
ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981080762
1c1,6
< There are two kind of arguments for the existence of God: ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod, and TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod.  We shan't speculate on whether the latter belong to the former.
---
> There are two kind of arguments for the existence of God: 
> 
> * ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod
> * TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod.
> 
> We shan't speculate on whether the latter belong to the former.
------
ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981080775
1c1
< There are two kind of arguments for the existence of God: 
---
> There are two kinds of argument for the existence of God: 
------
GoD|981080858
9c9
< A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered.
---
> A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered; in argument for the thesis that God does ''not'' exist, TheProblemOfEvil has been posed.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|981080868
1c1,61
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I am going to finish up with the so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i>, which has, as its conclusion, "God does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.  I want to remind you that, just because I am presenting this argument, that does not mean that I think it is a good argument, or that I agree with its conclusion.  I just want you to understand what the argument is, and then you can go and think whatever you like about it.
> 
> Now, we have talked about the rationality of <i>theism</i> -- about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well talk about the rationality of <i>atheism</i>.  If you are an atheist, you would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  It would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Christians see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
> 
> But some atheistic philosophers insist that one <i>can</i> prove that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.  You <i>can</i> prove a negative, they say: you <i>can</i> prove that something does not exist.  How?  You show that the very concept of a thing is contrary to known facts.  That’s how the argument from evil goes.  Very briefly, the argument from evil proceeds like this: if God did exist, then he would eliminate evil from the world; but we see evil all around us; therefore, God does not exist.  I am sure you have thought of this problem before.  Now let’s see if we can state it more rigorously, and what objections might be made against it.
> 
> Here is the argument, in a more detailed form:
> 
> 1. If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving.
> 
> 2. If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it.
> 
> 3. If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient.
> 
> 4. If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent.
> 
> 5. If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving.
> 
> 6. Hence (by premises 2-5), if evil exists in the world, then either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving.
> 
> 7. But evil does exist in the world.
> 
> 8. Thus (by premise 6 and 7) either God is not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not all-loving.
> 
> 9. Therefore (by premises 1 and 8), God does not exist.  (That is, the God of Judeo-Christian religion, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, does not exist.)
> 
> Now let’s go back over the premises and see which ones we might criticize.  Remember that if you want to criticize an argument, then either you attack the premises, or you show that the premises do not entail the conclusion.  Now, the way I have formulated the argument from evil, the premises <i>do</i> entail the conclusion: this is a deductively valid argument.  That means that <i>if</i> the premises are all true, <i>then</i> the conclusion must be true.  But that’s not too impressive.  If I had wanted to, I <i>could</i> have formulated the ontological argument and the cosmological arguments as deductively valid arguments; I would then, if I wanted to criticize those arguments, simply attack the premises.  So if you are certain that the conclusion of a valid argument is wrong, one of the premises must be wrong.  You just have to say which one, and say <i>why</i> that one is wrong.
> 
> So that’s what we’re going to do here.  We’ll go over the different premises and see whether they can stand up to scrutiny.  Premise (1) just states some basic facts about the Judeo-Christian conception of God: "If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving."  Ordinary Christians certainly do not want to reject premise (1).  Other people might end up rejecting this premise, because they want to believe in a <i>different</i> sort of God.
> 
> How about premise (2)?  "If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it."  Why think this?  Well, evil has to have <i>some</i> explanation.  Why would a good God allow evil to exist in the world?  Maybe he doesn’t know about it; or maybe he <i>can’t</i> get rid of it; or maybe he doesn’t <i>want</i> to eliminate it.  But is there any <i>other</i> explanation?  Perhaps, but I don’t think so.  Just ask yourself this: suppose God <i>knew</i> about evil, he <i>could</i> eliminate all of it, and he <i>wanted</i> to eliminate all of it; could evil even <i>possibly</i> exist then?  Surely not.  If God <i>knew</i> about all the evil, and he <i>could</i> get rid of it, and he <i>desired</i> to get rid of it, then God <i>would</i> get rid of it.  But then we simply say: suppose that evil <i>does</i> exist.  In that case, either God doesn’t know about it, he can’t get rid of it, or he doesn’t want to get rid of it.  One of those options is open to us (or perhaps a combination of them).  That’s what premise (2) says.  So I don’t think we can criticize premise (2).
> 
> Now look at premise (3).  "If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient."  That seems perfectly true.  If there’s <i>anything</i> that God doesn’t know, then God isn’t omniscient; what it means to be omniscient is to know everything that there is to know.
> 
> Similar things can be said about premise (4).  "If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent."  That also seems incontrovertibly true.  If there is anything that God can’t do, anything that doesn’t involve a contradiction anyway, then God isn’t omnipotent.  What it means to be omnipotent is to be able to do everything.  If God were omnipotent then he could certainly eliminate evil.  So I think both premises (3) and (4) have to be accepted.
> 
> But now what about premise (5)?  "If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving."  This one is more doubtful.  In fact I am sure that a lot of you will want to raise objections to it.  Isn’t it at least <i>possible</i> that God is all-loving, but he still doesn’t want to eliminate evil?  Maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  Well, we’ll elaborate on this objection in a bit.  Just keep in mind that we are going to come back to it; so premise (5) is the first premise we’ve found which is really dubious.
> 
> Next consider premise (6).  "Hence (by premises 2-5), if evil exists in the world, then either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving."  This follows deductively from premises (2)-(5); the only way to reject premise (6) is to reject (2), (3), (4), or (5); and so if we end up deny premise (5), that will be enough to allow us to say that (6) is false.
> 
> What about premise (7)?  "But evil does exist in the world."  Some people deny this.  But how?  How could anyone possibly deny that evil exists in the world?
> 
> Some people say that evil is <i>merely</i> an <i>appearance</i>; it is <i>only</i> an illusion.  Nothing is <i>really</i> evil.  I suppose the idea is that if you get yourself into the right frame of mind, probably a rather fuzzy frame of mind, then evil seems powerless and inconsequential.  What really matters is goodness, happiness, love, or something like that; so evil doesn’t matter, and in a sense it doesn’t really exist.
> 
> I have to admit that I have a hard time taking that view seriously.  First of all, even if evil "doesn’t matter," that certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t <i>exist</i>.  Because plainly it <i>does</i> exist.  Hitler exterminated six million Jews; that wasn’t evil?  People suffer from debilitating diseases all around the world; that’s not an evil we all potentially face?  People are regularly killed by tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.  Those events aren’t really evil?  Their obvious hatefulness is illusory?  That seems ridiculous.  Unless you have some sophisticated way to explain <i>why</i> evil is merely illusory, this view can be safely rejected.  I seriously doubt you can solve the problem of evil by simply <i>denying</i> that evil exists.
> 
> Premise (8) reads: "Thus (by premises 6 and 7) either God is not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not all-loving."  This is a further inference from earlier premises, so the only way that we can reject <i>it</i> is by rejecting those earlier premises.
> 
> So after going over each premise of the argument from evil, we have found just <i>one</i> premise, namely (5), that gives us substantial hope of escaping the conclusion.  As I said, maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>theodicy</i>.  A theodicy is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  And mind you, in order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.  I think that when I put it this way, this is a topic you may have thought a fair amount about; maybe some of you already have views about it.
> 
> I should insert here that some people think that all they have to prove is that a loving God <i>can</i> <i>have</i> <i>some</i> <i>purpose</i> in permitting evil to exist.  These people <i>deny</i> that they have to <i>state</i> God’s purposes.  What would be the point of that?  God’s purposes are not our purposes; the nature of God is mysterious.  So if you are a mystic this view should be attractive to you.  All you have to do is to argue that a loving God <i>might</i> have some reason for allowing the existence of evil; you don’t have to state what the reason is.  I think this is an extremely popular view among Christians.  For two reasons, no doubt: first, it is extremely pious not to try to guess at God’s thoughts; and second, it gives us a justification for not making an actual attempt to explain evil, which promises to be a very difficult task indeed.
> 
> But let’s review a few actual attempts to explain evil.  The first is to point to the existence of free will.  God gave us free will; and so we are able to bring evil upon ourselves.  We are to blame for the evils which we inflict and suffer.  This is an unfortunate consequence of our status as free beings; but it is far better that we are free, and hence that we suffer evil, than it would be if we were merely unfree pawns in a perfect game that God played by himself.
> 
> This is very persuasive to many people.  But there is a very serious problem with it: very much of the evil that we suffer is not due, in any direct way, to any choices that human beings make.  When the Black Death rode in the late Middle Ages, and wiped out millions upon millions of Europeans, that certainly was not due to any act of any human being.  Or take any natural disaster at all: human beings do not cause, and cannot prevent, devastating earthquakes.  So we should distinguish between <i>moral</i> evil and <i>natural</i> evil, a distinction I’ve been blurring up until now.  Moral evil is any bad thing that humans are responsible for; natural evil is any bad thing, such as an earthquake or flood, that humans are not responsible for.  Human beings are to blame for moral evil; but they are not to blame for natural evil.
> 
> "Ah," you may say, "but we are.  Adam and Eve freely committed the Original Sin, of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and we have been paying for that great sin ever since."  Now, I don’t want to get into any specific issues of Biblical exegesis and Church doctrine.  But suffice it to say that it would be harsh, to say the least, that <i>absolutely</i> <i>every</i> <i>member</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>human</i> <i>race</i> who came after Adam and Eve should have to pay, throughout their lives, with all manner of suffering, for that Original Sin of Adam and Eve.  I hope you’ll forgive me if I say that does not sound like something that a loving God would do.  There may be a way to explain how a loving God can permit evil; but I doubt that the best way to explain it is to say that we all <i>deserve</i> all the evil we get, because Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin.
> 
> So here’s another answer, a more plausible answer, I think.  A universe in which we are tested and improved by having to face evils, is far better than a universe in which we might complacently live in blissful ignorance of evil.  The souls who will inhabit heaven will be far better and stronger if they live in a world beset with all sorts of evils.  Evil improves us.  And so God has allowed Satan to come to the power that he now has.  Satan tempts us and if we resist, we are better for it.  Satan also tests our will and resolve with all sorts of natural evils, earthquakes, floods, and whatnot; and if we pass the test we are better for it.
> 
> Now if I wanted to, I could bring a lot of objections to this.  Surely the absolute <i>horrors</i> that humanity has faced, especially in the twentieth century, are unnecessary to improve our moral mettle.  I could, if I wanted to, insist on such objections at length.  But I think we have come to the point where you can see the outlines of the major issues involved in the problem.  So I will leave it to you to hash out the details and to answer any further objections, that might come to you, yourselves.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981080963
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It’s possible to do a great deal of philosophy without talking about human beings at all.  We can talk about the existence of physical objects, space and time, the problem of substance, the problem of universals, change and identity, what numbers are, and a great many other topics without having to discuss what human beings are.  And we could, without talking about human beings, explore an area which is important, but which I haven’t even mentioned until now, namely the philosophy of biology.  The philosophy of biology looks for a definition of "life," in the sense of being alive, and tries to come to grips with some of the fundamental properties of living beings, such as proper functioning.  Now, I think it’s very useful to regard human beings as, first and foremost, <i>living</i> beings with a certain number of natural systems which have their proper functioning.  We have a respiratory system, for example the proper functioning of which allows our bodies to get the oxygen we need in order to survive.  Similarly with our circulatory system, or digestive system, and so forth.
> 
> Well, the nervous system, including our brain and nerves is, of course, a natural system just like our respiratory system, with a proper function (or rather, a whole very complex set of proper functions).  Our nervous system is incredibly complex and highly developed.  In fact it is so highly developed that many people think that the mind is something quite over and above the mere human brain and nervous system.  But <i>is</i> the mind really something quite over and above the brain and nervous system?  Well, in this chapter, we’re going to discuss that question.
> 
> As I said, it is possible to do a lot of philosophy without talking about human beings.  But probably <i>most</i> of philosophy <i>does</i> in some way depend on questions about human nature and the human situation.  And the human mind is of course fundamental to human nature.  So, a great deal of the rest of philosophy ultimately rests on questions about the human mind.  Thus, if we do want to talk about the rest of philosophy, practically the first topic that we have to take up, is the nature of the human mind.
> 
> So this is going to be a chapter about some of the most important topics in the philosophy of mind.  Before I explain those specific topics, I am going to try to explain in general what the philosophy of mind is, and introduce some terminology.  Let me begin with a definition of the field:
> 
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>mind</i> is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, and consciousness.
> 
> So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  We’ve already talked about that a little, when we discussed the problem of substance as applied to minds.  So let’s talk about the other parts of this definition.
> 
> It also concerns something I am calling "mental events."  That’s one bit of terminology I will introduce.  We need some sort of catch-all phrase that means <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>occurrence</i> of something going on in the mind.  So say I’m walking across the Oval and I <i>see</i> University Hall.  That instance of seeing University Hall is an instance of <i>perception</i> -- something that is supposed to be going on in my mind.  So let’s call that instance of seeing a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i>.  It’s an <i>event</i> because it is something that happens; and it’s <i>mental</i> because it happens in my mind.  If I think to myself, "I am a human being," that thought is a mental event; if I feel happy after doing well on an exam, that’s a mental event.  And so on.
> 
> Now look at the next phrase in the definition I gave: "mental functions."  I might as well have said "cognitive processes" instead.  So what are "mental functions" or "cognitive processes"?  I will use those two phrases, "mental functions" and "cognitive processes," interchangeably.  I mean simply such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion.  In other words, all the different things that we can do with our minds.  The event of perceiving University Hall is, of course, different from the entire process, or faculty, of perception, my ability to perceive things.  An instance of seeing is different of course from the ability that makes it possible.  So whenever I engage in one of those cognitive processes like perception, belief, emotion, and so on, a mental event occurs.
> 
> There is, moreover, one mental function that accompanies some, or perhaps all, mental events, namely, <i>consciousness</i>.  "Consciousness" is the last term in the definition of "philosophy of mind" I gave.  Often, in ordinary contexts, when we say we are "conscious" we simply mean that we are awake.  But in a philosophical context, the word "consciousness" means something like awareness, or the fact that the mind is as it were directed at something or other.  So when we perceive, we are conscious of what we perceive; when we introspect, we are conscious of our thoughts; when we remember, we are conscious of something that happened in the past, or of some piece of information that we learned; and so on.
> 
> Now, in this philosophical sense of the word "conscious," we are conscious even when we are dreaming; namely, we are conscious of what’s happening in the dream.  But sleep researchers believe there is a sleep stage that happens, called "deep sleep," in which apparently we are not conscious of anything in any sense.  No mental processes that involve consciousness in an ordinary or a philosophical sense are going on.  So deep, dreamless sleep would be an instance where you are alive, and your brain is functioning, but there are no mental events occurring in which there is any element of <i>consciousness</i>.
> 
> Now just a bit more about consciousness.  There has been some debate about the following question: <i>Must</i> one be conscious, in the philosophical sense, whenever a mental event occurs?  For example, is it possible to have a <i>pain</i> which I do not feel?  Some people think not; they think that, in order for something to <i>be</i> a pain, I have to feel it, or be aware of it.  Similarly, if anything is a thought, then I have to be aware of what I’m thinking of; if there is no consciousness, no awareness, of anything at all, then I’m not thinking.  That’s what some philosophers debate about, anyway: Do mental events <i>necessarily</i> involve consciousness?
> 
> Well, what if we answer "No"?  Then of course what we’d be saying is that there are some mental events which do not include an element of consciousness.  These events are going on even though we aren’t aware of them.  In other words, part of the mind is <i>unconscious</i>.  And when I put it like that I’m sure you will be able to recognize what I’m talking about.  Psychologists of course believe that many cognitive processes are unconscious; we are aware of only <i>some</i> of the stuff that’s going on in our minds.  But that is a fairly recent view, something that was made popular only after Freud.
> 
> Let’s return now to the definition of the philosophy of mind I gave.  I said it is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind and of mental functions.  So some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
> 
> The first question is: What is the mind?  As I said, I’ve already given you a short introduction to this question when I explained how the problem of substance can be applied to the mind.  Is the mind nothing more than a series of particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth, or is it something <i>over</i> <i>and</i> <i>above</i> those particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth?  But when we ask that really we’re doing nothing but asking what the relation is between the mind and mental events.  In other words, we could simply restate the question in terms of mental events, like this: Is the mind nothing more than a series of mental events, or is it something over and above the mental events that we say occur "in" it?  This isn’t a question we are going to try to answer.
> 
> But of course there are <i>other</i> questions we could ask about what the mind is.  For example, is the mind something different from physical bodies?  Suppose you think that the mind is a substance of some sort -- a mental substance.  You might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, this mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will you maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that you can’t explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?  All right, that’s one question.
> 
> But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between mental events and physical events -- you know, events that occur in the body, including the brain.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "the mind-body problem."
> 
> I am sure this is confusing, because there are a lot of questions being asked here!  Well so far I’ve presented several different questions that the philosophy of mind asks: What is the mind, a substance or just a series of mental events?  Is the mind somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, the body?  Are mental events somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, physical events?  Each of these questions are ways of interpreting the more ambiguous questions we started with, such as, "What is the mind?" and "What are mental events?"
> 
> Now what about questions about the different cognitive processes?  Of course we might ask what cognitive processes <i>in</i> <i>general</i> are supposed to be.  You know, we’d be asking what distinguishes a <i>cognitive</i> process from any <i>other</i> kind of process.  That is another way of putting the mind-body problem.  But let’s ignore that for now.  We can also ask a series of more specialized questions, about <i>each</i> <i>individual</i> cognitive process.  Take perception as an example.  Philosophers ask what is going on when we perceive something -- when we see, hear, taste, touch, and so on.  But philosophers aren’t interested in the particular mechanisms that allow us to see -- for example, they aren’t interested in the shape of the eye, or how the optical nerve carries information to the brain.  They are interested in even more basic sort of stuff.  They ask: Do we perceive physical objects <i>directly</i> with our senses, or do we form mental images of some sort, which we use to <i>represent</i> physical objects and their properties?  Don’t worry if you don’t understand that question; we’re going to be discussing it at length next time, when we talk about the philosophy of perception.  Really, the philosophy of perception is all about how our minds come in contact with the world outside our minds.
> 
> Then as I’m sure you can imagine, there are a lot of questions that can be asked about <i>other</i> mental functions, such as memory, forming concepts, reasoning, the emotions, and so on.  Needless to say, we don’t even have time to formulate the questions, let alone consider answers to them.  But there is one other cognitive process that I want to mention now, because we <i>are</i> going to be spending a day on it, namely, the will, or volition.  When we choose to do something we are using our wills, or engaging in volition.  There is, of course, one special and very difficult question that philosophers ask about this process, namely, is the will free?  If I decide to walk across the room, that seems to be entirely up to me; I could have chosen otherwise.  But if the universe is determined, and especially if my will really is after all just a physical process, then it certainly does seem as though I didn’t have control over <i>everything</i> that led up to my deciding to walk across the room.  So was I free or wasn’t I?  That’s the question we’ll take up next week, when we discuss the problem of free will and determinism.
> 
> Finally, there are questions about consciousness.  What is it?  We say that there is something it’s <i>like</i> to be watching a baby.  When we look at a baby we’re conscious of the baby.  Is there some way to explain what makes a mental event, like looking at a baby, <i>conscious</i>?  Well, what could we explain consciousness in terms of?  If in terms of some physical process, then we face the same old mind-body question in yet <i>another</i> form: Can consciousness be reduced to, explained in terms of, mere physical processes?  Some people have said, vociferously, <i>definitely</i> <i>not</i>.  How could a hunk of grey matter in your brain be the same as <i>the</i> <i>awareness</i> <i>of</i> <i>a</i> <i>pain</i>?  Awareness is a <i>totally</i> different kind of thing from grey matter in your skull.  So they say.  But again, that’s only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981081008
31c31
< But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between mental events and physical events -- you know, events that occur in the body, including the brain.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "the mind-body problem."
---
> But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between mental events and physical events -- you know, events that occur in the body, including the brain.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981081075
1c1,157
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Let me introduce the mind-body problem with an example.  Suppose I decide to walk across the room, whereupon I do in fact walk across the room.  In the jargon I’ve just introduced, my decision is a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i>; and my walking across the room is a <i>physical</i> <i>event</i>.  Now on anybody’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved here; namely, something happens in my brain, which tells my legs to start walking.  And this brain event is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
> 
> So maybe a better description of the situation is this: my decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When I decide to take my trip across the room, a group of neurons fire in my brain.  I am not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as my decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.  Now, I don’t know if you can understand that proposal; to a lot of people it sounds really strange to say that a mental process is no more than a special kind of physical process.  The mind, they say, is more spiritual, ethereal, and so it just isn’t the <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i>  that can be physical.  And they have other reasons as well for rejecting this reduction of the mental to the physical.
> 
> So in fact what <i>some</i> philosophers have believed -- but hardly anyone anymore -- is that the reduction goes the other way.  We should explain what bodies are in terms of mental goings-on; so the physical can be reduced to the mental.  When I walked across the room, really that was happening <i>only</i> in my mind, or in our minds all at the same time.  There is, on this view, nothing more to my walking across the room than our having the thought, or the perception, that that happens.  This view would also solve the problem of how the mental can affect the physical.  Since physical events are themselves nothing more than a special kind of mental event, then of course there isn’t any trouble about how a decision, which is obviously a mental event, can result in my body moving, which is also a mental event, although less obviously so.
> 
> Explaining a piece of terminology will be helpful here.  I’ve been talking about <i>reducing</i> the mental to the physical, and <i>reducing</i> the physical to the mental; so what exactly does "reduction" mean?  This is itself a very difficult, complicated question, but we’re going to have to ignore the difficulties.  The <i>basic</i> notion is this: If I <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever I talk about X, I can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead</i>.  So if I reduce the mental to the physical, then whenever I talk of pains, thoughts, and decisions, I can be understood as talking about physical events in my brain.  But then you might ask: does that mean that I think that pains, thoughts, and decisions don’t <i>exist</i>?  Well, not necessarily; and usually not.
> 
> Let me give you an example of a reduction in a field we’ve already studied.  Take the bundle theory.  The bundle theory says that objects may be reduced to collections of properties; so whenever we talk about objects, we can be understood to be talking about bundles of properties.  Now let me ask you: do you think that the bundle theory says that <i>objects</i> <i>don’t</i> <i>exist</i> ?  Well, maybe not objects as we had thought of them; but the theory <i>is</i> trying to give an account of what objects <i>are</i>; namely, they are bundles of properties!  So the bundle theory saying that objects don’t <i>exist</i> -- just that they are the same as bundles of properties.  Philosophers mean about the same thing when they talk about what exists <i>ultimately</i>.  The bundle theory says that <i>ultimately</i>, it’s properties and bundles that exist, not objects.  The things that exist "ultimately" are precisely the things to which other things are reduced.
> 
> All right, I have given you three different views about the relationship between the mental and the physical.  Now I am going to give names to those views:
> 
> <i>Dualism</i> is the view that mental events and physical events are totally different kinds of events.
> 
> <i>Physicalism</i>, or <i>materialism</i>, is the view that mental events are nothing more than a special kind of physical event.
> 
> <i>Phenomenalism</i>, or <i>subjective</i> <i>idealism</i>, is the view that physical events are nothing more than a special kind of mental event.
> 
> The mind-body problem, to put it as generically and broadly as possible, is this question: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>the</i> <i>mental</i> <i>and</i> <i>the</i> <i>physical</i>?  Now, just for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to state the problem in terms of mental and physical <i>events</i>.  I could put it just as well in terms of <i>processes</i>, or of <i>consciousness</i>.  So the problem restated is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>mental</i> <i>events</i> <i>and</i> <i>physical</i> <i>events</i>?  
> 
> There are, then, three basic choices: mental and physical events are totally different, and cannot be reduced to each other (which is dualism); mental events are to be reduced to physical events (which is physicalism); and physical events are to be reduced to mental events (which is phenomenalism).  To put it in terms of what exists "ultimately," we could say that according to dualism, <i>both</i> mental <i>and</i> physical events exist ultimately; according to physicalism, only <i>physical</i> events exist ultimately; and according to phenomenalism, only <i>mental</i> events exist ultimately.  Physicalism and phenomenalism are both varieties of <i>monism</i>; monism is the view that only one sort of stuff in the universe exists ultimately (as opposed to dualism which holds that there are two kinds of stuff).  So there are two kinds of monism, namely, physicalism and phenomenalism.  But there is, actually, another kind of monism.  Namely, <i>neutral</i> <i>monism</i>.  Neutral monism is the view that mental and physical events are both to be reduced to aspects of some neutral stuff, which stuff considered by itself is neither physical nor mental.  Neutral monism was introduced by the 17th century Dutch philosopher, Spinoza; and a version of it was recently revived by a very prominent American philosopher, Donald Davidson.
> 
> If you are thinking that this is far too many possible positions to consider, just wait -- it gets worse -- because within each category there are further refinements to be made.  So we’re going to have to spend the rest of the day trying to come to grips with the refinements and the basic objections that can be made to these different theories.  But we are going to focus almost all of our energies on just two theories, namely, <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>, and <i>type</i> <i>physicalism</i>.
> 
> 
> 
> A. Dualism.
> 
> I suspect many of you might be thinking to yourselves: "This is ridiculous.  Look, there is the mind, and there is the body, and they are two totally different things.  There might be some puzzles about how they interact but obviously they <i>do</i> interact.  So what’s all the fuss?  All those other theories you listed are just <i>silly</i>."  Now if you think this way, my job is to get you to see that that puzzle about how the mind and body interact is more serious than you might have thought.  But first let’s get the theory more clearly stated.
> 
> The view we’re talking about consists of all of the following claims: mental and physical events both exist, but neither type of event can be reduced to the other type, and mental events are both causes and effects of physical events.   This is called <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>.  It is also called <i>Cartesian</i> <i>dualism</i>, because it is the kind of dualism that the great 17th-century French philosopher Descartes advocated.  This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism -- probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  So in addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When I touch a hot stove, and burn my skin, I feel a pain.  Touching the stove and burning my skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when I feel the pain, I say, "Ouch!" -- and my saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  You put the belief in that interaction together with dualism and you’ve got a very commonsense sort of theory of mind.  In fact our reading calls this "the commonsense theory of mind," and I agree with that characterization.
> 
> Let’s look at some arguments for dualism.  How would we go about arguing for this theory?  I mean, aside from pointing out that it’s extremely commonsensical.  That’s got to count for something; perhaps it counts for a lot indeed.  But if we can help it the mere fact that it’s a matter of common sense shouldn’t be our <i>only</i> reason for accepting a theory.  So how would we go about arguing for dualism?  We point out the differences between the mental and the physical.  So let’s do that.  Let’s go over the differences between mental events and physical events.
> 
> First, mental events are not publicly observable.  When I touch the hot stove, you may see me whip back my hand and say "Ouch!" but you are not feeling my pain.  Unless you’re Mr. Spock, or God, you can’t as it were get inside my mind and take a look at what’s going on in there.  And of course it’s not just because my mind is hidden beneath my skull.  If you knew just where to look in my brain, you wouldn’t be able to see thoughts and feelings jiggling around in there.  That’s just not how it works.  So unlike physical events, like fireworks displays, mental events are private, not publicly observable.
> 
> Second, mental events are often said not to be spatially located.  Where is my pain supposed to be?  Maybe you could say in my fingertips, because they hurt.  But is that where the <i>feeling</i> is?  Does it really make sense to say that the <i>feeling</i> is in my aching fingertips?  That sounds a little funny, anyway.  A better example would be an emotion like happiness.  When I say I’m happy, can I locate my happiness in my head, or does it exist all my body, or something?  Doesn’t that sound odd?  It would seem better to say that my happiness isn’t the sort of thing that <i>can</i> be located in a particular place.
> 
> Third, more generally, mental events do not seem to have various physical properties which physical events have.  For one thing, mental events do not involve anything having mass, or physical motion.  We can’t weigh a thought.  We can’t say that a feeling has a velocity of 10 miles an hour.  To say such things is to talk nonsense.  Now you might say: that’s only because mental events are <i>events</i>.  You can’t say that physical events have mass or velocity either.  Point well enough taken; that’s true, no event, per se, has mass or velocity.  But physical events do <i>involve</i> objects which have mass and velocity.  Mental events do not have any components which have mass and velocity.  For example, when I think, "I like ice cream," I have a concept of ice cream; and my concept of ice cream has no mass and velocity.  Nothing involved in my appreciation for ice cream would appear to have any such physical properties.  This is a point to which we will have to return.  But on the face of it, this seems pretty obvious.
> 
> Fourth, mental events have a certain <i>subjective</i> quality to them, which physical events obviously do not.  I mean, for example, what a burned finger feels like, what sky blue looks like, what nice music sounds like, and so on.  I’m going to expand on this fourth point at some length.  Recently, philosophers have been calling the subjective aspects of mental events <i>qualia</i>, and they also call them <i>raw</i> <i>feels</i>.  There is something <i>that</i> <i>it’s</i> <i>like</i> to feel pain, to see a familiar shade of blue, and so on; there are <i>qualia</i> involved in these mental events.  And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.  Just think of what that would involve.  You’d be saying: <i>feeling</i> <i>the</i> <i>top</i> <i>of</i> <i>my</i> <i>hand</i> <i>right</i> <i>now</i>, this "raw feel" I’m experiencing right now, is <i>itself</i> nothing more than a physical event.
> 
> In fact, there is an article by an American, Thomas Nagel, that came out in the late 70’s called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"  In this article Nagel argued roughly as follows.  You are familiar with the fact that bats use a certain kind of sonar, right?  They emit high-pitched shrieks which allow them to fly around in dark caves; they can tell how far away the walls are based on how their shrieks echo around in the cave.  Bat sonar allows bats to perceive distance, shape, size, and so on, in a way similar to, but obviously different from the way vision works for us.  Now Nagel invited us to ask, "So what <i>is</i> it like to be a bat, flying around in the dark using bat sonar?"  Surely bats do have experiences; we just don’t know what they are.  Suppose we were to take apart a bat brain and figure out how the neural apparatus for bat sonar works.  No doubt biologists have actually done so, dissected bat brains and so forth.  But in understanding how the bat brain works, do those biologists learn <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>like</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> <i>a</i> <i>bat</i>?  Well of course not.  They’re mucking around in the grey matter of bats.  In order to know what it’s like to be a bat, and to have bat sonar, why, you’d have to be a bat.  So argued Nagel.
> 
> So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that if indeed there are "bat qualia," then there are peculiar mental events of a sort that only bats have, and we cannot learn what they are like even if we have a detailed understanding of physical events going on in the bat brain.  Or to put it even more simply: there is a strange "bat sonar experience" we’ll never have.  We won’t have it even if we learn what physical events in bat brains are associated with bat sonar.  So that’s excellent evidence that mental events cannot be reduced to physical events; mental events must be regarded as quite a different sort of thing from physical events.  Really, you can make the same point without even bringing up weird cases like bat sonar.  Just think of your own unique feelings.  Do you think that a psychologist could, simply by digging around in your brain and doing tests on your grey matter, ever learn what that feeling was like?
> 
> So there are at least four major differences between the mental and the physical, which make it difficult, to say the least, to understand how one might <i>reduce</i> the mental to the physical.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  That seems to give us considerable reason to think that the mind and the body are two totally different categories of being.  So there you have one basic, powerful argument for dualism.
> 
> But there is another argument that I’m sure weighs heavily in some of your minds.  Namely, that you have an immortal souls that can survive your bodily death.  Traditional Christianity, like many other religions, teaches that you have a soul which is as different from your body as water is from rock.  Your body will die and then your soul will go to heaven, or hell, or who knows where.  If you believe this then you practically <i>must</i> believe in dualism.  The only way that you can avoid believing in dualism is if you accept phenomenalism, which holds that everything is, ultimately, mental.  But in any event you absolutely cannot hold that the soul is reducible to anything physical.  If events in your soul <i>were</i> reducible to events in your brain, then when your brain stopped functioning, your soul would cease to exist.
> 
> It’s not clear to me that this ought to be looked upon as an <i>argument</i> <i>for</i>  dualism, simply because those who challenge dualism from a physicalist position will not at all be impressed by it.  I mean, suppose you are trying to support dualism against a physicalist, who thinks that everything is, at bottom, physical.  Will it be at all impressive to say, "If I have an immortal soul, then mental events cannot be reduced to physical events"?  Not at all; the physicalist is precisely the sort of person who denies that you have an immortal soul, and who demands proof that in fact you <i>do</i> have an immortal soul.  You may not particularly care that you can’t convince the physicalist; but the point is that you should not do something that looks so much like begging the question.  Because if you argue: "I have an immortal soul; therefore dualism is true," then it sure does look like you’re begging the question.  You should prove that dualism is true, and thus that you have an immaterial, non-physical soul, <i>before</i> you try to prove that your soul is immortal!
> 
> So as far as arguing for dualistic interactionism goes, let’s just stick with the differences between the mental and the physical that I stated before.  Now, those are evidence for the <i>dualism</i> part.  What about the interactionism part, that is, the claim that mental and physical events causally interact?  Here we can just cite observational evidence.  We observe that physical events cause all sorts of mental events, and vice-versa.  Indeed, it’s hard to know how one might argue <i>against</i> the fact that there is such interaction, since it appears to go on all the time.  Anyway then, that’s all I’m going to say in favor of dualistic interactionism.
> 
> This theory has come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially this century.  The basic problem is: If dualism is true, then it is hard to see how mental and physical events can possibly interact causally.  How can something totally immaterial affect something totally material?  That’s the basic problem.  But let me break this basic problem into three parts.
> 
> First, it is not clear <i>where</i> the interaction would take place.  Burning my fingers causes pain, right?  Well, apparently there is some chain of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; <i>and</i> <i>then</i>, I feel pain.  But the pain is not supposed to be spatially located.  So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take place?  If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say, "But I thought pains weren’t located anywhere."  And you, as a dualist, might stick to your guns and say, "That’s right, pains <i>aren’t</i> located anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain <i>is</i> located in the brain."  But then we have a very strange causal relation on our hands.  The cause is located in a particular place but the effect is not located anywhere.  Well, you might say, that might be puzzling but it’s not a devastating criticism.
> 
> So look at a second problem about the interaction.  Namely, <i>how</i> does the interaction take place?  Maybe you think, "Well, that’s a matter for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection between mental and physical events."  But philosophers have something to say about the matter, because the <i>very</i> <i>idea</i> of a <i>mechanism</i>, which explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be very strange, at best.  Why do I say it would be strange?  Compare it to a mechanism that we <i>do</i> understand.  Take a very simple causal relation, such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go into the pocket.  Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain amount of force as its mass accelerates across the pool table, and then that force is transferred to the eight ball, which then heads toward the pocket.  Now compare that to the situation in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to fire and thus cause my body to move across the room.  The decision, "I will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not have physical properties such as force.  If it has no force, then how on earth could it cause any neuron to fire?  Is it magic?  Honestly, how could something without any physical properties have any physical <i>effects</i> at all?
> 
> Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as follows.  You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact that there is a mystery doesn’t mean that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> no interaction.  Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is between two totally different sorts of events."  Now I expect that some of you may want to say this.  But the problem with it is that it does not seem to answer the full power of the objection.
> 
> So let me explain the objection more precisely.  Let’s take as our example my decision to walk across the room.  We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room.  The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical <i>causing</i> a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no <i>physical</i> event which causes the firing.  That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air.  Do you see?  Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven’t explained where the <i>physical</i> energy, for the firing, came from.  It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.
> 
> As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy."  According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant."  Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed.  This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics.  So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.
> 
> Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
> 
> I said before that there are different kinds of dualism.  I am really not going to have time to discuss the other kinds.  But the other kinds do, anyway, accept that mental events and physical events both exist, and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
> 
> Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
> 
> As I said, we just don’t have time to discuss these or any other kinds of dualism.
> 
> 
> 
> B. Physicalism.
> 
> Let’s look next at a very different theory of mind, in the theory that the mental can be reduced to the physical.  This view is usually called <i>physicalism</i>.  It is also called <i>materialism</i> or <i>identity</i> <i>materialism</i>.  The term "physicalism" is less misleading because it does not have any misleading connotations; if we called the view "materialism," you might think that we were talking about something that had to do with the desire for wealth, possessions, and so forth, but obviously we’re not talking about that.  We’re talking about a theory about the mind.  "Physicalism" is better also because it implies that the mental can be reduced to whatever is <i>physical</i>, meaning, whatever is described ultimately by physics; and as we all know, physics describes a lot more than just matter, it also describes energy.  So the view is that we can reduce mental events to events that are made up entirely of matter and energy.  And remember what we mean by "reduce" here: "If I <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever I talk about X, I can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead</i>."  So here’s the claim: Whenever we talk about mental events, we can be <i>properly</i> understood to be talking about <i>events</i> <i>that</i> <i>are</i> <i>made</i> <i>up</i> <i>entirely</i> <i>of</i> <i>matter</i> <i>and</i> <i>energy</i>.
> 
> I suppose that this sounds very strange.  I know it sounded very strange the first time I heard it.  So let me give you an example, and I’ll try to make this as plausible as I can.  In fact there is a hackneyed example that is used when philosophers talk about this stuff.  For some reason philosophers these days always use <i>pain</i> as an example of a mental event; why not pleasure, I say?    There is supposed to be a certain kind of nerve fiber that leads from your limbs to your brain, called <i>C</i>-<i>fibers</i>, and whenever you’re in pain, the story goes, your C-fibers are firing; and whenever your C-fibers are firing, then you’re in pain.  I suppose we might test this claim empirically, with experiments, right?  Suppose I sit you down in my lab, and I insert some probe into your spine, right next to your C-fibers; then I find some clever way to cause you pain.  You say, "Ouch!" and tell me that you are in pain.  I say, "Good!" and sure enough I see that your C-fibers are firing.
> 
> My apologies if I’m getting the facts all wrong.  But the point is in some such way, we are supposed to be able to study which neural states, and brain states, are <i>associated</i> with which mental states.  Now surely that would be very interesting if we were to find that, in order to be in pain, we would have to have firing C-fibers -- wouldn’t it?  For that matter, a neuroscientist might notice that when you engage in deep thought, the frontal lobe of your brain is extremely active.  When we engage in reasoning and complex conceptualization, the neurons in a certain part of the brain are firing; that seems to indicate that there is some sort of close association between hard thought and frontal lobe activity.
> 
> So the suggestion now is that the event of feeling pain is just the same as C-fibers firing.  That is why Halverson calls the theory "identity materialism"; types of mental events, like pain, are <i>identical</i> to types of physical events, like C-fiber firing.  So, pain is <i>reducible</i> <i>to</i> C-fiber firing.  This particular theory is also called "the type-type identity theory," since mental event types are matched up with physical event types.  And mind you, again, not just matched up or associated with -- but actually <i>the</i> <i>very</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i>.  The pain I experience when I bash my thumb with a hammer is really nothing more than those C-fibers going off.
> 
> Now, some of you might hear this and think that I am <i>denying</i> that pain, or anything mental, <i>really</i> exists.  In other words, since I’m saying now that mental events are really only physical events, you think that I’m saying there <i>aren’t</i> any mental events.  But that is <i>not</i> my claim.  Mental events do exist; they are simply identical to physical events of a certain kind.
> 
> It so happens that there <i>is</i> a theory about the mind, called <i>eliminativism</i>, which says that the mind, mental events, and all the rest of that <i>simply</i> <i>do</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  The best-known proponent of this theory is an American, Paul Churchland.  He says that this talk of mental events, thinking and such, is all just a fiction, just folks tales, which is going to be replaced with more scientific talk, when the science of the brain and the nervous system is sufficiently developed.  When that time comes, the eliminativists say, we won’t use this out-dated talk of feelings, thoughts, pains, etc.  We’ll talk about C-fibers firing, and frontal lobes being activated, and so forth.  All that talk of love, hate, decisions, beliefs, and so forth, will look antiquated and silly in the same way that talk of ghosts, demons, and witches now looks antiquated and silly.  I’m not even going to tell you why some philosophers buy into this theory -- it’s pretty unpopular, as you might have guessed -- I’m just telling you that it exists, so I can contrast physicalism with it.  Physicalism <i>does</i> hold that mental events <i>exist</i>.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still might think that physicalism is a very strange theory, that is totally contrary to common sense.  So you might object, as follows.  This will be the only objection to physicalism I’ll state, but it’s rather complex.  Just remember now all those differences that we listed between mental and physical events.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there is seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  How on earth could anyone say that mental events are <i>just</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i> physical events?  There are all these obvious differences, so you <i>can’t</i> reduce the mental to the physical!  So physicalism has to be wrong.
> 
> Here is how the physicalist would reply.  Let’s go over each of those alleged differences between mind and matter.  The first one is: mental events are not publicly observable.  The physicalist would say: well, OK, so mental events cannot be <i>seen</i> by other people; but neither can the sorts of physical events we’re talking about.  A C-fiber firing is not only buried inside your nervous system; it is also not detectable except with special instruments.  So we could very well say that C-fiber firing is not publicly observable.
> 
> If you’re a dualist, you’re probably not going to be happy with this reply.  You’ll probably say that the physicalist is missing the point.  The point is really that mental events aren’t <i>observable</i> <i>by</i> <i>other</i> <i>people</i> <i>at</i> <i>all</i>.  Other people can’t jump into my mind and as it were mentally look over my shoulder while I’m feeling pain and having deep thoughts.  Maybe Mr. Spock can do that but you and I can’t.  So, you, or a dualist, might say, what follows from that?  What follows is that feeling pain can’t be the same as C-fibers firing; other people can probe my nervous system and observe my C-fibers firing but they definitely <i>aren’t</i> observing my pain, no matter how carefully they observe my C-fibers or any other part of my nervous system.  It doesn’t  matter; my mental states can’t be <i>observed</i> by other people at all!  That’s how I think the dualist would reply.
> 
> How do you suppose the physicalist counter that?  Let me play the role of the physicalist.  So I would reply by saying that, really, if "publicly observable" just means "observable by other people," then your mental states <i>are</i> publicly observable.  Mental events <i>can</i> be observed by other people.  So what exactly would I be doing, then, if I <i>did</i> observe your pain?  Would I have to feel your pain myself?  In other words, in order for me to observe your pain, would <i>I</i> have to have the same aches and hurts that <i>you</i> have?  Surely not.  Why would you think that?  In order for me to observe your pain, it seems to me I simply have to observe <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> <i>that</i> <i>you</i> <i>are</i> <i>in</i> <i>pain</i>.  And if, as a physicalist, I hold that pain is the same as C-fibers firing, then all I have to do is observe your C-fibers firing, and <i>voila</i> -- I am observing the fact that you are in pain.  The dualist isn’t going to be at all happy with this reply; but let’s leave that debate and move on to those other supposed differences between mind and body.
> 
> The second difference is that mental events are not spatially located.  So here’s how the dualist will object to physicalism on that point: mental events are not spatially located, but physical events <i>are</i> spatially located.  So mental events are obviously different from physical events.
> 
> Here’s how I, the physicalist, can reply to that point.  I can concede that, for example, when I make a decision, I do not <i>see</i> or otherwise <i>perceive</i> my decision as being located anywhere.  I am just immediately aware of my decision, once I’ve made it.  But does that mean that the event of my decision in fact <i>isn’t</i> located anywhere?  I mean, simply because I’m not <i>aware</i> of its location, does it follow <i>from</i> that, that my decision doesn’t <i>have</i> a location at all?  I don’t see how that follows.  Why can’t we just say: a decision is a certain type of event in the brain.  When this event occurs, I’m aware of making a decision.  But I am not aware of where the decision itself is taking place, namely in my brain.  That doesn’t mean that the decision isn’t taking place in my brain.  Why think that?
> 
> OK, let’s look at the third alleged difference between the mental and the physical.  The third difference is: mental events do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity.  The physicalist would say that neural events have electro-chemical properties; but the dualist would reply that the very idea of a mental event being a physical event in the brain and nervous system is absurd, <i>precisely</i> <i>because</i> that would mean that mental events have electro-chemical properties, and other physical properties as well.
> 
> I’ll bet some of you can predict how our physicalist will reply.  As the physicalist, I will say: "Why is that absurd?  Let me try to figure out why you think it’s absurd that mental events might have physical properties.  Maybe you think that since you’re not <i>aware</i> of any electro-chemical properties of your mental events, it somehow follows that your mental events <i>don’t</i> have any such properties.  But once again, that inference just doesn’t follow.  It assumes that, if all your pains, decisions, and thoughts had some electro-chemical properties, then you’d be aware of those properties.  But why think that?  Do you have to be aware of <i>all</i> of the properties that your mental events have?  Do you have to be aware of <i>everything</i> that is true of the processes of your mind?  Of course not.  There is a lot of unconscious stuff going on in your mind, a lot of stuff you’re not aware of.  So then, why <i>not</i> think that your decisions, your pains, and other mental events have electro-chemical properties?  The only thing that would make that suggestion absurd is if you thought you had to be aware of everything going on in your mind.  But you don’t have to be aware of everything going in your mind.
> 
> Finally, let’s look at the fourth supposed difference between the mental and the physical.  It is probably the hardest to deal with: there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to mental events.  In other words, there is a first-person, felt, immediate, personal, subjective aspect to mental events.  Physical events do not have this subjective aspect; physical events are not qualia.  When dualism claims this, it is basically throwing down the gauntlet to physicalism.  "Look," the dualist says, "there just <i>is</i> this subjective aspect to my pain; it makes sense to ask, ‘What does your pain feel like?’  But it doesn’t make sense to ask, ‘What does your C-fiber firing feel like?’  C-fiber firing does not have this subjective aspect.  So you can’t reduce pain to C-fiber firing."
> 
> How could a physicalist reply to this?  Well, I think it’s not as difficult a problem as some might like to make it out to be.  If I’m a physicalist, then my claim is that C-fiber firing, or maybe some other brain event, <i>just</i> <i>is</i> awareness of pain.  And so it follows, of course, that C-fiber firing, or the brain event, <i>does</i> have a subjective aspect; and that it <i>does</i> make sense to ask, "What does your C-fiber firing feel like?"
> 
> But once again, the dualist is likely to say, "OK, say we open you up and look at your C-fibers firing away.  Are we going to see this subjective aspect, the pain <i>qualia</i> that we talked about?"  Well, the answer to <i>that</i> is clearly no.  But is that a problem?  After all, we <i>experience</i> pain only if it’s <i>our</i> C-fibers that are firing.  If you open my spine up and use scientific instruments to look at my wildly firing C-fibers, then of course <i>you</i> won’t be experiencing pain.  In order for <i>you</i> to experience pain, <i>your</i> C-fibers would have to be firing.  So here’s the point then: the dualist wants to object that a physical event cannot have a subjective aspect; the physicalist protests and says there’s no good reason <i>not</i> to think that physical events can have subjective aspects.  Why <i>couldn’t</i> they?  We can <i>detect</i> a physical event in someone else without <i>ourselves</i> being in a subjective state.  But so what?  Why should I expect to be in pain when I see someone <i>else’s</i> C-fibers fire?  It’s only the firing of <i>my</i> <i>own</i> C-fibers that constitutes <i>my</i> <i>own</i> pain.  So, President Clinton to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot feel my pain!
> 
> So on all four counts, the physicalist has a way to explain how these <i>supposed</i> differences between the mental and the physical <i>aren’t</i> really differences at all.  This undermines crucial support for dualism and greatly increases the plausibility of physicalism.  It is not so absurd, or at least not so <i>obviously</i> absurd, to say that types of mental events are the same as, and reducible to, some types of physical events.  We just have to put these issues in the right light.  And physicalism has one very clear advantage over dualistic interactionism, namely, that there is no mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events takes place.  Right?  Simply because mental events are, at bottom, themselves types of physical events.
> 
> Next time we will conclude our discussion of the mind-body problem, and move on to the theory of perception.
> 
> 
> 
> C. Other theories of mind.
> 
> We concluded last time on an upbeat note for physicalism.  I had given you some ways that the physicalist could reply to the dualist’s objections; in so doing, I tried to make it plain how some people can hold what, on first glance at least, looks like an absurd claim, that mental events are simply a type of physical event -- brain or neural events.  Now I should note that this is just one kind of physicalism; we may call it <i>neural</i> <i>type</i> <i>physicalism</i>, because it says that mental event types are <i>types</i> <i>of</i> <i>nervous</i> <i>system</i> <i>events</i>.  It is more commonly called "the type-type identity theory."
> 
> I’m going to present an objection to neural type physicalism.  But first I’m going to present another kind of physicalism; I’m going to discuss it very quickly, because mainly I want to use it to make quite clear how neural type physicalism is only one kind of physicalism.  In the middle of this century, it was very fashionable to try to reduce mental events to <i>behavior</i>.  This view is called <i>analytical</i> <i>behaviorism</i>, because the idea is that we can ultimately analyze, or reduce, talk of mental events and processes in terms of things that humans say, express, and do.  In other words, analytical behaviorism says that what a mental event <i>is</i>, is a propensity, a tendency, to display a certain set of behaviors -- words, facial expressions, bodily postures, and actions.  If you want to see whether someone believes that God exists, you look at what he says, how he reacts when you say "God exists," whether he goes to church, and so on.  And his belief is constituted by those behaviors; in other words, there isn’t any more to his belief that God exists than those behaviors.  Or to take another example, the good old example of pain.  Analytical behaviorism would say that pain is nothing more than the tendency to wince, to grimace, to pull back quickly from the source of something causing bodily damage, to say "ouch" and "that hurts," and similar behaviors.  That’s all there is to pain!
> 
> Well, I’m not going to discuss the merits of analytical behaviorism.  Hardly anyone believes it anymore.  Good riddance, I say.  But this theory is an example of another kind of physicalism.  Why?  Because it <i>does</i> say that mental events are reducible to physical events; behaviors are physical events, and behaviorism says that mental events are reducible to behaviors.  So how does behaviorism different from the sort of physicalism I was talking about last time, neural type physicalism?  Well, it’s a different <i>type</i> of physical event that mental events are being reduced to.  On the one hand, neural type physicalism says that mental events can be reduced to types of neural or brain events.  On the other hand, analytical behaviorism says that mental events can be reduced to types of behavioral events.  So basically here’s a question we might ask: If types of mental event can be reduced to types of physical event, then <i>which</i> types of physical event?  Neural type physicalism gives one answer; analytical behaviorism gives a different answer.
> 
> This leads me, finally, to that objection to neural type physicalism that I said I was going to give.  The objection is this: we have construed the types <i>too</i> <i>narrowly</i>.  Maybe there are types of physical events that mental events might be reducible to, that are nothing like neural states.  I’d better give you an example if you’re to see what I’m talking about.  Suppose after some years, superscientists were to build a robot that was given sensory receptors, could talk intelligently on a wide variety of subjects, could carry out a variety of difficult tasks, and even had what appeared to be emotional reactions to its surroundings -- and so forth.  In short, somehow, scientists had created what appeared to be a conscious, intelligent machine.  Now, there is considerable debate over whether such a machine is possible -- whether it is possible to, as it were, <i>build</i> <i>a</i> <i>mind</i> <i>from</i> <i>scratch</i>.  But just assume, for the sake of argument, that such a machine <i>is</i> possible, and that it <i>does</i> have thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and so on.  So then mental events are occurring in this machine.
> 
> Now let’s say our superscientists did not use anything much like the human nervous system to build this robot.  They used some sort of special circuitry -- very high-tech microchips and whatnot.  In that case, it is not any type of <i>neural</i> <i>or</i> <i>brain</i> <i>event</i> to which we would reduce the robot’s mental events.  It would be a -- what should we call it? -- a circuitry event!  And then in that case mental events could be reducible <i>not</i> <i>just</i> to neural events, but also to <i>circuitry</i> events.  So here then is the objection to neural type physicalism: the types we’re reducing mental events to is too narrow.  To include the mental events of high-tech conscious robots, we should describe the physical events in some way that would include <i>both</i> neural events <i>and</i> circuitry events.  Not <i>just</i> neural events.
> 
> Or suppose that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  So there might be some alien species that does not have anything quite like our brain or nervous system.  Say this species is intelligent, and conscious, and has a mind, but its mental events are identical to a different type of physical event; instead of neurons, they have schmeurons, say.  Well then, if we want to be physicalists, then we should allow that mental events can be reduced to neural events, <i>or</i> circuitry events, or to schmeural events!  As you can see, the list might go on.
> 
> In any case, I think that this neatly refutes neural type physicalism.  Neural type physicalists are biased in favor of the physical types that the human species has.  So philosophers of mind, trying to be clever, have named this bias <i>species</i> <i>chauvinism</i>.  That means that neural type physicalists are irrationally disposed in favor of their own species, when it comes to describing the physical types that mental events reduce to, or are identical to.
> 
> Suppose after all this, I still think that dualism is wrong, and I admit that neural type physicalism is wrong; but I still think that <i>some</i> kind of physicalism is still basically right.  I think that everything basically has to reduce to the physical; only the physical exists ultimately.  So then what are my options?  Is there a way for me to hold onto physicalism, so I can get around the species chauvinism accusation?  Well, there are basically two ways.  The first way is find an <i>even</i> <i>broader</i> type of event, which describes <i>all</i> the different specific physical event types that different species, or robots, might have.  This is called functionalism.  The second way is to deny that we are reducing mental event <i>types</i>, and talk instead of reducing mental event <i>tokens</i>.  This I will call token physicalism.  I’m not going to talk about either theory in much depth, because I’ll tell the truth -- by now we have gotten quite far away from any issues that were talked about throughout most of the history of philosophy.  All of these issues about the different kinds of physicalism have arisen in the last fifty or sixty years or so.
> 
> So first I will briefly explain functionalism.  Functionalism asks: what do neural events, <i>and</i> circuitry events, <i>and</i> schmeural events <i>all</i> have in common?  The answer: it can’t be any <i>particular</i> <i>type</i> of physical hardware that they have in common.  It’s not neurons, microchips, or schmeurons.  So what do they have in common?  What they have in common is that they are all structurally similar, or <i>functionally</i> similar.  What do I mean by that?  Well, to similar sorts of inputs, each of these physical types gives a similar sort of output.  Let me give a simple example.  The human, the robot, and the alien are all going to feel pain when you damage their bodies; and they are all going to have roughly similar reactions, such as announcing that they’re in pain, avoiding the source of the damage, and perhaps striking back or getting angry.
> 
> So here is a simple definition of "functionalism":
> 
> <i>Functionalism</i> is the view that mental events are the same as functional states; and a <i>functional</i> <i>state</i> is a state a physical system is in, when it has a set of sensory and other inputs, together with a set of potential behavioral outputs.
> 
> So say I’m thinking about bananas.  That mental event is, according to functionalism, a functional state; and that just means a state described by various inputs and outputs.  For example, an input would be that someone has said the word "bananas" to me and off I go thinking about bananas; and then a potential output would be to go get a banana and eat it.  So my mental event, thinking about bananas, is just a functional state, and the functional state is specified by the inputs of the event and the outputs of the event.
> 
> Well of course there is a lot we could say about functionalism.  For one thing, if all we have at our disposal, to describe mental events, is their inputs and outputs, then have we really described the mental event <i>itself</i> adequately?  It would be a little like saying that an oak tree could be adequately described like this: "Oak trees result from acorns (that’s the oak tree input) and they are cut up to make tables (that’s the oak tree output)."  Yeah, but (you might ask) what is an <i>oak</i> <i>tree</i> <i>itself</i>?  You might ask a similar thing of functionalists.  "OK, so mental events have certain inputs and outputs; I can accept that; but what is a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i> <i>itself</i>?"  Unfortunately, we don’t have time to go into it.  But for what it is worth, functionalism is probably the most popular theory of mind today.  So obviously a lot more can be said about it.
> 
> I said there is a second way to get around the species chauvinism objection.  This can be called <i>token</i> <i>physicalism</i>.  More commonly called "the token-token identity theory."  Whatever you want to call it, I’ll define as follows:
> 
> <i>Token</i> <i>physicalism</i> is the view that tokens of mental events may be reduced to tokens of physical events.
> 
> The idea here is that we are giving up trying to give <i>general</i> <i>accounts</i> of mental event types.  So for example we won’t try to reduce the whole category of pleasure, or the whole category of pain, to any single mental event type.  We’ll focus in on individual, single, pleasures and pains.  And we say, of those mental event <i>tokens</i>, that each one is identical to, and reducible to, some physical event token.  In our case, we might say that an individual pain is the same as an individual instance of my C-fibers firing.  But we might say something quite different about the pain of an alien from Alpha Centauri.  The point in either case, though, is that it’s <i>tokens</i> of mental events that are reduced to <i>tokens</i> of physical events.
> 
> I’m just going to give one little objection to this theory.  Namely, what does the following phrase mean? -- "Token of a mental event."  Token physicalism can’t tell us.  I mean, suppose a scientist had reduced a slew of mental event tokens to physical event tokens.  So I’d say, "Great work!  But just what do all of those mental event tokens have in common, that makes us say that they are tokens of <i>mental</i> events, as opposed to any other kind of event?"  What distinguishes the mental event tokens from tokens of other kinds of events?  That’s the question: What distinguishes mental event tokens?  Dualism, remember, says that the mental is an ultimate, fundamental category of being; it can’t be explained in terms of anything nonmental.  So dualism doesn’t have to answer this question.  And neural type physicalism at least promises to answer the question; it says that we will discover just exactly what all the different mental events have in common, which makes them all mental events; and it’s going to be some special type of event in the brain.
> 
> But token physicalism can’t answer this question; it can’t tell us what mental event tokens have in common; and why not?  Because if <i>any</i> theory tells us what mental event tokens have in common, then the theory is describing mental event <i>types</i>.  Just think: that is <i>precisely</i> what mental event tokens have in common: they are all tokens of mental event <i>types</i>.  What do human pain and alien pain in common?  They are both tokens of the type, pain.  So, if we describe what all mental event tokens have in common, then we have for that very reason described a mental event type!  And then the token physicalist would have to talk about mental event types; and that means we’ve basically given up token physicalism.  Well, that’s the only thing I’m going to say about token physicalism.  My usual disclaimers apply.
> 
> In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
------
PhilosophyOfPerception|981081130
1c1,127
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The next major area we’ll consider is the theory of perception.  Perception is, of course, one of our most important mental processes.  But you might ask why it is I’m focusing on just that process, as opposed to other extremely important mental processes, such as forming concepts, or believing?
> 
> The reason is that sense perception is essentially the way that our minds are connected to the world.  If we couldn’t perceive anything, then we wouldn’t know anything except what’s going on in our own minds.  Perception is, as it were, our window onto the world.  So it is important for us to know some basic facts about this "window onto the world."  Hopefully, it allows us access to the world as it really is.
> 
> First I want you to draw a distinction between two kinds of perception.  We can perceive what’s going on in our bodies; for example, we can sense where our limbs are, whether we’re sitting or standing; we can also sense whether we are hungry, or tired, and so forth.  Call that <i>internal</i> perception, or if you want an impressive long word, it’s <i>proprioception</i>.  We can also perceive the world outside our bodies; using the senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, we discover the colors, sounds, textures, and so forth, of the world.  Call that <i>sense</i>-perception, or if you want the word corresponding to "proprioception," it is <i>exteroception</i>.  So internal perception is the feeling of what’s going on in our own bodies, while sense-perception is the perception, using the senses, of the objects and qualities of the world at large.
> 
> As it is studied by philosophers, the theory of perception is really mainly concerned with <i>sense</i>-perception.  And so when philosophers use this word "perception" really what they are <i>usually</i> talking about is sense-perception.  And for the rest of this chapter that’s what I will mean.
> 
> One of the most obvious things that can be said about perception is something that you could infer from what we said last time about the mind in general.  Namely, that perception is a cognitive <i>process</i> or function, and that instances of the use of perception are mental <i>events</i>.  Mental events, because perception is something that <i>occurs</i>, and it occurs in the <i>mind</i>.  Say I look out my window at home as I did a few days ago and that I see that it is raining.  Seeing itself is a process; and when I looked out the window and saw that it was raining, a mental event, a <i>perceptual</i> mental event, occurred.  Or we might say a <i>visual</i> mental event occurred, since the event was one of vision, of my sense of sight.
> 
> But philosophers typically refer to perceptual mental events as <i>acts</i>.  So they talk about "acts of perception."  This implies that perception is something not merely that occurs or happens, but that it is something that we <i>do</i>, sometimes actively.  We do, after all, open our eyes and actively examine things, listen for particular sounds, and so forth.  So we can actively choose to perceive things.  But a good deal of the time I suppose we do not <i>choose</i> to direct our senses in one direction or another.  For example, I am sure that I just happened to notice that it was raining a few days ago; I didn’t, as it were, actively <i>choose</i> to look out the window.  Seems to me that a lot of the time our senses are distracted here and there, so in that regard, perception is passive and not active.  Nonetheless philosophers will often refer to perceptual events as <i>acts</i>, and so I will refer to them as "acts" as well, although just keep in mind that when I call them "acts," I do not mean to imply that we are <i>always</i> active when we perceive.  Because obviously sometimes we are passive when we perceive.
> 
> Now so far, as is usual in philosophy, we have begun by saying some obvious things about perception.  But gradually these obvious philosophical discussions grade away into some less obvious points.  So don’t worry, we won’t always be saying such obvious things; they are necessary to put the whole discussion in context though.
> 
> Anyway, according to the philosophers who use the word "act" to refer to perceptual events, acts always have <i>objects</i>.  Think of it like this: when we <i>act</i>, or <i>do</i> something, there is always something else <i>on</i> <i>which</i> we act, or something <i>to</i> <i>which</i> <i>we</i> <i>do</i> <i>it</i>.  In short, talk of acts requires talk of objects.  So if a perceptual event is an act, it has an object, something that the act is directed upon.  And of course that’s certainly the case with at least <i>some</i> kinds of perception.  For example when I see the rain falling outside, the object of my visual act is the rain falling.  And of course more generally, whenever we see, or hear, or touch, it at the very least <i>appears</i> that there is <i>something</i> <i>that</i> we see, or hear, or touch.  The things that we perceive, that perception is <i>of</i>, are the <i>objects</i> of perception.
> 
> Now what I want to do is to introduce a problem.  This problem will generate all the rest of the discussion that we will cover in our discussion of the theory of perception, so it’s a very important problem.  It can be stated as the following question: What are the <i>immediate</i> objects of perception?  In order to understand this question, you’d have to know what "immediate" means.  And to introduce that term I’ll use a very ordinary example.
> 
> You can see the President on television.  Suppose you’re watching the evening news and you see the President giving a press conference.  But notice something here -- you aren’t seeing the President <i>immediately</i>, or <i>directly</i>.  You’re looking at a television screen; and <i>on</i> that television screen is a moving, colored shape that greatly resembles the President.  But of course that moving, colored shape is not the President <i>himself</i>.  It’s just just a picture that <i>represents</i> the President.  Now let me ask: Does all that mean that you aren’t seeing the President <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?  Not in any sense?  Of course not.  You are seeing the President indirectly, <i>via</i> the television.  So we could put it like this: you see the President <i>by</i> <i>means</i> <i>of</i> seeing a picture of him on TV.  You don’t see him <i>immediately</i>, or <i>directly</i>; you see him only by means of seeing a <i>representation</i> of him.  Really, when you see the President on television, your visual act has two objects; the more direct or immediate object is a moving picture on the television screen; the indirect or mediate object is the President himself.
> 
> So this should give you an idea of what I’m talking about when I use the words "immediate object of perception."  The immediate object of perception is anything we see first, and by seeing this we are able to see <i>other</i> things <i>with</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>act</i> <i>of</i> <i>perception</i>.  So the picture of the President is a more immediate object of perception, and in seeing this we are able to see the President -- all in the <i>same</i> act of perception.  So one and the same act of visual perception can have two objects; and the first object represents the second one.
> 
> All right, now we’re to the point where I can introduce an extremely influential and widespread view in the theory of perception.  Here goes.  Many philosophers have said that the <i>most</i> <i>immediate</i> objects of perception are <i>mental</i> objects -- objects in the mind.  So within the mind there are two different items: on the one hand, there is a perceptual act; and on the other hand, there is a mental <i>object</i>, which represents things outside of the mind.  So for example, when I see the President on TV, then according to this widespread opinion of philosophers, the <i>very</i> <i>first</i> <i>thing</i> that I perceive is <i>an</i> <i>image</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>President</i> <i>in</i> <i>my</i> <i>mind</i>, and this image represents the moving picture on the television screen, and that moving picture on the television screen in turn represents the President himself.
> 
> In the history of philosophy the immediate mental objects of perception have had lots of different names, but <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i> and <i>ideas</i> have been the most widespread; our text also uses the term <i>percept</i>.  So that mental image I am supposed to have of the President is called a <i>sense</i>-<i>datum</i> (plural, sense-data) or a visual <i>idea</i> of the President, or a <i>percept</i> of the President.  We as it were <i>mentally</i> gaze upon those Presidential sense-data -- not with our eyes, of course, because our eyes are in the physical world, and sense-data are in the mind.  Those Presidential sense-data are caused by the image of the President on the TV screen.  And the sense-data represent the President to us.  So generally there are supposed to be mental, internal objects of perception, which represent physical, external objects.  "Internal" here just means "inside the mind" (though of course you can guess that that phrase is open to different interpretations); and "external" means, correspondingly, "outside the mind" or "in the physical world."
> 
> I suppose this might seem strange -- I mean, the very suggestion that there even <i>exist</i> sense-data, internal objects of perception, might sound strange.  Why think that such things even <i>exist</i>?  Why think that we perceive internal objects at all?  Why <i>not</i> think that we just immediately, or directly, perceive external objects?
> 
> Well, philosophers have an argument, or rather several arguments, for this view.  So let’s look at some of these arguments.  They go under one general title, <i>the</i> <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>illusion</i>.  The conclusion of the argument from illusion is: "The immediate objects of perception are sense-data."  So what reasons can be given to support this conclusion?
> 
> Consider several examples of what we might call "perceptual illusions."  Take a perfectly straight stick, and submerge it in a pond: then the stick will <i>appear</i> to be bent.  The bend in the stick isn’t real -- it’s illusory.  Or you’re driving across the countryside and you see some hills in the distance, which appear bluish.  Then as you approach nearer to the hills you see that they are actually green.  The bluish color the hills originally appeared to have wasn’t real; it was illusory.
> 
> Suppose you want to say that the <i>immediate</i> or <i>direct</i> objects of your perception are the stick itself, and the hills themselves.  Then consider what it seems you’re saying: it appears that you’re saying that that <i>the</i> <i>stick</i> was first straight, and <i>then</i> it was bent.  After all, you say it’s <i>the</i> <i>stick</i> that is the direct object of your perception.  And <i>something</i> sure did look straight, and then bent.  So if the direct object of your perception was the stick, why then it must have been the <i>stick</i> that was first straight, and then bent.  But that’s ridiculous!  It’s contradictory.  So we could say, instead, that when you were looking at the stick, you had a series of stick sense-data; and the sense-data were at first straight, and then bent.  The stick itself, all the while, was perfectly straight.  In the same way, you want to say that, when you were looking at the hills, <i>something</i> looked bluish, and then it looked green; but it wasn’t the <i>hills</i> that actually <i>were</i> bluish and then green; so we could say that you <i>immediately</i> perceived hill <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>, and the sense-data were bluish, and then green.  The hills, all the while, were the same color (green, presumably).
> 
> Next consider some similar sorts of cases.  Suppose I press an eyeball with one finger while I hold up another finger in front of my nose.  Suddenly the finger in front of my nose appears becomes double.  Well, not <i>actually</i> double; it’s just that the finger <i>appears</i> double, or that there are two images of the finger before there was just one.  Now there are two of <i>something</i> there, right?  But not of a finger.  I’m not seeing two fingers!  So we could say that there are two <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>, and each of those sense-data represents the same finger.
> 
> Or take a coin out of your pocket and hold it up, and turn it over.  If you look at it straight on the coin looks perfectly circular; but as you turn it over it appears to have an oval shape.  Now as you turn the coin over, just consider: you <i>are</i> seeing two different shapes, namely a circle and an oval.  But the <i>coin</i> has just one shape, right?  A circle, so we naturally think.  So if you are seeing two different shapes, those must be the shapes of <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>, and not the coin; and the sense-data <i>represent</i> the coin.
> 
> Next consider a very different sort of case.  Suppose Mary goes bonkers and starts hallucinating pink elephants.  She’s out strolling on the Oval, and unfortunately suffers a nervous breakdown (probably due to her philosophy class).  By God it sure looks to her like there is a herd of pink elephants bellowing and charging right at her.  Now let’s suppose these hallucinated elephants are extremely vivid.  They are just as vivid to Mary as real elephants would be to you and I.  Then here’s the point: Mary would say that she is <i>seeing</i> pink elephants; now, we would deny that, and say she’s just <i>hallucinating</i>; but her <i>experience</i>, or how things appear to her, is <i>just</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> as how things would appear to <i>us</i> if we were to see a herd of pink elephants bearing down on us.  For convenience we could refer to the <i>experience</i>, in either case, as the perceiving of sense-data.  And then we could say that Mary’s sense-data just don’t represent anything.  In fact, we could say that when someone hallucinates, she is just perceiving certain sense-data, and those sense-data don’t represent anything.
> 
> I have given examples only from visual perception, from the sense of sight, but I could easily find similar examples of "illusions," if you want to call them that, regarding the other senses.  I doubt it’s necessary to give more examples though; I think you probably get the idea.  In all of these cases we can see that it is very convenient, on first glance anyway, to suppose that we <i>immediately</i> perceive sense-data.  Therefore, the immediate objects of perception are sense-data.  This includes <i>all</i> sense-perception -- sense-data occur not just when illusions occur, but <i>whenever</i> we perceive the external world.
> 
> Now, there are <i>different</i> theories about perception which talk about sense-data (or ideas, or percepts, or they may use some other term).  Different theories of perception employ the general sense-datum concept.  But one theory in particular most immediately suggests itself, after one considers the argument from illusion, is called <i>the</i> <i>representational</i> <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>perception</i>, or simply <i>representationalism</i>.  Here is a definition:
> 
> <i>Representationalism</i> is the doctrine that in any act of perception, the immediate (direct) object of perception is a sense-datum, and this sense-datum represents an external object, which is the mediate (indirect) object of perception.
> 
> This theory was most prominently advocated by two famous 17th century philosophers, the Frenchman Rene Descartes, and the Englishman John Locke.  The term they used was not "sense-datum" but instead "idea."  We need not concern ourselves with the differences in meaning that these terms might have.  Just keep in mind that when we use "idea" in the theory of perception, we mean just a sense-datum.  "Idea" as used in the theory of perception is a technical term, meaning roughly the same thing as "sense-datum."  But I’m going to go on talking about sense-data.
> 
> Now I want you to notice something about representationalism: it says that sense-data <i>represent</i> external objects -- physical objects, properties, and events.  But this immediately raises a question: <i>How</i> <i>well</i> do sense-data represent external objects, properties, and events?  At least sometimes they do not represent them at all well.  When, for example, the stick sense-datum is bent, it does not perfectly represent the stick, which is straight.  And similarly with the other illusions -- to the point of poor Mary whose pink elephant sense-data do not represent anything at all.
> 
> Now suppose that someone were to claim that sense-data are always right; they always give us accurate information about what the world is like.  Well, such a doctrine would be really naïve.  I mean, we have already seen lots of good examples that show it is wrong.  Clearly, if there are sense-data at all, they definitely do not always accurately represent the world as it is.  That’s <i>at</i> <i>least</i> the case with perceptual illusions.
> 
> Both Descartes and Locke recognized this.  And in addition to various perceptual illusions, they said that there was <i>another</i> category of sense-data which did not adequately represent external world.  Both Descartes and Locke drew a distinction between two kinds of properties.  Well, in this context, they’re called "qualities," but that’s just another name for "properties"; for the sake of being traditional we will call them "qualities" as well, but we might as well have called them "properties."  Anyway, they drew a distinction between <i>primary</i> and <i>secondary</i> qualities.  And they said that sense-data of <i>primary</i> qualities can accurately represent external qualities in things; but sense-data of <i>secondary</i> qualities <i>cannot</i> accurately represent external qualities in things.
> 
> So it will be fairly important for me to explain the distinction between primary and secondary qualities.  Really, it’s a fairly commonsense sort of distinction.  <i>Some</i> of the qualities things appear to have, the <i>primary</i> qualities, <i>really</i> <i>are</i> in the things; <i>other</i> of the qualities things appear to have, the <i>secondary</i> qualities, are <i>only</i> in our minds, that is, they’re only aspects of how we perceive the world.  For example, there’s a real difference between the actual temperature of a kettle of water, and how warm the water feels when I put my hand in it.  The water might be only lukewarm; but if my hand is extremely cold, when I put it in the water, the water is going to feel hot.  So for the sake of accuracy we should distinguish between the <i>actual</i> <i>temperature</i> of the water, which is a matter of how fast the water molecules are vibrating, and the <i>perceived</i> <i>warmth</i> of the water, which is not a quality of the water, but instead of <i>how</i> <i>we</i> <i>perceive</i> the water.  So then we could say: actual temperature is a <i>primary</i> <i>quality</i> of the water, but perceived warmth is a <i>secondary</i> <i>quality</i> of the water.
> 
> Here’s another example.  We can say that a physical body’s mass, or its shape, is a primary quality; but the <i>perceived</i> <i>weight</i>, or how heavy a body feels, is a secondary quality.  The perceived weight of a thing depends on who is lifting it, how tired they are, and so on.  But the <i>mass</i> of a body doesn’t depend on who’s lifting it.  Or take tastes and smells -- they are often given as good examples of secondary qualities.  When you bite into a lemon, and say it’s sour, do you mean that the <i>lemon</i> <i>itself</i> is sour, or only that in your perception of the lemon, there is this element of sourness?  Sure, you can say that the lemon is <i>acidic</i>, and <i>that</i> is a primary quality.  The lemon’s acidity doesn’t depend on who or what is tasting it.  But whether the lemon is <i>sour</i>, or how sour it tastes, can indeed depend on who is tasting it.  So acidity is a primary quality, but sourness is a secondary quality.  That’s the distinction then between primary and secondary qualities -- OK?
> 
> Now back to the point.  We can have ideas or sense-data of both primary and secondary qualities.  But, say Descartes and Locke, and a lot of people who came after them, sense-data of primary qualities can actually represent primary qualities; but sense-data of secondary qualities do not represent secondary qualities, because really there aren’t any secondary qualities there in the thing at all.  In fact, if you prefer, we might just say that "secondary quality" refers to exactly the same thing as "sense-datum of a secondary quality."  Examples again will help you see this.  We can have an idea of the actual pH of a lemon, its degree of acidity; and that idea can perfectly well represent the lemon’s acidity.  But when we get a sense-datum of sourness, it’s not like there is something properly called "sourness" <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>lemon</i>.  Acidity is all that’s in the lemon; the sourness is just how we <i>perceive</i> the lemon, on account of its acidity.  In the same way, we can have an accurate idea of the mass of a box; but when we lift the box and call it "heavy," that heaviness is just in the sense-datum we have of the box.  There isn’t anything properly called "heaviness" in the box <i>itself</i>; heaviness just how the box feels to us.  Mass is what the box itself has; heaviness is how we feel the box to be.
> 
> So some of our sense-data, namely the sense-data of secondary qualities, do not represent anything in the external world, even if they are <i>caused</i> by external qualities (by primary qualities).  Thus it is natural to adopt a theory that our text calls <i>critical</i> <i>realism</i>, which may be defined as follows:
> 
> <i>Critical</i> <i>realism</i> is the theory that <i>some</i> of our sense-data (e.g., those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events; while <i>other</i> of our sense-data (e.g., those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events.
> 
> This is, I think, a very reasonable theory.  It has been held by some very reasonable philosophers.  But it does, by its talk of sense-data and representation, depend on or presuppose the truth of representationalism.  I mean that, if critical realism is correct, then representationalism would have to be a correct theory of perception.
> 
> Remember the question I asked: <i>How</i> <i>well</i> do sense-data represent external objects, properties, and events?  Critical realism says: well enough.  Some of our sense-data don’t represent any external qualities, but through our sense-data of primary qualities, we can still know what the external world is like.
> 
> But now suppose a rather extreme skeptic comes up to us and asks: "But <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> that your sense-data represent primary qualities?  Prove it."  And if we start to answer, the skeptic will interrupt.  So let’s listen now to the skeptic’s argument, which is due to that influential Scotsman, David Hume: "Don’t waste your breath trying to prove it.  You <i>can’t</i> prove that your sense-data represent primary qualities in the external world; such a proof would be impossible.  Look at what you have already concluded.  You have concluded that whenever we perceive, we <i>immediately</i> perceive sense-data.  That means that the <i>only</i> way we can perceive any external world is <i>through</i> sense-data.  Notice, we don’t have <i>any</i> <i>other</i> <i>way</i> to get information about the external world.  Perception is all we have; perception is, after all, the external-world-information-gathering-faculty.  That’s what perception is.  So perception is the only way we can learn about the external world.
> 
> "Now you think that you can prove that your sense-data represent the external world.  But how <i>could</i> you prove that?  You would need to have some <i>evidence</i> that your sense-data represent the world.  But have you ever perceived the connection between your sense-data and the world?  Obviously not!  You say that the <i>only</i> way we can perceive any external world is <i>through</i> sense-data.  So we obviously could not use sense-data to prove that sense-data represent the world well, poorly, or at all.
> 
> "And it’s even worse than that.  Now, you think that you must always <i>immediately</i> perceive sense-data whenever you perceive anything.  But that means that you cannot perceive the external world directly, nor can you perceive the connection between sense-data and the world.  So how on earth could you even prove that the external world <i>exists</i>?  How do you know that there is a world there on the other side of the sense-data?  If perception is like a window onto the world, then how do you know that there is a world on the other side of the window?  You can’t prove it; all you have are sense-data.  So we might as well give up all claims to having knowledge of any external world at all!"
> 
> This sort of skeptical challenge is very hard to meet.  And I do not propose to meet it or discuss it here, because we are talking about theories of perception; and skepticism is not a theory of perception.  We will talk more about it at the appropriate time.
> 
> But what I do want to talk about is a surprisingly common <i>reaction</i> to the foregoing skepticism.  Common historically among philosophers, not among ordinary people.  One reaction to this skepticism has been, namely, simply to <i>deny</i> that an external world exists!  They say that everything that exists is mental.  As Dave Berry says, I am not making this up!  It’s completely true!  There is a long and surprisingly respectable tradition of philosophers who hear the skeptic’s challenge -- "There’s no reason to think an external world exists" -- and then reply, "Well, no, I guess there <i>isn’t</i> any reason to think that an external world exists.  All there is, is sense-data.  Physical objects are bundles of sense-data.  When I hold up my hand, and I see it, I’m not seeing something external to my mind; I’m seeing a series, a whole bundle, of hand sense-data, and <i>there</i> <i>is</i> <i>no</i> <i>hand</i> apart from those hand sense-data!  That’s what my hand <i>is</i> -- a bundle of sense-data!"  So these philosophers manage get around skepticism; but not by replying to the skeptic and proving the existence of an external world, but instead by saying that there <i>is</i> no external world.
> 
> But we have encountered this wacky theory before -- just last time, in fact.  It is called "phenomenalism," which we defined, as you may recall, as follows: "the view that physical events are nothing more than a special kind of mental event."  But it doesn’t have to be stated in terms of just events.  More generally, it can be defined as follows:
> 
> <i>Phenomenalism</i> is the view that physical objects, properties, events, etc. (whatever is physical) are reducible to mental objects, properties, events, etc.; hence, ultimately, only mental objects, properties, events, etc., exist.
> 
> So in particular, we may reduce talk of physical bodies to talk of <i>bundles</i> <i>of</i> <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>.  This naturally goes with the bundle theory of objects.  And the philosopher who is most famous for advocating <i>both</i> the bundle theory of objects, <i>and</i> phenomenalism, is the 18th century Irish philosopher, George Berkeley.  Berkeley’s version is more commonly called "subjective idealism"; "phenomenalism" is a more recently coined term.
> 
> I don’t propose to discuss Berkeley or phenomenalism at any length.  I simply want you to note just how far away from common sense this doctrine of representationalism has led us.  And I will raise just one objection to phenomenalism.  It is a "reductio ad absurdum," which means an argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the thing we originally assumed had to have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result.
> 
> So here’s the objection.  Suppose, just for sake of argument, that the phenomenalist is correct.  So for me, the physical world is all just a construction out of my sense-data.  Now suppose we are walking around University Hall, talking about philosophy.  On the face of it, there’s my body, and my mind associated with it, and there’s your body, with your body associated with it.  But now notice, we are assuming that phenomenalism is true.  But that means that when I see <i>your</i> <i>body</i>, I’m not seeing an irreducibly physical body; I am seeing a bundle of sense-data in my own mind.  And let’s even suppose I hear you saying all sorts of intelligent things, which I want to take as evidence of the existence of your mind, of what you are thinking; but all those intelligent things you say are, after all, <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i> <i>in</i> <i>my</i> <i>own</i> <i>mind</i>.  So I have no reason to think that either your body, or your mind exist!  The phenomenalist has no reason to believe that any other minds, besides his own, exist!
> 
> And why should the phenomenalist be surprised when we say that?  After all, phenomenalism denies that an external world exists.  Just remember what "external world" means according to the phenomenalist: it means the world <i>outside</i> <i>his</i> <i>own</i> <i>mind</i>.  But that means that all other bodies <i>and</i> <i>other</i> <i>minds</i> are part of the external world.  And so the phenomenalist is forced to an absurd conclusion.  The argument in brief is:
> 
> 1. If phenomenalism is true, then nothing that is thought to be in the external world exists.
> 
> 2. But other minds besides my own are thought to be in the external world (since the external world is anything outside my own mind).
> 
> 3. Therefore, other minds do not exist.
> 
> The phenomenalist ends up having to believe <i>solipsism</i>, which is the (absurd) view that one’s own mind is the only thing that exists -- that one is entirely alone in a universe that is completely in one’s own mind.  But solipsism is absurd.  If phenomenalism would force us to accept solipsism, then we had better reject phenomenalism.
> 
> This argument may not be completely fair to the phenomenalist; but I’m not going to spend the time examining those issues any further.  I’m just going to assume that phenomenalism has gone seriously wrong.
> 
> And indeed, I am going to give another <i>reductio</i> <i>ad</i> <i>absurdum</i> argument, one that is given by a different Scottish philosopher, who lived at the same time as Hume, namely Thomas Reid.  Reid argued strenuously against the notion that ideas, or sense-data, are the immediate objects of perception at all -- he rejected representationalism.
> 
> One of Reid’s arguments was very simple, and went like this: If representationalism is correct, then we are forced to either skepticism or phenomenalism.  But skepticism and phenomenalism are both absurd; there surely <i>is</i> an external world, and we surely <i>do</i> have knowledge of it.  So we must reject the theory that would force to either skepticism or phenomenalism.  That is, we must reject representationalism.
> 
> Well, what would it mean to reject representationalism?  It would mean that we do not perceive sense-data at all.  When I look at my hand, I do not immediately perceive a bundle or series of hand sense-data, which represent my actual hand.  No, I immediately perceive <i>my</i> <i>hand</i>.  I do not perceive any hand sense-data at all.  So the view up for consideration now is that we immediately, directly perceive the external world.  This view is called <i>direct</i> <i>realism</i>, which Reid championed brilliantly, and which can be defined as follows:
> 
> <i>Direct</i> <i>realism</i> is the view that the immediate (direct) objects of perception are external objects, qualities, and events.
> 
> Now, don’t confuse direct realism with the more naïve view I talked about earlier, that the world is exactly the way we perceive it to be.  Obviously, sometimes we <i>misperceive</i> the world.  The direct realist doesn’t deny that there are perceptual illusions.  The claim is, rather, simply that when we <i>do</i> perceive something, <i>what</i> we directly perceive, the immediate <i>object</i> of perception, is in the external world, not in the mind.
> 
> Nonetheless, the argument from illusion <i>can</i> be taken as an argument against direct realism; because, after all, the whole point of the argument from illusion was to show the need to posit sense-data as the immediate objects of perception.  So the last thing we have to do is to show how direct realism might reply to the argument from illusion.  So that’s what we’ll do.
> 
> And basically the strategy we’ll take is to show how all those different cases of misperception, failed perception, and perceptual relativity -- all those hard cases we gave -- do not really make it necessary to suppose that there are sense-data.  We can do a good job of explaining those cases <i>without</i> having to talk about sense-data.
> 
> Take first the case of the stick that looks bent in the water.  Direct realism doesn’t say that the stick actually is bent; it says, rather, that the stick, which is straight, <i>can</i>, in some unusual circumstances, <i>look</i> bent.  And to say that it looks bent is just to say that the light, which is reflected from the stick, arrives at our eyes in a crooked pattern.  So the stick can have more than one <i>appearance</i>.  But the appearance of a stick isn’t a <i>sense</i>-<i>datum</i> <i>in</i> <i>my</i> <i>mind</i>.  It’s a pattern of light, the sort of things that physicists can study, that arrives at my eye.  What’s mysterious about that?  A similar sort of thing can be said about the bluish color of the hills in the distance.  Hills, and everything else, can <i>appear</i> with all sorts of different colors; but the color is simply the wavelength of light as it reaches my eye.  If the light from the green hills has to traverse many miles, then it may be bluish when it arrives at my eyes.  There’s no need to suppose I am seeing bluish sense-data: nope, what I’m seeing is bluish <i>light</i>, which comes from the hills.  The hills would reflect <i>green</i> light to my eyes if I were closer to them.
> 
> Now the case of pressing on my eyeball, and getting a double image.  Well, it’s undeniable that, when I cross my eyes and seem to see two fingers, there are two of <i>something</i>.  But of what?  Why say there are two <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>?  Why not, instead, say that I have two <i>eyes</i>, and each eye gives me a different view upon the world.  Usually the eyes are focused in the same direction; but sometimes they’re not.  And as a result, each eye sees things in a different way.  That doesn’t mean that I see two visual sense-data in my mind; but it does mean that there are two slightly different <i>acts</i> <i>of</i> <i>vision</i> going on.  One for each eye!  What’s mysterious about that?  Nothing, as far as I can tell.  And similar things can be said about the coin that appears both circular and oval-shaped: so the same coin can reflect different patterns of light to my eye.  Does that mean that I perceive two different sense-data?  No, all it means is that I perceive the same coin in two different ways.
> 
> Now as for Mary’s vivid hallucination of the pink elephants.  It was so vivid that the elephants were just as real as real elephants.  We said this was evidence for thinking that she is perceiving sense-data; she sure as heck isn’t perceiving elephants, and yet she seems to be hallucinating <i>something</i>.  So maybe it’s elephant sense-data that she is hallucinating.  Well, that seems like a pretty tough case to deal with.  I mean, it’s true: it definitely does seem that there is an object, in <i>some</i> sense, of Mary’s hallucination; but this object is only in her mind.  Isn’t that what we’d call sense-data?
> 
> The direct realist <i>might</i> reply to that case as follows: Mary wasn’t <i>perceiving</i> anything at all; she was <i>hallucinating</i>.  That’s a different, though related, mental process.  So maybe Mary has visual images of some sort when she is hallucinating; that <i>wouldn’t</i> mean that she has such images when she engages in actual sense-perception.
> 
> Now, I don’t think this is a particularly strong reply.  I mean, if there are visual images when we hallucinate, it seems reasonable to think that there are visual images when we see.  It’s the same way with dreams: if there are visual and auditory images of some sort in our minds, when we dream, it seems reasonable to think that there are visual and auditory images, or sense-data, when we are awake and perceiving things.  So I think we should look for a better reply.
> 
> Some people end up denying that there are any such things as mental images at all, but this is rather hard to maintain, since we seem to be able to imagine all sorts of things: for example, here’s something that will give you an image: imagine a square, then imagine the top of the square popping off and disappearing, and the two sides of the square collapsing together at a point, to make a triangle.  Even if it should happen that perception does not involve images, <i>other</i> mental processes, like imagination, certainly <i>seem</i> to.
> 
> The topic of mental images is very complicated and controversial, but I will tell you my own view about it, which is again similar to Reid’s, just to bring this discussion to some closure.  My own view is that in fact, in <i>some</i> sense, we <i>do</i> <i>indeed</i> have images of various sorts in our minds when we perceive, and dream, and hallucinate, and use our imaginations.  But when we actually perceive things, in no sense whatsoever can our sensory images, or sensations, if you will (that’s Reid’s word), be considered the <i>objects</i> of perception, or attention, at all.  The only objects of perception are external objects.  Even if perception is accompanied by images, or sensations, it’s wrong to say we <i>perceive</i> sensations.
------
AtlasShruggedThings|981081193
1,19c1
< FriendsofGlobalProgress
< 
< HalleysFifthConcerto (AtlasShrugged112)
< 
< NationalAllianceofRailroads (AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< NationalCouncilofMetalIndustries (AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< ReardenMetal (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131)
< 
< RioNorteLine
< 
< SanSebastianLine
< 
< SanSebastianMines (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< TaggartComet (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged113)
< 
< WyattOilFields (AtlasShrugged111)
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Things
------
TheProblemOfEvil|981081232
36a37,38
> '''Note:''' Statement 4 is not quite as obvious as it is being made out to be, and in fact the reason has been pointed out: "that doesn't involve a contradiction."  It is often maintained that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so that any change would be a local improvement to global detriment.  I'm not endorsing this view, of course, but I think it means that we should be a little more cautious on that point.
> 
61c63
< Now if I wanted to, I could bring a lot of objections to this.  Surely the absolute <i>horrors</i> that humanity has faced, especially in the twentieth century, are unnecessary to improve our moral mettle.  I could, if I wanted to, insist on such objections at length.  But I think we have come to the point where you can see the outlines of the major issues involved in the problem.  So I will leave it to you to hash out the details and to answer any further objections, that might come to you, yourselves.
---
> Now if I wanted to, I could bring a lot of objections to this.  Surely the absolute <i>horrors</i> that humanity has faced, especially in the twentieth century, are unnecessary to improve our moral mettle.  I could, if I wanted to, insist on such objections at length.  But I think we have come to the point where you can see the outlines of the major issues involved in the problem.  So I will leave it to you to hash out the details and to answer any further objections, that might come to you, yourselves.
------
PhiloSophy|981081248
19c19
< '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
FreeWillAndDeterminism|981081289
1c1,139
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I want to begin our discussion of free will and determinism by putting the problem in context.  I am treating this problem, of free will and determinism, as though it were part of the philosophy of mind; and my reason for so doing is that our focus is on the will, or our ability to choose, and that ability is a mental process just as perception is a mental process.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, let me define a few terms for you, as usual, using an example.  Whenever you are confused about some very basic philosophical concept, you will always benefit by considering some clear example.  So suppose it is a Sunday morning and you are deciding what to do with the rest of the day.  You reflect that you’d really like to see a new movie; but on the other hand it is a pretty nice day out, so maybe it would be better to drive to a lake and have a dinner picnic.  So after weighing positives and negatives you decide to go on the picnic, because the movie can be seen anytime soon, but you much more rarely have the time or the nice weather to go on a picnic.  And so you pack up the dinner and head out to the lake and have a great time.
> 
> Now, let’s use this rather mundane example to illustrate what we mean by common terminology.  <i>The</i> <i>will</i> is our ability to decide and choose among different options; it is a cognitive process.  Another name for the same process is <i>volition</i>.  As far as I can tell, "will" and "volition" have the same meaning.  So we can say that you <i>use</i> your will or volition in deciding and choosing to go on the picnic.  But "using" your will just means going through that mental process, however we might eventually describe it.
> 
> The word <i>choice</i> usually means the end result of a decision process.  So to use our example, when after thinking about your options, you chose to go on the picnic.  That act of choice was an important, perhaps the essential, part of your using your will or volition in that case.  If you didn’t make a choice, then you weren’t using your will.  But on the other hand, I don’t think that using your will <i>just</i> involves making that final choice.  The process you go through <i>leading</i> <i>up</i> to the choice is also properly considered the use of the will or volition.  That process is called <i>deciding</i> or <i>deliberating</i>.  So before you chose to go to the lake for the picnic, you were deciding, or deliberating.  And deciding involves some manner of <i>weighing</i> <i>options</i>, even there are only two options to weigh -- as the song says, "Should I stay or should I go?"  It is nonsense to speak of deciding between <i>less</i> <i>than</i> <i>two</i> options.
> 
> So much for the purely terminological points about the will.  Now a little bit about the word "freedom."  This word is highly ambiguous -- we can use it to mean political freedom, or freedom of the will, or simply the lack of something.  As in the phrase, "sugar-free."  And there are other senses, too, of course.  But we are only interested in the sense in which <i>the</i> <i>will</i> is said to be free.  Now if, as I said, the will is our ability to decide and choose among different options, then to say that the will is <i>free</i> is to say that our ability to decide and choose among different options is free.  To speak of free will is to speak of that ability being free.
> 
> So our focus is on only that aspect of the will -- its freedom.  And in particular we have two questions to ask: First, <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the freedom of the will?  If we had to define "free will," what would we say?  And second: Does freedom of the will exist?  It does if we can freely decide and choose among different options; so can we?
> 
> But before we answer these two questions, I want to address a different question: Why is free will such an important topic?  The answer is that it is freedom of the will that makes us morally responsible for what we do.  If we had no free will, we could not be morally praised for anything, or blamed for anything.  And correspondingly: if we can indeed be morally praised or blamed, then we do have free will.  Unless we can decide and choose freely, then we do not really have the right to laud anyone for anything good they do, or condemn for anything evil they do: they weren’t responsible for it.  It would be like praising the sun for warming up the day, or censuring a tornado for destroying houses.  Those things don’t have free will, so what would the point be of praising or blaming them?
> 
> There is a related principle that philosophers use about a good deal.  I mean the principle that "ought" implies "can."  In other words, if I <i>ought</i> to do something, that implies that I <i>can</i> do it.  After all, if I <i>cannot</i> do it at all, then surely I am not obligated to do it.  What sense would there be in saying that I ought to do something that I <i>can’t</i> <i>do</i>?  If, for example, I see a child drowning in a rushing river and I can’t swim, then can I be blamed if I don’t jump in and try to save the child?  I <i>can’t</i> do it.  So surely it’s not the case that I <i>should</i> do it.  Now let’s see how free will works in here: if I don’t have free will, then whatever I end up doing, I <i>must</i> do; I just don’t have any choice in the matter.  So then it’s never the case that I <i>should</i> do anything other than what I happen to do.  Doesn’t matter what it is; if Jack murders an old woman, it’s not as though he <i>should</i> <i>not</i> <i>have</i> <i>done</i> <i>that</i>.  Because he had no choice; if he <i>could</i> held off from killing her, then perhaps he <i>should</i> have.  But his will was unfree.  So he had to murder her, and we can’t say that he ought not to have done so.  Ought implies <i>can</i>.  A moral obligation requires an ability to do the thing you’re obligated to do; and an ability to do the thing you’re obligated to do requires that you are free to do it.  If you’re not free do otherwise, then you lack the ability to do what you’d be obligated to do; which means that you <i>aren’t</i> obligated to do it.
> 
> So I hope this is enough for you to understand why the issue of whether or not we have free will is very important indeed.  If we lack free will we might as well just give up the whole business of praise and blame that goes along with morality.  Now perhaps some of you -- not many I suspect, but some of you -- are perfectly happy to get rid of this business of moral appraisal.  But are you really quite sure this is the view you want to hold?  I mean, should we never praise you for your accomplishments and good deeds, because you just had no free choice in the matter?  Should we never blame and reproach and revile criminals when they steal, rape, and murder, because they had no choice but to commit their crimes?  If you reflect a little like that I’m sure that the <i>vast</i> majority of you will come to the view that moral evaluation has a very useful function in everyday life.  We should not just do away with it.  But the only way we can take moral evaluation seriously is if we believe we have free will.  So do we have free will?
> 
> Now do you see how I just immediately slipped into asking <i>whether</i> we have free will, without asking <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>would</i> <i>mean</i> to say that the will is free?  That’s the way that most people proceed.  I think this is a great mistake.  I think we really do have to know what free will would be, before we could know whether we have it.  But it will be instructive for us to ignore what we know we should do first, and instead just forge right on ahead, and see whether we can say we have free will, without knowing what free will is.
> 
> 
> 
> A. Determinism.
> 
> So let’s begin with the view that says we have no free will.  An excellent way to present this view is by stating an argument for it, and this is a perfectly valid argument.  This is very similar to the argument presented on p. 100 of the packet.  After I state the argument I’ll go over each premise carefully.  So here goes:
> 
> 1. Every event has a set of causes sufficient to explain why it and it not some other event occurred.  In brief: Every event is causally determined.
> 
> 2. Every act of choosing is an event (a mental event).
> 
> 3. Thus every act of choosing is causally determined.
> 
> 4. If an act of choosing is causally determined, then it is not free.
> 
> 5. Therefore, no act of choosing is free.  That is, free will does not exist.
> 
> Let me define the term <i>determinism</i> as the view that the above argument is correct.  In other words, here’s the definition:
> 
> <i>Determinism</i> is the doctrine that free will does not exist, because every event, including every act of choosing, is causally determined.
> 
> As nasty as the conclusion might appear, this argument seems extremely solid; each premise is, by itself, very hard to deny.  So let’s go premise-by-premise now.
> 
> Premise (1): "Every event has a set of causes sufficient to explain why it and it not some other event occurred.  In brief: Every event is causally determined."  You may recall "the Principle of Causality" from our discussion of the cosmological argument; that principle we stated as "Every event has a cause."  Well, if you liked the principle then, consistency requires you to accept it now.  But there is a difference between saying that every event has a cause and that every event is <i>causally</i> <i>determined</i>.  This last statement is stronger.  So what reason is there to believe that stronger claim, that every event is causally determined?
> 
> It’s difficult to give a <i>positive</i> <i>argument</i> for this premise.  The best I think I can do is to point to some examples where we assume it, or presuppose it.  We definitely presuppose it in science -- or most of science anyway.  For example, suppose you want to explain why an eight ball rolled into a pocket.  Definitely we require <i>some</i> explanation.  So suppose we say <i>it</i> <i>was</i> <i>hit</i> <i>by</i> <i>the</i> <i>cue</i> <i>ball</i>.  But that only explains why the eight ball is <i>moving</i>.  There are still <i>aspects</i> of the eight ball’s movement that are unexplained: for example, its direction.  That is explained by the vector and spin of the cue ball when it hits the eight ball.  And so on -- we demand explanations for every aspect of the eight ball’s movement.  That’s the basic premise of scientific inquiry: that there is a causal explanation to be found for every aspect of a thing’s change.
> 
> If you believe in free will, you may want to say that there are <i>exceptions</i> to the Principle of Causality.  We’ll consider such a move in a moment.  But first let’s look at the other premises.
> 
> Premise (2) says: "Every act of choosing is an event (a mental event)."  I don’t think anyone would want to object to that.  If to act is to <i>do</i> something, and events <i>occur</i>, you have to see is that all <i>doings</i> are <i>occurances</i>.  Which is just another way of saying that acts are a kind of event.  Anyway, surely we can’t reject premise (2).
> 
> What about premise (3) then?  "Thus every act of choosing is causally determined."  But this just follows deductively, and validly I might add, from premises (1) and (2).  If (1) and (2) are true, then (3) <i>must</i> be true.  If every event is causally determined, and every act of choosing is an event, then it <i>must</i> be true that every act of choosing is causally determined.   So the only way to reject (3) is to reject (1) or (2).
> 
> Now look at premise (4): "If an act of choosing is causally determined, then it is not free."  This is one of the two premises, along with number (1), which has been attacked by people who don’t want to accept the conclusion.  But before criticizing it, let’s see if we can’t give some basic account of why it’s at least plausible.  We could put it like this: if I was determined by outside forces, by influences totally apart from me and my deliberations, to make my choice, then in sense it seems my choice was not really <i>mine</i> at all.  It was not free because my whole process of deciding and choosing was just like another cog in a machine that produced my action.  I did not play an active role in making the choice, precisely because every aspect of my choice was determined and previously decided by factors that were outside of me and totally beyond my control.  Everything that led up to my ultimate choice was controlled by forces by me; so how on earth is it in the slightest possible that my choice was free?
> 
> So if we accept premise (4), after having accepted premise (3), the conclusion, that no act of choosing is free, follows deductively.  There’s no avoiding that conclusion if you accept (3) and (4).  I want to make a comment now about something our reading says.  It says, on p. 100 of the packet (or p. 203 of the Solomon selection) that if our choices are not <i>free</i>, then we do not make a choice.  As Solomon says, "If our make-up is such that we could not choose any other, then all of our talk about ‘choice’ and ‘decision’ -- and therefore ‘responsibility’ too -- amounts to just so much nonsense."  This is a common sort of thing for philosophers to say, but strictly speaking it’s wrong.  I mean, does Solomon really mean to be saying that we never go through a process of <i>deciding</i>?  Or that we never make any <i>choices</i>?  That would be ridiculous!  No determinist worth his salt would say anything <i>that</i> absurd.  I mean, <i>even</i> <i>if</i> our process of deciding and our choices are totally causally determined, <i>that</i> doesn’t imply that there is no deciding or choosing going <i>on</i>.  The claim is not that choice doesn’t <i>exist</i>; it’s silly to deny that it <i>exists</i>.  No, the claim is rather that choice is not <i>free</i>.  So our decisions and choices <i>exist</i>, but they aren’t <i>free</i>  -- we are the slaves of forces beyond our control.  That, at least, is what the determinist says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Libertarianism.
> 
> Now if you do not like the determinist’s argument, and you believe we do have free will, then you have two options.  You can reject either premise (1) or premise (4).  Let’s begin with premise (1), which is that every event is causally determined.  So on the view that we’re going to examine now, <i>some</i> events, at least, are <i>not</i> causally determined; in particular, events of <i>willing</i> are not determined; our decision processes and choices are not, not <i>always</i>, determined.  At least <i>sometimes</i> when we choose to do something, the choice is <i>free</i>.  The claim needn’t be that our choices are <i>always</i> free; only that <i>sometimes</i> they are free.  Think of it like this -- what if I flip out and you have to put me in a padded cell, and I very deliberately decide to, I don’t know, pound my head on the walls.  Then I doubt you would want to say that I have <i>freely</i> decided to pound my head on the walls.  I’m in the grip of insanity.  So my decisions aren’t free, and I can’t be blamed if I want to hurt myself or others.  After all, that is why we have an insanity defense.  So the point is that if you believe that free will exists, you don’t have to say that <i>every</i> choice that <i>everyone</i> makes is free.  You only have to maintain that <i>some</i> choices that we make are free.  Having said that, let’s introduce a definition:
> 
> <i>Libertarianism</i> is the view that free will exists, because some acts of choosing, are not causally determined.
> 
> The word "libertarianism" is ambiguous.  It means, in the philosophy of mind, the doctrine that we have free will; but in political philosophy, it indicates strong support of individual liberties and a minimal amount of government in all spheres.  These are two totally independent doctrines, and we obviously aren’t going to talk about the political doctrine right now.
> 
> Libertarianism in the sense we’re talking about it now includes <i>two</i> doctrines, the first that free will exists, and the second that some events (namely, some choices we make) are not causally determined.  This second doctrine is called <i>indeterminism</i>.  Indeterminism is simply the claim that <i>not</i> every event is causally determined.
> 
> In this century, with the advent of quantum mechanics, the branch of physics dealing with subatomic particles, it has become rather common and popular to reject determinism.  Now, in order to make out this criticism of determinism I’m going to have to give you <i>another</i> formulation of what determinism says.  So here’s the alternative formulation:
> 
> <i>Determinism</i> is (alternative definition) the doctrine that, given a <i>complete</i> description of the location and momentum of every particle in the universe at present, together with a <i>complete</i> description of the set of laws that guide those particles, a perfect being could predict with certainty every event that has happened and that will happen in the universe.
> 
> In other words, if you know where everything is, and exactly how it operates, then, if you could do all the necessary calculations, you’d be able to predict <i>everything</i> that happens.  <i>Everything</i> would be predictable.  And after the fact, everything would have its causal explanation.  So you can see the relation between this definition and the earlier one given.  Suppose I state the set of causes that is sufficient to explain why a given event has occurred, and not some other event.  Well, that would be a complete description of the location and momentum of all the bodies that contributed to the event in question, together with a statement of the relevant causal laws.  So I think we can take the two definitions of "determinism" to be pretty much equivalent; if one is true, then the other is true.  They stand and fall together.
> 
> Now I’m going to give a criticism of the second definition of "determinism," which we can take as equally criticizing the first.  One of the basic results of quantum mechanics is the following.  There are certain subatomic particles about which we cannot say what their location and momentum is <i>at</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>time</i>.  If you say that the particle is at one specific location, then you can’t say what it’s momentum is; and if you specify its momentum, then you can’t say what its location is.  Well, that means that a "description of the location and momentum of every particle in the universe at present" cannot even be given!  Such a description would be impossible, given what we know from quantum mechanics.  So there are some predictions that we couldn’t make, no matter how powerful our computers were.  It just couldn’t be done.  Therefore, determinism, in the second sense defined above, is false.
> 
> Now if we got very deeply into the issues involved here, it would take us a very long time indeed, and we’d have to know a lot of physics.  So if you are totally baffled by this argument against determinism, let me refer you to p. 101 of the packet, and give you a really simple summary.  Quantum mechanics, a very difficult and technical part of physics, says that there are some very small particles that we can’t make predictions about.  So we can’t say that causal determinism holds for those particles.  That’s the gist of what I’m trying to get you to understand.
> 
> The trouble with this argument is that it doesn’t show that anything <i>other</i> than those subatomic particles is not determined.  I mean, let’s suppose it’s <i>true</i> that certain subatomic particles are "random," or undetermined.  That doesn’t mean that <i>anything</i> <i>else</i> is undetermined.  All this talk of how things work on the <i>subatomic</i> level doesn’t address how things work on the macro level, the level that we all live and operate on.  And in particular, it’s hard to see what the randomness of some subatomic particles might have to do with the process of volition.
> 
> About the <i>most</i> help that quantum mechanics might give to libertarianism is this: there are <i>exceptions</i> to the Principle of Causality, if we are to believe the physicists.  So we might say: maybe free will is another exception to this allegedly general rule, that all events are causally determined.  If it <i>were</i> an exception, it wouldn’t be the <i>only</i> exception.  So that’s something at least.  It makes the libertarian objection to determinism at least a <i>little</i> more plausible.  So much for the libertarian’s objection to determinism.
> 
> What can be said specifically against libertarianism itself?  Let’s suppose that, in fact, our choices are not determined at all.  Now, what’s the claim there?  Apparently, it’s that, when we choose, the event of choosing doesn’t have a cause.  A choice is a causeless event.  Or at least, the causes that it <i>does</i> have don’t <i>determine</i> the choice.  There is still some aspect of the choice that is uncaused.  Or perhaps you’d want to say that <i>I</i> am the cause of my choice; but then, to say that my choice is free, what I’d mean, as a libertarian, is that <i>nothing</i> <i>causes</i> <i>me</i> to choose what I do.  So then there’s an element of <i>myself</i> that is uncaused.  So the libertarian view, that some acts of choosing are not determined, can be spelled out in various ways.  Either a choice has no causes at all; or there are some aspects of the choice that are not caused; or though <i>I</i> entirely cause my choice, nonetheless there is something about <i>myself</i> that is uncaused.
> 
> Those are all different ways of understanding what it means to say that a choice is not determined.  But something they have in common is that there is a <i>randomness</i> involved in my choice.  After all, if your choice is in some sense <i>uncaused</i>, then to that extent what can it be but <i>random</i>?  It’s as though God rolls a die and whoops, there you go do something that has no causal explanation.  So when you were choosing to go on the picnic instead of to the movies, what made that choice <i>free</i> was this <i>random</i> element.  Total unpredictability: that’s what made your choice free.
> 
> But doesn’t that sound strange?  See here, free will is supposed to be what accounts for why we are morally responsible for what we do.  But now, if we’re libertarians, we’re saying that it’s this <i>random</i> <i>element</i> of a choice that makes the choice free -- and which makes us morally responsible for the choice!  But isn’t that strange?  Why should we be morally responsible for something that is totally random?  That doesn’t make any sense!
> 
> So let me explain the criticism of libertarianism here.  Libertarianism says that a choice is free <i>because</i> it is not determined.  And this means, as I said, that the choice is, to some extent, <i>random</i>.  But if the choice is random, why should we be held <i>responsible</i> for making the choice?  Freedom is supposed to be what makes us morally responsible; but why on earth would anyone say that it is causelessness, randomness, which makes us morally responsible?
> 
> I think that the problem here is in the libertarian notion of what free will is.  Free will doesn’t mean <i>random</i> or <i>causeless</i> will.  Well then what <i>is</i> free will?  Remember that we started out by saying that we <i>should</i> have <i>begun</i> by examining what free will is.  I think I have made my point now.  Perhaps if we had done started out by asking what free will is, then we wouldn’t have gotten into this confusion.  So let’s ask what free will is.
> 
> At the same time we ask this question, we are going to be examining premise number (4), which is: "If an act of choosing is causally determined, then it is not free."  Maybe a choice can be determined <i>and</i> free at the same time.  Don’t just assume that that’s a contradiction, before you have figured out what "free will" means.  Maybe when we learn what free will is, we will see that premise (4) is wrong.  Maybe once we have fixed on the right notion of free will, we won’t think that free will is incompatible with the will’s being determined.
> 
> 
> 
> C. Compatibilism and the definition of "free will."
> 
> In fact, we may as well now define a <i>third</i> position about free will and determinism, which combines elements of determinism and libertarianism:
> 
> <i>Compatibilism</i> is the view that free will exists, and that acts of choosing are causally determined.
> 
> This view is called "compatibilism" because it implies that the existence of free will is <i>compatible</i>, or consistent, with causal determinism.  So compatibilists reject premise (4) of the determinist’s argument; just because an act of choosing is causally determined, that doesn’t mean it’s not free.  It could still be free, even though it’s determined.  We simply have to have the correct conception of "free will."
> 
> So to support compatibilism, we will have to do as I said, and figure out once and for all what "free" does mean.  Let’s begin with a common formulation due to G. E. Moore.  Moore, the English philosopher writing near the beginning of this century, said that to say one chooses <i>freely</i> is to say that one <i>could</i> <i>have</i> <i>done</i> <i>otherwise</i>.  So if you freely choose to go on the picnic, you <i>could</i> <i>have</i> <i>gone</i> <i>to</i> <i>the</i> <i>movies</i> <i>instead</i>, or done something else entirely.  If you freely chose to sign up for this course, that means you could have signed up for a different course, or for no course at all.
> 
> Now I don’t think this conception of freedom is very helpful, because it’s not clear enough.  We could interpret "could have done otherwise" too many different ways.  We can always ask: "could have" in what sense?  In one way, even if I’m determined, I <i>could</i> <i>have</i> chosen otherwise; the very fact that I had other options itself means those other options were there before me, and I <i>could</i> <i>have</i> chosen them for all anybody knew.  In another way, if I’m determined, I <i>couldn’t</i> have chosen otherwise, because a choice that is totally determined would be a choice that I <i>must</i> make.  So maybe it’s true that, whenever we choose freely, we could have chosen otherwise; but this can’t work as a definition, because it’s just not clear.
> 
> So let’s look at another definition: to choose freely is to choose without compulsion.  This makes some sense; no one compelled you to go on a picnic; no one compelled you to take this course.  So you chose freely.  A definition like this is give on p. 102 of the packet.  But now consider this problem: if I go insane, and you want to say I no longer have free will, it’s not like there’s any <i>person</i> who is compelling me to choose to things.  At best you might say it’s my <i>insanity</i> which compels me to make my choices.  And in the same way, we want to say that little children can’t be held responsible for everything they do; their wills are not fully free, not yet.  But again, it’s not any <i>person</i> who is compelling them to do what they do.  It’s just that a toddler can’t go through a process of decision and choice that we’d want to call "free."  If we have free will, we <i>grow</i> <i>into</i> it; so freedom has to be something that we can develop.
> 
> Still, there’s <i>something</i> right about the proposal that a free choice is one that isn’t compelled; in other words, the process of volition can’t be <i>constrained</i> in certain ways, if it’s going to be free.  A free will is one that isn’t be constrained in <i>various</i> ways: by force from other people; by insanity; by drugs; or even, in the case of a little child, by immaturity.  But you can’t just say that a free choice is one that is not compelled or constrained, <i>period</i>.  Because that leave open the question: <i>What</i> <i>sorts</i> of things can compel or constrain the will?  Only <i>some</i> of those things make the will unfree.  So here’s the big question: What sorts of things, by constraining our ability to use our will, make the will unfree?
> 
> So here is <i>my</i> proposal -- I’ll just tell you what it is:
> 
> One’s choice is <i>free</i> iff it is the result of a decision process (whether a snap decision or a long deliberation procedure) which is not constrained by sufficient immaturity or impairment (as by insanity).
> 
> To understand this definition we need only see how it applies in various cases of free and unfree choices.  When you chose to go to the lake, the reason that was a free choice, I’m saying, is that it was the result of your own decision process, and that process was sufficiently mature and unimpaired.  On the other hand, when they lock me up in the asylum, and I have lost my free will, it’s just because my decision process, my faculty of volition, is sufficiently impaired to make you all say that I lack free will.  Or suppose that someone slips a dangerous drug into your morning coffee, and you decide that it would be a dandy idea to go out on High Street and play in traffic.  Well in that case, you didn’t freely choose to play in traffic, just because your ability to deliberate about what you are doing is impaired by the drug.
> 
> One problem with this definition is that this word "sufficient" is vague.  <i>How</i> <i>much</i> impairment, and <i>of</i> <i>what</i> <i>sorts</i>, would be enough to make my choice unfree?  If I’ve had a couple of beers, is that enough?  Probably not.  What if I am forced to drink a six-pack in a half an hour -- would that be enough?  Probably.  But there are going to be borderline cases, where we don’t know whether we should say I have free will or not, according to this definition.  Still I think that’s OK, because the concept of free will is itself one that has borderline cases.  In some cases, we <i>can’t</i> say for sure whether or not someone choses freely or not.  Think of someone who pleads insanity in a criminal trial.  We say that if he knew the nature of his actions then he was insane; but in some cases it’s just not perfectly clear whether a person knows the nature of his actions.  We can’t say whether his decision processes were sufficiently impaired by his insanity.
> 
> But my claim is that this definition does at least get this right, that the freedom of the will depends on whether our ability to deliberate is sufficiently mature and unimpaired.  And if the word "sufficiently" is vague, which it is, then I will also claim that our concept of free will is vague in just the same way.
> 
> This definition of free will has an enormous advantage over the others that I gave.  The advantage is that I can give a good argument for it.  So let me give you this argument.  Remember now that we are morally responsible for what we do <i>because</i> we have free will; unless we do in fact have free will, we can’t be praised or condemned for what we do.  So it’s free will, if we have it, that makes us morally responsible beings.
> 
> Well in that case, we had better get a definition of "free will" that accounts for the fact that we’re responsible.  Just keep this in mind: if we’re free, then we’re responsible.  So whatever freedom is, it has to be something that makes us responsible for what we do.  The thing that makes us free has to be something that makes us praiseable and blameable, as it were.
> 
> In that light, look again at our definition of "free choice" given above: a free choice is the result of a decision process which is not constrained by sufficient immaturity or impairment.  So let me ask you: on <i>this</i> account of freedom, is freedom something that makes us responsible for what we do?  Is having a mature, unimpaired decision process what makes us responsible for what we do?  I think so.  If I am a rational adult, I can be praised and blamed for what I do; and the reason that I can is precisely <i>that</i> I am a rational adult.  So, I think we can infer that free will is a will unimpaired by sufficient immaturity and impairment such as drug-induced states, or brainwashing, or insanity.
> 
> And if this is what free will is, then we can safely reject premise (4) of the determinist’s argument.  If an act of choosing is causally determined, then it could still be free; if I am a rational adult, with faculties unimpaired, then I’m free, regardless of whether there is a complete causal explanation for my choices.
> 
> Now just for the fun it look back at the definition of "free will" that the determinist and libertarian seem to agree on.  They seem to agree that the will is free when it is <i>uncaused</i> or <i>random</i>.  But honestly, is it the fact that it’s <i>uncaused</i> or <i>random</i> that explains why rational adults are responsible for what they do?  Of course not.  It’s the fact that they have a fully-functioning faculty of deliberation, which they <i>could</i> use, if they wanted to.  We are not free and responsible beings because our will is uncaused; we are free and responsible beings because our will is operational and fully-functioning.  So free will is compatible with determinism.  I will be so bold as to say that this is my own position, but that isn’t to say, of course, that you may not quite reasonably hold some contrary position.
> 
> There is a position opposed to compatibilism, namely <i>incompatibilism</i>.  I will conclude this chapter with a very brief discussion of this view.  Here is a definition:
> 
> <i>Incompatibilism</i> is the view that the existence of free will is incompatible with the claim that all events are causally determined.
> 
> Anyone who accepts premise (4) of the determinist’s argument is an incompatibilist.  So determinists are incompatibilists, and they deny the existence of free will.  And libertarians are incompatibilists as well; but they deny that all events are causally determined.  What these incompatibilists have in common is the assumption that if a choice is free, then at least some aspect of it is uncaused.  And we just got done debunking that assumption.  I doubt there are any good arguments for it.  So I hope you’ll forgive me if I end up on a somewhat dogmatic note, and say that incompatibilism seems to me pretty obviously false.
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981081483
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Today our topic is the philosophy of language, sometimes called <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i>.  This field in particular is difficult to give a clear definition of; but here is a definition anyway:
> 
> The <i>philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>language</i> is the study of philosophical questions about language, especially about meaning and truth (of words, phrases, and sentences) in general.
> 
> I say "in general" at the end of the definition because the philosophy of language doesn’t ask what <i>particular</i> words mean, or whether <i>particular</i> sentences are true.  (Except of course for words and sentences about the language.)  Rather, it asks what meaning and truth <i>in</i> <i>general</i> are.  What are the meanings of the words "meaning" and "truth"?  How are we to understand these concepts?
> 
> Maybe, on first glance, the philosophy of language doesn’t look so interesting.  To talk about the meaning of words sounds like we’re talking about dry boring stuff -- grammar and dictionaries.  But remember, grammar books and dictionaries only <i>codify</i> how we use language.  Codification might indeed be boring.  But language <i>itself</i> is extremely important and of daily interest to us all.  After all, you come to class to listen to me use language for hours on end!  Or of far more interest than that would be the language you use with your girlfriend or boyfriend, or spouse; that’s bound to be of extreme interest to you.
> 
> And of course that’s far from the end of it.  Language, meaning, and truth are important not just because they are used daily with important effects; language has shaped your development, from your earliest childhood and continuing to the present.  You have a whole integrated set of concepts which you have associated with certain words -- words like "object," "love," "good," "God," "masculine," "feminine," "art," "government," and so on.  Some philosophers have even thought that it is impossible to <i>have</i> <i>thoughts</i> without having learned a language.  By learning the <i>meanings</i> of these words, you have shaped an entire view of the universe and your place in it.  I am not saying that your philosophy is <i>only</i> <i>or</i> <i>just</i> your understanding of what important words mean; of course there’s much more to it than that.  What I’m saying is that in arriving at your present philosophical outlook, questions about meaning have played a central, extremely important role.  Accordingly it’s not by accident that in these chapters I typically begin by clarifying terminology, drawing distinctions between different senses of words, and so forth.  My point then is that the philosophy of language is important because language is important, and language is important because it is so useful in our relationships and in our development and education.
> 
> I’m going to assume that you’re convinced that the philosophy of language is, or at least might very well be, important.  Next I want to explain the relationship of the philosophy of language to what we have studied so far.  And then I’ll give some specific examples of questions in the philosophy of language.
> 
> I want you to imagine that we have, up to this point, been building a system of philosophy.  So imagine that we have been trying to describe some of the most basic aspects of everything that there is to describe.  So we began with metaphysics, studying the most basic structure of the universe; to this we added considerations about God, and about the most basic functions of the human mind, and how the mind is connected to the body and the world at large.  So suppose then that we have formulated some fairly sophisticated theory of mind, perception, will, and other cognitive processes; what we are ready to do next is to describe the most basic concepts behind our use of language.  After this, we will have populated our universe with existent physical objects, properties, changes, perhaps God, minds, mental processes like perception and volition, and language-use, meanings, and truth.  What we will be set up to do, then, is to talk about more sophisticated facts and processes characterizing human nature -- what knowledge is, goodness and obligation, then political organization, and finally art.
> 
> So let’s get down to the philosophy of language itself.  I said I would introduce some of the questions the philosophy of language asks.  It is probably an oversimplification, but probably the simplest and clearest way to put it is as follows. The philosophy of language asks a series of variations on <i>two</i> questions: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>meaning</i>?  And: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>truth</i>?  There are no doubt <i>other</i> questions in the field which <i>aren’t</i> variations on these two questions; such as, "What is a language?" and questions about the syntax of a language, which are not in any direct way connected up with meaning or truth.
> 
> But I think there is a good reason why questions about meaning and truth -- <i>those</i> two qualities -- are central to the philosophy of language.  To talk about meaning is to talk about how we, using words, sentences, and so forth, <i>attempt</i> to describe the world; to talk about truth is talk about how those attempts to describe the world might <i>succeed</i>.  I’m saying that <i>meaning</i> is all about how we try to paint a picture of the world using words; and <i>truth</i> is all about how the pictures we paint can accurate, or inaccurately represent the world.
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981081546
0a1,2
> See also TheMeaningOfMeaning; ProperNames; and TheoriesOfTruth.
> 
17c19
< But I think there is a good reason why questions about meaning and truth -- <i>those</i> two qualities -- are central to the philosophy of language.  To talk about meaning is to talk about how we, using words, sentences, and so forth, <i>attempt</i> to describe the world; to talk about truth is talk about how those attempts to describe the world might <i>succeed</i>.  I’m saying that <i>meaning</i> is all about how we try to paint a picture of the world using words; and <i>truth</i> is all about how the pictures we paint can accurate, or inaccurately represent the world.
---
> But I think there is a good reason why questions about meaning and truth -- <i>those</i> two qualities -- are central to the philosophy of language.  To talk about meaning is to talk about how we, using words, sentences, and so forth, <i>attempt</i> to describe the world; to talk about truth is talk about how those attempts to describe the world might <i>succeed</i>.  I’m saying that <i>meaning</i> is all about how we try to paint a picture of the world using words; and <i>truth</i> is all about how the pictures we paint can accurate, or inaccurately represent the world.
------
TheMeaningOfMeaning|981081557
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So let’s talk about the meaning of "meaning."  And so we are going to explore, for a little bit, what is called the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i>.  We are going to focus on <i>linguistic</i> <i>meaning</i> -- the meaning that words, sentences, and other items of language have, as well as the meaning that we human beings can have in using those items of language.  Because "meaning" is, like most English words, highly ambiguous -- has lots of different senses.  But when we ask what the meaning of "meaning" is, in the theory of meaning, we’re asking about <i>language</i> or linguistic meaning.
> 
> The awful thing -- what makes the theory of meaning so difficult -- is that there are lots of different kinds <i>linguistic</i> meaning.  So it’s better to speak of the meanings, plural, of "meaning": the <i>meanings</i> of "meaning."  Let me start explaining this, with an example.
> 
> Suppose I’m at a party and I’m talking to a guy for a bit.  His name is Jerry.  It’s a noisy party but I think I hear Jerry say that his name is "Barry," and that he’s a bachelor.  So now I incorrectly think this guy’s name is Barry, and not Jerry.  So then I move on and start talking to a single female friend.  She points in the general direction of Jerry, and asks, "Who is that, and is he single?"  I don’t notice that she’s actually pointing to <i>some</i> <i>other</i> guy, not Jerry.  And the name of the guy that she <i>is</i> pointing to is, in fact, "Barry."  But I think she’s pointing to Jerry, and I think that Jerry’s name is "Barry," and so I tell her, "Oh, Barry is a bachelor."  Now let’s discuss about the <i>meaning</i> of "Barry is a bachelor."
> 
> First, draw a distinction between what <i>I</i> mean, and <i>what</i> <i>my</i> <i>words</i> mean.  What do I mean when I say, "Barry is a bachelor"?  By contrast, what do <i>my</i> <i>words</i>, "Barry is a bachelor," mean in this situation?  There are two different things that <i>have</i> meaning, or that <i>bear</i> meaning: namely, speakers, and words.  So the distinction has been drawn, by the prominent contemporary American philosopher Saul Kripke, between <i>speaker’s</i> meaning and <i>semantic</i> meaning.  The speaker’s meaning is, roughly stated, what the speaker means by saying something; the semantic meaning is, roughly stated, what the words uttered by the speaker mean.  Sometimes we want to say that the speaker’s meaning and the semantic meaning are different -- simply because we don’t always say what we mean.  Sometimes we use words that do not actually express what we want to express; so our <i>words</i> mean one thing, and what <i>we</i> <i>mean</i> <i>by</i> <i>them</i> is another thing.
> 
> To use the Barry/Jerry example: when I say "Barry is a bachelor," what <i>I</i> mean, what I intend to say is, roughly paraphrased, that the man I met is a bachelor.  But what <i>my</i> <i>words</i> mean is that the man my female friend is pointing to, a man whose name really is "Barry," is a bachelor.  The speaker’s meaning here is about one person, while the semantic meaning is about a different person.  Usually they match up, but sometimes they don’t.
> 
> Here’s another example where speaker’s meaning and semantic meaning don’t match up.  Suppose I’m out stargazing, just after sunset.  So the stars are just starting to come out.  So I mention something about "the brightest star in the sky" to a friend.  Now it so happens that at that moment, the brightest star in the sky is the star called "Vega."  So my words, "the brightest star in the sky," refer to the star Vega.  But what <i>I</i> mean is actually a brighter celestial object, namely the planet Venus.  I just don’t realize at that time that that object is a planet, not a star.  So what I mean by "the brightest star in the sky" is Venus, whereas what my words mean is Vega.  The speaker’s meaning differs from the semantic meaning in that case.
> 
> So that’s one complication that a theory of meaning has to deal with: different kinds of meaning-<i>bearers</i>.  When we ask, "What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?" then you can now come back and ask, cleverly, "Do you mean the meaning of ‘speaker’s meaning’ or the meaning of ‘semantic meaning’?"
> 
> Now let me introduce another complication, about semantic meaning-bearers -- you know, words, phrases, sentences, and so forth.  Well, actually, I just pointed to that complication: we can speak of <i>individual</i> <i>words</i>, all by themselves, such as the word "bachelor," having meaning; we can speak of various kinds of <i>phrases</i>, such as "the brightest star in the sky," and "is larger than"; we can speak of the meaning of whole <i>sentences</i>, such as "Barry is a bachelor."  The meaning of a whole sentence is clearly a different critter from the meaning of an individual word.
> 
> And then among words and phrases we can distinguish different parts of speech, such as noun phrases and adjective phrases, and of course those are going to have different kinds of meaning.  And clearly <i>proper</i> <i>names</i>, which are names that stand for individuals, like "Jerry" and "Barry," and "Paris," and "Venus," are going to have yet another kind of meaning.  Now, there’s no way that I could discuss with you all the different kinds of meaning involved here; so I’m going to focus in on the meaning of just one kind of language item -- proper names.  And remember, we <i>could</i> talk about either the <i>speaker’s</i> meaning when proper names are used, or else about the <i>semantic</i> meaning of proper names themselves.  We’re going to ignore the speaker’s meaning and focus in on semantic meaning.
------
ProperNames|981081604
1c1,59
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So that means we have a relatively limited topic: What is the semantic meaning of proper names?  What do names themselves mean?  My name is "Larry" and presumably that word, "Larry," has meaning; so what is it?  You’d think that would be a fairly clear and straightforward question.  You’d think the question is not at all mysterious, since, for example, the name "Larry" means <i>me</i>!  So I am the meaning of the name.  That makes sense, right?  Well, it may not be so simple.  We’re still not done considering complications.
> 
> I just got done alluding to a view about the meaning of proper names, which we can formulate as the following theory:
> 
> The <i>referential</i> theory of proper names is the view that the meaning of a proper name is the individual to which it refers (denotes, picks out).
> 
> Another name for the theory is the "Fido"-Fido theory -- because the name "Fido" refers to, or denotes, or picks out, well, that little dog Fido.  So the name "Fido" means the dog Fido.  But now wait a minute.  Lots of dogs have been named "Fido."  Lots of people have been named "Larry."  The referential theory talks about proper names as though there’s only <i>one</i> <i>thing</i> that any proper name, such as "Fido," can mean.  Right?  It says: "the meaning of a proper name is <i>the</i> <i>individual</i>," that one item, "to which it refers."  But then isn’t that wrong, to say that a proper name like "Fido" can mean any <i>one</i> dog in particular?
> 
> Not really, because when we use proper names, we usually understand by the total context <i>which</i> individual we’re using the proper name to pick out.  So when I said that the name "Larry" means me, you all understood, of course, that when I used the name "Larry" it meant one of the gazillions of guys named "Larry."  But just to be clear, let’s update the statement of the referential theory, so it includes this stuff about context.  We’ll put it like this:
> 
> The <i>referential</i> theory of proper names is the view that the meaning of a given use of a proper name is the individual to which, in the context of the use, it refers (denotes, picks out).
> 
> So this is better.  It might be the case that the name "Fido" picks out lots of different dogs; but <i>a</i> <i>given</i> <i>use</i> of the name refers to just <i>one</i> of the animals named "Fido."
> 
> I suppose this looks like a very reasonable theory.  But consider now the following objection, which is due to the extremely influential German philosopher and logician, Gottlob Frege, who worked around the turn of the century.  He wrote a famous article called "On Sense and Reference," in which he said that proper names have two different kinds of meaning: not only their <i>reference</i>, but also their <i>sense</i>.  So Frege said that there was more to the meaning of proper names than what they referred to.  You also have to consider their sense, he said.
> 
> Consider examples like the following.  Suppose you know that the name "Cicero" refers to a famous ancient Roman statesman.  Well if you didn’t know that then you do now.  Suppose I tell you next that the name "Tully" refers to an ancient philosopher who was also an orator.  I’m sure most of you didn’t know that.  But now consider.  If I were to tell you, "Cicero is Cicero," you’d say, "Yeah, so?"  You haven’t learned anything then.  But if I tell you, "Cicero is Tully," then you <i>have</i> learned something -- and that’s a matter of fact, indeed Cicero is Tully; the man’s full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Well, the argument goes, the only way it can be <i>informative</i> to say that Cicero is Tully is if the two names, "Cicero" and "Tully," differ somehow in their meanings.  They have, as Frege said, different <i>senses</i>.
> 
> Let me give you another example.  Both of the examples are totally hackneyed but if you’re going to get a traditional introduction to the theory of meaning then you’ve got to be exposed to them!  There is bright point of light which appears in the morning sky, just before sunrise, called "the Morning Star"; and similarly, just after sunset sometimes you can see a bright point of light in the sky, and this has been called "the Evening Star."  And so the proper name, "the Morning Star," refers to a particular celestial object that appears the morning; and the proper name, "the Evening Star," refers to a particular celestial object that appears in the evening.  And well, you’ve probably guessed it -- in fact the Morning Star <i>is</i> the Evening Star, and they are both the planet Venus and not a star at all.
> 
> So you’ve been informed and enlightened; you’ve been told that the two different names actually refer to the same thing, and you (probably) didn’t know that before.  If the two names had <i>exactly</i> the same meaning, though, how could it be informative or enlightening to be told that the two names refer to the same thing?  They couldn’t.  So "the Evening Star" must differ somehow in its meaning from "the Morning Star."  Since they <i>refer</i> to the same thing, namely Venus, it must be <i>something</i> <i>else</i> about their meaning that differs.  And this other thing we call <i>sense</i>.  So the <i>sense</i> of "the Morning Star" differs from the <i>sense</i> of the "Evening Star."  Frege then said that a proper name <i>denotes</i> its reference and <i>expresses</i> its sense.  
> 
> So then what sort of thing is a sense?  It’s basically like a description of a thing the word refers to; you can regard the following as a definition of "sense":
> 
> The <i>sense</i> of a proper name is a set of properties that can be expressed as a description that picks out the reference of the name.
> 
> To take an example: the sense of "the Morning Star" would be a set of properties that can be expressed as a description; and that description would pick out the planet Venus from among all the other stars and planets in the sky.  So the description might be: "the brightest natural object in the sky, aside from the sun and the moon, which appears occasionally before sunrise."  Something like that description would express the sense of "the Morning Star."  And then how would the description of the sense of "the Evening Star" go?  Maybe like this: "the brightest natural object in the sky, aside from the sun and the moon, which appears occasionally after sunset."
> 
> Now remember, we started out our discussion of proper names with the referential theory, the "Fido"-Fido Theory, which says that the meaning of a proper name is simply the thing to which it refers.  But now if we say, with Frege and some others, that proper names have a <i>sense</i> as well as a reference, then we have to change our theory.  So here’s the new theory:
> 
> The <i>descriptivist</i> theory of proper names is the view that the meaning of a given use of a proper name is constituted by (1) the individual to which, in the context of the use, it refers (denotes, picks out), and (2) a set of properties that can be expressed as a description that picks out the reference of the name.  (1) is the <i>reference</i> and (2) is the <i>sense</i>.
> 
> So according to the descriptivist theory of meaning, there’s a description of the sense of proper names, and that description would, like a definition, <i>pick</i> <i>out</i> the reference of the proper name.  In fact, if you will remember that distinction we drew between the <i>extension</i> and the <i>intension</i> of a general term; reference and sense is the same sort of distinction, only applied to proper names, rather than general terms.  The extension of a general term like "dog" is just all the dogs that are out there; the extension is what the word can be used to refer to.  The intension of a general term is basically a description of what all dogs have in common; it’s what the definition expresses.  So you can think of the <i>sense</i> of a proper name something like an <i>identifying</i> <i>description</i> of an individual -- as it were, a definition of a name.  So the sense of <i>my</i> name, "Larry," would list some salient facts about me, that picked me out, that distinguished me from other people.  And then to return to what the descriptivist theory of meaning says: it says that in order to say what the name "Larry" means, not only would you have to say that it means <i>me</i>; you’d also have to specify the sense of the name, that is, you’d have to give that identifying description of me.
> 
> Now, there have been a lot of philosophers who have <i>denied</i> that there is anything like a <i>sense</i> of proper names.  Instead, they advocate the so-called <i>causal</i> theory, which I’ll define in a little bit.  But first I want to say what the causal theorists <i>deny</i>.  The causal theorists say: in order to give the meaning of a proper name, you <i>don’t</i> have to express the sense; you <i>don’t</i> have to give an identifying description of the individual that bears the name.  They think that, in order to say what a name means, we can just stick with the referential theory; and then all you have to do is account for what causes proper names to refer to the individuals to which they refer.  Why, they ask, does any given proper name refer to the individual that it does?  So the causal theorists, the people who think that proper names don’t have senses, still feel they have to ask: How do proper names come to refer to the individuals that they do refer to?
> 
> So how would a causal theorist answer that question?  Well, something like this.  In naming a newborn baby, traditionally we have taken the baby to a priest or pastor who baptizes and names the baby, say "Jane Doe."  So the pastor says, "This child’s name is ‘Jane Doe’."  And henceforth everyone calls the little girl "Jane."  With that initial act, the act of <i>christening</i> as it’s called, the pastor gives the girl her name.  This seems all fairly straightforward.  So we were asking: How do proper names come to refer to the individuals that they do refer to?  In the case of our Jane, how does the name "Jane Doe" come to refer to Jane?  The answer is obvious: Jane was <i>christened</i> "Jane."
> 
> However, not everyone who knows Jane was at Jane’s christening.  So how is it that when <i>they</i> use the name "Jane Doe," they are referring to Jane?  Well, that’s obvious as well: there is a causal chain that passes from the original observers of Jane’s christening to everyone who uses her name.  For example, maybe Jane’s friend Jill wasn’t at the christening, but Jill learns Jane’s name from Jane’s mother, who <i>was</i> at the christening.
> 
> The causal theory says, then, that all proper names get their meaning -- their reference is fixed, made <i>rigid</i> as Kripke says -- by an initial act of christening.  Whether you’re naming a person, a ship, a town, a planet, or whatever: there’s that original act of naming, and then the thing named has its name <i>rigidly</i>, so that the name is called a <i>rigid</i> <i>designator</i> of what it refers to.  That’s a technical term: <i>rigid</i> <i>designator</i>.  Here’s a definition:
> 
> A name is a <i>rigid</i> <i>designator</i> iff it denotes its reference in all possible worlds. 
> 
> So the name "Jane Doe" is a rigid designator; which means that it denotes Jane in all possible worlds.  And what <i>that</i> means is that, throughout all kinds of possible changes that Jane might undergo, all the different ways that she is or might have been, the name will refer to <i>her</i>.
> 
> So then it’s not the <i>sense</i> of the name "Jane," not any <i>particular</i> <i>set</i> <i>of</i> <i>properties</i> of Jane, that we use to refer to Jane.  Because those properties might change -- they might have been totally different.  But Jane would still be Jane.  In fact, we can refer to Jane without knowing anything about her -- except the fact that she’s called <i>Jane</i>.  So it’s possible to refer to Jane without knowing anything like a <i>sense</i> of the name "Jane."  And the reason, Kripke said, that that’s possible, is that there was that original baptismal act, when Jane was given her name; and in order for us to succeed in referring to her, there <i>just</i> has to be a causal chain leading from our present use of the name and that original baptism.
> 
> So if you want the causal theory of names stated briefly, here it is:
> 
> The <i>causal</i> <i>theory</i> of proper names is the view that the meaning of a given use of a proper name is constituted by the individual to which, in the context of the use, it refers (denotes, picks out); and the name’s reference is originally fixed by a baptismal act, whereupon the name becomes a rigid designator of the reference; and later uses of the name succeed in referring to the reference by being linked by a causal chain to that original baptismal act.
> 
> Well, I don’t have time to say anything else about the theory of meaning.  I’ve just given you a <i>sample</i> of one problem within the theory of meaning -- the problem of the meaning of proper names.  This is to say nothing, or very little anyway, about the meaning of, for example, <i>whole</i> <i>sentences</i>.  
> 
> But let’s talk a little about the meaning of whole sentences, because our next topic is truth, and it’s whole sentences that we’re going to want to say are <i>true</i> or not.  That makes sense, right?  Individual words and phrases aren’t true or false; only whole sentences are true and false.
> 
> And not just any old sentences are candidates for truth; they have to be <i>meaningful</i> as well.  You can take the following as a principle: "A sentence can be true or false <i>only</i> <i>if</i> it is meaningful."  In other words, if a sentence is just nonsense, then it can’t be either true <i>or</i> false.  So that’s one very important connection between meaning and truth: being meaningful is a prerequisite of truth or of falsehood.
> 
> You might object, "Well, wait a minute.  Here’s a nonsense sentence: ‘The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.’  Why couldn’t we just say that that is <i>false</i>?"  Well, here’s why that nonsense sentence can’t be false: if it’s false then its opposite has to be true.  Here’s another principle you can take home with you: "If P is false, then not-P is true."  So just apply that principle to the nonsense sentence I gave you.  We want to say "The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" -- that’s our P -- is <i>false</i>.  Well then, not-P must be true.  So then it must be true that the slithy toves did <i>not</i> gyre and gimble in the wabe.  Yes indeed, I strenuously insist, the slithy toves <i>did</i> <i>not</i> gyre and gimble!  Nope!  And if they did gyre or gimble it certainly wasn’t in the wabe!  Well, that’s just nonsense as you can see.  So, in order to be true <i>or</i> false, as I said, a sentence has to be meaningful.  And as I said, that’s a very important connection between the topics of meaning and truth.
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981081628
1c1
< See also TheMeaningOfMeaning; ProperNames; and TheoriesOfTruth.
---
> See also TheMeaningOfMeaning; ProperNames; MeaningfulNess; and TheoriesOfTruth.
------
MeaningfulNess|981081665
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Before we get into epistemology, which is the topic for the next two days, I want to say something about the topic of meaningfulness.  Last time someone very sensibly asked me to clarify what it means to say that a sentence is meaningful.  We discussed the notion that it might the same as understandability; the idea was that, if a sentence is meaningful then we can understand it, and if we can understand it, then it’s meaningful.  But I raised the problem that of course there are some sentences which many of us can’t understand, but nonetheless they’re perfectly meaningful.  Still, you might say: if a sentence can be understood by <i>someone</i>, then <i>that’s</i> enough to make the sentence meaningful.
> 
> Now, I’m still not satisfied by this account of meaningfulness, if for no other reason than that it doesn’t say <i>why</i> sentences are meaningful.  Look at it this way: if the world’s greatest genius can understand some incredibly complex, jargon-filled sentence, there’s something about <i>the</i> <i>sentence</i> that makes it meaningful, right?  It’s not <i>just</i> the fact that the genius can understand it; there has to be some <i>reason</i> why the genius can understand it.  Well, there has to be a meaning there for the genius to understand!  And that just raises the question: When does a sentence have a meaning and when doesn’t it?
> 
> I’m not going to go into this in much depth, but I just wanted to say that it clearly has something to do with the fact that <i>the</i> <i>words</i> <i>in</i> the sentence have a meaning.  Roughly put: If a sentence is meaningful, then each word in the sentence has some meaning.  That principle seems to me at least generally true, if not <i>always</i> true.  Take the sentence, "Barry is a bachelor."  It’s meaningful; and each word in that sentence, "Barry," "is," "a," and "bachelor," has a meaning in the English language.  That doesn’t mean that it has a <i>reference</i>, right?  Because as I said, different kinds of words have different kinds of meaning.  But after we have worked out our theory of meaning, then we can say when a word of a certain sort has a meaning, and what sort of thing its meaning might be.  So even the words "is" and "a" have <i>some</i> sort of meaning that we would have determined.
> 
> By contrast, take the converse of the principle stated above: If each word in a sentence has a meaning, then the whole sentence is meaningful.  Do you think that’s right?  Well, consider the following string of word: "Had computer sky flatly in cat over."  Each word in that "sentence," if you want to call it a sentence, is meaningful.  But it certainly is not meaningful.  So maybe you could amend the principle, like this: If each word in a <i>grammatical</i> sentence has a meaning, then the whole sentence is meaningful.  But even this principle is incorrect.  Here’s a counterexample: "The evil kitten used green songs to grate cheese."  That’s perfectly grammatical, but I don’t think we want to dignify that sentence as <i>meaningful</i>.
> 
> So the question then is: <i>what</i>, in addition to having meaningful words in a grammatical order, does a sentence have to have, in order to be meaningful?  I’m not going to try to improve the principle; but it seems pretty obvious to me that you could improve it in various ways.
> 
> I would be irresponsible if I did not mention, before I leave this topic, a very important theory of meaningfulness, called <i>verificationism</i>.  Here’s a definition:
> 
> A sentence is <i>meaningful</i> iff it is at least in principle <i>verifiable</i>, i.e., there are some conditions under which it could be shown to be true <i>or</i> false.
> 
> If "Barry is a bachelor" is meaningful, on this theory, then there are some conditions that could be fulfilled, under which you would have shown that Barry is indeed a bachelor.  But if there are no such conditions then the sentence, "Barry is a bachelor," would be meaningless; of course there are such conditions, so <i>that</i> sentence <i>is</i> meaningful.  On the other hand, "The evil kitten used green songs to grate cheese" is meaningless, because there aren’t any conditions under which this sentence could be shown to be true.  How could you show that sentence to be true?  When would I know that I was looking at an evil kitten?  When would I know that the kitten was using a song?  What is a green song?  How could a kitten use a song to grate cheese?  Well, the point is that you <i>couldn’t</i> show this sentence to be true; there isn’t any way to do it because we don’t even know what observations we could make, that would confirm it in the slightest.
> 
> Very briefly I want to raise one problem for verificationism.  It’s the same problem that I raised for the view that meaningfulness is understandability.  Namely, this view doesn’t seem to explain <i>why</i> a sentence is meaningful.  It might be <i>perfectly</i> <i>true</i> that, if a sentence is meaningful, then it can be verified (or falsified).  But it seems like the <i>reason</i> that it can be verified, or falsified, is the <i>fact</i> that it’s meaningful.  I mean, again, this view faces this problem: what is it <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>sentence</i> that makes it verifiable, or falsifiable?  <i>That</i> is what will make the sentence meaningful.
> 
> And in my opinion anyway, it’s probably going to turn out to be a function of a grammatical combination of meaningful words, plus some other conditions (like, the right words being joined together).  I suspect that that is what would make a sentence understandable, <i>and</i> verifiable or falsifiable, <i>and</i> meaningful.  But that’s all I’m going to say about meaningfulness.  On to epistemology.
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981081709
1c1
< See also TheMeaningOfMeaning; ProperNames; MeaningfulNess; and TheoriesOfTruth.
---
> See also TheMeaningOfMeaning; ProperNames; MeaningfulNess; NaiveRelativismAboutTruth; and TheoriesOfTruth.
------
NaiveRelativismAboutTruth|981081725
1c1,49
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So what <i>is</i> truth?  Here’s a true claim: "2+2=4."  Here’s another: "Some dogs bark frequently."  Here’s another: "Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth."  Here’s another: "Killing people for kicks is morally wrong."  <i>All</i> of those sentences are meaningful and, moreover, true.  So what do they have in common?  What makes them all <i>true</i> claims, as opposed to <i>false</i> claims?  That’s the problem we’re going to try to solve next.
> 
> Now I imagine that quite a few of you think that there is no such thing as <i>truth</i>, <i>period</i>.  Whenever I say that a claim is true, what I really mean is that the claim is true <i>for</i> <i>me</i>.  It may or may not be true <i>for</i> <i>you</i>.  So when I say that <i>it’s</i> <i>true</i> that ice is frozen water, what I really mean is that <i>it’s</i> <i>true</i> <i>for</i> <i>me</i> that ice is frozen water.  It’s not true, <i>period</i>, that ice is frozen water.  So we may define a kind of relativism, as follows:
> 
> <i>Relativism</i> <i>about</i> <i>truth</i> is the view that whether a claim is true or false depends in some way upon each individual person; so "P is true" is always short for "P is true <i>for</i> <i>S</i> (a person)."
> 
> I’m going to try to convince you that this view is not just incorrect, it’s really obviously incorrect.  And believe it or not, hardly any actual philosophers are relativists about truth; hardly any of them share this opinion that there is no such thing as truth, period.  Almost all philosophers today think that there is truth, period.  I imagine this is surprising to some of you -- you’d think that the relativism that pervades our society starts with philosophy professors and trickle down from there.  But that’s just not the case.  Most philosophy professors <i>aren’t</i> relativists about truth.  So next I’ll give you some objections to relativism about truth.
> 
> First objection.  There are some rather obvious counterexamples to the view that the truth of a claim depends on an individual.  Take, for example, the claim that ice is frozen water, or the claim that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, or that 2+2=4, or that the world is more spherical than flat.  Do you really want to maintain that <i>whether</i> those claims are true depends, in any way, on an individual?  That just seems extremely implausible.  I mean, <i>why</i> <i>on</i> <i>earth</i> would you believe that our attitudes makes <i>any</i> <i>difference</i> <i>whatsoever</i> to whether such claims are true?  I mean, suppose a child thinks that ice isn’t frozen water, but is a special kind of rock that is different from water.  Would that make it <i>true</i> <i>for</i> <i>the</i> <i>child</i> that ice is a special kind of rock?  I have a hard time seeing why anyone would want to say that.  OK, so that’s one reason not to accept relativism about truth.
> 
> Second objection.  Relativism doesn’t give any positive account of what truth <i>is</i>.  It just says that whatever truth is, it depends on individuals.  So what is it that depends on individuals?  Truth.  Right: so what is truth?  The point then is that <i>even</i> <i>if</i> truth is relative, you’ve still got to say <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> that is supposed to be relative.  Saying that truth is relative doesn’t tell us what truth is.  Now, this is an objection to relativism only if you take relativism to be a theory about what truth is.  So far, this objection just raises a question.
> 
> In my experience with undergraduates and others who espouse relativism, there does seem to be a theory of what truth is that goes along with relativism.  The theory is basically the following:
> 
> P is <i>true</i> <i>for</i> <i>S</i> iff S believes that P.
> 
> So "Ice is frozen water" is true for me if, and only if, I believe that ice is frozen water.  Basically then, truth is <i>belief</i>.  So remember my definition of "relativism about truth"; it was "the view that whether a claim is true or false depends in some way upon each individual person."  We might ask: <i>how</i> <i>does</i> the truth of a claim depend on each individual person?  The above definition of "truth" explains it: the truth of a claim depends on whether an individual <i>believes</i> it.  If I believe the claim, it’s true for me; if I disbelieve it, then it’s false for me; if I haven’t made up my mind, then the claim is neither true nor false for me.
> 
> That leads us to the second objection: namely, that it is extremely implausible that the concepts of belief and of truth are the same.  I can point out all sorts of differences that make it very clear that the concepts of belief and truth are different.  For one thing, if belief and truth are the same, then why do we have two different words for the same thing?  Why don’t we just always talk about belief, or always about truth?  And why do we often talk as though they’re different -- as though there are such things as <i>false</i> <i>beliefs</i>, and <i>truths</i> <i>that</i> <i>haven’t</i> <i>been</i> <i>discovered</i> <i>yet</i>?  If belief and truth are the same, then everything I believe is true <i>for</i> <i>me</i>; do we really want to say that?
> 
> That seems like it would be far too easy for me to achieve truth; all I have to do is believe something, and <i>voila</i>, I have the truth!  No need to do experiments or give arguments to prove that a claim is true; just believe it and that <i>makes</i> the claim true!  Honestly, what’s the point of arguing about things if belief and truth are the same?  An argument is supposed to show that its conclusion is true.  But if truth is just the same as belief, then why do I need to go to the trouble of giving an argument?  My believing a claim is enough to <i>make</i> it true.  I don’t have to <i>argue</i> that God exists, because if I believe that God exists, then it’s just automatically <i>true</i> (for me) that God exists.
> 
> Third objection.  To explain the third objection, I am going to have to advance two principles, which I and most other philosophers think are obviously correct.  So here are two principles:
> 
> (1) If it is true that P, then P.
> 
> (2) It is never the case both that P and not-P.
> 
> To illustrate: if it is true that snow is white, then snow is white.  And it is never the case both that some snow is white and that some (the same) snow is not white.  The second principle is called the Law of Noncontradiction.  It basically says that there aren’t contradictions in the universe.  It can’t be the case that 2+2=4 and that 2+2_4.  Direct contradictions can’t both be true.
> 
> The third objection states, then, that relativism about truth violates these two principles.  Let’s say that Billy Bob, who hasn’t ever been away from his corner of California, believes that Mt. Shasta is the tallest mountain in the world.  Then by the relativist definition of "truth," it’s true for Billy Bob that Mt. Shasta is the tallest mountain in the world.  Right?  Because all he has to do is believe it, and then it’s true for him.  Well then, according to the first principle, it follows that Mt. Shasta is the tallest mountain in the world.  But then of course I disagree with Billy Bob, because I believe that Mt. Shasta is not the tallest mountain in the world.  So then it’s true for me that Mt. Shasta is not the tallest; and it follows by the first principle that Mt. Shasta is not the tallest mountain in the world.  Therefore, Mt. Shasta is the tallest mountain in the world <i>and</i> it is not; which is impossible, according to our second principle.  It is never the case both that P (Mt. Shasta is tallest) and that not-P (Mt. Shasta is not tallest).
> 
> In general, the problem is that people disagree about all sorts of different things.  But then the relativist would be saying that totally contradictory propositions can be true for different people at the same time.  But according to the first principle, that means that the world itself is in totally contradictory states at once, which is absurd.  People may disagree, but the <i>world</i> is only one way or the other.  You can disagree about it all you like; the world doesn’t care.  So if you disagree with me, and you claim that P, and I claim that not-P, and P is a precisely-worded sentence, then only of us can be right.
> 
> Well, that’s all I’m going to say against relativism about truth.  I am going to talk now as though truth is <i>not</i> relative to individuals; whether a claim is true or not, we’ll say from here on out, depends not on you or me but on the <i>how</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i> <i>is</i>.  It’s only the world that makes sentences true -- not our beliefs about the world.
> 
> Now at this point I think some of you might be wondering: well, if truth isn’t relative to individuals, and truth is different from belief, then how can we really know whether or not a claim is true?  If truth is independent of us, and depends only on the world, then how can we know what is true?  I’m not going to answer that question now, because it’s off-topic.  You might be asking: <i>How</i> <i>can</i> <i>we</i> <i>know</i> what is true?  But the question we have set for ourselves is, instead: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> truth itself?
> 
> Do you see the difference?  On the one hand, you can ask how we can know whether a claim is true; on the other hand, you can ask what it means to say that the claim <i>is</i> true.  Consider these two propositions:
> 
> (1) I know that the sentence, "Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world," is true.
> 
> (2) The sentence, "Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world," is true.
> 
> Those are two different propositions.  The first one is a claim about <i>me</i>, about what <i>I</i> <i>know</i>.  The second is a claim about a <i>sentence</i> (that the sentence is true).  So what we’re concerned with now is <i>truth</i>, not <i>knowledge</i>.  Truth is different from knowledge, just as it is different from belief.  You can see that just by considering the fact that a claim can be true even though I don’t know it, and even though I don’t believe it; whether I believe or know it, or not, it can still be true.
> 
> Before we get into some positive theories of truth, I want to quickly introduce one bit of terminology.  <i>Propositions</i> are what sentences are supposed to express.  So the sentence "Snow is white" is supposed to express the proposition that snow is white.  And the proposition that snow is white is supposed to be different from the sentence, "Snow is white."  Which makes some sense, if you think about it: we have different ways of saying that snow is white, right?  Not just the <i>sentence</i>, "Snow is white."  For example, I could say, in German, "Schnee ist weiss," or in French, "La neige est blanche."  Both of those sentences express the same proposition as "Snow is white."
> 
> Why am I introducing this term "proposition"?  Well, some philosophers insist that only <i>propositions</i> can be, properly speaking, true or false; sentences are not true or false, properly speaking.  It’s the thing that a sentence <i>says</i>, the <i>proposition</i> that the sentence is making, that is either true or false -- that’s the idea.  Anyway, I’m going to put theories of truth in terms of propositions, as you’ll see.
------
TheoriesOfTruth|981081766
1c1,61
< Describe the new page here.
---
> What is truth?  We’ll look at a number of answers to this question that philosophers have given.
> 
> The first is called the <i>correspondence</i> <i>theory</i>, and we can define it as follows:
> 
> It is <i>true</i> that P ("P" stands for a proposition) iff P corresponds with the facts.
> 
> So "truth" means "correspondence with the facts."  That’s a traditional formulation of the theory.  So let me try to explain what it says.  For example, it’s true that some dogs bark if the proposition, "Some dogs bark," corresponds with the facts.  Which facts?  Actually, just one: the fact that some dogs bark.  So suppose that it <i>is</i> a fact that some dogs bark (that’s not hard to suppose).  Then we can improve our example.  We could say: it’s true that some dogs bark if, and only if, the proposition, "Some dogs bark," corresponds with the fact that some dogs bark.  Or we could say: it’s true that God exists if, and only if, the proposition, "God exists," corresponds with the fact that God exists.
> 
> The most commonly cited problem for the correspondence theory is this question: what is correspondence?  <i>When</i> does a proposition correspond with the facts?  Well, you can think of correspondence as a sort of matching-up relation -- if a proposition can be matched up with a fact, then it corresponds to that fact.  But that’s <i>still</i> puzzling, isn’t it?  I mean, when does a proposition "match up" with a fact?  To say that "correspondence" means "matching up" doesn’t really shed a whole lot of light on the subject.
> 
> Well, one thing we might observe in any case is that, in order for a proposition to be true, according to the correspondence theory, there must <i>be</i> some fact to which it corresponds.  So a fact has to <i>exist</i> in order to be matched up a proposition.  And remember, we’ve already decided <i>which</i> fact that a proposition has to correspond with: the proposition that P has to correspond with the fact that P, if the proposition that P is true.
> 
> So here is a suggestion that can help get us around the objection about correspondence.  We can say that it is true that P if, and only if, there exists a fact that P.  If we put it like that, then we don’t have to talk about correspondence at all.  We just say: it’s true that some dogs bark if, and only if, there exists a fact, that some dogs bark.  And we could put it even simpler than that:
> 
> It is <i>true</i> that P iff it is a fact that P.
> 
> So consider that the <i>revised</i> <i>version</i> of the correspondence theory: P is true when it is a fact that P.  It’s true that dogs bark if it’s a fact that some dogs bark.  It’s true that God exists if it’s a fact that God exists.  It’s true that snow is white if it’s a fact that snow is white.  And so on.  We can regard that as explaining what it means for a proposition to correspond with a fact: basically, if <i>there</i> <i>is</i> a fact that P, then that fact corresponds with the proposition that P.
> 
> But this reformulation of the theory faces now a different problem.  Namely what are facts, and what does it mean to say that facts <i>exist</i>, or that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> some alleged fact?  Look at the problem like this.  Our reformulation basically says that "true proposition" means "factual proposition."  So then we have to ask ourselves: "Have we really <i>explained</i> anything about truth, about true propositions, if we merely said that they are factual?  Because then aren’t we just letting this <i>other</i> word, ‘fact’, do all the work of the word we’re confused about, ‘true’?  And then wouldn’t we have to give some account of what facts are?"
> 
> There are at least two different ways to reply to this objection.  The first way to reply is to actually offer a theory of what facts are.  This is something that philosophers, this century, have actually tried to do.  They say things like this: some facts are basically combinations of objects together with their properties or relations; so the fact that Fido barks is the combination of an object, Fido, with one of Fido’s properties, that he barks.  But of course that is only one kind of fact; there would be other kinds of facts, about <i>all</i> dogs; or about the relation between dogs and cats; and so on.  But the idea is that it is possible, anyway, to specify and categorize all those different kinds of facts.  And then you’ve got an answer to the question, "What are facts?"  You say: it’s one of these sorts of things (pointing to your theory of facts).  And when it is asked, "What does it mean for a fact to exist?" you can answer: well, it’s for each part of a fact to exist.  So if Fido exists, and Fido’s barking exists, then the fact that Fido bark exists.  And that’s what makes it true to say that Fido barks.
> 
> I personally think that’s a very appealing way to answer the objection.  But there is another way, which has been perhaps even more popular.  And this is to offer an <i>even</i> <i>further</i> stripped-down theory.  First, observe that if I say that it’s a fact that P, I might as well have just said, "P."  If I say, for example, that it’s a fact that some dogs bark, then why don’t I just say, "Some dogs bark"?  Why do I have to declare that it’s a fact?  If I’m saying it, then I’m implying that it’s a fact, am I not?  Sure.  Well notice that, in the previous theory of truth, these words occur: "it is a fact that P."  So then why don’t we just say "P" in place of "it is a fact that P"?  I mean, suppose I’m right, and when I say "It’s a fact that P," I really mean nothing more than when I say "P."  Then why not just substitute "P" in for "it is a fact that P" in our previous, revised correspondence theory?  Then we don’t talk about facts at all.  So here’s the new, even further stripped-down theory:
> 
> It is <i>true</i> that P iff P.
> 
> That’s it.  And some people say that that’s basically all there is to say about truth.  This bare-bones theory is called "the redundancy theory of truth," and it is due to F. P. Ramsey, an English philosopher who lived about the same time as Moore and Russell.  It’s called "the redundancy theory" because it basically implies that saying that something is true is always redundant.  This is very similar to the "performative theory of truth" mentioned in our reading on p. 116.  The idea is that, instead of saying, "It is true that some dogs bark," you could, without loss of meaning, say simply, "Some dogs bark."  In principle we could always eliminate talk of truth, in favor of simply forthrightly asserting whatever it is that we say is true.
> 
> Now there’s one simple objection to the theory that might occur to you.  You might say: "Well, if I claim, ‘Pigs fly,’ then the redundancy theory says that <i>it’s</i> <i>true</i> that pigs fly!  If I claim that philosophy is simple, then <i>it’s</i> <i>true</i> that philosophy is simple!"  This is a bad objection.  It’s bad because it has the redundancy theory wrong.  The redundancy theory doesn’t say: "It’s true that P iff I claim that P."  It says: "It’s true that P iff P."  So, if pigs fly, if pigs do indeed fly, then it’s true that pigs fly.  Nothing wrong with saying that: that’s correct.  If pigs did fly, then it would be true that pigs fly.  But that’s quite different from saying that, if <i>I</i> <i>claim</i> that pigs fly, then it’s true that pigs fly.  So the redundancy theory doesn’t say that whatever anyone says is true.  What it does say is that, if I say something, then I’m committed to saying that what I said <i>is</i> <i>true</i>.
> 
> And this makes some sense.  Suppose, on the one hand, I say, "God exists!  There is a supreme being!"  Then suppose on the other hand that I say, "It’s <i>true</i> that God exists!  It’s <i>true</i> that there is a supreme being!"  Have I added anything to my original claim when I say that it’s <i>true</i>?  I mean, have I added anything other than <i>emphasis</i> and a declaration that I really do believe what I’m saying?  The redundancy theory thinks not; saying that something is true is only adding emphasis.
> 
> But some people disagree.  They think that there is something that the redundancy theory is missing.  They think there’s got to be <i>some</i> reason why we came up with this word "true."  The redundancy theory says basically that it’s only a term of emphasis.  But is that really all it is?  Isn’t the idea, rather, that one specifically wishes to point to the fact that a proposition bears some relation to reality -- correpondence, describing the facts, something like that.  Well, we’re not going to resolve that dispute now.  The dispute quickly becomes very technical and draws a lot on results and problems in logic.
> 
> So instead let’s take a quick look at another theory of truth, that differs quite a bit both from the correspondence theory and the redundancy theory.  This is called the <i>coherence</i> <i>theory</i>.  The coherence theory offers another definition of "truth."   It says that truth depends on coherence, as follows:
> 
> It is <i>true</i> that P iff P is part of a coherent system of propositions.
> 
> Roughly, P is true if it coheres with a system of propositions that it’s part of.  Typically a "system of propositions" is understood as a group of propositions that some one person believes.  So if you like, you can think of "system of propositions" as meaning a belief system.  Then the idea is that if your belief system is coherent, then your beliefs are true.  And if you come across a belief that <i>doesn’t</i> cohere with the others, then you can toss it out as incoherent and thus false.
> 
> I am not going to try to give an example of a coherent system or a belief that is true because it is part of the system.  The reason I’m not isn’t that I think the coherence theoryis obviously wrong, but because the coherence theory is better regarded, in my opinion, as a theory about <i>justified</i> <i>belief</i>, that is, <i>when</i> <i>beliefs</i> <i>are</i> <i>justified</i> <i>or</i> <i>rational</i>, which is something we are going to study when we study epistemology.  The coherence theory is better regarded as a theory about when beliefs are <i>justified</i> than as a theory about when beliefs are <i>true</i>.  That’s my claim, anyway -- I’m telling you this only so you can understand why we’re not examining the theory in any depth right now.  But when we look at the coherence theory of <i>justification</i>, I will give examples and criticisms that apply to coherence theories generally -- whether of truth or of justification.
> 
> I’ll conclude our discussion of theories of truth by presenting a theory which was introduced and made by American philosophers, Charles Pierce (pronounced "purse") and William James, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Their theory is called <i>pragmatism</i>, or the <i>pragmatic</i> <i>theory</i> of truth.  Pragmatism has been regarded as an American theory of truth, although I would suggest that the correspondence theory probably more closely reflects the commonsense realism that most Americans share.  Anyway, "pragmatism" is one of those neat words that philosophers like so much that they want to appropriate it for themselves, without regard to how it has been used before.  As a result, the term "pragmatism" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people; there are lots of versions of pragmatism.  So let me talk anyway about one very important, influential version, that is due to Peirce, and which has received some renewed interest from some philosophers today, like Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam.
> 
> Here is Peirce’s version, roughly stated:
> 
> It is <i>true</i> that P iff P is agreed upon in the consensus achieved at the ideal limit of inquiry.
> 
> Peirce invites us to imagine what science will be like a few hundred, or perhaps a few thousand years from now.  He predicted that human inquiry and truth-seeking would, or at the very least could, at some point come to an end, a limit; there would, he thought, be basically no questions left to be answered, and the state of human knowledge could not be improved upon.  At that point there would be, he thought, some very general consensus, firmly agreed-upon, by all inquirers.  And if some proposition <i>now</i> being considered <i>would</i> be something that everyone would agree on, in that ideal limit of inquiry, then that proposition is true.  And that’s what it <i>means</i> to say that a proposition is true: that it is part of the consensus that would exist in the ideal limit of inquiry.
> 
> I think you might be able to see some reason for accepting pragmatism.  Much of the motivation behind it comes from the thought that the truth is <i>knowable</i>.  I mean, suppose you thought that: if something is true, then it can be <i>known</i> to be true.  Then what, really, is knowability?  Well, something would be knowable if it <i>could</i> be known -- if not now, then by someone, somewhere down the road.  So something is knowable if we could, after long hard careful inquiry, discover it.  In yet other words, something is knowable if we <i>would</i> know it in the ideal limit of inquiry.
> 
> Now, suppose you thought that all truth is knowable in <i>this</i> sense.  In that case, everything that <i>could</i> be known, <i>would</i> be known in the ideal limit of inquiry.  In the perfect science all truths would be known.  There wouldn’t be any truths left over.  So then why not say that there is no more <i>to</i> truth than that what that perfect science would tell us?  That would simplify matters.  There would be no need to look for any sort of correspondence between propositions and the world, or between propositions and a coherent system of propositions.  Truth, since it is knowable, is whatever the perfect science would tell us in the ideal limit of inquiry.  In that way pragmatism is very optimistic.
> 
> I’ll raise, rather briefly, two basic objections that can be made to pragmatism.  First, you can say: maybe there are some truths that <i>aren’t</i> knowable.  Why think that every proposition must be knowable?  Why <i>not</i> say there are some true propositions that we can’t ever know, not even in some ideal limit of inquiry?  Let me give you an example.  There are probably complex processes going on inside of black holes; but black holes are so gravitationally powerful that not even <i>light</i> can escape from them.  So we could not possibly get knowledge of some specific events going on, right now, inside some black hole.  Nonetheless there would seem to be some <i>facts</i> there; scientists might even know enough to be able to describe what <i>might</i> be going on; the point, though, is that they can’t confirm <i>that</i> it is going on, even if they can describe, in generalities, what might be going on.  So the first problem for pragmatism is that it certainly appears that there are some truths that would not appear in the perfected science in the ideal limit of inquiry -- because they cannot be known at all.  You can probably think of more examples yourself; maybe truths about what went on in the minds of people long dead, or facts about very distant events.  Perhaps there are facts about subatomic particles which we cannot, in principle, ever know.
> 
> Here’s a second objection.  Basically, what pragmatism describes an <i>indicator</i> or a <i>sign</i> of truth.  It really cannot be regarded as a theory of the <i>meaning</i> of the word "true."  Do you see the difference?  There’s a difference between <i>stating</i> <i>an</i> <i>indicator</i> and <i>giving</i> <i>the</i> <i>meaning</i>.  For example, when the streetlights turn at the end of a day, that’s an indicator, a sign, that evening is coming on.  It would be an obvious mistake to say that the word "evening" just means "the time that the streetlights turn on."  In the same way, while it might be an <i>indicator</i> of truth, that a proposition is part of that perfect science at the ideal limit of inquiry, that just isn’t what "truth" <i>means</i>.
> 
> This present objection isn’t so much an argument against pragmatism, so much as it is a request -- that we make sure that we aren’t confusing an <i>indicator</i> of truth with the <i>meaning</i> of the concept truth.  There is a difference between the two and it seems to me that pragmatism confuses them.  Anyway, I think a more powerful objection is lurking about here.  But we don’t have time to go into it in any further detail.
> 
> I think that after this very brief discussion of theories of truth, the revised correspondence theory looks most plausible; but we just haven’t discussed them in enough depth for me to be able to say that with any certainty.  But as usual you have been introduced to the terrain: among different theories of truth there are the correspondence theory, the redundancy theory, the coherence theory, and pragmatism.  With such a variety to choose from at the very least you should be convinced that you don’t have to rest content with any sort of relativism that says that truth is just the same as belief.  You can do a heck of a lot better than that.
------
AtlasShrugged113|981081782
1,14c1
< #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN113
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Dagny and the Comet arrive at the Taggart Terminal.  She gets off the train inadvertently whistling the theme from Halley's Fifth Concerto.  The brakeman watches her tensely.
< ----
< * Setting
< Taggart Terminal
< ----
< * Characters
< DagnyTaggart
< 
< BrakemaN
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN113
------
AtlasShrugged121|981081796
1,23c1
< #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN121
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 2, section 1:
< 
< * Plot summary
< Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of Rearden Metal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, Paul Larkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
< ----
< * Setting
< Rearden Steel mills in Philadelphia and Rearden's home.
< ----
< * Characters
< GwenIves: Mentioned.
< HankRearden
< LillianRearden
< MrsBeacham: First and only mention.
< PassengerNumber3: First and only appearance.
< PassengerNumber4: First and only appearance.
< PaulLarkin
< PhilipRearden
< ReardensMother
< WorkerNumber1: First and only appearance.
< 
< 
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged131|981081812
1,25c1
< #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN131
< 
< Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapter 3, section 1:
< 
< * Plot summary
< James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, and Wesley Mouch meet to work out a deal by which they can stop Hank Rearden and the success of Rearden Metal.  Boyle wants Taggart to get his friends in Washington to regulate the distribution of iron ore, depriving Rearden of the raw materials needed to market Rearden Metal.  In exchange, Boyle agrees to get the National Alliance of Railroads to drive the Phoenix-Durango railroad out of business.  None of this is said openly or directly, of course.  Taggart also learns from Boyle that Taggart Transcontinental's San Sebastian Line has been denuded of all but the barest equipment.
< ----
< * Setting
< The most expensive barroom in New York, on the 60th floor of a skyscraper, design to look like a cellar.
< ----
< * Characters
< JamesTaggart
< 
< OrrenBoyle
< 
< WesleyMouch
< 
< PaulLarkin
< 
< WaiteR: First and only appearance.
< 
< BartendeR: First and only appearance.
< ----
< * Pregnant Passages
< "It all depends," James Taggart answered slowly, "on the people who make it possible...That's what has to be known - who makes it possible."
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SectioN131
------
AtlasShruggedCharacters|981081840
1,70c1
< BrakemaN
< 
< DagnyTaggart
< 
< EddieWillers
< 
< EllisWyatt
< 
< FranciscoDAnconia
< 
< GwenIves
< 
< HankRearden
< 
< JamesTaggart
< 
< LillianRearden
< 
< NewsstandOwner
< 
< OrrenBoyle
< 
< OwenKellogg
< 
< PaulLarkin
< 
< PhilipRearden
< 
< ReardensMother
< 
< RichardHalley
< 
< WesleyMouch
< 
< * Very minor characters
< BartendeR
< 
< BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
< 
< BumNumber1
< 
< ConductoR
< 
< DagnysFather
< 
< EngineeR
< 
< FiremaN
< 
< MrAyers
< 
< MrsBeacham
< 
< MrsNathanielTaggart
< 
< NathanielTaggart
< 
< PassengerNumber1
< 
< PassengerNumber2
< 
< PassengerNumber3
< 
< PassengerNumber4
< 
< PopHarper
< 
< WaiteR
< 
< WorkerNumber1
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Characters
------
AtlasShruggedCompanies|981081866
1,17c1
< AyersMusicPublishingCompany
< 
< AssociatedSteel
< 
< Phoenix-Durango
< 
< ReardenCoal
< 
< ReardenLimestone
< 
< ReardenOre
< 
< ReardenSteel
< 
< TaggartTranscontinental
< 
< WyattOil
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Companies
------
EpistemOlogy|981081868
1c1,27
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Last time we talked about various theories of truth.  You’ll remember that we started by rejecting the view that truth is just the same as belief.  It is bound to seem pretty obvious that <i>some</i> of the things that you believe are false, unless you remain an unreformed relativist, of a sort that <i>I</i> and <i>most</i> philosophers think is rather naïve.  Some of the things you now believe, and have believed, and will believe, are true, and some are false.  No one bats 1.000 when it comes to having the truth.
> 
> And there are some matters in life where it’s very difficult to know <i>whether</i> one’s belief <i>really</i> is true.  Philosophy is surely the best example.  You have, probably, lots of philosophical beliefs.  But if you’ve been paying attention at all so far, at the very least one thing has at some point struck you -- namely, that it’s very difficult indeed to <i>know</i>, without a doubt, that your philosophical beliefs are correct.  For any theory on any topic you might advance, you’ll be faced with a bunch of objections; and if you think you can reply to all the objections, you will be presupposing a lot of <i>other</i> philosophical views, each of which has some objections to <i>it</i>; and so on.
> 
> So you might very well wonder: <i>What</i> <i>do</i> <i>I</i> <i>have</i> <i>to</i> <i>do</i>, to be sure that I <i>do</i> have the truth?  <i>How</i> can I be sure that my beliefs are true?  Is there some sort of guarantee available to me -- some sort of criterion I might use, in order to decide, as rationally and as carefully as I possibly could, that indeed what I believe <i>is</i> true?
> 
> Suppose you thought your belief had been arrived at <i>rationally</i>.  You used logic, you based your belief on observation and experiment, you conscientiously answered objections, and so forth.  So you conclude that your belief is rational.  Well if so, then your belief has <i>at</i> <i>least</i> <i>some</i> claim to be true.  Rationality is a indicator of truth: if your belief is rational, then it is at least <i>probably</i> true.  At the very least, the rationality of a belief is <i>reason</i> <i>to</i> <i>think</i> <i>the</i> <i>belief</i> <i>is</i> <i>true</i>.
> 
> Now, there are a number of features of beliefs, such as rationality, justification, and probability, that are indicators of truth.  So let’s define a general term:
> 
> A feature of belief is an <i>epistemic</i> feature iff it is at least <i>some</i> indication that the belief is true.
> 
> Many of our beliefs do, I think, have lots of positive epistemic features; many of our beliefs are quite rational, quite justified, very probably true, highly warranted, and so on.  But most of us, I think, at least in some moments, don’t want to rest content with just being <i>rational</i>.  We don’t want to have a rational belief that is, unfortunately, false.  Because that’s possible, right?  I can be very conscious, careful, and logical in forming a belief, and so be rational in holding the belief; but it still might be false.  So rationality isn’t our ultimate ambition that we have for our beliefs.
> 
> Our ultimate ambition for our beliefs is <i>knowledge</i>.  Because if I <i>do</i> know something, then not only am I justified, or rational, in a belief; because I have <i>knowledge</i>, I have the truth.  So naturally, when we are thinking about the epistemic features of our beliefs, the big question is this: <i>When</i> do I have knowledge?  <i>When</i> can I say that I have it?  As I’m sure you are aware, there are some people who claim that we <i>can’t</i> have knowledge; such people are called <i>skeptics</i>.  More on that, of course, later.
> 
> Now I can describe to you the field of <i>epistemology</i>, which is also called the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>knowledge</i>. Here is a definition:
> 
> <i>Epistemology</i> includes the study of (1) what the epistemic features of belief, such as justification and rationality, each are (e.g., what justified belief is); (2) the origin or sources of such features (and thus the sources of knowledge); (3) what knowledge is, i.e., what epistemic features would make a true belief knowledge; (4) whether it is <i>possible</i> to have knowledge.
> 
> So, first, epistemologists spend a great deal of time concerning themselves with various epistemic features of belief, such as justification and rationality.  And they write long articles and books trying to say just when beliefs are justified, or rational.
> 
> A second, related concern is <i>where</i> such epistemic features ultimately come from.  If I say, for example, that my belief that Paris is the capital of France is justified, I can ask: Where did the justification for my belief come from?  Probably at some point some reliable source told me that Paris is the capital of France; and that was enough to make me <i>justified</i> in adopting the belief.  OK, then <i>one</i>, but <i>only</i> one, source of justification would be <i>testimony</i>, which is just a fancy word for what other people tell me.  Another source of justification would be sense-perception.  So epistemology asks: What are the ultimate sources of justification, rationality, or other epistemic features of belief?  And that allows to answer a further question: What are the ultimate sources of <i>knowledge</i>?
> 
> Which brings us to the third topic studied by epistemologists, namely, what knowledge is.  The question here isn’t what we <i>can</i> know, or even what we <i>do</i> know.  The question is: What would knowledge be, if we had it?  A belief has to pass some sort of muster if it’s to count as knowledge.  So what features would a belief have to have, in order to be an actual piece of knowledge -- not just something that pretends to be knowledge, but which is <i>actually</i> knowledge?
> 
> Then, fourth, there is one of the more difficult topics of philosophy -- trying to answer, or otherwise deal with, the challenge that we <i>cannot</i> have knowledge.  A number of philosophers -- not too many, but some -- have said that we cannot have knowledge.  A <i>lot</i> of philosophers have said that it’s very <i>difficult</i> to obtain knowledge; but they don’t deny that we have it, or that we <i>can</i> have it.  Not so many philosophers, however, have gone so far as to say that we have no knowledge at all, or (to say something even stronger) that it is <i>impossible</i> to have knowledge.
------
AtlasShruggedStructure|981081898
1,35c1
< Atlas Shrugged is divided into three parts, with ten chapters in each part.  Chapters are divided into any number of sections.
< 
< ----
< Part 1 - Non-Contradiction
< 
< Chapter 1  - The Theme
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged111)
<  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<  - section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
<  - section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
< 
< Chapter 2  - The Chain
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged121)
< 
< Chapter 3  - The Top and the Bottom
<  - section 1 (AtlasShrugged131)
<  - section 2 (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Chapter 4  - The Immovble Movers
< 
< Chapter 5  - The Climax of the D'Anconias
< 
< Chapter 6  - The Non-Commercial
< 
< Chapter 7  - The Exploiters and the Exploited
< 
< Chapter 8  - The John Galt Line
< 
< Chapter 9  - The Sacred and the Profane
< 
< Chapter 10 - Wyatt's Torch
< ----
< Part 2 - Either-Or
< 
< Part 3 - A Is A
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Structure
------
EpistemOlogy|981081924
0a1,2
> See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; 
> 
------
TheoryOfJustification|981081943
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Epistemologists talk about <i>various</i> different epistemic features of belief.  Or at least, they use different words to describe a group of closely-related features of belief.  These include "justification," "warrant," "rationality," "probability," and others.  I’m not going to try to explain the differences in meaning between these terms; the differences aren’t as important as the similarities.  Anyway, of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed, the word that has been bandied about the most, in the past twenty years or so anyway, has been <i>justification</i>.  And as you might have guessed, there is something called the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>justification</i>, the main question of which is: "What is justification?" or "When is a belief justified, and when not?"
> 
> So let’s focus on justification.  And let me begin by saying a few very general things about justification.  We can say that more than just <i>beliefs</i> are justified; <i>actions</i>, <i>emotions</i>, <i>laws</i>, <i>theories</i>, and so forth, a whole <i>panoply</i> of things can be justified or not.  But in epistemology it’s mainly <i>beliefs</i> that are said to be justified or not.  So the topic is not best stated as "justification," period, but as <i>justified</i> <i>belief</i>.  And the question is: "When is a belief justified, and when not?"  Or if you want to put it in terms of meaning, you could ask: "What does the term, ‘justified belief’, mean?
> 
> There’s something more that I can say to give you a better fix on what I’m talking about.  A justified belief is one that we are <i>within</i> <i>our</i> <i>rights</i> in holding.  What sort of rights?  Not political rights, of course; not even moral rights; maybe something like "intellectual" rights.  The idea is that we want to be responsible believers.  We don’t want to just go off and believe <i>anything</i>, with total irresponsibility.  In some sense, it’s <i>bad</i> just to believe whatever pops into mind.  So you have some sort of responsibility, an intellectual responsibility, an intellectual obligation to yourself, to believe what is true and to <i>avoid</i> believing what’s false.  If you’re being intellectually responsible, then you’re within your intellectual rights in believing something; and then you’re <i>justified</i> in your belief.
> 
> So it’s often said that justification is a <i>normative</i> notion.  That means that it has to do with norms, rights, responsibilities, obligations, and so forth; or more generally, we could say (here’s a rough definition):
> 
> A concept is <i>normative</i> iff it is a concept regarding or depending on the norms, or obligations and permissions (very broadly construed), involved in human conduct.
> 
> The concept of justification is definitely normative in this sense, because it is a concept regarding the norms of <i>belief</i>.
> 
> So you know two things, at least, about justification so far: first, justification is an epistemic feature of beliefs, meaning that it <i>aims</i> <i>at</i> <i>the</i> <i>truth</i>, as it were; and second, the concept of justification is a <i>normative</i> concept, because it is a concept about norms of belief.
> 
> Here’s a third general feature of justified belief: If a belief is justified, there is something <i>which</i> <i>justifies</i> <i>it</i>.  So let’s call whatever it is that justifies a belief the <i>justifier</i> of the belief.  So the claim is: If a belief is justified, then it has at least one justifier.  Now, notice first that I haven’t said anything about <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i> a justifier can be.  More about that in a bit.  But an example of a justifier would be some evidence that I accept; if I accept some evidence, then that evidence might be a justifier of my belief.  For example, if I am aware of the bloody footprints, blood in O. J.’s Bronco, DNA confirmation, and so forth, all of that can be evidence for my belief that O. J. Simpson is a murderer.  In that case, the <i>justifiers</i> are all that blood evidence, or rather my <i>acceptance</i> of that evidence; the <i>belief</i> that is justified is my belief that O. J. is a murderer.
> 
> But not all justifiers would have to be what can properly be called "evidence"; there might be some totally different kind of justifiers out there.  But to be justified, a belief has to have a justifier.
> 
> So far, I’ve just been reciting some general features of justification that pretty much everyone agrees on.  But now we’re approaching the point where people disagree.  Because what people disagree about is <i>what</i> <i>the</i> <i>justifiers</i> <i>are</i>.  In other words, the following question is the main bone of contention: What sorts of things are justifiers?  There are, to simplify, three answers -- three different views about what sorts of things can be justifiers:
> 
> (1) Beliefs only.
> 
> (2) Beliefs together with other conscious mental states.
> 
> (3) Beliefs, conscious mental states, and other facts about us and our environment (which we may not have access to).
> 
> I’m not going to give you examples of each of these three kinds of justifiers; I’ll save the examples for the theories of justification that I’m about to explain to you.  Right now all I want you to see is that there are those three different views about what sorts of things that justifiers can be.
> 
> But at least <i>sometimes</i>, the justifier of a belief is <i>another</i> <i>belief</i>.  When, for example, I believe that O. J. is a murderer, I base that belief on <i>other</i> <i>beliefs</i> -- namely, about the blood evidence and other evidence.  Strictly speaking, my belief isn’t based on <i>the</i> <i>evidence</i> <i>itself</i> -- after all, what if I didn’t believe it?  What if I thought that all of that evidence were just a hoax?  For that matter, what if the evidence <i>existed</i>, but I didn’t know about it?  Then of course, my belief that O. J. is a murderer wouldn’t be based on that evidence, just because I didn’t know it was there at all; or, if I thought the evidence were a hoax, then surely my belief couldn’t be based on that evidence.  So here is my point: when my belief is based on evidence, <i>actually</i> what my belief is based on is <i>another</i> <i>belief</i>, <i>namely</i>, <i>a</i> <i>belief</i> <i>or</i> <i>beliefs</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>evidence</i>.
> 
> For convenience and brevity, let me use letters, P’s and Q’s, to stand for beliefs.  So the idea we’re considering now is that a belief, Q, can be justified by another belief, P.  So P justifies Q.  Now I want you to consider a possibility -- see what you think of this.  Suppose that P -- the justifier -- is <i>itself</i>, not justified at all.  Suppose it’s just totally arbitrary.  I picked the belief out of a hat; I got it from a fortune cookie.  Then would it be possible for P to justify Q?  Surely not.
> 
> Let me give you an example.  Suppose I believe that there is intelligent life on Mars, and I base this belief on a further belief, that there is a feature on the surface of Mars that looks like a face, and that this face could <i>only</i> have been made by intelligent life.  So the justifying belief is: That face-like feature on Mars could only have been made by intelligent life.  And the justified belief is: There is intelligent life on Mars.  But suppose further (something that really is the case) that the justifying belief is itself <i>totally</i> unjustified.  I am in no way in my intellectual rights if I suppose that this face-like feature on Mars could have only been made by intelligent life; that view of mine is totally irresponsible, intellectually speaking.  Would my belief that there is intelligent life on Mars be justified then?  It has a <i>justifier</i>, doesn’t it?  Yes.  But the justifier is itself not justified.  So definitely belief in life on Mars is unjustified; if it’s going to be justified, it has to be justified by some belief which is <i>itself</i> justified.  If the justifying belief isn’t itself justified, then it can’t do any justify anything else, no matter how much I might want it to.
> 
> So I think we can accept a general rule:
> 
> If a belief, Q, is justified by another belief, P, then P must itself be justified.
> 
> If P isn’t justified, then it sure can’t justify Q.  The only way that P could justify Q is if P is itself first justified.
------
LibertarianisM|981081945
5a6,7
> 
> tt A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
------
LibertarianisM|981081954
7c7
< tt A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
---
> A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
------
TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology|981081989
1c1,99
< Describe the new page here.
---
> All of the foregoing has prepared us to come to grips with a very important argument in epistemology, called the <i>regress</i> <i>argument</i> or the <i>infinite</i> <i>regress</i> <i>argument</i>.  It goes like this:
> 
> (1) Suppose that the belief that Q is justified by the belief that P; so P justifies Q.
> 
> (2) But if P justifies Q, then P is justified.
> 
> (3) So P is justified.
> 
> (4) But if P is justified, then it must be justified some <i>other</i> belief; and <i>that</i> belief must be justified by some <i>other</i> belief; and so on.  There is a <i>chain</i> of justifying beliefs.  And then there are three possibilities: (a) the chain goes on forever; (b) the chain loops around on itself, forming a circle; or (c) the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified <i>by</i> <i>another</i> <i>belief</i>.
> 
> (5) Possibility (a) (called <i>regressism</i>) is obviously incorrect.
> 
> (6) Possibility (b) (called <i>coherentism</i>) is incorrect (for various reasons, explained below).
> 
> (7) Possibility (c) (called <i>foundationalism</i>) is the only possibility left and must be correct.
> 
> (8) Therefore, there must be some beliefs that are justified, but which are not justified by other beliefs: these are called <i>basic</i> <i>beliefs</i>.  All other beliefs are justified by basic beliefs.
> 
> So the regress argument, as I’ve presented it here (and as it is usually presented) is an argument for a theory of justification called <i>foundationalism</i>.  But I don’t want to talk about foundationalism yet.  Let’s go back over this argument carefully, first.
> 
> Now, we’ve already explained steps (1) through (3).  It advances that principle we talked about before, that if a belief is justified by another belief, then the justifying belief itself must be justified.  Now let’s look at premise (4).  This is the really important step of the argument: "If P is justified, then it must be justified some <i>other</i> belief; and <i>that</i> belief must be justified by some <i>other</i> belief; and so on.  There is a <i>chain</i> of justifying beliefs.  And then there are three possibilities: (a) the chain goes on forever; (b) the chain loops around on itself, forming a circle; or (c) the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified <i>by</i> <i>another</i> <i>belief</i>."
> 
> Let me try to put this premise in entirely different words.  Pick a belief of yours -- any old belief; call it the belief that Q.  Suppose you say that Q is justified.  OK, then there’s something that justifies it.  Suppose you want to say it is justified by another belief, P.  But in that case, you’d have to know what justifies <i>P</i>.  And what justifies <i>that</i>.  And so on.  You can’t have an infinite regress of justifying beliefs -- you don’t have an infinite number of beliefs supporting any given belief of yours!  So there’s another choice; you could say that the belief <i>justifies</i> <i>itself</i> somehow; either directly, so that Q justifies Q; or indirectly, so that Q justifies R, S, and so forth, down to Z say, and Z then justifies Q.  The whole set of beliefs then forms a circular chain of justification.  That’s at least a <i>possibility</i>.  And there is one other possibility, namely, that Q is justified <i>not</i> by another belief, but by <i>something</i> <i>else</i>, something that isn’t a belief.  We’ll have to see what that something else might be later.  Anyway, all this is in explanation of what premise (4) says.
> 
> Now to premises (5) and (6).  These two premises eliminate options (a) and (b), respectively, leaving us with option (c).  To begin with premise (5), which eliminates option (a).  Premise (5) says: "Possibility (a) (called <i>regressism</i>)" -- which is the possibility that the chain goes on forever -- "is obviously incorrect."  In other words, it is obviously wrong to say that a chain of justification goes on forever.  I could but will not elaborate; virtually no philosophers take it seriously.  I think you should be able to see generally why this is so obviously wrong, though.  I mean, for one thing, we don’t have an infinite number of beliefs.
> 
> Now for premise (6), which eliminates option (b).  Premise (6) says: "Possibility (b) (called <i>coherentism</i>)" -- which is the possibility that the chain loops around on itself, forming a circle -- "is incorrect."  Now, coherentism is taken much more seriously than regressism.  So I’m going to discuss coherentism at greater length.
> 
> Remember that the word "coherentism" can mean either a theory of truth or of justification.  Here is a definition of <i>the</i> <i>coherence</i> <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>justification</i>, or <i>coherentism</i> for short:
> 
> A belief is <i>justified</i> iff it is part of a coherent system of mutually supporting beliefs (i.e., beliefs that support each other).
> 
> A common analogy used to illustrate coherentism is an arched doorway.  Each of your beliefs is like a brick in an arched doorway; all the bricks support each other, and if you chip away at one brick, the arch becomes much weaker or even comes crashing down.  But when the bricks are all intact and support each other, the doorway stands up; in the same way, when your beliefs all support each other, they are all justified, except of course for those of your beliefs that <i>don’t</i> cohere with your other beliefs.
> 
> Now look again possibility (b) from premise (4): that the chain of justification loops around on itself, forming a circle.  That is essentially what happens in a coherent system of mutually supporting beliefs.  So let me try to give you an example of <i>part</i> of a coherent system of beliefs.  I believe that we are at Ohio State; I believe that University Hall is on the Ohio State campus; I believe that I have seen many papers, booklets, and other materials indicating that I am a philosophy instructor at Ohio State; I believe I am seeing you all right now in front of me, and that you are students; moreover, I believe you are Philosophy 101 students, and that I am your teacher; and so on.  There is a whole bunch of information I have about you, about myself, about this place, about what we’re doing, and so forth.  These beliefs are all mutually supporting.  What does that mean?  For example, the belief that I am teaching you Philosophy 101 supports the belief that I have seen many materials indicating that I am a philosophy instructor; and vice-versa, the belief that I am a philosophy instructor supports the belief that I am teaching you Philosophy 101.
> 
> And of course this is only one small portion of what I believe.  I believe things not just about Ohio State, my role as a teacher, and so forth.  I also have many, many beliefs about my own personal history, about the political system of the United States, about the natural world, about any number of academic subjects, and of course about philosophy itself.  And it’s not like these beliefs are in some nice little boxes, separated from each other.  It’s not like I have a set of beliefs about economics, and those beliefs do not support, and are not supported by, my beliefs about our political system, and our legal system.  No, my beliefs about virtually <i>everything</i> are interwoven into a truly massive web of belief.  It’s incredible that all those beliefs could somehow be stuffed into my brain; but of course they are.
> 
> Now let’s ask the coherentist a question: What justifies an individual belief in my web of belief?  Here is the coherentist’s answer: Virtually all the other beliefs in the web of belief.  All your beliefs are interconnected; if your belief system is coherent, then each of your beliefs makes each other belief, to some extent, more plausible, more rational to believe; that’s what it means to say the system is <i>coherent</i>.  If you wanted to, you could trace justification relations from my belief that Timbuktu is in Africa, to my belief that relativism about truth is false -- and you could trace the justification relations back again.  And what <i>that</i> means is that, ultimately, every belief in my web of belief supports itself.  Not <i>directly</i>.  Our beliefs don’t support themselves <i>directly</i> -- we don’t say, "P justifies P," for example.  But every belief in my web of belief supports itself <i>indirectly</i>.  So P justifies Q, and Q justifies R, and R returns to justify P.
> 
> Quite a few philosophers, especially in the past forty or fifty years, have found the coherence theory of justification very plausible.  But there have been a lot of powerful objections to coherentism.  I want to review three of the objections.
> 
> The first objection is that coherentism seems to imply that circular justification is just fine.  There’s nothing wrong with saying that P supports P, ultimately.  But that seems wrong.  Think of it like this.  If you say, for example, that P justifies Q, and Q justifies R, and R justifies P, then it seems like you’re saying that you could <i>argue</i>: P, therefore Q; Q, therefore R; R, therefore P.  If all that is true, then we could argue: P, therefore P.  Well, that’s obviously a fallacious sort of argument; it’s called "begging the question" or "arguing in a circle."  But coherentism seems to imply that such an argument is just fine -- that there’s nothing wrong with it.  But <i>there</i> <i>is</i> something wrong with it; therefore, coherentism must be rejected.
> 
> That is one objection to coherentism.  The way that coherentists typically reply to it is by saying that if the circle is big enough, then circularity isn’t a problem.  If you’ve got a thousand different beliefs in a circle, then the fact that #1 supports #1 <i>via</i> <i>the</i> <i>other</i> <i>999</i>, well, that’s not really a problem.  My reply (which others make) is that I just don’t see why the size of the circle should make any difference.  A circular argument is a circular argument.  It doesn’t matter if there is one intermediate belief or a thousand.  It’s still a fallacy!
> 
> Well, whatever you think of that, here is a second objection.  According to coherentism, a belief is justified if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.  But isn’t it possible for there to be a coherent system of beliefs that is totally divorced from reality?  Let me explain.  P can cohere with Q and R, of course, without P, or Q, or R, being <i>true</i>.  The coherence of a few beliefs does not imply that any of the beliefs in question are true.
> 
> Think of the conspiracy theorists -- you know, people who think that there is an enormous interlocking directorate of semi-secret organizations, corporations, government agencies, foundations, universities, and powerful individuals who have together conspired to take over the world and make it into a totalitarian one-world system.  Now I tend to think that people who advocate this theory are probably wrong and at least a little bit paranoid.  But if you listen to them, they definitely have a coherent body of beliefs.  One part of their system of beliefs, for example their beliefs about semi-secret organizations, is quite consistent with, and strongly supports, their beliefs about other parts of their system of beliefs, for example their beliefs about corporations.  So I think we might grant that the conspiracy theory is <i>coherent</i>.  But does that mean that belief in the conspiracy theory is <i>justified</i>?  Does <i>mere</i> coherence make a body of beliefs justified?
> 
> Well, no, <i>I</i> don’t think so anyway: it has to be grounded in, based on, derived from <i>experience</i>.  If your coherent system of beliefs ignores experience it’s bound to be wrong and unjustified.  So here’s the point: It’s perfectly possible to have a coherent body of beliefs that is <i>not</i> grounded in experience, and hence <i>not</i> <i>justified</i>.
> 
> This leads to the third objection.   My third objection is this: There are <i>some</i> beliefs, <i>namely</i> beliefs that arise immediately from experience, which appear to be justified, but <i>not</i> <i>all</i> of their justification comes from other beliefs.  In other words, some beliefs we have from seeing and hearing and other kinds of experience; and those experience-based beliefs are very well justified; but clearly, <i>not</i> all of <i>their</i> justification comes from <i>other</i> beliefs.
> 
> Let me give you an example.  Say you are looking through a keyhole into a room; you have absolutely no idea what’s in the room.  Unfortunately, the lights are off in the room so you can’t see anything.  But then, suddenly, the lights turn on for a second; and you can very clearly see a white canopy bed in the room.  You don’t notice anything else.  So then you form a belief.  You believe: There is a white canopy bed in the room.  Now I think we’d all want to say that this belief is justified.  There’s no reason to think there’s anything wrong with that belief.  It <i>might</i> turn out to be false; but if you looked through a keyhole into a room and the lights were turned on for a second, and it definitely <i>seemed</i> that you were seeing a white canopy bed, then by golly you are very well justified in your belief that there is a white canopy bed in the room.
> 
> But you don’t know anything about the room, what kind of room it is, whether it has windows, and so on.  So you don’t have any beliefs that would be enough to justify your new belief, that there’s a white canopy bed in the room.  But that new belief <i>is</i> justified.  So justifies it?  Obviously, it’s a piece of <i>sense</i>-<i>experience</i>.  Namely, you saw the bed!  Here’s the justifier: you saw the bed through the keyhole.  Here’s the belief it justifies: There is a white canopy bed in the room.  So there’s a belief that is justified, but not justified by another belief.
> 
> Now remember what coherentism says: it says that if a belief is justified, then what justifies it is <i>a</i> <i>bunch</i> <i>of</i> <i>other</i> <i>beliefs</i>, in a belief system.  But <i>only</i> other beliefs.  I think you should be able to see that that is rather implausible now: it certainly looks as though there are <i>some</i> beliefs which are <i>not</i> justified by any other beliefs.  Rather, they are justified directly by experience.  If that’s true, then coherentism must be wrong.  Coherentism says that there are no beliefs that are justified by anything other than beliefs.
> 
> So let’s go back to the regress argument.  It says we have options (a), (b), and (c).  We have eliminated options (a) and (b).  Only (c) is left.  As you will recall, option (c) reads as follows: "the chain" -- the chain of justification -- "begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified <i>by</i> <i>another</i> <i>belief</i>."  This, we said, is called <i>foundationalism</i>.  So here is what the foundationalist theory of justification says:
> 
> A belief is <i>justified</i> iff (1) it is a basic/foundational belief (i.e., it is justified by a nonbelief), or (2) it is justified by a basic belief or beliefs, or (3) it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is ultimately justified by a basic belief or beliefs.
> 
> To understand what foundationalism says, we might as well use another analogy.  And the analogy explains why it’s called "foundationalism."  You remember that enormous belief system I have, that we were just talking about -- about myself, about the natural world, about our socio-political system, about philosophy, and so forth?  Compare that belief system to a building.  Ordinary individual beliefs occupy the upper stories of the building; basic, or foundational beliefs are down in the basement, in the foundation of the building, holding everything else up.   In a similar way, individual beliefs, say about economics or ethics, rest on more basic beliefs, say about the nature of human beings; and those rest on still more basic beliefs, say about the mind; and in the end the entire system rests on a set of beliefs, basic beliefs, which are not justified by other beliefs, but instead by something else.
> 
> So what is essential to foundationalism?  It’s the view that there are basic beliefs, foundational beliefs.  And what exactly are basic beliefs?  Here is a definition:
> 
> A belief is <i>basic</i> iff it is justified, but it is not justified by other beliefs.
> 
> So if a belief isn’t justified by other beliefs, then what <i>could</i> it be justified by?  I already introduced one source of justification: sense-perception.  It seems to me I see a white canopy bed through the keyhole, and that’s not a belief, it’s an event of perception.  Or, if you believe representational theory of perception, then you could say that it is a sense-datum!  And that’s what a lot of foundationalists <i>have</i> said, classically: that sense-data justify our basic beliefs.  At the foundation of knowledge, they say, is a whole body of sense-data, or what you and I call "experience."  And all beliefs are ultimately justified by sense-data.
> 
> Well, we’ve already looked at the representational theory of perception and I, at least, found it doubtful.  And in any case you don’t have to believe in sense-data in order to be a foundationalist.  Really all you have to believe is that it’s something that isn’t a belief that justifies a basic belief.  Doesn’t have to be a sense-datum.  It could be, as I say, an event of perception.
> 
> Now, you might object: What if your supposed event of perception wasn’t an event of perception, but instead a hallucination?  A <i>hallucination</i> couldn’t justify anything.  Well, that’s a problem we are going to have to face later.  Believe it or not it’s a very deep and difficult problem: the whole problem of skepticism.
> 
> Now how about some arguments in <i>favor</i> of foundationalism?  Well, there is, first of all, the regress argument.  But all the regress argument says is: well, it looks like regressism and coherentism are out; so we’re stuck with foundationalism, apparently.  So are there any <i>positive</i> arguments for foundationalism?  Some argument for foundationalism that wouldn’t involve simply saying that the other theories are wrong so this is what we’re left with?
> 
> What we want then is a positive argument that there <i>are</i> basic beliefs.  And remember what that means: beliefs which are justified, but not justified by other beliefs.  Well, we have given an argument for foundationalism, then, haven’t we?  I mean the third argument against coherentism.  It stated that there is <i>at</i> <i>least</i> <i>one</i> belief that is justified, but which can be justified only by reference to sense experience, and not to other beliefs.  Sense experience is, after all, a different mental process from believing -- even if we do typically believe almost everything we perceive.
> 
> I’m sure you can think of other examples.  Here’s an example of how memories can be justifiers.  I’ll bet you can remember some fairly minor childhood event in your life, which no one has any records for at all, and no one but you can remember.  Say you fell of your bike and scraped your knee.  Say you remember this vividly.  So you believe you did fall off your bike and scrape your knee when you were a child; you have a belief that that occurred.  Now, granted, you <i>might</i> be misremembering.  But surely you’re justified at least a <i>little</i> bit in believing that that childhood event occurred.  And what justifies you in believing it?  The fact that you remember it.
> 
> You might object: well no, it’s my <i>belief</i> that I remember it that justifies my belief that the event occurred.  In other words, make a distinction.  On the one hand there’s your memory of the event; on the other hand, there is your <i>belief</i> that you remember the event.  And you might tell me: what justifies my belief that the childhood event happened is that I <i>think</i> I remember the event.  Not that I <i>do</i> remember the event.
> 
> Well, suppose that that is true.  So we’ll suppose that your belief that Q, the belief that you fell off your bike as a child, is justified by another belief, namely the belief that you <i>remember</i> falling off your bike as a child.  But then I’ll just raise a question about the latter belief: what makes you justified in believing that you remember falling off your bike as a child?  I mean, if you really are justified in believing you remember that?  Well, what else could it be, besides your having a mental state that <i>was</i> <i>a</i> <i>memory</i>.  And the remembering is itself not a belief; even if it results in a belief, there’s a difference between remembering and believing.  So in <i>any</i> case, what <i>ultimately</i> justifies you in believing that you fell off your bike as a child is that you <i>remember</i> falling off your bike as a child.  So it is a nonbelief, a memory, that ultimately justifies you in holding that belief.
> 
> Now again, you might have a skeptical reaction: you might wonder, "What if I was misremembering?  Then I’m not justified in my belief."  Well, that might be the case.  That’s the sort of problem we’re going to have to deal with when we talk about skepticism next week.  But in any case, it does seem that if you’re <i>not</i> misremembering, if your memory is reliable, then it <i>can</i> justify your beliefs in past events.
> 
> It’s at this point that I should raise a bunch of objections to foundationalism I suppose.  One objection, as I have already hinted, is skepticism.  But there have been a lot of <i>other</i> objections to foundationalism; almost all of them, however, presuppose that the ultimate justifiers are <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i>, rather than events of perceiving, remembering, and so forth, themselves.  In other words, it has been very fashionable to bash foundationalism, in the past thirty or forty years.  But these criticisms have been of <i>representationalist</i> versions of foundationalism.  They also presuppose that foundationalism says that the foundations are absolutely certain and not open to any question.  But nothing I’ve said should lead you to believe that you have to be a representationalist, in order to be a foundationalist.  Nor should anything I’ve said lead you to believe that foundational beliefs have to be absolutely certain and unrevisable.  For all I’ve said, those foundational beliefs might be merely <i>probable</i>.  And I think that’s definitely the case: there are lots of basic beliefs that are not <i>absolutely</i> certain.  But they still do lend weight, at least <i>some</i> weight, to other of our beliefs.  That’s all foundationalists have to claim.
> 
> So actually, in order to criticize foundationalism, in the bare-bones version that I’ve presented it here, we’d have to get pretty technical.  And we don’t have the time to get so technical.  So let’s just take skepticism as our main objection to foundationalism; and that, as I said, is something we’ll deal with next time.
> 
> I said that there are three different possible kinds of justifiers, right?  They were: beliefs; non-belief mental states; and <i>other</i> sorts of things.  The <i>other</i> sorts of things I haven’t discussed.  We don’t have time to go into this in much depth, but I just want you to be aware of something.  There are <i>some</i> kinds of foundationalists, called <i>externalists</i>, who say that basic beliefs are justified by processes or states in the world that aren’t even conscious mental states.  In fact, we may not even be <i>aware</i> of some of the things that make us justified in our beliefs!  Or so say the externalists.  Externalism is opposed to <i>internalism</i>.  So let me define these two terms:
> 
> <i>Externalism</i> is the view that we need not have access to the justifiers of our beliefs.
> 
> <i>Internalism</i> is the view that we do always have access to the justifiers of our beliefs.
> 
> The debate between externalists and internalists has been raging in recent years -- the last few decades.  On the one hand you have the externalists saying, for example, that I can be justified in believing that Stockholm is the capital of Sweden even if I have totally forgotten any reason I originally had for believing this; I’m not aware of the justifiers of this belief, but it can still be justified.  On the other hand you have the internalists who counter that if you’re going to be justified in any belief, you’ve definitely got to be at least <i>able</i> <i>to</i> <i>become</i> <i>aware</i> of what justifies your belief.  If you don’t have access to your justifiers, say the internalists, then you aren’t really justified.
------
EpistemOlogy|981082029
1c1
< See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; 
---
> See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge
------
LibertarianisM|981082037
7c7
< A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
---
> <tt>A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
------
APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge|981082043
1c1,33
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We’ve just finished discussing, in a very introductory way, the <i>first</i> part of my definition of "epistemology."  So we just finished discussing "what the epistemic features of belief, such as justification and rationality, each are (e.g., what justified belief is)."  Next we are going to discuss, much more briefly, "the origin or sources of such [epistemic] features (and thus the sources of knowledge)."  So to phrase it as a question, we are next going to ask: What are the ultimate origins or sources of <i>justified</i> <i>belief</i>?  Now look, we’ve just got done discussing justification, and in our discussion of it we found that justified beliefs have justifiers.  So we could rephrase the question like this: What are the ultimate <i>justifiers</i> of belief?
> 
> Well, that’s what we were talking about just a few minutes ago, isn’t it?  Sense-perception, for example, is one of the ultimate justifiers of belief; memory is another.  And now just ask yourself something.  Is there <i>any</i> mental process -- remember our list of mental processes -- that does not contribute <i>any</i> justification to <i>any</i> belief?  Just for fun let’s consult that list of cognitive processes that I gave you when we talked about the philosophy of mind.  Here it is again: "perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion."  Are there any of those which do not, in any way, contribute to your justification, your intellectual right to believe something or not believe?
> 
> Perhaps.  Maybe belief, volition, and emotion have little to do with knowledge.  What could I <i>learn</i>, or <i>be</i> <i>justified</i> in believing, on account of my simply accepting something, or using my will, or merely <i>feeling</i> some way?  Perhaps there are some things: use your imagination.
> 
> But whether or not volition and emotion can justify beliefs at all, what about the other processes?  Some of them can <i>obviously</i> justify our beliefs; such as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, reasoning.  Those processes can all definitely contribute to the justification of beliefs.  Even introspection?  How so?  Well, introspection is just awareness of your own mental states.  So say you belief you are in great pain.  What justifies you in the belief?  That you introspect, or consider your own mental states; and when you do that you discover that you’ve got a pain.  You can do that, right  -- <i>discover</i> that you’re in pain?  Well, the process you’re engaged in, in making the discovery, is introspection.  "Gosh, I’ve been working all day long at this computer and I’ve just realized I’ve got an enormous pain in my neck" -- for example!
> 
> The process of <i>reasoning</i> is extremely important for human knowledge.  It is by reasoning -- which means, using arguments of various sorts -- that we build up knowledge from basic beliefs.  If we couldn’t reason, then we couldn’t get beyond the level of raw perception, unvarnished memory, and so for; we would be like children.  And indeed until children learn the ability to reason, they may hold lots of beliefs about religion and politics and so forth, but they have just learned those beliefs from their parents and elders.  Those childhood beliefs are not justified, though, because they are <i>merely</i> accepted on authority, not on any reasoning.
> 
> Now I want you to consider another kind of belief, in particular beliefs that <i>have</i> to be true.  You can call them beliefs in <i>necessary</i> <i>truths</i>, because they must be true.  Such as the following: 2+2=4; yellow is a color; a single point of light cannot be both red and blue at the same time; all bachelors are men; a part of a thing is never greater than the whole.  There are many examples.  The question now is: Given that we believe those claims, and given that those beliefs are <i>justified</i>, then what are the justifiers for those claims?
> 
> Some people think that they are justified totally independently of any sense-perception or other kind of experience; so their justifiers do <i>not</i> include perception or introspection (those are <i>the</i> two kinds of "experience," I guess).  In other words, those beliefs are justified <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> -- "prior" to experience, if you will.  Here is a definition of that term:
> 
> A belief is justified <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> iff its ultimate justifiers do not include sense-perception or introspection.
> 
> For example, what justifies you in believing that 2+2=4?  I mean, surely you <i>are</i> justified in that belief; the question is <i>what</i> justifies the belief.  If you accept that there is <i>priori</i> justification, you’d say: it’s <i>not</i> by sense-perception or introspection.  So it’s not as though you see two things, and then two more things, and then count out four.  That’s not how you’re justified in believing that 2+2=4.  So how <i>are</i> we justified in the belief?
> 
> The advocates of the <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> are not always perfectly clear.  But they often speak of something like "intuition," or "rational insight," or a faculty of "pure reason."  Exactly what such "intuition" amounts to is a little mysterious, I guess.  But plainly there are supposed to be lots of examples of its use: it is by intuition that we understand, and are justified in believing, that 2+2=4.  It’s by intuition that we understand and are justified in believing that the whole is greater than its parts.  And so forth.  But <i>not</i> by experience.
> 
> So another definition of <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> would be:
> 
> A belief is justified <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> iff its ultimate justifiers are only from the use of intuition (rational insight, pure reason).
> 
> <i>A</i> <i>priori</i> justification is contrasted by <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i> justification.  What is justified <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i> is justified "after" (think "posterior" to) experience.  So we can define <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i> justification as follows:
> 
> A belief is justified <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i> iff its ultimate justifiers include sense-perception or introspection.
> 
> So just any ordinary belief about your surroundings, about things you see, hear, feel, and so forth, is going to be <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i>.  Moreover, any introspective belief about your mental states is also going to be <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i>.  Then beyond that, any belief that is <i>ultimately</i> grounded in such experience, in perception or introspection, is <i>also</i> going to be justified <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i>.  So you might have some complex theory about gamma rays and galaxies and the origin of the universe; even though it’s the result of lots of complex scientific reasoning, since that reasoning <i>starts</i> with observations that you make with scientific instruments, it’s still <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i>.  Its ultimate justifiers include sense-perception.
> 
> The big question that epistemologists ask about this topic is: <i>Are</i> there any <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> justified beliefs?  In the history of philosophy, some people have thought so; they tended to be called <i>rationalists</i>.  There is more to rationalism than that, but the view that was really basic to rationalism is the belief in the <i>a</i> <i>priori</i>.  Contrasted with rationalism was <i>empiricism</i>, the essential part of which is the rejection of the <i>a</i> <i>priori</i>, and the view that the justification of all beliefs ultimately depends on experience -- that there is only <i>a</i> <i>posteriori</i> justified beliefs, not <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> justified beliefs.
> 
> I suspect that you won’t be surprised if I tell you that most philosophers these days are empiricists, and that they deny the existence of <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> justified beliefs.  They think everything must ultimately be justified based on experience; experience is all we have, in the long run.
------
LibertarianisM|981082046
7c7
< <tt>A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
---
> <pre>A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
------
LibertarianisM|981082054
7c7
< <pre>A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
---
> A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
------
EpistemOlogy|981082088
1c1
< See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge
---
> See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge; KnowLedge
------
KnowLedge|981082105
1c1,85
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Most of you probably think you know some things.  You know your name -- let’s start with simple things.  You know that you are a student; you know that you are over ten years old; you know that the city we’re in is called "Columbus"; and so forth.  You know all kinds of things lik7e that.  
> 
> The first thing we’re going to do is to ask what knowledge <i>in</i> <i>general</i> is.  When do you <i>know</i> something and when do you <i>merely</i> believe it?  So we are going to be studying the third part of the definition of "epistemology" that I gave you last time.  Let me repeat the third part; it reads: epistemology is the study of "(3) what knowledge is, i.e., what epistemic features would make a true belief knowledge."
> 
> Now, the theory of knowledge would be a mildly amusing intellectual game if it involved no more than defining what you mean when you know what your name is, or that you are over ten years old.  If that were the total extent of the importance of the theory of knowledge, then of course it wouldn’t be very important.  But the theory of knowledge also investigates something much more crucial and interesting; namely, what it means to say that we know crucial and important things, and not merely trivial things like our own names.  How can we distinguish when we know, say, that we have a cure for human cancer, versus when we merely believe it with some evidence, but <i>don’t</i> know it?
> 
> Here, see if you agree with this or not: sometimes it really makes a difference whether we know something, as opposed to just believing it with a little evidence.  A correct assessment of whether we know something can sometimes spell the difference between life and death.  Suppose you are enjoying yourself, driving fast along a windy mountain road.  You come to a gas station and the gas station attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that there was a big accident just around the big curve on State Route 99."  That’s all you find out.  So you hop back in your car and drive down the windy mountainous road, State Route 99.  And you keep driving fast.  You might tell yourself: "I don’t <i>know</i> that there the wreck is just around the curve."  So you keep driving fast.  But then a thought occurs to you: "I don’t know that it’s <i>not</i> around the next corner, either!"  So when you approach the next corner, you slow way down.  And it’s a good thing too -- because there’s the wreck and you would have crashed right into it.  So it saved your life, in this fictional scenario anyway, that you correctly assessed that you <i>didn’t</i> know that the wreck <i>wasn’t</i> around the next corner.  That’s one example of how a correct assessment of your knowledge state can save your life.  I’m sure you can think of many other examples of how knowledge can turn out to be very important.
> 
> Now, I’m not saying that what you’re about to learn is going to save your life, because it probably won’t.  All I’m saying is that the subject of the investigation, knowledge, really is very important.  And so that lends at least some importance to the study of what knowledge is.
> 
> So let’s get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge?  How can I define the word or the concept, "knowledge"?
> 
> Let’s begin by saying what we’re <i>not</i> talking about, when we ask this question.  First of all we aren’t just talking about <i>belief</i>.  I guess there is a very, very loose way we have of talking sometimes, when I can say, "What <i>she</i> knows is different from what <i>I</i> know; we disagree."  When I say stuff like that, all I mean is that we believe different things.  I don’t mean, in any strong, literal sense, that both of us know that contradictory claims are true.  So when we’re talking about knowledge, we aren’t talking about mere belief.  It’s something more than that.
> 
> We also aren’t talking about <i>know</i>-<i>how</i>.  If I know how to swim, I display my know-how by swimming.  On the other hand, if I know that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, I do not display my knowledge by <i>doing</i> anything in particular.  Not even by talking.  Even if I couldn’t talk, I would still know that water is H2O.  On the other hand, if I can’t <i>swim</i>, then I don’t know <i>how</i> to swim.  So knowing how to do something is different from knowing that a proposition is true.  Knowing <i>how</i> is different from knowing <i>that</i>, or as we will say, <i>propositional</i> knowledge.  Knowledge that some proposition is true is propositional knowledge.  That should make sense, I think.  When I use the word "know" in a sentence like "I know how to use a circular saw," I mean one thing.  When I use the word "know" in a sentence like "I know that the value of pi can be infinitely expanded," I mean something different.  Roughly speaking, the first claim is about action; the second is only about something in our mind.  An even better way to think about it might be that knowledge is a highly specialized mental process.
> 
> So we aren’t talking about mere belief, and we aren’t talking about know-how.  But third, we also aren’t talking about <i>the</i> <i>accumulated</i> <i>information</i> <i>that</i> <i>human</i> <i>beings</i> <i>have</i> <i>amassed</i>.  If you like you could call this "encyclopedic knowledge."  Something is knowledge in <i>this</i> sense if it is generally accepted and the sort of thing that you would find in an encyclopedia.  Sometimes people -- scientists and historians are two good examples -- will say, "It is known that <i>p</i>," and they state some specific fact that is generally accepted by scientists or historians.  But of course a fairly large part of what we "know," in this encyclopedic sense, is just wrong.  We discover that what we thought was a fact, and what we taught schoolchildren to be fact, really isn’t factual at all -- it’s an error.  And so we might say that human knowledge, in this sense, has evolved and changed over the years.
> 
> We <i>aren’t</i> talking about knowledge in <i>this</i> sense.  In other words, by the word "knowledge," we <i>don’t</i>  mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts.  We aren’t talking about that, because the sort of knowledge we’re talking about isn’t something that changes.  If you know it, then you can’t change your mind and then know something totally contradictory.  If you change your mind and believe the opposite of what you believed before, then you can either have knowledge now, or before your changed your mind -- not at both times.  And of course that’s the beauty and the value of knowledge, in the sense that we’re talking about: once you have it, as long as you don’t change your mind, then you’ve got it for good.
> 
> So here are three things that the word "knowledge" <i>doesn’t</i> mean, in the sense we’re interested in: first, mere belief; second, know-how; and third, encyclopedic, changeable human knowledge.  I could list other senses of the word "knowledge" that we don’t mean, but I doubt that’s necessary.  As I said, the name for what we <i>are</i> studying is knowledge <i>that</i>, or <i>propositional</i> <i>knowledge</i>.
> 
> In fact, I can begin our discussion of what knowledge in this sense is, just by starting the definition; we’ll decide what to add to it later:
> 
> S (meaning a person) <i>knows</i> that P (meaning a proposition) iff S ...
> 
> Now we have to fill in the blank.  What does S have to do in order to know that P?
> 
> Well, first, S has to <i>accept</i> or to <i>believe</i> that P.  In order to know that a proposition is true, you’ve at the very least got to believe it.  Or more to the point, if you <i>don’t</i> believe it, if you disbelieve a claim, then of course you can’t really know it.  What sense would it make to say: "I don’t believe that my watch is broken, but I know that my watch is broken."  That’s so strange that it hardly makes any sense.  If you know something, then you at least believe it.
> 
> But as I already said, mere belief by itself isn’t enough.  So what more is needed?
> 
> Truth.  Truth is the second requirement for knowledge.  So not must you believe a proposition, in order to know it; it must also be true.  Again, try this claim out for size -- see if you think this makes sense.  "It’s false that my watch is broken, but I know it is broken."  Or how about this: "I know that high tide occurs at 2 pm today; but it’s false that it does."  That’s just absurd!  I doubt I need to dwell any longer on that point.  So now let’s look at our definition of knowledge so far.  Here it is:
> 
> S <i>knows</i> that P iff S believes that P, and P is true.
> 
> For example: I know that the sun does not rise for a month at the North Pole in the middle of winter; I believe that claim and that claim is true.  All right?
> 
> But let me give you another example where this definition would apply.  I decide to go to the horse races.  I’m just out for a good time.  So I’m up in the stands, and my eye happens to fall on a list of the names of the racehorses competing today.  The first name I see is "Lucky Charm" and I think to myself, "Lucky Charm is going to win.  Lucky Charm is definitely going to win."  And somehow I manage to convince myself that Lucky Charm will indeed come in first place.  So I watch the race and what do you know, but Lucky Charm <i>does</i> win.  Now let P be: "Lucky Charm will win."  So I believed that P, and P was true.  But did I <i>know</i> that P?  Did I <i>know</i> that Lucky Charm would win?  Of course not!  It was totally arbitrary how I decided to believe that that particular horse, out of all the other horses, would win.
> 
> On the other hand, <i>maybe</i> if I studied all the right statistics, and I knew that Lucky Charm was having a good day and the competition was really off, then I might know that Lucky Charm would win.  But the point is that not only do I have to <i>believe</i> a claim in order to have knowledge; my belief also has to be <i>justified</i>.  I have to have <i>good</i> <i>reason</i> to believe it.  I have to have <i>evidence</i>.  My belief has to be <i>rational</i>.  So let’s update our definition of "knowledge": 
> 
> S <i>knows</i> that P iff S believes that P, P is true, and S is justified in believing that P.
> 
> Or for short: <i>Knowledge</i> <i>is</i> <i>justified</i>, <i>true</i> <i>belief</i>.  Remember that formula.  This is widely called the "JTB" definition of knowledge, for the rather obvious reason that "JTB" stands for "justified, true belief."  We originally got it, or a version of it, from good old Plato, who may or may not have gotten it from Socrates.  So this definition of knowledge has been around for a long, long time.
> 
> Justification is part of the concept of knowledge, by this definition.  So you might notice that this definition is different from the one suggested by John Hospers in our reading.  Hospers says that the third requirement is that one must have <i>evidence</i> for one’s belief, in order for it to be knowledge.  I could summarize his definition by saying that knowledge is true belief with evidence.  And well, we could put it that way; that would be acceptible.  But there may be a difference between saying that a belief is <i>justified</i>, and saying that one has <i>evidence</i> for it.  How would we decide if justification and evidence are the same?  Well, we’d have to ask: Do all justified beliefs have evidence for them?  I don’t think so, but I won’t go into it.  And we’d also have to ask: Are all beliefs that are supported by evidence justified?  Again, I don’t think so, but I won’t go into that either.
> 
> In any case, though, justification and evidence are both <i>epistemic</i>  <i>features</i> of belief -- if you can remember that term, "epistemic features," from last time.  Justification and evidence are, in other words, both qualities that indicate that the belief is true.  We could try out other epistemic features in the definition of knowledge, if we wanted to.  Instead of "justified true belief" or "true belief with evidence," we could say that knowledge is "rational true belief" or "warranted true belief."  For our purposes, the differences between these different options don’t matter.  The whole point is that, to be knowledge, a belief has to have some positive epistemic feature; it can’t be arbitrary or random or irrational.  So let’s just stick with "justified true belief," the old JTB definition.
> 
> Now there are three different sorts of questions that arise about the JTB definition, that I am going to address anyway.  The three questions are as follows.  First, <i>what</i> <i>degree</i> of justification is required for knowledge?  Second is a question that would take too long to formulate; let’s just say that it’s widely known as the Gettier problem.  Third, is knowledge possible?  With the third question we’ll be moving finally into the topic of skepticism.
> 
> So let’s start with the first question: What degree of justification is required for knowledge?  You might say: "Huh?  What do you mean ‘degree of justification’?"  Well, justification comes in degrees, from weak justification to strong justification.  The better your justifiers, or your evidence, the better justified your belief is.  To make this clear, let me give you an example of a belief that has <i>weak</i> justification, and then an example of a belief that has <i>strong</i> justification.
> 
> In the <i>Dispatch</i> in the back of Metro section everyday you can find a five-day weather forecast.  The forecast for the day the newspaper is published on is pretty good.  It’s occasionally wrong, but it’s usually right and therefore very useful.  And so if the forecast says that today, it’s going to rain all day long, and I look out my window and I see that it’s raining, then I am justified, rather strongly justified, in believing that it will be raining for most of the rest of the day, at least.  So that’s a fairly strongly justified belief.  You can imagine even stronger beliefs, like my belief that my name is Larry Sanger.  It’s hard to imagine a belief that has stronger justification than that.  The beliefs that have the strongest possible justification are beliefs that we call <i>certain</i>.  A belief is <i>certain</i> if no belief is more strongly justified than it is.
> 
> By contrast, suppose that the forecast for five days from now is: sunny and warm.  But the five-day forecasts are not nearly as reliable as the same-day forecasts.  They aren’t completely useless, but they are often wrong.  So if I were to believe that in five days, it will be sunny and warm, just because I see that five-day forecast in the newspaper, that belief would not be strongly justified.  Not <i>nearly</i> as strongly justified as my belief in what the forecast says for today.
> 
> So now again, here’s the problem: <i>How</i> <i>strong</i> does the justification of a true belief have to be, in order for that true belief to be <i>knowledge</i>?
> 
> I’m not going to try to answer this question at much length, but I do want to say a few things about it.  First of all, it clearly can’t be <i>too</i> <i>weak</i>.  Take for example my belief that in five days, it will be sunny and warm.  Then suppose that five days from now, it really <i>will</i> be sunny and warm, just as was forecasted.  Then I have a true belief about the future; and surely the forecast does give me some very weak justification for the belief.  But do we really want to say that I <i>know</i> that it will be sunny and warm?  I don’t think so.  I mean, it was just too much of a shot in the dark.  I just got lucky.  The five-day forecast just <i>happened</i> to be right.
> 
> On the other hand, the justification doesn’t have to be <i>certain</i>.  For example, indeed, suppose it’s three o’clock in the afternoon, and I’m walking along and I meet you.  I’ve got my umbrella, because in the morning I saw the morning forecast: rain all day long.  So I believed it was going to rain.  You, on the other hand, don’t have an umbrella and you’re getting wet.  So I gloat, "I knew it was going to rain."  Now would it be right for you to reply like this? -- "Naw, you didn’t know that.  All you did was read the morning forecast.  So it wasn’t <i>certain</i> that it would rain."  I don’t think that would be right.  Did I really have to be <i>certain</i> that the forecast was right, in order to <i>know</i> the forecast was right?  I don’t think so.  Maybe this is a borderline case of knowledge though.  Maybe it isn’t strongly <i>enough</i> justified: I mean, maybe we <i>never</i> have knowledge about weather forecasts.  But if you want my personal opinion, it’s that we do, sometimes, have <i>knowledge</i> of weather forecasts.  I definitely <i>don’t</i> think that we have to be <i>certain</i> of a thing in order to know it.
> 
> But there is a strong sense of the word "knowledge," perhaps as used in mathematics, where you have to be either certain, or very close to certain, before you can be said to <i>know</i> something.  The standards of knowledge there might require stronger justification than in other areas of life.  Why might that be?  Why would mathematicians require a higher degree of justification in order to have mathematical knowledge?  Well, perhaps because it’s possible to <i>prove</i> things in mathematics, in a way that one can’t prove things about the weather or about economics or sociology.  Since a higher degree of justification is <i>possible</i>, that higher degree of justification is made a requirement for knowledge.
> 
> So my idea is that the strength of the justification you need in order to have knowledge depends on the object of knowledge -- the thing you are trying to know.  At any rate we should update our definition of knowledge to reflect the insight we’ve gained:
> 
> S <i>knows</i> that P iff S believes that P, P is true, and S is sufficiently justified in believing that P.
> 
> And for simplicity we’re just going to leave the term "sufficiently" vague and unspecified.  There is more discussion of this point in our reading.
> 
> OK, onto the second question, which I said is not so much a question as it is a rather complex problem, called the Gettier problem.  The Gettier problem is basically the problem that we can give certain kinds of <i>counterexamples</i> to the JTB definition.  A counterexample is a case where the definition applies, but the word defined doesn’t; or a case where the word defined applies, but the definition doesn’t.  Gettier counterexamples are examples where the definition, <i>justified</i>, <i>true</i> <i>belief</i> applies; but one nevertheless still doesn’t have knowledge, so the word "knowledge" doesn’t apply in that case.  So let me give one such counterexample.  Another such case can be found in our reading.  This sort of counterexample is due to an obscure philosopher named Edmund Gettier.
> 
> Say there’s a man you know named Jones, and you find out that Jones is going to be offered a job (the boss tells you this).  So you’re walking around somewhere and you see Jones, who for some reason is emptying out his pockets and counting out his change.  He says that he has ten coins in his pocket.  So now you have two justified beliefs: that Jones is going to get the job, and that Jones has ten coins.  And so you infer from these two beliefs: The person who is going to get the job has ten coins.  And that’s a justified belief too, right?  Because you’re perfectly justified in believing that Jones is getting the job and that he has ten coins.  So the person who is going to get the job has ten coins.  Fine.
> 
> But now suppose that <i>you</i> applied for the job; and contrary to what you were told, it turns out <i>you</i> are going to get the job, not Jones.  The boss only <i>told</i> you that Jones was going  to get the job, so that he could surprise you.  So it turns out, even though you originally had a justified belief that Jones was going to get the job, he didn’t get it.  And that happens sometimes: sometimes things that we’re well within our rights to believe turn out, surprisingly, to be false.  But now just on a lark you decide to empty out your pockets and lo and behold, you count out ten coins.  So!  It turns out that the person who is going to get the job <i>does</i> have ten coins.
> 
> Now think back, to before you knew you were going to get the job.  You thought Jones was going to get it.  And you believed this justifiedly, even though it turned out to be wrong.  And you were also justified in believing that Jones has 10 coins.  What follows?  The person who is going to get the job has ten coins; and so you believed <i>this</i> justifiedly too.  But it turns out that this was <i>true</i>.  So you had a <i>justified</i>, <i>true</i> <i>belief</i>  that the person who is going to get the job has ten coins.  But clearly you didn’t <i>know</i> that then.  You thought it was <i>Jones</i> who was going to get the job and you based your claim on that false, but justified assumption.  Nonetheless, what you inferred from that assumption was <i>true</i>!  So you had a justified true belief; but you didn’t have knowledge.  Well, Gettier and a lot of other philosophers said, that means that knowledge must be something more than justified, true belief.
> 
> Gettier’s article was published in 1963.  Right after that, for a good decade or more, there was an enormous number of articles trying to supply the missing fourth condition of knowledge.  The big project was to try to figure out the "X" in the equation, knowledge = belief + truth + justification + X.  But whenever someone came up with a new definition, by coming up with something to put in for X, someone else would come up with a new counterexample to shoot down that definition.  We don’t really have time to go over the different definitions that people have proposed.  Some of them are actually quite complicated.
> 
> The Gettier problem is, at any rate, the standard objection to the JTB definition of knowledge; and it’s instructive to try to figure out how you might try to get around the problem.  So I’ll just have to leave it as an exercise for you.
> 
> The third question about our definition of knowledge is: Is knowledge possible?  Now if you take a look at that definition, you’ll notice something: If I know something, then I am sufficiently justified in believing it.  So we have a way to rephrase the question, "Is knowledge possible?"  Instead, we can ask: "Am I ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge?"  The skeptic is the person who says "No."  So let’s look next at skepticism.
------
LibertarianisM|981082128
7c7
< A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.
---
> A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.  The libertarian believes the state should not violate individual rights in any for, and so opposes the right and left equally.
------
EpistemOlogy|981082193
1c1
< See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge; KnowLedge
---
> See also TheoryOfJustification; TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology; APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge; KnowLedge; ScepticIsm; CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus
------
CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus|981082211
1c1,29
< Describe the new page here.
---
> OK, we’ve gone through all four parts of the definition of "epistemology" I’ve given you.  I want to spend a few minutes on a topic that is closely related, and which sheds light on a lot of things we’ve talked about.
> 
> Here’s another problem, that goes back to ancient times, to one of the first skeptics, named Sextus Empiricus.  Sextus’ problem is called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>criterion</i>.  You will soon see why I’m raising this problem now.  It goes like this.  Suppose I want to say that a proposition, P, is true.  But in order to claim that P is true, I have to have a <i>criterion</i> of truth.  What is a criterion of truth?  Well, it’s something that will let us determine whether a given claim is true or false.  An example of a criterion of truth would be: If I very clearly and distinctly understand that P, then P is true.  (That was actually a criterion that Descartes gave, but I’m only telling it to you to give you an example.)
> 
> So suppose I’ve said that P, and I’ve offered some criterion, call the criterion C, that tells me that P is true.  So what more does Sextus want?  He says: but look, your criterion, C, is <i>another</i> <i>claim</i>.  And so it, too, can be judged true or false only by a criterion.  And look, if I apply the criterion to itself, I’m arguing in a circle; I’m begging the question.  That is, if I say that C is true because it meets the criterion C, then I have presupposed just what I was trying to prove.  And what good is that?  That’s begging the question, which is off-limits.  So, Sextus said, you’d have to use some <i>other</i> criterion -- criterion D, say.  But then D is yet <i>another</i> claim, and you need some <i>other</i> criterion to judge <i>it</i>.  Like criterion E.  Well, you can see where <i>this</i> is going.  It’s another regress and it looks like it can’t stop.
> 
> Well, let’s go back to the original claim, that P, and the original criterion that we used to judge it, namely C.  Maybe we could say: a bunch of propositions are all known to be true; since criterion C just summarizes why they’re all true.  They are all very clearly and distinctly understood, say; so criterion C says, "<i>Whatever</i> is very clearly and distinctly understood is true."  Then we have argued for criterion C without using another criterion -- we’ve just used a lot of individual claims.
> 
> I think you might very rightly find this confusing.  If criterion C does summarize why a lot of individual claims are true, how does that show that we still don’t need a criterion to know that C is true?  In fact here’s a good idea of what that particular criterion might be: "If a criterion summarizes why a lot of propositions are true, then the criterion is true."  That’s a criterion of truth that applies to criteria of truth!
> 
> It looks like there’s no way out of using a criterion of truth, if we ever want to argue for a criterion of truth!  And if Sextus Empiricus is right, we always have to use a criterion of truth if we want to be justified in saying that a particular claim is true.  But then we are faced with circularity or regress.  Either we argue in a circle and say that a criterion applies to itself, or we say there’s an infinite regress of criteria.
> 
> Now this view is, I think, philosophical <i>poison</i>.  It’s really insidious.  If you think you <i>must</i> have a criterion, or some sort of standard that you use to judge claims true, in order to be justified in saying something is true, then you’re going to end up facing skepticism.  I want to give you what I, and quite a few other philosophers regard as the antidote to this poison.  The antidote is due to two philosophers we’ve encountered before: Thomas Reid, and G. E. Moore.  And this is called the method of <i>common</i> <i>sense</i>.
> 
> Reid pointed out that whenever we investigate anything at all, whenever we start thinking about some subject, we have to make assumptions.  There isn’t any way to avoid that.  If you try to support your assumptions with reasons, you’re going to end up assuming something <i>else</i>.  So since we know <i>in</i> <i>advance</i> that we are going to have to make some assumptions, whenever we do philosophy, then what we have to do is clear: we have to assume those things that are most obvious, the matters of common sense that no one ever seriously doubts.
> 
> Now bear in mind, by "common sense" I don’t mean old adages like "Chicken soup is good for colds."  I mean much, much more basic claims than that.  I mean claims like: "Human beings typically have two eyes, two ears, two hands, two feet," and so on.  Or: "The world has a ground and a sky."  Or: "Plants and animals come in a wide variety of sizes and colors."  Or: "2+2=4."  Or: "I am conscious and alive right now."  These are all the absolutely most obvious sorts of claims that one could possibly make; and, said Reid and Moore, these are the claims that make up <i>common</i> <i>sense</i>.  They are, you might say, the <i>principles</i> of common sense.  And once again, the point is that since we know we are going to have to make <i>some</i> assumptions, then we might as well assume what is most obvious, namely the principles of common sense.
> 
> This is a very, very powerful thought, because it has the potential to undercut a lot of philosophical silliness and nonsense.  There have been some people who have said, for example, that time does not <i>really</i> exist; it is ultimately only a complex illusion.  I’m not making that up, some philosophers have actually said that, that time is an illusion.  Now, what does common sense have to say about that?  Basically, that we can reject that theory out of hand.  We scarcely need to <i>argue</i> against it: because any sophisticated philosophical premises that you would use, in order to establish that time does not exist, are not nearly as obviously true, and as legitimately assumable, as the very claim in question, namely, that time does indeed exist.  In other words, if we have to make a choice between, on the one hand, some rather dubious, sophisticated assumptions, that you’d have to make in order show that time doesn’t exist; and, on the other hand, a principle of common sense, that time exists; if we have to make that choice, then there’s no contest.  We go with common sense and reject sophisticated silliness every time.  That’s how Reid and Moore both approached a lot of problems.
> 
> Now Moore is famous for applying common sense to skepticism.  I won’t go into his argument in any detail, but I’ll bet you can guess how it goes.  Very roughly, he said: "I know that this is a hand; and I know that this is another; therefore I know that two things exist in the external world; therefore I know that there is an external world."  That’s the gist of his argument.  How does that answer the skeptic, though, you might ask?  Couldn’t Moore be <i>dreaming</i> that he was seeing his hand?  Couldn’t he be seeing mere hand <i>sense</i>-<i>data</i> and no actual hand at all?  No, said Moore: those possibilities may be ruled out because it’s as obvious as anything can be that I know that this is a hand.  That’s a principle of common sense.  It can’t be rejected, certainly not based on any sort of sophisticated philosophical assumptions.  So definitely, Moore thought, he <i>is</i> permitted to assume, without argument, that he knows that he has two hands; and he is permitted to use such ordinary, everyday assumptions to reject sophisticated philosophical theories, such as skepticism about the external world.
> 
> I don’t know about you, but I find the method of common sense refreshing.  I would be remiss if I did not mention, however, that some philosophers regard it as naïve.  But believe me, there have been some extremely intelligent, well-respected philosophers who have given some very sophisticated defenses of the method of common sense.
> 
> Now, I said that the method of common sense is the "antidote" to the problem of the criterion.  How so?  Well, like this: if the method of common sense is correct, then in philosophy, as in every day life, we may take the principles of common sense for granted, without argument.  And we <i>do</i> not need criteria, not <i>always</i>, in order to judge whether a proposition is true or not.  And for that matter, we can also take some criteria of truth for granted, according to common sense.  Because definitely, some criteria of truth <i>are</i> principles of common sense.  I mean that they are <i>really</i> <i>obviously</i> <i>true</i>.
> 
> Here’s an example: If it seems to me that I am seeing myself in the mirror, and I have no serious reason to doubt this, then it’s <i>true</i> that I’m seeing myself in the mirror.  I claim that that’s a principle of common sense: it is one of the sorts of things that we all take for granted, and never seriously in doubt; and if we do doubt it, the doubt is bound to seem just absurd.  I could give lots of other examples, but I don’t think that will be necessary.
> 
> Anyway, then, if the method of common sense is right, we can start our philosophical investigations with common sense, making particular claims about what is true, and also making generalizations, or stating criteria, about when claims are true.  Because both the truth-claims and the criteria-claims can both be principles of common sense.  Moreover, it’s a principle of common sense that our basic faculties are reliable.  Armed with those assumptions, that way, we can immediately reply to various kinds of skepticism, without wasting time thinking about skeptical doubts about dreaming and such.  And that way, too, we can get around Sextus’ problem of the criterion: there is no infinite regress or circle of criteria, because the buck stops with the principles of common sense.
------
ScepticIsm|981082250
1c1,75
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In its broadest sense, <i>skepticism</i> is the view that either we <i>do</i> not have any knowledge, or that we <i>cannot</i> have any propositional knowledge -- knowledge either about <i>everything</i>, or about <i>some</i> <i>particular</i> <i>area</i>.  We’re going to have to narrow our investigation; but first let me explain the different kinds of skepticism.
> 
> First, skepticism can be either the claim that we <i>don’t</i> have knowledge, or that we <i>can’t</i> have knowledge.  There’s a difference -- the second is a stronger claim, and harder to prove.  I mean, it really is one thing to say that we <i>could</i>, but unfortunately don’t, have knowledge.  I think Socrates might have held that view.  He basically seemed to think that if we continue to ask questions we might eventually come to have knowledge; but we don’t have it yet.  (Or they didn’t back in ancient Greece anyway!)
> 
> It’s quite a different thing to say that we <i>couldn’t</i> <i>ever</i> <i>possibly</i> have knowledge -- to say that knowledge is impossible.  I think this has been, believe it or not, a more common opinion among skeptics.  They really did, and a very few still do, think that we just cannot know anything.  This is the variety we’ll be investigating in a little bit.
> 
> Now remember that I said that skepticism can be either about <i>everything</i>, or about some <i>particular</i> <i>area</i>.  If knowledge of anything at all is impossible, then my view is <i>global</i> <i>skepticism</i>.  Whatever in the world you pick, I will say that you can’t possibly, or at least don’t, know it.  There have been very few global skeptics in the history of philosophy.  Hardly anybody has been <i>that</i> bold.  Global skepticism really <i>is</i> bold -- because look at what it denies.  It denies I know my own name.  It denies that I know that I have a mind, or a body.  It denies that I know I have been alive for longer than ten minutes.  And so forth!  How anyone might rationally support global skepticism, I won’t venture to say.  I seriously doubt there are <i>any</i> even <i>minimally</i> <i>plausible</i> arguments for global skepticism, at least of the variety that says: "We cannot know anything at all."  Maybe the weaker versions, that say, "We <i>do</i> not know anything at all" could have some support.  But I’m not going to get into that.
> 
> Now if I say deny that we do or can have knowledge of a particular area, then my view is <i>local</i> skepticism.  And I say that I am a skeptic <i>about</i> the area that I have doubts about.  Of course there are different kinds of local skepticism, depending on the area.  Areas like: the external world; other minds; the past and the future; and so forth.  Take for example the external world.  If I say that no one can know anything about the external world, the world that exists apart from my own mind, then I am a local skeptic, and I espouse <i>skepticism</i> <i>about</i> the external world.  Or even more briefly, external world skepticism.
> 
> So let me summarize this dry introductory material about skepticism, and then we’ll get into the meatier stuff.  Skepticism is the view that either we <i>do</i> not have any knowledge, or that we <i>cannot</i> have any propositional knowledge -- knowledge either about <i>everything</i>, or about <i>some</i> <i>particular</i> <i>area</i>.  We are going to talk about the sort of skepticism that claims we <i>cannot</i> have propositional knowledge.  Skepticism about <i>everything</i> is global skepticism, but that’s a very implausible view.  We are instead going to talk about some different kinds of <i>local</i> skepticism.  So we are going to look at some skepticisms that say: We <i>cannot</i> have knowledge about some particular area, X, or Y, or Z.  (I’ll say what X,  Y, and Z might be in a bit.)
> 
> Now remember, just before we started talking about skepticism, I said we would ask: "Is knowledge possible?"  I said we could rephrase that by asking: "Am I ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge?"  I said the skeptic says "No."  So the skeptic says I am never sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge of it.  But we just learned that this is a little vague, and we are narrowing down what the skeptic claims.  So more precisely we’ll say the skeptic claims:
> 
> We <i>can</i> <i>never</i> <i>be</i> justified in believing something <i>about</i> <i>area</i> <i>X</i>, or at least not enough to give us knowledge about that area.
> 
> You’re probably wondering what "areas" I’m talking about, exactly.  Once again the areas are, for example, the external world; other minds; the past and the future; and so forth.
> 
> Now remember some things we talked about last time, about justification.  At one point we were talking about foundationalism, and I gave an argument for foundationalism.  If foundationalism is true, then there have to be some basic beliefs; and basic beliefs, remember, are beliefs that are justified, but not justified by other <i>beliefs</i>.  So what could justify basic beliefs?  I said: mental events, like an instance of perception, or an instance of memory.
> 
> Let me put that point in a more concrete way.  Say I’m looking across a field of daisies and I see a cow.  So I believe there is a cow across the field of daisies.  And surely this belief is justified.  How is it justified?  What justifies the belief?  Why, the mere fact that I see the cow.  Or more technically: it is the event of my seeing the cow that justifies my belief that the cow is there peacefully grazing on daisies.
> 
> This is an important point to understand so I’ll give you another example.  Suppose I am reminiscing about my high school days and I vividly recall a very nasty gym teacher -- very loud and rude.  So I believe I had a nasty gym teacher; and again this belief is justified.  How?  By the fact that I remember it.  That’s all.  Again, more technically: it is the event of my remembering my nasty gym teacher that justifies my belief that I had that teacher.
> 
> This is all actually very straightforward, once you understand what’s being said.  If we assume that foundationalism is true, then we’ve got basic beliefs; and our basic beliefs, to be basic, have to be justified by something that isn’t a belief; so what justifies them?  The operation of ordinary cognitive processes, like seeing, remembering, feeling, introspecting, and so forth.  When I remember something, that gives me excellent reason to believe what I remember.  Not always of course, but usually, especially if the memory is vivid and I can’t think of any reason to think that this particular memory is wrong.
> 
> But in any case, if I do get justified beliefs from the use of memory, then my memory has to be reliable.  Similarly with perception: if my seeming to see something makes me justified in believing it’s there, then I have to assume that perception is reliable.  If it were unreliable -- if it were often giving me false information -- then I couldn’t say I was justified just based on the use of perception.
> 
> You’ll remember that I said that local skepticism is skepticism <i>about</i> <i>particular</i> <i>areas</i>.  Now I can tell you what the areas are: they are matched up, not exactly but fairly closely, with different cognitive processes.  What the skeptic doubts is that our cognitive processes are reliable.  The skeptic says, for example: perception is not reliable; therefore, you are not justified in your beliefs about what you perceive.
> 
> Since what you perceive is the external world, this sort of skeptic says: you are not justified in your beliefs about <i>the</i> <i>external</i> <i>world</i>.  So one kind of skepticism is called <i>external</i> <i>world</i> <i>skepticism</i>: that is the view that we cannot know anything about an external world, even that such an external world exists!  The reason we can’t is that our faculty of perception is not reliable.  We have already seen this view in action, when we talked about the theory of perception.  Now we’re approaching it from a different angle.
> 
> You might be wondering, of course, why anyone would want to say that perception is not reliable.  I’ve already given you one argument, which was due to David Hume.  To review that very quickly, Hume’s argument basically says that we can’t know anything about the external world, because to know that we would have to know that there is a connection between our sense-data and the external world that they are supposed to represent.  But the only thing we have contact with are our sense-data; we can never know anything in the external world except by first knowing our sense-data.  But then we have no way to prove the connection between our sense-data and the external world.  So we have no way to prove that our sense-data do represent any external world -- and <i>that</i> is to say that we have no way to prove that perception is reliable.
> 
> Now I’m going to give you <i>another</i> argument for external world skepticism, which is more famous than Hume’s.  Namely, Descartes’ famous dreaming doubt, and it goes like this.  Descartes was writing one evening in his room, and he thought to himself (I paraphrase very loosely): What if I am asleep in bed right now, and only <i>dreaming</i> that I am awake, and writing?  Isn’t that at least possible?  Then he said, well surely, I can tell when I am awake and when I am asleep.  I can tell the difference between wakefulness and a dream.  All sorts of strange things happen in dreams; I pass unaccountably from scene to scene when I’m dreaming; I don’t have any long memory of what happened in a day, when I’m dreaming; and so forth.  Then Descartes said: Haven’t I had those very thoughts in some of my dreams?  Sometimes, when I was dreaming, I was convinced that I was awake!  I even tried to test that I was awake, when I was dreaming, and the tests convinced me that I was awake!  But I was wrong; I <i>was</i> dreaming.  Isn’t it quite possible that the same thing is happening to me <i>right</i> <i>now</i>?  Isn’t it possible that I am dreaming that I can test whether I’m awake or asleep -- and of course, in my dream, I pass the test?  So it seems really vivid to me right now that I’m awake -- but in fact, I’m <i>asleep</i>?
> 
> Well, Descartes said to him, I guess there <i>aren’t</i> any definite signs, or tests, that I could use to tell whether I’m asleep or dreaming.  I could, after all, be dreaming those very tests.  I have experience of doing that, thinking that I passed the test for being awake, when really I was only dreaming.  So there <i>isn’t</i> <i>any</i> <i>way</i> to tell that I am awake now.  I cannot possibly prove that I am awake.  So, Descartes said to himself, I don’t really know that I am awake now and writing in the evening.  For all I really <i>know</i>, I could be asleep.  That’s Descartes’ dreaming doubt.
> 
> Now we can go on and give this argument some more detail.  For one thing, why does Descartes think that he doesn’t know he’s awake and writing?  Well, he might be asleep.  But what difference does that make?  The difference that it makes is that <i>his</i> <i>faculty</i> <i>of</i> <i>sense</i>-<i>perception</i> <i>would</i> <i>not</i> <i>be</i> <i>reliable</i> if he were asleep.  In other words, if he were asleep, it would seem to him that he is seeing, feeling, and hearing various things; but he wouldn’t really be.  In that case, of course, his faculty of perception <i>wouldn’t</i> be reliable.  But Descartes appears to go farther than that: he appears to be saying that since he <i>might</i> be dreaming, since he can’t rule out the hypothesis that he is dreaming right now, that also means that his faculty of perception is not reliable.
> 
> If you follow what Descartes is saying, you very well might find it exasperating, or silly.  "I mean, of <i>course</i> I can tell that I’m not dreaming": that’s what you want to say.  Here is Descartes’ reply: maybe you can, but <i>maybe</i> you’re just <i>dreaming</i> that you can tell.  If you say you <i>can</i> tell the difference between being awake and being asleep, then you are assuming that you’re awake!  And so you’re begging the question against the skeptic!
> 
> Or maybe you’ll say this.  I can tell that my sense-perception is reliable.  Here’s how I can show that it’s reliable.  When I see something, like that cow chewing on daisies, I can go over to the cow, touch it, hear it, lean on it, and so forth.  That confirms that really am seeing the cow.  In the same way, when I hear something, like a marching band outside, I can step outside, and look at the marching band, talk to the members of the band, and so forth.  That confirms that I heard the band outside.  Throughout my life I’ve had so many experiences like this that I am practically certain that, in the more obvious cases anyway, my faculty of perception works -- it’s generally reliable.
> 
> Well, I’m sure you can guess how Descartes’ skeptic will reply to this.  You might just be <i>dreaming</i> that you are touching, hearing, and leaning on the cow.  That marching band might just be part of a dream.  For that matter you might only be <i>dreaming</i> that your faculty of perception has been generally reliable.  If you argue: I’m not dreaming, because my faculty of perception is reliable, then you are begging the question!  First, you have to establish that you’re not dreaming!  And that’s impossible!  So you can’t know that your faculty of perception is reliable.
> 
> And a sharper skeptic might make another remark about seeing the cow and hearing the marching band.  Because, after all, weren’t you <i>using</i> sense-perception in order to try to argue that your faculty of perception is generally reliable?  Think about that: in order to show that your sense of sight works, you use your sense of sight and other senses; in order to show that your sense of hearing works, you use your sense of hearing and other senses.  And it’s not like you can avoid that.  It would be really bizarre (though some philosophers have actually tried it) to try to argue that your senses are reliable, without making use of your senses.  But if you make use of your senses, aren’t you begging the question again?  Don’t you have to assume, or presuppose, that your senses are generally shipshape before you start using them to prove <i>anything</i>, including whether your senses are generally shipshipe?
> 
> Do you see the general problem?  How can you prove that perception is reliable <i>without</i> <i>using</i> <i>your</i> <i>senses</i>?  That seems impossible.  But how can you use senses without assuming that perception is reliable?  If you do that then you’re arguing in a circle, you’re begging the question.  So what’s the upshot?  That you <i>can’t</i> prove that perception is reliable.  If you try, you beg the question, and question-begging just isn’t allowed.
> 
> Notice that this is actually a <i>third</i> skeptical argument, different from Hume’s and Descartes’, although it is related to both.  Hume said you can’t prove that your sense-data represent the external world; Descartes said that you can’t even prove that you’re not dreaming; and this third argument says that you can’t prove that perception is reliable, without assuming that your senses are reliable and thereby begging the question at issue.
> 
> This third argument is also very serious because it can be used to generate skepticism about other of our cognitive processes.  Such as memory.  Do you think it would be possible to prove that your faculty of memory is reliable?  Well, how would you do it?  Could you even possibly do it <i>without</i> relying on <i>any</i> <i>memories</i> <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?  Because if you do rely on any memories, then you’re assuming that those memories are reliable: and that’s what you’re trying to prove, so you can’t assume that.  But how could you possibly show that your memories really do represent the past, <i>just</i> by the use of your other cognitive processes, such as perception, introspection, and so forth?  Seems to me that you <i>couldn’t</i> prove that.  Not without begging the question.
> 
> Now let’s see how we can answer skepticism.  I am very confident that we can, and that skepticism does not really pose a threat to our knowledge-claims.  Let me point out a few very important objections to skepticism, that show that it may not be nearly as serious as you might think.
> 
> First of all, in all three arguments -- Hume’s, Descartes’, and the circularity argument -- the claim is made that <i>we</i> <i>can’t</i> <i>prove</i> something or other.  We can’t prove that sense-data represent an external reality.  We can’t prove that we’re not dreaming.  We can’t prove that perception, or memory, is reliable.  But now ask yourself: just because you can prove something, does that mean that you don’t <i>know</i> it?  Or that you aren’t justified in believing it?  Take Descartes’ dreaming doubt as an example.  Suppose you’re convinced that you can’t prove that you’re not dreaming, not without begging the question.  And you’re even willing to admit that <i>mere</i> <i>very</i> <i>slight</i> possibility that you are dreaming right now.  However, you might reply, who cares?  So what if I can’t prove, to Descartes’ skeptic, that I’m not dreaming?  Who cares if there is a very, very slight possibility that I’m dreaming right now?  Does that really matter to my knowledge-claims?
> 
> Now, <i>Descartes</i> <i>himself</i> thought it definitely did matter.  Descartes wanted absolutely certain knowledge -- knowledge beyond any doubt.  And so he thought that if you can raise the smallest doubt about something, then you don’t really know it.  For example, the dreaming doubt raises the very small possibility that I am not standing up right now, talking to you; I <i>might</i> be dreaming; and so Descartes would say (at that point -- later he thought he refuted this skepticism) that I don’t <i>know</i> I’m standing up right now.
> 
> So this forces us to ask ourselves: Do we have to have <i>absolute</i> <i>certainty</i>, lacking any doubt whatsoever, in order to have knowledge?  That would be the absolutely strongest grade of justification possible.  And then we would be saying that knowledge is not just <i>sufficiently</i> <i>justified</i> true belief, but <i>certainly</i> true belief.
> 
> Now I personally don’t think that such a strong degree of justification is necessary for knowledge.  After all, I think we can know what the weather is going to be like, just by reading the morning forecast!  Sometimes we’re wrong; but if we’re right then we have knowledge.  So I’m not particularly worried if I can’t prove that I’m not dreaming.  I think it’s extremely unlikely that I’m dreaming, and I think I’m perfectly well justified in thinking I’m awake.  And I don’t have to <i>know</i> <i>with</i> <i>absolute</i> <i>certainty</i> that I’m awake, of course, to be <i>well</i> <i>justified</i> in believing I’m awake.
> 
> You should know this, that Descartes himself rejected his skeptical doubts in the end.  But he thought he <i>could</i> prove that his life is not just a long dream.  His procedure was first to prove that God exists, and then to say: well, God is not a deceiver, he is a good God.  So he wouldn’t allow the possibility that I’m asleep when by every indication I’m awake.  And besides, he gave me a faculty of sense-perception, and certainly God wouldn’t make this faculty <i>so</i> faulty that it is unreliable.  So my faculty of sense-perception is reliable.  So Descartes made God the guarantee of his being awake, and of the reliability of his cognitive processes.
> 
> Of course, a lot of people have disagreed with Descartes on these points.  I won’t get into their reasons why.
> 
> Here’s a second thing you might observe about skepticism: the skeptic makes absolute certainty a requirement for knowledge, then you could reply.  So apply that observation to skepticism itself.  Is skepticism itself entirely beyond doubt?  Isn’t it possible to raise various kinds of objection to skepticism?  So it would appear; but then no one can know that <i>skepticism</i> is true.  So then the skeptic can’t know that skepticism is true.  But this is actually a bit of a weak reply, because it doesn’t really <i>refute</i> skepticism.  The skeptic, after all, may be perfectly happy to admit that no one knows that skepticism is true.  The skeptic might rest content saying that skepticism is <i>very</i> <i>probably</i> true.  That’s not the kind of claim that we non-skeptics will be happy to allow.
> 
> A third objection, which especially applies to the circularity argument, comes from that common-sense Scotsman, Thomas Reid.  Reid argued as follows.  Suppose the skeptic is right, and perception is not reliable.  But perception is just another one of my cognitive processes; and if <i>it</i> is not reliable, then my <i>others</i> are also bound not to be reliable.  All of my faculties came out of the same shop, he said; so if one is faulty the others are bound to be as well.  But that means that the faculty of <i>reasoning</i>, which the skeptic uses, is also bound to be unreliable too.  In other words, when we reason, we are bound to make errors, and so we can never trust the arguments we give for any claim.  But then that applies to the skeptic’s argument for skepticism!  So if the skeptic is right, we should not pay attention to skepticism, since the skeptic arrives at the skeptical conclusion by reasoning.  And if the skeptic is wrong, then of course we need not pay attention to skepticism.  In either case, we need not take skepticism about the reliability of our faculties seriously.
> 
> Do you recognize the form of Reid’s argument?  It’s a dilemma, like this: if P, then Q; if not-P, then Q; either P or not-P; therefore, in either case, Q.  Either the skeptic is right, in which case we can’t trust our ability our reason and so can’t trust the skeptic’s conclusion; or the skeptic is wrong, in which case again we can’t trust the skeptic’s conclusion.  In either case we don’t have to worry about skepticism!
> 
> Well, as you know we could go on nearly endlessly about this topic.  It’s very interesting and has received a lot of discussion in philosophy, so there are a lot of arguments on both sides.  I’ve only given you a basic sampling.
------
CommonSense|981082296
0a1,2
> See also CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus
> 
------
EthIcs|981082338
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Today we’re going to start our study of <i>ethics</i>, which is, to put it very roughly, the study of the nature of goodness and of what is morally right.  Ethics is typically broken into four different subjects, including <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i>, the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>value</i>, the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>conduct</i>, and <i>applied</i> <i>ethics</i>.  By way of introduction, let me say a little bit about each of these areas.
> 
> But first I need to introduce a piece of terminology -- without spending too much time on trying to make it very precise, which shouldn’t be necessary for our purposes.  The piece of terminology is <i>ethical</i> <i>sentence</i>.  Another word for it might be <i>normative</i> <i>statement</i>.  But to be consistent with our reading, we’ll stick with "ethical sentence."  An ethical sentence is a sentence which contains the words "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "moral," "immoral," or any other such word.  In other words, these are words that we use to <i>morally</i> <i>evaluate</i> people, intentions, actions, and other sorts of things.  So here are a few examples of ethical sentences: "Sally is a good person"; "it is wrong to steal"; "it is totally evil to do what they are contemplating"; "the senator’s actions were thoroughly unethical."  And correspondingly a <i>non</i>-ethical sentence would be a sentence that does <i>not</i> contain one of these terms of moral evaluation.  Examples would include: "That flower is red"; "Norman is six foot three"; "Juneau is the capital of Alaska"; and so forth.
> 
> So now let’s look at those four different areas of ethics I mentioned.
> 
> <i>Meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  If you’ll remember when we talked about philosophy of language, we focused in on the meaning of proper names.  Well, meta-ethics focuses in on the meaning of ethical sentences.  What sort of meaning do they have?  More about that topic in just a bit; meta-ethics is the first topic we’re going to take up today.
> 
> The second topic, the <i>theory</i> <i>of</i> <i>value</i>, asks: "What sorts of things, and situations, are good?"  Notice, the goodness we’re talking about here is primarily the goodness, or desirability, or the value, of <i>things</i> -- not of people or actions.  The goodness of people and their actions is studied under the <i>next</i> heading, the heading of the theory of conduct.
> 
> I’m sure you can see the difference I mean here.  Obviously, there <i>is</i> a difference between calling a banana split "good" and calling a human being "good."  The theory of value is more concerned about the sense in which objects like banana splits, or situations like a well-paying job, or mental states like pleasure, are good.  That’s not to say, however, that ultimately, the sense in which we call a human being "good" can’t ultimately be reduced to the sense in which objects and mental states and situations can be good.  I mean, maybe that’s the case -- maybe ultimately we <i>will</i> be able to define what it means to be a good person in terms of that person’s tendency to create good things and situations for himself and other people.  In other words, maybe what we mean by calling someone "a good person" is, very roughly speaking, "a person who creates a lot of good for the world."  We’ll examine such possibilities next time, when we talk about the theory of conduct.
> 
> But now just a little bit by way of introducing the theory of conduct is.  This is the study of right and wrong, of obligation and permissions, of duty, of what is above and beyond the call of duty, and of what is so wrong as to be evil.  If you would like a single question that might best encapsulate what the theory of conduct asks, I think the question would be this: How should I act, and why?  So the theory of conduct involves debates over what the ultimate standards of right and wrong are -- standards of morality, or moral rules, if you will.  One familiar moral rule is the so-called "Golden Rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  So next time we are going to look at some theories of conduct and see whether they actually can give us adequate standards of right action.
> 
> There is a fourth area is called <i>applied</i> <i>ethics</i>, and this is an area that we will not have time to discuss, although it’s very interesting.  Basically, it’s just as its name suggests: it is the application of ethical theories to particular ethical problems.  Actually, most of the ethical problems you’ll study if you study applied ethics are about ethical questions public policy implications.  Such as: Is getting an abortion ever moral?  Is euthanasia ever moral?  What are the ethical underpinnings of affirmative action policies?  And so forth.
> 
> But not <i>all</i> questions studied in applied ethics have immediate public policy implications.  For example, one such question is: What is lying and is lying always wrong?  If not, when is lying permissible?
> 
> And then there is a whole raft of separate branches of applied ethics, which examine ethical problems of different professions.  There are business ethics, medical ethics, and legal ethics, which examine the moral dilemmas faced by business people, doctors, and lawyers, respectively.
------
MetaEthics|981082388
1c1,139
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A. Naturalism.
> 
> Now here is how I described meta-ethics just a little while ago: <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  That way of putting it is a little misleading, so let me clarify.  Here’s an ethical sentence: "Pleasure is good."  If I tell you, "Meta-ethics studies what sort of meaning ethical sentences have," then you might think to yourself, "I guess he means that meta-ethics studies what I mean by ‘good’ when I say that pleasure is good."
> 
> Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
> 
> The emphasis is on the words <i>what</i> <i>sort</i>.  In other words: meta-ethics asks which of <i>various</i> <i>kinds</i> <i>of</i> <i>meanings</i> ethical sentences might have.  But now your natural question is going to be: "What do you mean ‘various kinds of meaning’ of ethical sentences?  What ‘kinds of meaning’ do you have in mind?  What are my choices?"
> 
> Well, let me explain your choices, using our sentence about Mary as an example.  After presenting all three, I’ll explain each choice in more depth.
> 
> (1) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" can be explained using another sentence that does not use the word "good."  For example: "Mary, on the whole, has made people in the world happier than they would have been without her."  Or: "Mary has a number of habits like telling the truth, discharging her responsibilities regularly, being nice to people, and so on."
> 
> (2) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because, although the sentence does express a proposition, the word "good" is <i>primitive</i>, which means that its meaning cannot be stated in other words at all.
> 
> (3) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because this sentence merely <i>expresses</i> <i>or</i> <i>evokes</i> <i>a</i> <i>certain</i> <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>emotional</i> <i>reaction</i>, or involves a certain kind of <i>command</i> or recommendation.  It’s as though we were saying "Yay for Mary!"  Or: "Look at Mary!  Be like her!"  But in any case, this third option <i>denies</i> that "Mary is a good person" expresses a <i>proposition</i>.  All it does is express an attitude or a feeling.
> 
> Now remember, what I’m trying to do is to explain to you what meta-ethics is.  I said it is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have; but now we can say something much more specific, because now we have some rough idea of three <i>options</i> that we’re talking about when we talk about "sorts of meaning."  Here’s how we could put the central question of meta-ethics; it’s a three-part question.  "(1) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?  (2) Do ethical sentences express propositions?  (3) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be explained <i>entirely</i> in terms of the emotions they express, or are meant to cause in other people, or in some other way that doesn’t involve expressing a proposition?"  The different meta-ethical theories differ just in how they answer each of these questions.
> 
> I’ll admit that this is rather complicated, so I don’t expect you to understand it fully yet.  Let’s go over the different main meta-ethical theories.  I think once we’ve gone over the different theories, you’ll have a better idea of of what these three questions mean.  So let’s dive right into the first main meta-ethical theory.
> 
> The first theory we’ll consider is called <i>naturalism</i>, sometimes also called <i>definism</i>, because it holds that ethical terms can be defined; the meaning of ethical sentences can be given in totally non-ethical terms.  So to question (1), "Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?" the naturalist answers, "Definitely."  Why?  Because ultimately, goodness and right are natural properties; they are ultimately properties of things that can be located in the natural world.  So then here’s a definition of "naturalism":
> 
> <i>Naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they can be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> Notice that this definition has two parts, the part that comes before the "and" and the part that comes after the "and."  Let’s take a closer look at each part.
> 
> First, there’s the notion that ethical sentences <i>express</i> <i>propositions</i>.  Well, what exactly does that mean?  I’ve already told you what propositions are; they are, roughly, what meaningful sentences are supposed to be <i>about</i>.  So if an ethical sentence does express a proposition, then there is indeed something that the sentence is <i>about</i>.  It’s not like the claim, "Mary is a good person," is about <i>nothing</i>.  It’s about Mary, and it’s identifying her goodness.
> 
> To get a better idea of what it means to express a proposition, compare this to something that <i>doesn’t</i> express a proposition.  Say I’m minding a convenience store, and I see a thief pick up a candy bar and run.  I just manage to exclaim, "Hey!"  When I say, "Hey!" I’m not expressing a proposition.  I’m <i>not</i> saying, "That’s a thief there"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief is getting away"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief really annoys me."  I’m not saying anything at all, really.  And that’s the point: it’s not a <i>proposition</i> that I’m expressing.  Rather, it’s an <i>emotional</i> <i>state</i> that I’m expressing.  I am surprised and angered and I express my surprise and anger to the thief by saying "Hey!"
> 
> So what the first part of the definition of "naturalism" says is that ethical sentences <i>do</i> express propositions.  They aren’t just emotional outbursts, as though I were saying, "Hey!" or "Yay for Mary!"  They are actually expressing propositions that can be true or false.  And derivatively, you can say that ethical sentences themselves are either true or false.
> 
> That’s another important way to explain what it means for ethical sentences to express propositions; if they express propositions, they’re either true or false.  So if you’re a naturalist then you think ethical sentences are either true or false.  So for example, it can be true or false that Mary is a good person.  It can be true or false that stealing and lying are always wrong.  On the other hand, if you think the sentence, "Mary is a good person" can’t be either true or false -- if you say that, then you’re not a naturalist.  To be a naturalist, you have to think that ethical sentences are either true or false.
> 
> And notice, if I say that ethical sentences merely express emotions, as though they they were just exclamations like "Hey!" and "Yay for Mary!" then I don’t think ethical sentences are true or false.  Consider this: "It’s true that ‘Hey!’"  Or this: "It’s false that ‘Yay for Mary!’"  Well that doesn’t make any sense.  Mere expressions of emotion, mere outbursts, aren’t true or false.  They can be appropriate or inappropriate.  If Mary happens to be an ax murderess, then it’s totally inappropriate for me to say, "Yay for Mary!"  But it’s not <i>false</i> to say that, because mere emotional expressions aren’t true or false: only sentences that express propositions can be true or false.
> 
> OK, this has been all by way of getting you to understand the <i>first</i> part of the definition of "naturalism," and that part reads, "the view that ethical sentences express propositions."  Let’s give that view a name: call it <i>cognitivism</i>.  So cognitivism will be the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Having explained this view, it’s going to make it easier later on to understand so-called noncognitivism, because noncognitivism specifically denies this view.
> 
> But now what about the second part of the definition of "naturalism"?  The second part says that ethical sentences "can be reduced to nonethical sentences."  Now you’re going to have to remember this notion of reduction from our discussion of the mind-body problem.  I told you that philosophy is interconnected and interdependent -- well, it really is!  Anyway, so what does it mean to say that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences?  It just means that you can state the meaning of ethical sentences in other words, in sentences that don’t include any ethical terms like "good" and "right."  All this talk of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and so forth -- that’s all just <i>shorthand</i> for some complex propositions about what human beings need, or desire, or what gives them pleasure, or what secures their long-term happiness, and so forth.  So this notion that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences really amounts to saying that ethical sentences are a kind of shorthand, a kind of very useful abbreviation, for claims about nonethical facts about human needs, desires, and so forth.
> 
> Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Non-naturalism.
> 
> And if naturalism really does seem implausible to you, then you may like the second theory, which we can call <i>non</i>-<i>naturalism</i>.  This can be defined as follows:
> 
> <i>Non</i>-<i>naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they <i>cannot</i> be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> So the way that we’re defining these views, naturalism and non-naturalism are both kinds of <i>cognitivism</i> -- that is, both of them share the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  What they disagree about is whether ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences.  Non-naturalism says they <i>can’t</i>.  As that British philosopher of common sense, G. E. Moore, said, goodness is a <i>simple</i>, <i>undefinable</i>, <i>non</i>-<i>natural</i> property.
> 
> To call it "non-natural" doesn’t mean that goodness is somehow supernatural or ghostly or divine or anything like that.  All that it means to say that goodness is non-natural is to say that it can’t be reduced to natural properties like human needs, wants, pleasures, and so forth.
> 
> Or to say the same thing, goodness can’t be <i>defined</i> in terms of anything else.  So Moore thought that goodness is <i>indefinable</i>.  Now, does that mean that he thought that talk of goodness of nonsense?  Definitely not: talk of goodness is quite meaningful.  It’s just that you can’t formulate what this meaning is in a definition.  You can’t say, for example, "goodness" means "pleasure."  Moore said you couldn’t give any definition like that at all.
> 
> Still, you might wonder, how is it possible that a word could be <i>meaningful</i>, and yet <i>indefinable</i>?  Well, let me give you an example of <i>another</i> word that is definitely meaningful, but you couldn’t give any plausible definition of it: "thing."  I mean "thing" in its <i>broadest</i> sense.  How could you define this?  Something is a thing if, and only if, ... what?  How could you finish this definition?  Or how about the word "whole" as in "whole and part."  Something is a whole if, and only if, it ... what, has parts?  OK, but then define "part" for me, and do that without referring to wholes.  You can define wholes in terms of parts, or parts in terms of wholes, but as far as I can tell, you have to take either "whole" or "part," <i>one</i> of those words, as primitive, undefinable, or basic.  Here’s another example: the word "and" and "not."  These are extremely important words in logic; but all logicians admit that you have to start out with <i>some</i> basic, undefined concepts in logic, and in fact "and" and "not" are often two of their choices for undefined terms.  Then they proceed to define <i>other</i> terms in logic using "and" and "not."  And I’ll bet you can think of all sorts of examples of primitive, undefinable terms from mathematics and geometry -- such as "point," as in "point on a line."  Anyway, you get the idea.
> 
> So Moore’s claim, which is the central claim of the non-naturalist, is that "good" is indefinable.  And if that’s the case, then the meaning of sentences containing word "good" can’t be explained entirely in terms of sentences <i>not</i> containing the word "good."  You can’t substitute talk of pleasure, or needs, or anything like that for talk of good.  Once you are talking about goodness (or badness, for that matter), you’re talking about a subject that is just as fundamental as talk of things, of wholes and parts, of "and" and "not," and of points on lines.  Just as those things are simple and indefinable, so goodness is simple and indefinable.  So said Moore.  That’s the basic contention of non-naturalism.
> 
> OK, so why think that non-naturalism is true?  Why think that "good" can’t be defined?  Are there any arguments for that claim?  There are some, or two anyway, that we can look at.
> 
> The first argument for non-naturalism is really very simple.  In fact, maybe we shouldn’t call it an argument; it’s better to look at it as simply a way of putting certain facts into perspective; call it a "line of thought."  Consider, on the one hand, properties like hardness, roundness, dampness, and so forth.  These are all natural properties; we encounter them in the real world and we can perceive them.  Consider, on the other hand, properties like <i>being</i> <i>good</i> and <i>being</i> <i>right</i>.  We say that a great novel like <i>Moby</i> <i>Dick</i> is a good thing; so goodness is a property of that novel.  And we say that paying back debts, and telling the truth, are generally the right things to do; so rightness is a property of certain human actions, like paying off your debts, and truth-telling.
> 
> But isn’t it straightforwardly obvious that these are two <i>really</i> <i>quite</i> <i>different</i> kinds of properties?  Those natural properties, like hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world.  On the other hand, goodness and rightness -- well, <i>where</i> are they?  Can you <i>see</i> the goodness of a novel?  Can you <i>touch</i> rightness?  Can you use scientific instruments to <i>measure</i> morality?  Of course not.  So it seems simply <i>obvious</i> -- or so goes this line of thinking, which we won’t dignify with the name "argument" -- that goodness and rightness aren’t natural properties.  And if that’s the case, they can’t be defined in terms of any natural properties; if they could be, then they would be, ultimately, natural properties themselves.  Moore actually went so far as to say that it’s a <i>fallacy</i> to think that goodness is a natural property: he called this <i>the</i> <i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>.  But really all that amounts to is calling naturalism a fallacy -- which doesn’t prove anything.  I could just as easily say that non-naturalism is a fallacy, and say that Moore committed the <i>non</i>-<i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>!
> 
> Anyway, I think a lot of people find this line of thinking fairly plausible.  There <i>does</i> seem to be something inherently fallacious about thinking of goodness as a natural property.
> 
> But this raises a rather difficult question.  See if you can think of any answer to it yourself.  Suppose for a moment that Moore is right, and that goodness is an indefinable, non-natural property; you can’t bump into it, or see it, but you do know when novels, and foods, and states of mind, are good.  But if goodness isn’t a natural property, then <i>how</i> do you know this?  You should be able to tell me what sort of question that is -- a question that asks, "How do you know that something is good?"  It’s an <i>epistemological</i> question.  But in particular we’re talking about knowledge of <i>moral</i> facts.  There’s a branch of epistemology, or of ethics, or both, called <i>moral</i> <i>epistemology</i> which studies how we know moral facts, and how moral beliefs are justified.
> 
> If Moore says that goodness is a non-natural property, then how does he know that anything is good?  It’s evidently not by any ordinary, <i>natural</i> process.  Think about that.  If you could know that cake is good by some <i>natural</i> process (say, just by eating it and having a pleasant taste sensation), then you could identify the goodness of the cake as some natural property that that natural process detected.  For example, the cake gives you pleasure; that’s how you know it’s good; so you can say that the cake’s goodness is just the same as, and is reducible to, the fact that it can give you pleasure.  That’s the idea.  That’s how you’d know that the cake is good, <i>if</i> you thought that goodness might be a natural property.  But if you’re Moore, and you think that goodness <i>isn’t</i> a natural property, then <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>anything</i> <i>is</i> <i>good</i>?  How do you distinguish the good things from the bad?
> 
> One answer that has been fairly common among British philosophers, although not so much anymore, is to say that we have a special faculty, a faculty of <i>moral</i> <i>intuition</i>.  And this faculty tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.  The view that there is such a faculty is called <i>moral</i> <i>intuitionism</i>.  So we taste the cake and this faculty kicks into gear and tells us that it is good.  That’s not such a great example, though, because even the non-naturalist might want to allow that, when we say that cake is good, we just mean that we like it.  But what about a good person, or a right action?  If we see a good person, or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, <i>then</i>, the moral intuitionists say, we can simply <i>intuit</i> that the person is good, or that the action is right.
> 
> Now, don’t ask me what "moral intuition" means.  All I know is that it is supposed to be a mental process that is different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgements are its outputs.  So when you judge something to be good, or some action to be right, then you’re using your faculty of moral intuition.  And that faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties.  Perhaps the best ordinary notion we have, that approximates the notion of a faculty of moral intuition, would be <i>conscience</i>.  If I get a pang of conscience after I do something I know is wrong, my faculty of moral intuition has kicked in and is being directed at <i>me</i>.
> 
> We could go on and talk about moral intuitionism for a long time, because there are, believe it or not, lots of different varieties to the theory.  But we can’t afford the time.  I will just say this about it -- that we should see whether or not we can explain how we might come to know moral facts <i>without</i> talking about some mysterious faculty of moral intuition.
> 
> So let’s look at the second argument for non-naturalism.  This is called the <i>open</i> <i>question</i> <i>argument</i>, and was introduced and made famous by Moore.  This argument is actually one of the things that Moore is quite famous for.  Which is unfortunate, because later on in his life, some years after he published the argument, he said that it was no good!
> 
> Even if the argument is no good, it’s instructive to look at it.  If you take a class in ethical theory, you’ll probably study it again in more depth.  But actually, the argument is pretty simple.  It goes like this.
> 
> Suppose I want to give a definition of "good."  So I say that "good" means "pleasure-causing."  In other words, according to my definition, if something is good, that means it causes pleasure; and if it causes pleasure, then it is, by definition, good.  But Moore complained that we could always ask, "But are pleasure-causing things good?"  And the point is that that would always be an <i>open</i> <i>question</i>.  This means that it’s not just a foregone conclusion that, indeed, pleasure causing things <i>are</i> good.  It’s an open question, a perfectly legitimate question that someone who understands the English very well might ask: Is everything that causes pleasure good?
> 
> Moore then went on to say that you could criticize <i>any</i> definition of goodness like that.  To take another example: I could say that "good" means "desirable."  So anything that’s desirable is good, and whatever is good is desirable.  Moore says that we can ask a question here -- what would his question be?  Well, it would be this: "Is everything that is desirable good?"  And Moore would observe that this is an open question.  The answer isn’t <i>obvious</i> to someone who understands the English language.
> 
> So here’s the formula that you can use to generate Moore’s question.  If someone says "good" means X, then you reply by asking: But is X actually good?  And then you observe that this is an open question.  The answer is never <i>obviously</i> "Yes."  And yet we’re all competent speakers of the English language; we all know what "good" means.  So if we <i>did</i> come across the correct definition of "good," then, the implication is, we’d be able to recognize it.  But we can <i>never</i> just automatically recognize any definition of "good" as the definition of "good."  If I tell you that "good" means X, it’s <i>always</i> an open question, as far as ordinary speakers of the language are concerned, whether X is good.  And therefore, Moore concluded, the word "good" can’t be defined.  It’s indefinable.  If it were definable, then a question of the definition in the form of "Is X good" would not be an <i>open</i> question.  But questions of that form are <i>always</i> open questions.  So "good" cannot be defined.
> 
> That’s the open question argument.  Now, you might find at least one part of it puzzling -- a part where you might have wanted to stop me and say, "How’s that again?  Why does Moore say that?"  I mean the following step, from (1) to (2):
> 
> (1) Moore’s question, "Is X good?" is always an open question to any English speaker; that is, no English speaker would be able to recognize "good" means X as <i>obviously</i> the correct definition.
> 
> (2) "Good" cannot be defined.
> 
> What I want to know is: How is (2) supposed to follow from (1)?  Can’t we admit that (1) is correct, and at the same time claim that (2) is false?  I mean, why <i>couldn’t</i> we?  Consider what that would amount to.  It’s the following conjunction of claims: no one can recognize that any definition of "good" is correct, but "good" is still definable.  Honestly why can’t we say both things at the same time?
> 
> Look at it like this.  Moore seems to assume that "good" can be defined <i>only</i> <i>if</i> competent English speakers would recognize the correct definition when they saw it -- and in that case, the question, "Is X good?" would be answered, "Obviously yes, discussion closed."  That’s how Moore viewed it.  But I don’t think that’s correct.  It seems entirely possible to me that "good" might have a definition which ordinary English speakers <i>wouldn’t</i> recognize when they saw it at first.  You’d have to <i>argue</i> that the definition was correct.
> 
> Compare the situation to other attempts at definition in philosophy -- like the case with "knowledge."  We all have a pretty good idea of what the English word "knowledge" means.  But does that mean that if we see the correct definition of "knowledge," we’ll <i>immediately</i> recognize that it’s the correct definition?  Surely not.
> 
> So here’s the point: there are a lot of deep concepts that are studied in philosophy, like goodness and knowledge and consciousness and so on.  We all can recognize <i>instances</i> of these things.  We will all recognize perfectly well that motherhood is good, that we know that 2+2=4, and that we are all conscious right now.  But that doesn’t mean that we will immediately recognize the correct account of the meaning of "good," "know," and "conscious."
> 
> So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
> 
> 
> 
> C. Non-cognitivism.
> 
> We have spent a long time discussing non-naturalism, and it’s time now to look at the third meta-ethical theory, called "non-cognitivism."  We won’t spend as long on this.  Remember that cognitivism is just the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Well then you know what non-cognitivism is:
> 
> <i>Non</i>-<i>cognitivism</i> is the view that ethical sentences <i>do</i> <i>not</i> express propositions; instead they express something <i>else</i>, such as emotions or recommendations.
> 
> So the idea is that when we say that something is "good," or "right," or "moral," then we aren’t actually making a statement that can be true or false; <i>all</i> that we’re doing is expressing a certain kind of emotion we feel, or trying to evoke or cause a certain kind of emotion in others, or we’re implicitly <i>commanding</i> or <i>recommending</i> that people behave in certain ways.  Different kinds of non-cognitivism differ in <i>what</i> ethical sentences are said to do.  <i>Emotivists</i>, for example, say that ethical sentences express and evoke certain kinds of emotion.  <i>Prescriptivists</i>, on the other hand, say that ethical sentences are implicit commands or recommendations.  You aren’t going to need to know the differences between these views really; the point is that it’s not as though ethical sentences are totally meaningless.  It’s just that they don’t have <i>cognitive</i> meaning -- which is to say that they don’t express propositions.  Their meaning is a little like the meaning of outbursts like "Hurray for kindness!" and "Murder -- boo, hiss!"
> 
> Another way to think of non-cognitive meaning is like this.  Suppose I say, "If you steal money from your employer, you’re doing something wrong."  Then the idea is I could simply say, in a tone of shock or revulsion, "Stealing money from your employer!!" and <i>that</i> outburst would have about the same meaning as saying that stealing money is wrong.  Saying that an action is wrong just expresses how you feel about the action.
> 
> Non-cognitivism was fairly widely advocated in the middle of this century.  It isn’t as popular as it once was, but it still has quite a few proponents.  So you might wonder why anyone would advocate this theory.  <i>I</i> certainly am puzzled as to why so many philosophers have advocated it.
> 
> I can think of two reasons, anyway.  The first is basically the first "argument," or as we were calling it the "line of thought," behind non-naturalism.  Again, the basic idea there was that we can’t perceive or bump into goodness or rightness.  Now, Moore concluded from that, that "good" must be indefinable, standing for basic property; perhaps we know it by a faculty of moral intuition.  But the non-cognitivists draw a different conclusion.  They say that goodness and rightness aren’t anything in the world at all.  They aren’t really properties of anything.  When we use words like "good" and "right," all we’re doing is expressing our emotions, or issuing commands.  We aren’t describing any sort of mysterious properties in the world.  So what I’m saying is that non-cognitivism gets its motivation from the view that goodness and rightness, if they were something in the world, would appear to be rather mysterious or strange properties; and so non-cognitivism concludes that they really <i>aren’t</i> in the world at all.
> 
> The second reason or motivation behind non-cognitivism is a perfectly legitimate observation.  Namely, the observation that when we use moral sentences -- when we morally praise or blame people and their actions -- we are, in any case, doing <i>more</i> than <i>merely</i> making factual statements.  Even if we <i>are</i> making statements about moral facts, we are <i>also</i> expressing our attitudes, or trying to shape other peoples’ attitudes.  Just look at an example and you’ll see this right away.  An example like, "Mary is a good person."  You can imagine Mary’s friend saying this, and if we all know Mary, then we’ll know why Mary’s friend says it: for example, Mary never lies, she is a very responsible person, she is always nice, and so forth.  Saying that she’s a good person expresses approval of those good habits that we know Mary practices.  It’s as though Mary is saying, "Mary is good -- go thou and do likewise."  So here’s the point then: ethical sentences, regardless of whether they express propositions or not, do <i>definitely</i> have the function of expressing our attitudes and our recommendations.  It’s just that the non-cognitivist goes one step further than most of us, and says that that is <i>all</i> that ethical sentences.  <i>All</i> they do is express attitudes, or make recommendations.
> 
> Now, I don’t know what you’ll think of non-cognitivism.  I suspect many of you will find it strange, and I think that some number of you might actually like it quite a bit, because it allows you to hold onto a sort of sophisticated moral relativism.  And indeed you’ll find this view underlying some educational theories.  I mean that some theories about teaching kids ethics in the schools seem to assume that non-cognitivism is true; when we talk about "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," all we’re doing is expressing how we feel.  So you will find some modern educationists having schoolchildren "clarifying" their values by asking them how they <i>feel</i> about different situations.  You probably did this when you were in school; you probably know what I’m talking about, and so non-cognitivism probably seems familiar, and even obvious, to some of you.
> 
> I’m just going to make one criticism of non-cognitivism.  We could go on all day explaining objections to it, I think, but one objection is particularly powerful.  Before I explain it, remember how we criticized the definition of "meaningfulness" as "understandability."   The proposal was that a sentence is meaningful if it’s understandable.   Our criticism of that proposal was: that might be true, doesn’t give the <i>meaning</i> of the word "meaningful."  Why?  Because it doesn’t explain <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>meaningful</i> <i>sentences</i>, <i>that</i> <i>makes</i> <i>them</i> <i>meaningful</i>.  It certainly seems that there is something about <i>those</i> <i>sentences</i> that makes them meaningful -- and which, incidentally, makes us able to understand them.
> 
> Now we can make a similar sort of criticism of non-cognitivism.  Non-cognitivism claims that the meaning of ethical sentences consists <i>entirely</i> in how we feel about the person, or thing, or situation described; or what our recommendations are with regard to the item in question.  But this just raises a question: <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>item</i> <i>in</i> <i>question</i> that makes us feel the way we do, or that makes us recommend what we do?  Take the case of the good Mary again.  The question in this case is: What is it <i>about</i> <i>Mary</i> that <i>makes</i> us say that she is a good person -- that makes us express moral approval of her, and that makes us recommend to others that they emulate her?  Surely there’s <i>something</i> about her that makes us say she’s good.  It’s not like she is just some nonentity with no properties at all, and we just arbitrarily say of a nonentity that we approve of it!  No, Mary is a complex human being about which (in our example) we know a lot.  And the question is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>it</i> <i>about</i> <i>her</i>, out of all the things we know (or believe) about her, that makes us say that she’s good?
> 
> It’s not like the answer to that question is any big puzzle or anything.  It’s rather obvious to anyone who knows Mary: she has a number of habits, like telling the truth, taking care of her responsibilities, treating others kindly and fairly, and so forth.  And it’s seeing all of those habits together which make us say that she’s a good person.
> 
> Now I wonder if you can see what’s coming next in this criticism of non-cognitivism.  Just think about it.  If it’s Mary’s habits that make us say that she’s a good person, well then, why don’t we just say that we <i>can</i> translate the ethical sentence, "Mary is a good person," into a sentence about Mary’s habits?  Why not say that "Mary is a good person" means "Mary tells the truth, takes care of her responsibilities faithfully, treats others kindly, and so forth"?  Notice, the latter sentence doesn’t contain any ethical terms.  It just describes her habits.  So the point is that if it’s Mary’s habits that make us call her good, then we can just say that her goodness consists in her having all those habits.  By "Mary’s goodness" we just mean "Mary’s habits X, Y, and Z."  And if Mary has habits like that then she’s good; and if she doesn’t, or if she has other habits like the unfortunate tendency to kill people and eat their livers with fava beans, then she’s bad.
> 
> So to generalize now, we can criticize non-cognitivism by saying that it seems to ignore the perfectly legitimate possibility, that we can reduce ethical sentences to sentences <i>about</i> <i>whatever</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>items</i> <i>that</i> <i>make</i> <i>us</i> <i>state</i> <i>those</i> <i>ethical</i> <i>sentences</i>.  We can reduce a claim about the wrongness of stealing, or about the goodness of banana splits, to claims about what it is <i>about</i> <i>stealing</i> <i>or</i> <i>banana</i> <i>splits</i> that makes us state the ethical sentences in question.
> 
> Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.  But we don’t have time to go into it any further.  We have bigger fish to fry.  
------
LibertarianisM|981082402
1c1
< Libertarianism is a political belief system. An individual is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe on the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
---
> Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  Libertarians emphasize that human relationships can be either voluntary or involuntary, and that they <i>should</i> be voluntary.  In effect this is a claim that human relationships should not be characterized by violence or deception.
------
PhiloSophy|981082443
10c10
< LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfReligion -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- EthicalTheory -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
---
> LoGic -- OntOlogy -- MetaPhysics -- PhilosophyOfReligion -- PhilosophyOfNature -- PhilosophyOfPhysics -- PhilosophyOfBiology -- PhilosophyOfMind -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- PhilosophyOfLanguage -- EpistemOlogy -- PhilosophyOfScience -- PhilosophyOfPsychology -- MetaPhilosophy -- EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- TheoryOfValue -- TheoryOfConduct -- AppliedEthics -- PoliticalPhilosophy -- PhilosophyOfSocialSciences -- AesthEtics -- PhilosophyOfEducation
------
TheoryOfValue|981082462
1c1,147
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Next we are going to talk about one of the most interesting, and important, areas in all of philosophy.  In fact, arguably, this is the <i>most</i> important area of philosophy: the theory of value.  As I said, the question here is: What sorts of things are good?  Or: What does "good" mean?  Or: If we had to give the most general, catch-all description of good things, then what would that description be?
> 
> First, two important preliminaries.  Remember that I said there’s an important difference between the words "morally good" as applied to <i>persons</i> and <i>actions</i>, as when we say that Mary’s a morally good person and her honesty is good, and "good" in other senses, as when we say that a banana split is good.  A banana split is good, but it’s not <i>morally</i> good.  Well, in fact, "good" has a <i>lot</i> of senses; my dictionary lists <i>twenty</i> different senses of the word.  The word "good" is <i>highly</i> ambiguous.  In what follows, obviously we’re only going to be talking about one, or a limited number, of these senses.
> 
> The sense of "good" we’re talking about is about the same in meaning as another word, namely, "valuable."  So we’re talking about what is good in the sense of what is <i>valuable</i>.  And when we ask, "What things are good?" we can be understood to mean, "What things are valuable?"  But even this is just a little misleading, because we aren’t talking about just <i>monetary</i> value.  Your health and your happiness are <i>valuable</i> in a broad sense of that word, even though you might be able to place a monetary value on your health or your happiness.  Health and happiness are <i>worthwhile</i> or <i>desirable</i> -- those are two more words that mean very roughly what I’m talking about by "good" and "valuable" here.  So what is really worthwhile?  What is really desirable?  That’s the big fish we have to fry now.
> 
> The second preliminary is where things start getting interesting, in my opinion.  I want you to draw a distinction.  (Boy, we’re always drawing distinctions, aren’t we?  Well, that’s what philosophers do).  The distinction is between <i>instrumental</i> and <i>intrinsic</i> goodness.  This is a little hard for some people to understand, but I think most of you will be able to get it.  Something is <i>instrumentally</i> good if it’s <i>good</i> <i>for</i> something else; it is good as a <i>means</i> to getting or having something else that’s good.  On the other hand, something is <i>intrinsically</i> good if it is good all by itself, valuable in and of itself, worthwhile for its own sake.  An intrinsically good thing, even if it doesn’t help you get anything else that’s good, is still worth having for itself.
> 
> Let me give you some plausible examples of both instrumentally and intrinsically good things.  First, some instrumental goods: a hammer, or a radio.  A hammer is good only because it is literally an <i>instrument</i> that can be used to pound nails: that’s what a hammer is good <i>for</i>.  If there weren’t any nails around, or anything else that you could use a hammer to do, then a hammer would be worthless.  It wouldn’t be good for anything; so it wouldn’t be instrumentally good.  A radio is another example of something instrumentally good.  The only thing that makes a radio valuable is that you can turn it on and listen to music or talk or news.  The radio by itself is worthless; the reason it’s a good thing, the reason it’s valuable, is that it lets you listen to stuff.  So hammers and radios, and just about all the stuff we surround ourselves with at home, are all instrumentally good.
> 
> Now here are some plausible examples of <i>intrinsically</i> good things: the pleasure we get from listening to a great piece of music, or understanding philosophy.  The kind of music I like is Irish fiddle music.  I can listen to that stuff all day long.  Now that music isn’t good <i>for</i> anything in particular (except maybe for dancing, or learning how to play it).  But I just enjoy listening to it and getting great pleasure from it.  The pleasure I get is good in itself, valuable all by itself; it’s very worthwhile, and would be worthwhile even if it didn’t help me in any other way than give me pleasure.
> 
> Or take now understanding.  I believe, and I believe many people in academics would agree with me, that understanding is good in itself.  Even if it isn’t good <i>for</i> anything else -- even if the understanding can’t be applied in any obvious way, it is better to be enlightened than to be ignorant.  In fact, understanding is so important in itself that a lot of people will go to a lot of trouble thinking and arguing and researching, some or much of it unpleasant, just so that they can arrive at a better understanding of a topic or a question.  Of course, if you disagree with me and you think that understanding is never good in itself, but only good for what you can do with the understanding, then you won’t like too many "pure" subjects; you’ll tend to like the "applied" subjects, anyway.  You won’t like mathematics, philosophy, or theoretical physics very much.  But the people who do like such subjects will often swear that understanding is something that is worthwhile in itself.
> 
> But it’s not like it’s always an either-or proposition.  Some things are both good in themselves, <i>and</i> good for getting other things that are good.  They are both intrinsically and instrumentally good.  Like understanding.  Some physicists will swear that physics is just really neat all by itself, understanding the principles of physics is worth having just for its own sake; but they will also be quick to point out that it was an understanding of the principles of physics that put men on the moon.  Now as for putting men on the moon -- I don’t know if you’d want to call that an intrinsically good thing.  Surely it’s good <i>for</i> a lot of other things, such as perhaps the self-esteem of Americans.  But maybe it was also good in itself -- the very fact that human beings stood on the surface of the moon was something good in itself.
> 
> Anyway, we don’t have to decide that question, because we’re doing philosophy and we’re talking in generalities.  So to go back to the beginning of the discussion: we’re talking about the theory of value, and the theory of value asks, "What sorts of things are good, or valuable?"  And now that we are armed with a distinction, between intrinsic and instrumental goods, we can make the question more precise.  Because ultimately we want to know what things are <i>intrinsically</i> valuable.  That’s what the theory of value is particularly concerned with: What things are good in themselves?
> 
> Well, I want get us started on the way to an answer, like this.  Pick <i>anything</i> <i>at</i> <i>all</i> that you think might be good.  Let’s take the example of the radio.  A radio is good.  Some things are good for getting a radio -- such as money, and radio factories.  Those are both instrumentally good as ways to get radios.  On the other hand, a radio is itself merely instrumentally good.  I doubt that it is good in itself; it’s only good for what you can hear on the radio.  The news is an example of something that is a good that the radio is a means to getting.  But listening to the news is also probably only instrumentally good.  Maybe it’s good in itself, intrinsically good, to <i>some</i> extent; but really, there <i>are</i> reasons why we listen to the news.  We use the news to help plan out our lives.  If for example we think that there is going to be a recession soon, then we may not want to make any big investments.  Listening to the news can be a means to getting information that allows us to take political action.  For example, we might hear on the news that there is going to be a rally for some cause that we support.  Then going to the rally -- that is definitely instrumentally good, in that it is supposed to be good <i>for</i> something.  Namely, the political rally is supposed to be good for achieving some sort of political change that you favor.
> 
> And so on.  You get the idea: what we do in life is try to get, and keep, a bunch of different good things.  We all know very well that we have to pursue some instrumentally good things in order to get the intrinsically good things.  For example, most people pursue money as merely an intrinsically good thing, so that they can afford what they call "the finer things in life," and <i>those</i> things, like concerts, vacations, and of course a happy family, are supposed to be good <i>in</i> <i>themselves</i>, or intrinsically good.  But it’s ultimately, in any case, the things we believe to be intrinsically good that we want.  So up at the top of the heap, the pinnacle of the hierarchy of goods that we aim at, there are the intrinsic goods.  And the question before us now is: What are they?  Which things are intrinsically good?
> 
> 
> 
> A. Values subjectivism.
> 
> In this connection I’m only briefly going to discuss relativism, or subjectivism, about intrinsic goods.  Let’s call this <i>values</i> <i>subjectivism</i>.  Here is what values subjectivism says:
> 
> Something is <i>intrinsically</i> <i>good</i> for a person iff that person desires the thing for itself, or is part of a group of people who desire that thing for itself.
> 
> So you want to know what all intrinsically good things have in common?  Why, it’s the fact that I want it for itself, not as a means to anything else.  That’s what intrinsically good things have in common: I want them.  Or it’s the fact that <i>my</i> <i>group</i> wants a thing for itself that makes it intrinsically good.  So if you want to answer the question, "What things are intrinsically good?" you need only answer a further question, "Well, what do I, or what does my group, want not merely as a means to something else, but for itself?"
> 
> I’ll bet you know what I’m going to say about this theory.  Couldn’t you be <i>wrong</i> about what is good for you?  Let me give you an example.  Say Adolph, an SS officer during World War II, runs a Nazi concentration camp.  Say he takes great pleasure in torturing Jews.  In fact, he wants this pleasure not as a means to anything else; Adolph regards this sick pleasure as something that is good in itself.  Now, does that mean that the pleasure he gets from torturing Jews is <i>intrinsically</i> <i>good</i> <i>for</i> <i>Adolph</i>?  Do you really want to say that?  I mean, don’t you rather want to say that Adolph is a vicious criminal, and that the sick pleasure he takes in torturing Jews is not at all valuable or good in any sense?  That, in fact, that pleasure is so bad that it is a very great <i>evil</i>?
> 
> I suppose if you wanted to stick to your guns on this, you’d say, "It’s evil <i>for</i> <i>us</i> to get pleasure from torturing someone.  But it’s good <i>for</i> <i>Adolph</i>."  If this is your view, then consider carefully what you’re saying.  You really are saying that it is <i>good</i> <i>for</i> <i>Adoph</i> that he gets pleasure from torturing Jews.  That <i>really</i> <i>is</i> <i>a</i> <i>valuable</i> <i>thing</i> <i>for</i> <i>Adolph</i>.  It is worthwhile in itself, for Adolph.  If you ask me, that’s just <i>insane</i>!  I’m not going to dignify that view at all with an argument.  Against my usual practice, I am just going to say that this seems to me to be a very <i>obvious</i> counterexample to values subjectivism, and let it go at that.
> 
> Now, I don’t mean to deny that there may be some considerable variation from person to person, or from culture to culture, about what is intrinsically valuable or good.  I’m not denying <i>that</i>.  Many people find great value in many <i>different</i> sorts of experiences.  And we want to have a theory of value that <i>accounts</i> <i>for</i> <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> that each one of a huge variety of different sorts of experiences are all intrinsically good: and so we can ask, "What do all those various experiences have in common, that makes them <i>all</i> intrinsically good?"  Notice that we can do this, and thus recognize what is good in many different cultures.  Meanwhile we can utter reject and <i>despise</i> any view that says that something like getting pleasure in torturing Jews is good in <i>any</i> sense.  Not even good for Adolph; indeed it is not valuable in any way for Adolph.  He may take pleasure from it; but it is not valuable, or worthwhile, in any way.  His pleasure is utterly lacks value and is worthless -- indeed, far worse than simply worthless.
> 
> I know that values subjectivism is very popular in some other departments, like the English department, and the department of Fine Arts.  But isn’t it interesting that, when you get to the <i>philosophy</i> department, most of the philosophers, people who specialize in thinking about this stuff, will tell you the theory is clearly wrong?  I just think that’s interesting.  I won’t comment any further on <i>that</i> though.
> 
> Next time we are going to finish up talking about the theory of value by considering two leading contenders, <i>hedonism</i> and <i>eudaimonism</i>.  Then it’s on to the theory of conduct.
> 
> Last time we wound up putting values subjectivism through the wringer.  I said I’d give only one objection to that theory, but I lied.  I’m going to give another objection, which will set us up for the rest of our discussion of the theory of value.
> 
> Remember what values subjectivism says.  To put it roughly, it says that whether or not something is good for me depends on whether or not I desire it.  So if I desire it, if I want it, then it’s good.  Now, I think that values subjectivism is pretty obviously false.  I mean, what if I want some cake that happens to contain a lethal amount of arsenic?  Then I want the cake but definitely it’s not a good thing.  But anyway, I am sure that some of you will continue to hold onto this view regardless of what <i>I</i> say; irrational beliefs die hard.
> 
> So I want to ask a question of those of you who think that values subjectivism is true -- those of you who think that if you want something, that makes the thing good for you.  Surely, you do want to pursue good things in life.  So here’s the question: If you don’t know what you should pursue in life, if you don’t have any definite desires, then how can you decide <i>rationally</i> what to pursue?  To put it differently: If you don’t know what’s good, then how can you decide what is?
> 
> Notice that values subjectivism can’t answer this question.  All it says is: if I want it, or if my group wants it, then it’s good for me.  But suppose that at present, neither I or my group desire something, nor are we averse to it.  We don’t take a stand on whether the thing is desireable.  Well then, as a values subjectivist, how can you decide whether the thing should be desired?  If you had a <i>positive</i> <i>account</i> of which sorts of things are intrinsically good, then you might be able to answer this question.  But if you have no such positive account of goodness, if <i>all</i> <i>you</i> <i>say</i> is that the good things are the things you want, then you have no way of deciding whether something you do not yet want is, well, <i>worth</i> <i>wanting</i>.  Something becomes good only after you start wanting it.  So how do you decide whether to want something?  That’s a problem you face constantly if you’re a values subjectivist.
> 
> 
> 
> B. Hedonism.
> 
> But for that matter, it’s a problem for <i>everyone</i> who does not yet have a clearly worked-out account of intrinsic goodness.  Think of it like this.  "Intrinsically good" means, very roughly, "worth wanting for its own sake."  But aren’t there some things that you might be unsure about whether they’re worth wanting for their own sake?  How do you decide?
> 
> For example: children.  I think most parents would agree that their children are desirable for their own sake -- not because as a means to anything else, not even as a means to parental happiness.  Honestly, is the <i>only</i> <i>reason</i> that children are a valuable thing, for example, the fact that they make adults happier?  Is that the <i>only</i> thing that makes children valuable, or worthwhile, or good things?  <i>Surely</i> not.  They are not valuable <i>merely</i> as a means to the parent’s ends.
> 
> But distinguish the children themselves from <i>having</i> children.  Couples have to make the decision as to whether they want to bring children into the world.  Then the question for you, as potential parents, is: Would the addition of <i>more</i> people to the world, being raised by you, be a good thing?  <i>That</i> is a question that a lot of people find very difficult to answer.  I think a complete theory of value should help you to answer it.
> 
> Here’s another example of something you might wonder is worth wanting for its own sake: money, or what money buys.  I guess there are a few people in college, especially business majors, who would say they that money is an intrinsically good thing, and worth wanting for its own sake.  They live for money.  But of course nearly everyone has entertained the thought that money isn’t valuable <i>for</i> <i>itself</i>.  Some people act as though it were; but even most of those people, in their sober moments, will acknowledge that money is good only instrumentally, only as a means, to getting what it can buy.
> 
> Well, look at all the different things that money can buy: houses, cars, clothes, jewelry, vacations, social status, and so forth.  The world today is filled with people who behave as though these things are good in themselves; a big house and a nice new BMW are worth having for their own sake.
> 
> I don’t know even if it’s true, though, that people want these things for their own sake.  Because it seems to a lot of "upwardly-mobile" people want nice houses and cars because such things do, or will, give them pleasure.  Is the reason you want a big house that it is intrinsically good -- worth having for its own sake -- or is it because the big house will give you various sorts of pleasures?  I think it’s probably the pleasure you’re after.  A cynic might say, "No, it’s just social status that these ‘upwardly-mobile’ people want."  But surely thinking that you’re part of the "in" crowd gives you pleasure -- and that’s why you want to be part of the "in" crowd (that is, if you do want that).  Social status -- which for younger people consists of being "hip," or for older people consists of being "respectable" and "distinguished" -- social status is a source of pleasure to some people.
> 
> So some philosophers have gone through this train of thought, or one roughly like it, and come to the conclusion that pleasure is, ultimately, the only intrinsically good thing.  That view is called <i>hedonism</i>.  Hedonists have the following view about what is intrinsically good:
> 
> Something is <i>intrinsically</i> <i>good</i> iff it is a type of pleasure.
> 
> But let’s not forget old Adolph who takes great pleasure in torturing Jews.  We wanted to say that <i>that</i> pleasure was not good in <i>any</i> sense.  So what’s this then?  Have we discovered that some pleasures are <i>not</i> good?  Well, surely some pleasures <i>are</i> totally corrupt.  Suppose that I get great pleasure by being a respected member of the mafia.  Is the pleasure I take from being a respected member of the mafia something desirable at all, let alone desirable for its own sake?  Surely not!  There are all sorts of pleasures which are base and corrupt.  John Stuart Mill, a famous 19th-century English philosopher, drew a distinction between <i>base</i> and <i>higher</i> pleasures.  I’m sure you can see the difference.  After all, you have experience of the difference in your own lives, all the time!  You all know very well that some pleasures are bad, and you’ll regret indulging them; other pleasures are much more worthwhile and wholesome.  Surely we do not want to say that base pleasures are intrinsically good!  They aren’t good at all.  (Although, note, that in our reading Hospers has a hedonist who is rather stubborn about this point.)
> 
> Anyway, one thing we might observe is that Adolph’s torturing pleasure, and the pleasure I get from being an accepted member of the mafia, are both pleasures that result in pain for other people.  The pleasure Adolph takes in torturing others leads him to cause them pain; and the pleasure I take in being part of the mafia leads me to bump off inconvenient people, causing great pain to them, their family and friends.  So we could revise our definition of hedonism like this:
> 
> Something is <i>intrinsically</i> <i>good</i> iff it is a type of pleasure that does not lead to pain for oneself or for other people.
> 
> According to <i>this</i> account of intrinsic goodness, Adolph’s torturing pleasure and my mafia pleasure are definitely not good.  But even this is probably not quite right; this definition may <i>exclude</i> some pleasures that <i>are</i> intrinsically good.  For example, what if I take great pleasure in running forty miles a week?  But this gives me sore muscles sometimes.  Then the pleasure I take in running is a type of pleasure that <i>does</i> lead to pain for myself; so according to the above definition, that pleasure is not intrinsically good.  Still, I might want to say that the pain of sore muscles is worth it.  So this definition of hedonism would have to be <i>further</i> refined, if we wanted to allow the pleasure of running long distances to be intrinsically good.
> 
> Well, I’m not going to bother refining the definition any further -- I’ll leave that as an exercise for you to do, if you’re interested.  There’s a more important point to be made now.  Basically what we’re trying to do here is to say <i>which</i> pleasures are "higher" pleasures, or simply <i>good</i> pleasures.  Some pleasures are good, some aren’t so good, some are corrupt, and some are just downright <i>evil</i>.  So we might just ask this question: what is it that makes a given pleasure <i>good</i>?  That’s an interesting question, I think.  It <i>could</i> be whether the pleasure itself has pleasurable vs. painful <i>consequences</i>.  And if that’s the case, then we could hold onto hedonism.  We’d just say: there is <i>some</i> refinement of the hedonist’s account of "intrinsically good" which would match up with our ordinary notions of which pleasures are good and which are bad.  Then the hedonist’s point is, to put it roughly: the only intrinsically good things in the world are <i>good</i> <i>pleasures</i>.  Everything else is either instrumentally good -- that is, it is a means to getting good pleasures -- or else it is bad.
> 
> So consider that now: the only intrinsically good things in the world are good pleasures.  But then aren’t we giving a circular account of "good" -- if we saying that the good things are good pleasures, then we’re using the word "good" to define itself.  If you think that, then you aren’t understanding the suggestion I just made.  So let me be clearer about what I was just suggesting.  It’s <i>not</i> <i>simply</i> to say that "the only instrinsically good things in the world are good pleasures."  It is to say, rather: we can identify <i>which</i> pleasures are good by formulating a principle.  We aren’t going to try to formulate it in class -- I’m just saying that perhaps it <i>could</i> be formulated.  And this principle would tell us which pleasures have the most pleasant consequences.  In other words, we try to find out which pleasures will result in the most <i>other</i> pleasures.  Then we call <i>those</i> pleasures "intrinsically good," and <i>only</i> <i>then</i> do we say: "the only instrinsically good things in the world are good pleasures."  That allows us to get around the circularity problem.
> 
> Now to make the transition to the next theory of value, I want us to think about something I just said a little more carefully.  I said that there might be some principle, that we might come up with, a principle that would tell us <i>which</i> pleasures have the most pleasant consequences.  Which are the pleasures such that, if we indulge them, we will end up with the most <i>other</i> pleasures in the end?  Now notice that in order to explain which pleasures are good, here, I have to use some such words as "in the end."  In other words: in my entire life.  Because that’s what we’re talking about.  The proposal is that whether something is a good pleasure or not depends on its effects on the rest of my life.  We shouldn’t just look at individual pleasures as they occur at particular times, and, considering them in isolation from everything else going on in our lives, pronounce them "intrinsically good," just because they are pleasant.  No, whether a pleasure is worth having depends on its being, as it were, part of a whole <i>series</i> of pleasures that makes up a very pleasant life.  Now, do you see where I’m going with this?  Why don’t we say that it’s not <i>pleasure</i> per se which is intrinsically good, but instead <i>a</i> <i>happy</i> <i>life</i>?
> 
> 
> 
> C. Eudaimonism and other theories of value.
> 
> Let’s be clear about the difference between pleasure and happiness.  Pleasure is a mental state or process, and events of pleasure are relatively brief.  When I listen to a great piece of music or eat a delicious meal, I experience a whole series of pleasures, sound and taste sensations -- a series of pleasure-events, as it were.
> 
> And as we all know very well, it is possible to have lots of such individual pleasure events and to be a thoroughly unhappy individual.  Why?  Because happiness is something that occurs over a long time.  You can have a good hour, or even a good day, in the sense that you’re in a good mood and have all sorts of pleasant feelings over that amount of time.  But you could, in spite of that, have an unhappy life.  It’s sad to say, but it’s true.  We might not like to think about it, but it is definitely true.
> 
> Anyway, the suggestion now is that it’s not <i>pleasures</i>, individual events, which are intrinsically good.  Those individual events are themselves only <i>instrumentally</i> good; they are good or worthwhile only as a means to something else.  And what they are worthwhile as a means to, is <i>a</i> <i>happy</i> <i>life</i>.  A healthy, tasty meal is a good thing.  But it’s not good <i>in</i> <i>itself</i>  -- it’s only good as a means.  To what?  To a happy life.  The suggestion is that <i>no</i> pleasure is intrinsically good, good in itself; any individual pleasure is good <i>only</i> <i>as</i> <i>a</i> <i>part</i> of a happy life.  The only intrinsically good thing in this case would be <i>a</i> <i>happy</i> <i>life</i>.
> 
> Now finally I think we have arrived at a view that a lot of you probably hold.  It’s not money, or power, or fame, or individual pleasures that are intrinsically good; those things are good only as means to what we are all ultimately after, namely, happiness.
> 
> And what is happiness?  We’re not going to get into that.  Let’s just say that happiness is the state that your life is in, when you tend to experience a lot of pleasures of various sorts, and relatively few pains, discomforts, and so forth.  And so you could think of a happy life as one that is full of lots of pleasures.  And notice, we aren’t necessarily talking about a dissolute, corrupt, immoral "life of pleasure" here.  Because those people who are dissolute, corrupt, and immoral, and who seek out pleasure from crime, casual sex, drugs, petty power games, and so forth, very often end up very unhappy people indeed.  Just look at the lives of lots of drug dealers, or Hollywood stars, for examples of <i>that</i>.  No, the happy life is one in which one has an excellent chance of having pleasure from the beginning of the life to the end.  And that is going to include not "lower" pleasures like eating, drinking, and sex, it is going to include many "higher" pleasures like understanding, the appreciation of art, deep friendship and love, and so forth.  The experience of <i>all</i> of those pleasures together is what goes to make up a happy life.
> 
> Notice that I am at present skipping over any detailed consideration of <i>pluralism</i>, which is that there are a number of <i>different</i> intrinsically good things.  E.g., you might want to say that understanding and friendship are both intrinsically good, and good as means to pleasure, or happiness, or anything else.  They are good <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>themselves</i>.  If you think that there are <i>a</i> <i>number</i> <i>of</i> <i>different</i> intrinsic goods or values, then you are a values <i>pluralist</i>.  We are only looking at kinds of values <i>monism</i>, that is, the view that there is only <i>one</i> kind of thing that is intrinsically good.  So far, we have considered the views that <i>pleasure</i> and that <i>happiness</i> are the only things that are intrinsically good.
> 
> Now let’s look at a closely related view -- the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s view.  On this ancient Greek view, it was not <i>happiness</i>, which is a mental state over time, which is intrinsically good -- it is, instead, something <i>like</i> happiness, but <i>eudaimonia</i>, for which there is no word in English, except perhaps the word "flourishing" or "well-being."  <i>Eudaimonia</i> is more than simply happiness; it is a happy life that is <i>well</i>-<i>lived</i>.  Happiness is a <i>subjective</i> state.  <i>Eudaimonia</i> is an <i>objective</i> state; literally, it means something like "having a good spirit."
> 
> To explain the difference between happiness and <i>eudaimonia</i>, let’s look at an example where someone is happy, but not <i>eudaimon</i>, as the Greeks would say.  (<i>Eudaimon</i> is the adjective; <i>eudaimonia</i> is the noun.)  Say there is a man, call him Tom, who is in the prime of life.  He has a happy family, he is well-liked by his colleagues, he is making a lot of money, and generally is very happy himself.  Now suppose there is a parallel universe, just exactly like this one, except in the parallel universe, instead of Tom there is Bill.  And Bill is exactly like Tom, just as happy, except for a few basic differences.  In fact, Bill’s family only appears to him to be happy; they’re actually repressed and not very happy at all.  His colleagues <i>pretend</i> to like him, but they say mean things about him behind his back.  And though his job seems very stable, he is about to be divorced and fired.  And then just add to the misery of the situation, let’s say Bill is going to die right after that.
> 
> Now at the moment, Bill is just as happy as Tom.  They both have had happy lives.  In fact, in terms of their <i>mental</i> <i>states</i>, they are both <i>equally</i> happy.  But now let’s evaluate their lives: surely we’d want to say that Tom’s life is <i>better</i> than Bill’s.  In fact, unbeknownst to the hapless Bill, he’s about lose his wife, his job, and his life.  And for a long time poor Bill has been living a lie.  He doesn’t know it, but he has.  On the other hand, Tom’s happiness is totally solid, built on honesty, strong relationships, and so forth.  From an objective point of view, from a view informed by all the facts, we’d greatly prefer Tom’s life over Bill’s.
> 
> Aristotle and the Greeks would say that Tom is both <i>eudaimon</i> and happy.  But they deny that Bill is <i>eudaimon</i>, however happy he might be.  And they would insist that the important thing in any case is <i>eudaimonia</i>.  So let’s give a name to this ancient Greek view -- <i>eudaimonism</i>.  It says:
> 
> The only intrinsically good thing is a person’s <i>eudaimonia</i>, i.e., a state of happiness, measured in an entire life, that is grounded upon solid, relatively unchangeable facts and not deception and mere luck.
> 
> I’m sorry I can’t make this definition any tighter or clearer.  The point is that there is a kind of solid happiness that <i>preferable</i> to a flimsy happiness; and that only that solid happiness, only <i>eudaimonia</i>, is really worthwhile.
> 
> I’d also suggest that this is why some thoughtful people go to such lengths to be honest with themselves and with their loved ones.  They do not want to find out, somewhere down the road, that they have been made happy by lies and deception, even if it’s self-deception.  Deep down those people know that it is <i>eudaimonia</i>, a life well-lived, and not merely happiness, that is the important thing.
> 
> Now, I’ve explained that someone <i>might</i> say that individual pleasures are only instrumentally valuable, as parts of or means to <i>eudaimonia</i>, or flourishing, or a life well-lived -- however you want to describe that.  But then mightn’t you want to go one step further, and say that <i>an</i> <i>individual</i> <i>person’s</i> flourishing is valuable only as a means to the flourishing of society as a whole?  In other words, here is the suggestion: a single person’s life is, ultimately, not important or worthwhile in itself, but only as a means to the success of society as a whole?
> 
> I am quite sure that a lot of people will find this suggestion odious.  <i>They</i> certainly find their <i>own</i> lives intrinsically good -- worth having for their own sake -- and not <i>merely</i> as means to the success of society, meaning all the other people in some given group.  But if you have studied much socialist political theory, you will find them saying just this: an individual’s life is not important, or valuable, in itself; it is valuable only as a means of, and as a part of, the flourishing of society as a whole.  I’m sure you can see that, indeed, this is <i>one</i> (only one) of the main bones of contention between statists of all stripes and classical liberals, meaning the people who want the state to keep its hands off of people as much as possible.
> 
> So the question at issue now is: Is an individual’s life intrinsically good, or is it merely instrumentally good?  Is an individual’s life, well-lived, something that is desirable for its own sake, or is it desirable, ultimately, only as a means to having a happy society?
> 
> This is one way, but not the traditional way, to state the dispute between <i>egoism</i> and <i>utilitarianism</i>.  But usually, egoism and utilitarianism are regarded as theories of conduct, and right now we’re doing the theory of value.  So let’s instead use the terms "values individualism" and "values collectivism" to mark the dispute.  Here are some definitions:
> 
> <i>Values</i> <i>individualism</i> is the view that only individual lives (or their <i>eudaimonia</i>) are intrinsically valuable; and so they are valuable not merely as a means to the flourishing of society.
> 
> <i>Values</i> <i>collectivism</i> is the view that individual lives (or their <i>eudaimonia</i>) are only instrumentally valuable, i.e., good only as a means to the flourishing of society; the flourishing of society (whatever this might be) is the only intrinsically good thing.
> 
> I personally think the dispute between values individualism and values collectivism is just fascinating.  But we don’t have the time to get into it properly.  If we wanted to get into this dispute properly, we’d have to take another class or two, at least.
> 
> But just for the sake of completeness, let me mention one more view, which is held by some environmentalists.  It shouldn’t come as any surprise to you that <i>some</i> people want to take matters one step <i>further</i>.  It’s not merely the flourishing of society that is the only intrinsically good thing.  It’s the flourishing of <i>all</i> <i>sentient</i> <i>life</i>.  Or perhaps <i>all</i> <i>life</i>, <i>period</i>.  If you want a name for that view:
> 
> <i>Radical</i> <i>values</i> <i>environmentalism</i> is the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a flourishing ecosystem; individuals and societies are merely instrumentally valuable, good only as means to having a flourishing ecosystem.
> 
> Once again, I am just going to <i>mention</i> this view.  We don’t have time to get into a proper evaluation of it.
> 
> Notice now the succession of things that we have considered as <i>the</i> kind of thing which is intrinsically good: we’ve gone from particular events of pleasure, to an individual’s happiness, to an individual’s <i>eudaimonia</i>, to the flourishing of a society, to the flourishing of an entire ecosystem.  So I think that you can see that there is a rather difficult problem about the <i>scope</i> of the theory of value.  Where do you stop, in this succession of items, in your account of what is valuable for its own sake?  If you say that an individual pleasure is valuable for its own sake, then why don’t you say that an individual’s entire happiness is valuable for its own sake?  And so forth.
> 
> Well, let me remind you of one thing: if you are a <i>values</i> <i>pluralist</i>, then you will maintain that <i>many</i> different kinds of things can be intrinsically good.  As a values pluralist, you might say: <i>every</i> <i>item</i> in this succession of items is intrinsically good.  The goodness of a particular experience, of an individual’s whole life, of society, and of an ecosystem, are <i>all</i> worth having for their own sake, and not <i>merely</i> as a means to something else.  So as a values pluralist you would say: I <i>don’t</i> <i>have</i> to decide which of these things is intrinsically good, because they are <i>all</i> intrinsically good.
> 
> I’m sure many of you would like to be values pluralists now.  That would be a nice position to be able to hold, but I’m not sure it will stand up to careful scrutiny.  Why?  Well, notice that sometimes, there is a <i>conflict</i> between different levels of goods.  Let me explain.  Sometimes we have a <i>choice</i>, for example, to sacrifice our own pleasure, or happiness, or even our own lives, for the sake of many other people.  This <i>appears</i> to be what happens when soldiers go off to a bloody and desperate war, for example, or whenever anyone gives up any large amount of time to some very difficult, painfully difficult, charitable cause.  In cases like that, you’re weighing two things: your own individual happiness, and the more general happiness of a lot of other people.  And if you conclude that you should sacrifice your own happiness, in one of these ways, what does that amount to?
> 
> Honestly, it looks to me as though you’re assuming that your own happiness is not as important as that of many other people.  If you’re a soldier, voluntarily marching off to a bloody war, you have weighed the two things, and have concluded that you are willing to make your life a <i>means</i> to the happiness of other people.  And if in the end, you are willing to make your life a means to the happiness of other people, then aren’t you saying that your life is <i>merely</i> instrumentally good?  That it is <i>only</i> good as a means to the happiness of others?
> 
> Well, I don’t think you have to say <i>that</i>.  It seems to me that you could say that your own life <i>is</i> worthwhile in and of itself, <i>and</i> that it is worthwhile as a means to the happiness of others.  Remember, the same thing can be both instrumentally <i>and</i> intrinsically good: I gave <i>understanding</i>, or knowledge, as one possible example.  I’m saying now that a human life might be another.  So that’s a way you might hold onto values pluralism.  Two different things, your life and the good of society, can <i>both</i> be intrinsically good, <i>even</i> <i>though</i>  you might sacrifice the first for the second.  There’s no contradiction in saying that.
> 
> This leaves an issue unresolved, though: the issue of the <i>relative</i> importance of intrinsic values.  The issue of <i>more</i> <i>versus</i> <i>less</i> valuable, of figuring out which of different things is more or less important.  That is, if you are looking at a number of different things that you say are <i>all</i> intrinsically valuable, you still have to ask: Which of these things is <i>most</i> valuable?  If I had to rank these things in order of importance, how would the ranking go?  So you could be a values pluralist and still be an individualist, or a collectivist, or a radical environmentalist.  You would just have to say: the most important thing, the most valuable thing, is <i>my</i> <i>own</i> flourishing; or, instead, the flourishing of society; or, perhaps, the flourishing of the environment.  As a values pluralist, you would admit that other things are intrinsically valuable.  It’s just that they aren’t <i>as</i> valuable as that most-valuable thing.
> 
> I hope, after all this, you can see why I say that the theory of value has an excellent claim on being the most important area of philosophy.  So much else in life rests on the theory of value that we accept.  Crucial life decisions you make, and the habits you develop, and your deepest political convictions all ultimately rest on the theory of value you adopt.
------
TheoryOfConduct|981082551
1c1,237
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Since we have spent so long on the theory of value, we are left with less time than I would like to spend on the theory of conduct.  Many ethicists behave as though the theory of conduct is more important, but I disagree with them about that.  Anyway, we’ll do what we can.  We can at least learn the outlines of some of the major views.
> 
> Thus far, we’ve been looking at what things are valuable.  So suppose we have fixed upon some theory of value; <i>given</i> that we have decided that certain things are intrinsically good, or more valuable than other things that are intrinsically good, given all that, the next big question is what it implies about how we should live our lives.
> 
> As I described it last time, the theory of conduct is "the study of right and wrong, of obligation and permissions, of duty, of what is above and beyond the call of duty, and of what is so wrong as to be evil."  But we may, I think, simplify matters considerably.  It’s not like we have to take up each of these concepts in turn, the concepts of "right," "wrong," "obligation," "permission," "virtue," "vice," and so forth.  I think that if we focus in on just <i>one</i> of these concepts, we will be able to define the others in terms of it.  For example, say we define "right action."  Then we can define "wrong action" as "action that is not right."  In fact, we could spend a good lot of time trying to explain what the relations are between these terms.  For example, we might ask: If an action is right, then am I obligated to do it?  Or how about this: If I <i>ought</i> to do something, then would I be practicing a virtue if I did it?
> 
> We obviously don’t have time to consider all <i>those</i> questions.  You are just going to have to take my word for it that, once we come up with a good theory of <i>one</i> of these concepts, that will allow us to make sense of the <i>other</i> of these concepts.
> 
> Typically, the one concept that ethicists focus on is "ought."  So the task of the theory of conduct, as they typically see it, is the task of giving an account, or a definition, of "ought."  Or in other words, the task is to fill in the blank in the following:
> 
> One <i>ought</i> to take action A iff ...
> 
> I <i>ought</i> to help a stranger on the roadside if, and only if -- well, what?  Let’s start with a popular, seemingly very sensible rule, the Golden Rule.  You know that Golden Rule: Treat others in a way that you would like to be treated yourself.  So we could restate the Golden Rule like this:
> 
> One <i>ought</i> to treat others in a certain way iff you would like to be treated that way yourself.
> 
> So, sure.  Help the stranger on the roadside -- and why?  Because that’s how you would like to be treated yourself, if you found yourself stranded.  That makes some sense.  But unfortunately, as you have no doubt come to expect, the first or most common view of things is not always the best.  As useful as the Golden Rule may be, it’s not perfect.
> 
> First of all, the Golden Rule only applies to actions that we take with respect to other people.  It only advises us on how to treat others.  What it <i>doesn’t</i> tell us is how behave when we’re at home, alone, and not interacting with others at all.  It doesn’t tell us that we should do our homework on time, or that we should get to bed at an early hour, or anything like that.  And surely a theory of conduct has to apply to individual conduct, and not just social conduct.  Certainly, when we formulate a theory of what we ought to do, we want that theory to tell us how to lead our personal lives, not just how to treat others.
> 
> Here you might have an objection.  You might say: wait a second, what I do with my own life, on my own time, when it isn’t hurting anyone else, is my own business.  So it’s not a matter for ethics.  If you think that way, then here’s my answer to you: You’re wrong, and not just a little bit wrong, but <i>really</i> wrong!  Consider the implications of what you’re saying: you’re saying that if some action doesn’t affect other people, then morality has absolutely nothing to say about your action.  So then consider some actions that morality would have nothing to say about.  It would have nothing to say about smoking (as long as you didn’t breath your smoke in other peoples’ air); it would have nothing to do with heavy drinking (as long as you didn’t let your drinking affect your job performance and so forth); morality would have nothing to say about whether you ought to do your homework, about whether you should get a good education, whether you should try to keep yourself healthy, and so forth.  But surely morality does have a lot to say about those matters, about matters concerning how you should conduct your own personal life.
> 
> Now notice that I’m <i>not</i> saying you’re not <i>free</i> to do whatever you like.  In this country, that’s pretty obvious.  You’re <i>politically</i> free to do all sorts of corrupt things, in this country, at present.  And to be honest, I personally wouldn’t advocate denying you those freedoms.  But the question here is whether <i>morality</i> might have anything to do with leading your personal life in a virtuous or a corrupt way, so long as it does not directly affect other people.  It seems to me pretty obvious that it does.  In fact, I would submit to you that this is one of the most <i>important</i> things that a theory of conduct can do for us -- it can provide us with wisdom about how we should live <i>all</i> aspects of our lives, personal and social.
> 
> Anyway, since the Golden Rule doesn’t address how we should live our personal lives, it isn’t a complete theory of conduct.  But there are other problems with it as well.  A second problem is that, after all, other people may not want to be treated the way that <i>you’d</i> like to be treated.  For example, I might be a masochist -- I get a great deal of pleasure from certain kinds of pain.  So do unto others as I’d have them do unto me, right?  Tie them up and hurt them, I guess!  That’s how I, the masochist, want to be treated!  Well, that example might be a little flippant, and unfair to defenders of the Golden Rule, but there are plenty of other examples where that came from.
> 
> 
> 
> A. Varieties of consequentialism.
> 
> Let’s give the Golden Rule a rest and see what other theories of conduct are out there.  Probably the most common general type of theory is <i>consequentialism</i>.  Consequentialism is best looked on as a <i>whole</i> <i>category</i> of theories, not as a particular theory itself.  It says:
> 
> One ought to take action A iff A maximizes the amount of good.
> 
> So consequentialism sees a really close connection between theories of goodness and theories of conduct.  Once you decide what is good, the consequentialist knows what to do: make the most of that good thing.  That’s essentially what we ought to do, according to the consequentialist: we ought to see to it that there is as much good as possible.
> 
> But as we saw before, obviously, there are different theories about what things are good.  Accordingly, there are different kinds of consequentialism.  Let me compare two leading versions, <i>egoism</i> and <i>utilitarianism</i>:
> 
> <i>Egoism</i>.  One ought to take action A iff A maximizes the likelihood of one’s own pleasure, happiness, or <i>eudaimonia</i>.
> 
> <i>Utilitarianism</i>.  One ought to take action A iff A maximizes the likelihood of the pleasure, happiness, or <i>eudaimonia</i> of as many people as possible (including oneself).
> 
> With some thought, you should be able to see that egoism basically presupposes that some variety of <i>values</i> <i>individualism</i> is true; utilitarianism, on the other hand, presupposes that some variety of <i>values</i> <i>collectivism</i> is true.  That means, in other words, that egoist says that the only intrinsic good, or the most important intrinsic good for a person, is that person’s own <i>eudaimonia</i>.  <i>And</i> that each of us ought to do whatever we must in order to pursue our own <i>eudaimonia</i>.  On the other hand, the utilitarian says that the only intrinsic good, or the most important intrinsic good, is the well-being of society in general.  And hence that we all ought to do whatever we must to ensure the well-being of society in general.
> 
> One important thing to notice is that sometimes, when we help ourselves, we help others.  So sometimes egoism and utilitarianism will sometimes recommend the same actions.  For example, if you go to medical school and become a doctor who saves many lives, while making yourself rich, you both help yourself and help others.  That is, of course, the best sort of scenario.  It would be wonderful if life were always like that -- if, by helping yourself, you always helped others, and by helping others, you always helped yourself.  Some people would say that that’s indeed the case -- but most people do not.
> 
> But there are some utilitarians who are rather extreme, in that they say that the good of society <i>far</i> outweighs your own individual good.  I suppose Jesus would be an example of someone with this view.  Jesus said that we ought to be ready to sell all our worldly possessions to help the poor.  Even if you think that’s too extreme, you might still say to Dr. So-and-so: Dr. So-and-so, you should live in a very modest house, and use no more than, say, $30,000 per year to live on, and you should give all of the rest of your money to charity.  And the reason you should do this is that a flourishing society is much more important than a flourishing individual.  Your own flourishing is thus totally subservient to the good of society.  It has been argued recently by Shelly Kagan that you are indeed morally obligated to do just this sort of thing -- to make your life totally subservient to the service of others.  The moral requirements of utilitarianism on individuals, they say, are very serious indeed.
> 
> The egoist, of course, disagrees that we have any such obligations.  According to egoism, what matters most, for each individual, is that individual’s <i>own</i> flourishing.  Perhaps the good of society is <i>also</i> important.  But for any given individual, you or me, a flourishing society is <i>not</i> more important, <i>not</i> more intrinsically desirable, than it is for each of us to flourish.  It’s easier and less potentially paradoxical to put this in first-person terms, so let me put it that way.  For <i>me</i>, what is most worthwhile is my <i>own</i> flourishing; and this is <i>more</i> important than the flourishing of society.  As an egoist I might observe that I am not personally responsible for the survival or the quality of life that other people have; so if I am rich when the rest of society is poor, there is not any sort of moral problem there.  Why?  Because my <i>eudaimonia</i> is <i>not</i> to be sacrificed to that of society at large.  My <i>eudaimonia</i> is most important to me; and I expect other people to feel the same way about themselves.  And so it’s not like I <i>ought</i> each year to give all but $30,000 of my salary to charity.  Indeed, what I <i>ought</i> to do is whatever will make my own life flourish; if this includes giving <i>some</i> money to some charities, then so be it.  That entirely depends on whether some amount of charitability is required for my own flourishing.  Maybe it does -- maybe it doesn’t.  Something like this was the view of the very controversial Russian-American novelist and philosopher, Ayn Rand.  It is also the implicit view of many of the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle.
> 
> You might be asking yourself: Isn’t there some middle ground between the two extremes of egoism and utilitarianism, or between extreme selfishness and extreme self-sacrifice?  Why do we have to say that individual lives <i>must</i> be sacrificed to the good of society -- or, on the other hand, that the good of society may be totally ignored in favor of one’s own good?  Surely some sort of hybrid theory is possible.  This point is not often made in introductory discussions of these issues, but it’s important, so I think it’s a point that should be made.
> 
> So here’s how we might formulate a hybrid theory:
> 
> <i>Hybrid</i> <i>consequentialism</i>.  One ought to take action A iff A maximizes the likelihood of one’s <i>eudaimonia</i> unless there is another action, that is not much more costly to oneself but nonetheless maximizes the <i>eudaimonia</i> of other people.
> 
> The problem with hybrid consequentialism, as I have formulated it here, is that it is so darned <i>unclear</i>.  I mean, say you have the choice between buying a new car, which maximizes the likelihood of your <i>eudaimonia</i>, and buying a slightly used car, and using the money you saved to contribute to the United Way.  That (one hopes) would help maximize the <i>eudaimonia</i> of other people.  How would hybrid consequentialism help you make that decision?  Would a used car be "much more costly" to you?
> 
> Obviously, this is a matter that requires some thought.  And you might very well observe that this is just the sort of struggle that some people in modern American society <i>do</i> go through.  <i>They</i> don’t have any clear idea about how strongly their actions should be influenced by their own interests versus the interests of society at large.  When it comes to purely financial matters, some religions recommend that you tithe 15%.  But obviously, that’s only <i>one</i> <i>relatively</i> <i>small</i> <i>part</i> of the problem of balancing your own interests against those of society -- or just of your family, for that matter.  We could re-formulate the hybrid theory in all sorts of ways.
> 
> But the big question in any case is: <i>How</i> <i>do</i> <i>we</i> <i>decide</i> <i>which</i> <i>of</i> <i>these</i> <i>theories</i> <i>is</i> <i>correct</i>?  Of course, some (maybe most) people have made up their minds already.  Some very traditional, strict Christians recommend that you be like Jesus, and that you take utilitarianism to an extreme: that you ought, and indeed are morally obligated to, center your entire life around the service to others.  On the other hand, there followers of Ayn Rand, and others as well, who regard such behavior as offensively self-sacrificial, and who regard their main obligations as being to <i>themselves</i> and their immediate families -- what <i>they</i> think they ought to do is to develop their good habits, their talents, and their fortunes as much as possible.  And of course, the vast majority of people in this country, these days, fall somewhere between the two extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> B. How to decide on a theory of conduct.
> 
> So suppose that you don’t know <i>what</i> to think about the issue -- or suppose that you have an opinion on this question, but you admit that you have not rationally justified your opinion.  Then how could you rationally justify any choice at all?  What sort of arguments could you offer in favor of utilitarianism, or egoism, or some version of the hybrid theory?  That’s a very hard question.
> 
> I’ll tell you about one strategy that some moral theorist have come up with.  It’s called the <i>method</i> <i>of</i> <i>reflective</i> <i>equilibrium</i>.  The name is fancy, but a bare-bones version of the method itself can be explained in a fairly simple way.  It goes like this.  List off a bunch of different moral dilemmas and particular moral decisions to be made.  Decide what you think about each of them.  In situation #1, you decide to do A, in situation #2, you decide to do B, and so forth.  Then when you’ve looked at enough situations (I guess it would have to be a lot, but I don’t know how many), you look at different candidate theories of conduct: egoism, utilitarianism, and the hybrid theory.  (And remember, those are only kinds of <i>consequentialism</i>.  We still have to consider <i>other</i> theories of conduct, which we will do next time; the method of equilibrium is supposed to work in considering those other theories as well.)  So as you look at these different candidate theories of conduct, the question you have to ask yourself is: <i>Which</i> of these theories best fits the way <i>I</i> <i>have</i> <i>decided</i> <i>those</i> <i>moral</i> <i>dilemmas</i> <i>and</i> <i>questions</i>?
> 
> Suppose you pick the hybrid theory.  It seems to fit best with your decisions about all those different moral cases; you don’t think you should be totally selfless or totally selfish.  But suppose you think the hybrid theory as I’ve stated it doesn’t fit your decisions <i>perfectly</i> or <i>clearly</i>.  So you tweak the theory here and there.  You add qualifications, explanations, and so forth, until the theory clearly fits your opinions about the cases.  Then you say: that’s the correct theory.  Why?  Because it fits my opinions about lots of different moral cases.  When you get to that point, you are in a state of <i>reflective</i> <i>equilibrium</i>.  Keep in mind that this is a bit of a simplification, but that’s the <i>basic</i> idea behind the method of reflective equilibrium.
> 
> So that’s one way to decide which of these different moral theories is correct: you pose a bunch of moral cases to decide on, then you decide on them, then you pick a theory of conduct that fits your decisions best, and then you adjust your theory of conduct until the fit is perfect.  When the fit is perfect, you are in "reflective equilibrium."
> 
> But here’s a problem with that method.  What if you don’t <i>know</i> what to decide about particular cases?  What if you can’t make up your mind?  What if the whole reason you want a theory of conduct is so that you <i>can</i> make up your mind?  You tell yourself, "Gee, if only I accepted a theory of conduct.  Then I’d be convinced I knew what the right thing to do was!  But I don’t know what to do, since I don’t have a theory."  I doubt many people actually think this way; but I am <i>certain</i> that quite a few <i>thoughtful</i> people do think this way.  And they’re really stuck, in a practical way.  They’ve got a serious practical problem.  I mean, if you don’t know what to think about particular moral dilemmas, and you don’t have any convictions about any moral principles that would help you get <i>out</i> of those dilemmas, then where do you start?  If you have no opinions about particular cases <i>or</i> about generalizations, how could you make any progress toward firm conviction?
> 
> If you ask me, this is one basic philosophical dilemma of the modern age.  A lot of people lose their traditional religion and do not do any philosophy to make up for the total values vacuum that creates.  And the result, I think, is that a lot of people run around as moral relativists.  It seems like no one <i>could</i> have objectively correct answers to questions about the theory of conduct.  Why does it seem that way, to some people?  For the reasons I was just explaining: some people have no definite opinions about particular moral cases <i>or</i> about moral generalizations.  As a result, they think that anything goes, my opinion’s just as good as yours, and so forth.  Indeed, some people are explicitly <i>taught</i> in school that moral questions are (somehow) purely a matter of arbitrary personal decision.  
> 
> Well, I will try not to leave you in the lurch here.  But all I can do is give you some fairly vague indication of how you might go about deciding what to believe, in the theory of conduct.  This could be regarded as a more sophisticated brand of the method of reflective equilibrium.
> 
> Here’s how the method would go.  I don’t care who you are, you have <i>some</i> moral convictions.  There isn’t <i>anybody</i> out there who has <i>no</i> moral convictions.  So begin with those moral convictions of which you feel most certain; and actually list them out.  They can be convictions about particular cases, invented or real, <i>or</i> they can be generalizations.  Surely you already believe, very firmly, a number of generalizations about what you ought and ought not to do.  For example, I would be in utter shock if you did not hold, very firmly, that you ought not to kill other people for kicks, or for any frivolous reasons.  I’m sure all of you believe that.  You, or most of you, probably also believe that stealing, cheating, and lying are wrong (or at least that they require very good reasons).
> 
> So the idea is to begin with a number of particular cases that you <i>do</i> have strong convictions, and a number of generalizations that you think are about right.  And then look at them all together, and see what sort of <i>broader</i> generalizations can be drawn from them, if any.  You might conclude, for example, that you should never do anything that ultimately contributes to the undermining of the basic trust that strangers in society can have of each other.  That is an example of a relatively high-level principle.  And the hope is that, when you have accumulated enough high-level principles like this, you will eventually come to a point where you can say, definitively, that egoism, or utilitarianism, or hybrid consequentialism, or some other theory yet, is the <i>broadest</i> correct theory of conduct.
> 
> I’m not pretending that this method is perfect.  For one thing, what if it just turns out that Joseph Stalin and I happen to disagree about what high-level principles about conduct are correct?  How could we, in a reasoned way, resolve the disagreement?  Perhaps we couldn’t.  But as far as I know, this is about the best that we can do.
> 
> What we’re going to do next is to consider one high-level principle that almost all of us, if not all of us, would accept: namely, that we have certain inalienable <i>rights</i>, and that certain things would be totally <i>unjust</i> for us to do.  Then we are going to evaluate the different kinds of consequentialism to see whether they can take account of these high-level principles about rights and justice.  And we will look at another kind of theory of conduct, <i>deontological</i> theories of conduct, and see how they do on that score.  This will take us into one of the core issues in both ethics and political philosophy: What are rights and what is the justification for thinking that we have them?  And then: What is the role of government in ensuring that we keep these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> C. The problem of justice.
> 
> Today we’re going to talk about a topic that is discussed both in ethics and in political philosophy: justice.  In particular, we’re going to talk about the <i>moral</i> <i>foundations</i> of justice.  In other words, we’re going to ask: How can we <i>morally</i> <i>justify</i> claims that we have rights, or that we deserve to be treated justly?  I mean, obviously we <i>do</i> have rights, and obviously we <i>do</i> deserve to be treated justly.  The philosophical question isn’t <i>whether</i>, it’s <i>why</i>.  If you will, <i>why</i> do we have rights?  <i>Why</i> do we deserve to be treated justly?
> 
> That’s the topic we’re aiming at.  Before we get there, we have to go back to what we were talking about before, namely consequentialism.
> 
> We have looked at different varieties of consequentialism, and we wound up asking: How can we choose between these different theories?  On what grounds would we argue that one is correct?  Then we looked at the method of reflective equilibrium, and another variant on that same method, as ways to arrive at a theory of conduct.  Now here is one thing that we concluded: a theory of conduct should "square with," should rule the same as, the way you strongly feel about particular cases.  If some theory of conduct says that you ought to take action A, when your strong, pre-theoretic opinion is that you definitely should <i>not</i> take action A, then that’s a good reason to throw the theory out.  Let’s put it this way.  If some theory of conduct you’re looking at says that you should do something that you feel quite sure you <i>shouldn’t</i> do, then that’s a reason to throw out that theory, and look for a new theory.
> 
> Another thing we said is that we all have some very strong convictions about certain <i>generalizations</i> about morality.  Maybe they aren’t the broadest possible generalizations, but they are nonetheless generalizations: they apply to many different cases, not just one case.  For example, here is a principle that I think almost everyone here would say is correct: we should not punish people for crimes when we know those people to be innocent.  It is <i>always</i> wrong to punish people for things we know they haven’t done.  Why?  Well, that would be <i>unjust</i>, and a blatant violation of their <i>rights</i>.  Definitely we all think that it is right to practice justice -- that as a society we ought to see to it that justice is done and that rights are protected.
> 
> That’s the sort of "very strong conviction about a generalization" that I am talking about.  And the point is: a theory of conduct has to be <i>consistent</i> with those generalizations.  If a theory of conduct would say that we ought to punish someone who is innocent, well then, we can throw out that theory of conduct; why?  Because we very well <i>know</i> that it is wrong to punish the innocent.  You can think of this as an extension of the method of common sense I introduced when we discussed epistemology.  It’s certainly a principle, a generalization, of common sense that we should not punish the innocent.  And just as we said then, talking about the method of common sense, if some sophisticated piece of philosophy comes along and says something that is clearly a principle of common sense, then we can just throw out that sophisticated piece of philosophy.
> 
> All right, that’s all by way of setting the stage for a major problem for consequentialism -- for <i>all</i> <i>different</i> <i>kinds</i> of consequentialism, meaning egoism, utilitarianism, and the hybrid theory.  Namely, the problem of justice.  In short, the problem of justice is the problem that consequentialist theories of conduct seem to recommend that we do unjust things.  Consequentialism seems to say that we <i>ought</i> to do some things that are just clearly unjust, and that clearly violate the rights of the innocent.  If that’s the case, then consequentialism must be wrong.
> 
> OK, so let me explain two cases where it seems like consequentialism would recommend that we behave unjustly.  Let’s begin with a case that one of the professors here at Ohio State gives.  Suppose the young daughter of a prominent family in a small town is abducted in broad daylight, raped, and murdered.  The murderer is totally unknown; the police are absolutely baffled and have no leads at all.  Everyone is upset and distraught.  And even worse, people are losing respect for the law; the crime rate is going up, with the imminent threats of more rapes and murders by local gang members, because everyone thinks that the town police are letting people get away with murder.  So the chief of police decides that something has to be done about this.  He arranges for a tramp off the midnight freight train into town to be caught, planted with evidence, and charged.  That’s what they do; the jury is rigged, and the tramp is declared the murderer.  So the tramp is carted off to death row.  Meanwhile, things get back to normal in the town.  Respect for the law is restored.
> 
> I think we can all agree that this is a terrible miscarriage of justice.  That tramp should not have been tried and convicted of the crime; he did nothing to <i>deserve</i> that, and if he did nothing to deserve it, it was obviously unjust.  But he was; and look at what it accomplished.  It prevented the commission of more rapes and murders, and brought a sense of safety to the entire town.  Meanwhile, <i>only</i> one man’s life was ruined.  If he had not been unjustly convicted, and no one found any other scapegoat, probably <i>more</i> people would have died.  So on the whole, more good was done, it appears, by making the tramp a scapegoat.
> 
> Well, if more good was done -- more people were made happy, more lives were saved -- then the sheriff did what he should have done, according to consequentialism anyway.  The amount of goodness, both for the sheriff personally and for all of society, was maximized; so the sheriff did what he ought to have done.  Are you convinced?
> 
> Well surely that’s not right!  It was <i>wrong</i> for the sheriff to have set up that man.  He <i>ought</i> <i>not</i> to have done that.  So it looks like consequentialism recommends something that is <i>wrong</i>.
> 
> Here’s a second example, somewhat along the same lines.  Suppose you’re helping out at the local hospital and there has been a major disaster nearby -- an airplane crashed, say.  Organ donations are desperately needed for four people, or they’ll all surely die.  Without the transplants, all four are going to die.  But organ donations have been extremely scarce.  Doctors need a heart, a lung, a kidney, and a liver.  So they see you, young healthy Ohio State student, with a healthy heart, lung, kidney, and liver.  They get to thinking to themselves: "We can kill the student, remove the organs, and save <i>four</i> <i>people</i>.  Those four people from the plane crash were just <i>unlucky</i> to be on that plane.  It wasn’t any fault of their own.  So either four people can die and the Ohio State student lives; or the Ohio State student lives, and the four people all die.  Well, that’s a no-brainer.  Kill the student!"  So they kill you furtively (saying that you had an accident), remove your organs, save four people, and indeed, the amount of goodness in the world is maximized.  Not for <i>you</i>, of course, but for <i>world</i> <i>as</i> <i>a</i> <i>whole</i>.  Instead of four people dying, only one person died.  If killing you maximizes the amount of good in the world, then by gosh the doctors should kill you!
> 
> But of course the doctors <i>shouldn’t</i> kill you.  That is <i>clearly</i> wrong.  Even if we can’t say exactly <i>why</i> it was wrong -- beyond saying that it was unjust, and that your right to life had been violated -- nonetheless, however we explain it, it definitely seems wrong.  But the consequentialist observes that the amount of good in the world was maximized; so the doctors did what they ought to have done.
> 
> So there you have it.  There are cases where it <i>appears</i> that the amount of goodness in the world would be maximized by an action, but that action is clearly morally wrong.  And yet consequentialism says we should take that action.  So what follows?  That we should reject consequentialism.
> 
> This seems to be a really difficult problem.  The consequentialist might try to get out of the problem, though.  There are basically two ways of doing it.  The first is to say that the actions in both of these cases -- making the tramp a scapegoat, and killing you to harvest your organs -- is not wrong at all, but perfectly <i>right</i>.  Call this "biting the bullet."  If you bite the bullet, and say that clearly unjust actions are right, then you’re basically throwing justice out the window.  You’re saying that justice is <i>less</i> important than maximizing the amount of happiness in the world.  If a happiness-maximizing action is unjust, so much the worse for justice.
> 
> Well, I think that just can’t be the correct way to think about this.  Why on earth do we care so much about justice anyway?  At the very least you should explore that question before you just kick justice out into the cold.
> 
> So the consequentialist has another way to face the problem of justice.  The second option is see if there is some way to explain, <i>using</i> the theoretical resources of consequentialism, why it is that we <i>ought</i> to do the just thing.  The consequentialist thinks that we ought to maximize goodness.  Perhaps there is some way to show that doing the <i>just</i> thing, always respecting others’ rights, maximizes goodness.  In the long run, if everyone always does what is just, that maximizes the amount of happiness in the world.
> 
> Now, do you think that’s true?  Wouldn’t that be an incredibly convenient, very nice thing if it <i>were</i> true?  I mean, it would be <i>great</i> if, by everyone doing what is just, and respecting others’ rights at all times, we <i>did</i> as a matter of fact create a world that had the greatest amount of happiness.  But honestly, can you say that you <i>know</i> that would be the result?  I mean, isn’t it <i>totally</i> <i>possible</i> that, but always being just, and always respecting peoples’ rights, you were prevented from doing some things that would, in the end, make the people who were left in the world happier?  It seems to me it would actually be <i>lucky</i>, and somewhat <i>surprising</i>, if, by always doing what is just, we wound up with the world that is just as good as it possibly can be.
> 
> There are <i>always</i> going to be opportunities to make lots of people happy at the expense of a few hapless souls.  And if that’s the case, it looks like the consequentialist is <i>committed</i> to depriving those hapless souls of their rights, for the sake of the common good.
> 
> Now, there is another version of consequentialism, called <i>rule</i> consequentialism, which we will talk about later.  Perhaps that other version can overcome the problem of justice.  But I don’t see how the version we’ve considered so far, which is called <i>act</i> consequentialism, can overcome the problem.  It looks like the consequentialist is stuck with having to violate peoples’ rights.  And then it looks like <i>we</i> will have to reject consequentialism, unless <i>we</i> want to say that it’s OK to violate peoples’ rights.
> 
> 
> 
> D. Deontological theories of conduct.
> 
> So let’s look next at some theories of conduct which <i>can</i> and <i>do</i> advocate respect for rights.  I mean <i>deontological</i> theories of conduct.  Here is a definition:
> 
> A theory is a <i>deontological</i> theory of conduct iff it says that what we ought to do is governed by rules stating what our duties are, <i>regardless</i> of the consequences of our actions are.
> 
> So, for example, the reason that we should not lie is that there is rule, very vaguely stated as, "Do not lie."  And this rule gives us a duty not to lie; and even if telling the truth has awful consequences, that’s just too bad.  Sometimes telling the truth, and doing your duty, hurts.  That’s life.  So says the deontologist.
> 
> Now, as a deontologist, you don’t have be entirely naïve.  You don’t have to say, for example, that you should <i>never</i> lie, ever.  Maybe your rule would be more complicated than that.  I mean, if the stormtroopers are knocking on your door, and you’re harboring some enemy of a totalitarian government, are you going to rat on the refugees?  No; definitely not.  So you might change the rule that you follow to something like this: "Do not lie, except to those who would use the truth to do great evils."  And surely there are exceptions to <i>this</i> rule, too.  So you’d have to go to work, I suppose, coming up with a set of rules, or laws, that govern behavior.  And your rules would probably be fairly complicated.  That’s not surprising though; just think about how you live your life, and what you learn.  You can think of wisdom in the art of living as a sort of tacit understanding of all the little complications that need to be added to the rules of right living.
> 
> Now, unfortunately, we aren’t going to be able to go into deontological theories of conduct in any detail.  If we did, we would try to come to grips with Kant’s moral theory; Kant is a very famous, very influential German philosopher of the late 18th century, and his theory of the best examples of the deontological theory out there.  He had one catch-all rule, the Categorical Imperative, from which we were supposed to be able to derive all the other rules that we’d need to have in order to know what we ought to do.  You can find more about this in the reading from Hospers.  We can’t get into that.
> 
> What I want to focus on is what the deontological theory can say about rights and justice.  The basic idea should be pretty clear.  Since what we <i>ought</i> to do depends on following certain <i>rules</i>, that state our <i>duties</i>, then there is bound to be a rule to the effect that we should not convict and sentence people we know to be innocent.  That is what makes it wrong to make the tramp a scapegoat.  And that rule also is, in part, what the deontologist would say gives us a right to due process.  And the fact that <i>that</i> <i>right</i> is violated is what makes the sheriff’s act <i>unjust</i>.
> 
> There is also bound to be a rule to the effect that we should not kill people except in self-defense and in the legitimate administration of justice.  That is what makes it wrong for the doctors to kill you.  That rule is also what gives you the right to life.  And it’s because you have that right, that it is <i>unjust</i> for the doctors to kill you.
> 
> I think you probably get the general idea, but let me try to state it clearly.  There are certain rules that state how we ought to treat each other.  <i>Some</i> of those rules give us <i>rights</i>.  And the <i>violation</i> of those rights is what we call <i>injustice</i>.  Accordingly, the condition of <i>justice</i> is the condition in which one’s rights are <i>not</i> violated.  So as you can see, it looks pretty straightforward just how the deontological theory tries to justify our claims to having rights, and that justice must prevail.
> 
> I don’t know about you, but I think there’s something kind of fishy going on here.  The deontologist just seems to have made the whole task of defending rights way too easy.  Well, you want a right?  We’ll give you a right -- just make up a rule!  You might reply, "We can’t just make up <i>any</i> old rules, and say that we have just <i>any</i> old rights."  And I agree, we can’t.  So, out of the gazillions of rules that are conceivable, how do we decide <i>which</i> rules are the ones that we ought to follow?
> 
> Let’s get an example on the table, and I think you’ll be able to see the problem more easily.  Suppose we want to say, "Do not kill others except in self-defense and as part of the legitimate administration of justice."  The deontologist says that that’s the rule that gives us a right to life.  And the rule looks pretty much correct, I think.  But <i>why</i> is it correct?  What if someone disagreed with us: how could we convince him, or her, that it is correct?  See here, we’re doing philosophy and in philosophy, we require <i>arguments</i> for our views.  So if, in formulating the deontological theory of conduct, we wind stating a rule, then by god, we’d better be prepared to give an argument that we should all follow that rule.  It’s very fine and well to lay down the law.  You can do that without giving arguments, if you’re a parent giving rules to your children.  But you can’t do that if you’re a philosopher trying to convince other philosophers of something.  It might <i>sound</i> impressive to declare something a "rule" or a "moral law," but just putting the name "rule" on it doesn’t make it automatically correct.
> 
> It turns out that this is actually an uncomfortable problem for deontologists.  It’s one thing they don’t like to be pressed on too hard.  So let’s look briefly at a few of the sorts of arguments that deontologists give to support these rules of conduct.
> 
> One way is Kant’s way, as I was saying before.  He thought that we could derive individual rule from one overarching rule, the Categorical Imperative.  The Categorical Imperative reads: "So act that you could wish the maxim of your action to become a universal law of human conduct."  I’m not going to discuss this and I don’t expect you understand it, unless you’ve done the reading.  For our purposes, suffice it to say that the Categorical Imperative just doesn’t allow any easy, straightforward way to derive particular rules.  It doesn’t perform as advertized.  For more on that, please see the reading.
> 
> A second way that deontologists try to support individual rules is by saying that we know they are true by some sort of moral intuition, or moral sense.  You should remember this from our discussion of meta-ethics; we said then that there are some people who think that goodness is a non-natural property, which we can detect through this faculty of moral intuition.  We’re just presented with a situation, like the scapegoat situation, and we can just <i>understand</i> that some things are good and others are bad; and we just <i>know</i>, by this faculty of intuition, that certain actions are right and others are wrong.
> 
> Before criticizing this second way, let’s look at a third way, which is very similar to it.  So this third way that deontologists try to support individual rules is by saying that they are part of a larger system of <i>natural</i> <i>law</i>.  Halverson in our readings for today presents this sort of view.  The basic idea is this.  There is a huge system of rules, or laws, which we might discover, that regulate how we should treat each other; and these rules we call a sysem of "natural law."  Among the rules would be the aforementioned rule, "Do not kill others except in self-defense and as part of the legitimate administration of justice."  Another rule would be: "Do not deprive others of their property except through due process of law."  So you put all such rules together, and you have a system of obligations and permissions which gives us our rights, and which states what justice is.
> 
> Now, there’s an obvious criticism to be made both of the moral intuition defense of rules of conduct, and of the natural law defense.  And the criticism is actually just to ask the same question over again, that we started with.  Namely, how do you know that these rules are <i>correct</i>?  You can <i>say</i> that you have some "moral intuition" that they’re correct.  That’s not an <i>argument</i>, though.  And similarly, you can <i>say</i> that some rule is part of an enormous body of natural law.  But again, that’s not an argument either!  Honestly, how do you <i>know</i> that a given rule is part of natural law?  That’s the whole problem, an enormous problem, and it looks like moral intuitionism, and the natural law theory, by themselves, just want to sidestep the problem.
> 
> And this problem for the natural law theory isn’t just a theoretical problem -- it’s also serious <i>practical</i> problem.  Let me explain.  I want to call your attention to something in our reading from Halverson, on p. 161 of the packet.  Halverson used to be an Ohio State professor, believe it or not.  I quote: "Many laws that are in force in most of the civilized nations of the world can be justified only by an appeal to natural law.  Consider, for example, the practice of homosexuality.  It cannot be reasonably argued that homosexual acts between consenting adults are in any way harmful to the community.  It therefore is not necessary for the community to protect itself by prohibiting such acts.  Yet such acts are commonly prohibited by law.  [Remember, this is an older textbook.]  On what grounds?  On the grounds that such acts are wrong, immoral, contrary to the consciences of most men perceive as being good and right [notice the reference to something like the moral sense theory here] -- contrary, that is, to natural law."
> 
> So there you have it.  Homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.  On what grounds?  That it’s to natural law.  Well are you convinced?  Is that enough of an argument for you?  Well of course not.  This is just ridiculous.  To say that something is "contrary to natural law" appears to be no more than to say, "It’s against my current beliefs, even if they happen to be little more than mere prejudices."
> 
> I hope it’s beginning to be clear to you why I say it’s a <i>practical</i> problem, that natural law theorists do not say <i>why</i> moral rules are part of natural law.  It’s a practical problem because natural law theorists can, if they want to, just <i>declare</i> that some practices that they don’t approve of, like homosexuality, are against "natural law."  And then they can and have passed <i>actual</i> laws restricting such activity, which laws they try to justify by saying it’s against this bogus "natural law."
> 
> So to summarize.  The deontological theory of conduct tries to give a justification for rights.  How?  By saying that our rights are given by certain moral rules, like "Don’t murder," and "Don’t steal."  But then we have to ask: How do we know that we ought to follow those rules?  Or more simply: How do we know that those rules are correct?  The moral intuitionist says that we intuit that they are correct; the natural law theorist says that the rules are part of natural law.  But neither of these claims really answers the question at all.  Or to put it differently, I could, for all they’ve said, claim that the following rule is correct: "Murder and steal when it’s convenient to do so."  And I’ve got a right to murder and steal.  Why do I say that?  I simply intuit it.  Or I claim: "That’s a matter of natural law.  It’s part of natural law that I should murder and steal when it’s convenient for me to do so!"
> 
> But what about Kant’s theory, which we never got around to stating in any depth?  Now <i>all</i> that I said about it was: "The Categorical Imperative just doesn’t allow any easy, straightforward way to derive particular rules.  It doesn’t perform as advertized."  If you’re at all interested in defending a deontological theory of conduct, you certainly shouldn’t take my word for it.  You should actually study what Kant has to say; you’d do that if you took a class in ethical theory.  Again, we don’t have time for it.
> 
> What we do have time for, though, is a more general argument against <i>all</i> deontological theories of conduct.  This general argument is from a consequentialist point of view.  Let me summarize this argument in advance, as follows.  One simply cannot adequately justify most, if not all, rules of conduct <i>without</i> reference to the consequences, the results, of following the rules.  Deontology -- deontological theories of conduct -- says that whether we ought to take an action does <i>not</i> depend on the consequences of the action; it depends only on whether the action follows a correct moral rule.  That’s all that matters, not the consequences.  But if, in order to justify the <i>rule</i>, we have to have reference to the consequences of following the rule, then deontology is wrong.  Because ultimately then, whether we ought to take an action <i>does</i> depend on the consequences of the action -- or at least, it depends on consequences of following the rule of your action.  All right, I don’t expect you to get this argument on the first pass, so let’s go over it more carefully.
> 
> The most important premise here is the first one.  Here it is again: One cannot adequately justify most, if not all, rules of conduct <i>without</i> reference to the consequences, the results, of following the rules.  In other words, my claim is that you <i>have</i> to talk about the consequences of following rules in order to justify the rules.  That doesn’t mean that the consequences are the <i>only</i> things that justify the rules; but it <i>does</i> mean that you can’t <i>ignore</i> the consequences of following rules, if you want to justify them.  Now, why do I say that?
> 
> Well, just take any rule of conduct at all, that you think is correct.  Such as: "Do not murder."  According to the deontologist, we could justify such a rule <i>without</i> talking about the consequences of murdering people.  But if you think about it, that’s an amazing claim.  How on earth could they establish that we ought not to murder, without talking about the consequences of murder?  I mean, just look at what murder does accomplish: it ends human life; it brings terrible grief and other hardship to the family and friends of the murder victim; and it contributes the breakdown of trust that would otherwise exist among well-meaning, honest strangers in our society.  Now, the deontologist appears to claim that we could <i>somehow</i> show, or account for, the wrongness of murder <i>without</i> talking about all those terrible things that murder accomplishes.  That’s surely just <i>impossible</i>.  I mean, suppose that murder did <i>not</i> cause grief, hardship, or any sort of breakdown in trust between people.  And <i>all</i> it did was end a human life -- not unlike squashing an ant, I guess.  I don’t know if you can imagine killing a human being as being like that.  But if you can imagine that, then ask yourself: would murder be regarded with as much horror as it is now?  Clearly not.  Clearly the <i>reason</i> that murder is regarded as the great evil that it is, is at least <i>in</i> <i>part</i> due to the fact that murder can wreak such devastation on human society.  When we talk about an action’s causing devastation in human society, we’re talking about the <i>consequences</i> of the action.
> 
> So the point is, in order to state what the <i>actual</i> justifications that our <i>actual</i> moral rules have, we have to look at the consequences of following, and not following, the rules.  Suppose you wants to reply to this, as follows.  "Well OK.  So consequences are necessary to consider when we justify moral rules.  It’s just that they are only <i>one</i> consideration among others.  There are other reasons why we have the duties we do, other reasons besides the bad consequences of <i>not</i> doing our duty."
> 
> Now, if you want to say that, then it seems to me you’re talking about a version of deontological ethics that is so watered-down that it really can’t be called a version of deontological ethics at all.  Really what it is, is another <i>hybrid</i> theory, but in this case, instead of combining egoism and utilitarianism, to get some middle-ground version of consequentialism, you’re combining consequentialism and deontological ethics.  And with this new hybrid theory, you’re saying: What makes a moral rule correct isn’t <i>just</i> the consequences of following the rule -- there’s more to it than that -- but the justification for the rule <i>does</i> include some reference to consequences.
> 
> Now, if this is what you think, then I’ve got a challenge for you.  <i>What</i> <i>else</i> <i>is</i> <i>there</i> to consider whenever you want to justify a rule of conduct, <i>besides</i> the consequences that following, or adopting, the rule ultimately has?  <i>Is</i> there anything else we could use to justify a rule?  <i>Besides</i> consequences, ultimately?
> 
> I’m not going to pretend that there’s nothing else.  One thing that ethicists have pointed out is that good <i>motives</i> do, sometimes, make actions right or wrong.  If I do the right thing for the wrong reason, I’ve done <i>something</i> wrong.  Without getting into <i>that</i> at any length, let me just say what the obvious question is going to be: What, after all, <i>makes</i> a good motive good?  If I have a nice intention, to treat you fairly, then what makes that intention nice?  I suppose that you will have to talk about the <i>typical</i> <i>consequences</i> of my nice intention.
> 
> Let me remind you where we are.  We are just winding up our criticism of deontological theories of conduct.   The criticism I <i>just</i> gave is this: that the deontologist has to talk about the <i>consequences</i> of following rules, in order to justify the claim that we ought to follow the rules.  And it’s not at all clear what <i>else</i>, ultimately, could be used to justify a rule <i>besides</i> its consequences.  Now this leads directly into the next, and final, theory of conduct, which is called <i>rule</i> <i>consequentialism</i>.
> 
> 
> 
> E. Rule consequentialism.
> 
> As I mentioned before -- I don’t expect you to recall this, but it’s good if you do -- distinguish <i>rule</i> consequentialism from <i>act</i> consequentialism.  What’s the difference?  Let me present definitions of both terms and then you’ll be able to see it more easily:
> 
> <i>Act</i> consequentialism is the view that whether we <i>ought</i> to take individual acts depends on the (good or bad) consequences of those acts.
> 
> <i>Rule</i> consequentialism is the view that (1) whether we <i>ought</i> to take individual acts depends on whether the acts follows a correct set of moral rules; and (2) whether a given rule is correct or not depends on the (good or bad) consequences of everyone adopting the rule.
> 
> So <i>act</i> consequentialism says we should judge <i>individual</i> <i>acts</i> as right or wrong, based on their consequences.  <i>Rule</i> consequentialism, by contrast, says that we should <i>adopt</i> <i>rules</i> based on the consequences of adopting the rules; and then we <i>use</i> the rules we’ve adopted to determine whether we should take given actions or not.  More briefly: act consequentialism says to judge <i>acts</i> based on their consequences; rule consequentialism says to judge <i>rules</i> based on their consequences.
> 
> So rule consequentialism is an interesting sort of hybrid between act consequentialism and deontological theories.  Like act consequentialism, it says that actions are <i>ultimately</i> to be judged based on consequences; and like deontological theories, it says that individual acts are to be judged based on whether they follow rules that state our moral duties.  So you might say that it combines some good features of both types of moral theory we’ve looked at so far.
> 
> Now remember our topic for today is <i>justice</i>, and we are looking at these moral theories in order to see whether they can give us a way to solve the problem of justice.  How can we <i>morally</i> <i>justify</i> claims that we have rights, or that we deserve to be treated justly?  So let’s see how the rule consequentialist might try to deal with the problem of justice.  How can the rule consequentialist justify the claim that we have a right to life, for example?
> 
> Well, recall a rule we stated before: Do not kill others except in self-defense and as part of the legitimate administration of justice.  The rule consequentialist could say that we should adopt that rule, and the fact that rule is <i>correct</i> is what gives us a right to life.  Because really, that’s what it means to say that I <i>have</i> a right to life: namely, that if someone kills me, except in self-defense or after due process of law, then this rule against such killing has been violated, and my killer has done something gravely morally wrong.  It’s the fact that that rule is in place that gives me a right to life; and part of justice is, of course, to respect that right that I have.
> 
> Now so far, I haven’t said anything that the deontologist hasn’t already said.  And remember our question for the deontologist: <i>why</i> should adopt rules like this?  Of course, that same has to be asked now; if we don’t answer that question, then we haven’t solved the problem of justice.
> 
> Rule consequentialism says that <i>whether</i> a rule like the one that we just stated is correct or not depends on the good or bad consequences of adopting the rule.  So then we consider: on the whole, would it be better, would there be more goodness in the world, if we adopted this rule against needless killing?  Sure!  If everyone recognized this rule, if everyone agreed that it was wrong to kill needlessly, then the world would be a much nicer place indeed, than it would be if no one or only some people adopted the rule.  So that’s how we justify the rules that give us rights, and that establish justice: we say that adopting those rules is greatly beneficial to us all.
> 
> Well then, why not adopt the following rule <i>too</i>? -- "Make scapegoats out of tramps when convenient and when it can be covered up well enough."  Adopting <i>that</i> rule very definitely would violate the rights of tramps.  We don’t want to do that.  But if everyone did adopt that rule, wouldn’t that make life for everyone (well, everyone except the tramps) better?  If adopting that rule <i>would</i> make life for everyone better, then rule consequentialism would say: <i>adopt</i> <i>the</i> <i>rule</i>!  And then we’d have the rule consequentialist saying that it’s OK, it’s even morally <i>obligatory</i>, to violate the rights of tramps!  We even have a rule saying that we ought to do so!
> 
> Now I think that the rule consequentialist can defend himself here.  I am partial to rule consequentialism myself, so I will step in and defend the theory against this criticism.  Here’s how I propose to do it.  Clearly, I have to have some argument that adopting the rule that says to make scapegoats out of tramps would make life actually <i>worse</i> for everyone.  I’d have to have some way to argue that adopting that rule would have lots of dangerous consequences.
> 
> If you ask me, that doesn’t seem like too tall of an order.  It just requires a little common-sense understanding of human nature, and what is likely to happen if people actually do adopt that rule.  Life, basically, becomes <i>cheap</i> to all the non-tramps.  If we ordinary folks go around thinking that the official word is that unloading our problems onto tramps is OK, that’s going to make us behave bad toward <i>other</i> people, <i>besides</i> tramps.  After all, if <i>tramps</i> are dispensible, then why not the mentally ill?  Why not people of very low intelligence?  And if we start treating <i>those</i> people as dispensible, then why not people that we have deep political disagreements with?  Or deep religious disagreements?  Why not people who are simply critical of us?  You see where I’m going with this.  If a rule <i>like</i> <i>the</i> <i>rule</i> that says it’s OK to make scapegoats out of tramps <i>is</i> adopted, then given what we know about human nature, that has all sorts of consequences for <i>other</i> rules that people will, in fact, decide to adopt.  If <i>one</i> rule that we adopt makes life cheap, then why should we expect people to stop there?
> 
> I think you can look at totalitarian Communist regimes, such as those of Lenin and Stalin, as excellent examples of the consequences of this.  They adopt one rule, that it is all right to revoke the rights of capitalists and dissenters; and consequently, <i>all</i> <i>sorts</i> of rights, of <i>all</i> <i>sorts</i> of people, were regularly and <i>institutionally</i> infringed in Soviet Russia.
> 
> This is <i>why</i> some people very <i>strenuously</i> insist that our rights, or at least some rights, are absolute and government must not be allowed to infringe them at all.  Let me try to pick a non-partisan example -- actually that’s kind of hard, but what about the right to free speech on the Internet?  Remember when Congress passed, and the President signed, a law that actually tried to restrict our ability to <i>cuss</i> online.  To hell with that, I say!  I’ll cuss online all I want; government should try to restrict that!  But look, the reason that people feel strongly about this isn’t that they think it’s really important that they be able to cuss online.  It’s not <i>that</i> <i>by</i> <i>itself</i> which makes opposition to such measures important.  What makes it important is that, to put it bluntly, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.  And I don’t just mean the government.  I mean people in general.  If people, such as the American people, <i>come</i> <i>to</i> <i>accept</i> that the government <i>ought</i> to restrict free speech in one place, then they’ve in fact adopted a certain rule of conduct (for government, in this case).  And the point is that that can have, and historically has had, all sorts of bad consequences for <i>what</i> <i>else</i> will seem permissible to the people for the government to do.
> 
> But here I’m just picking on the government.  The exact same point can be validly made about other areas of life.  Indeed, it can be made about rules of moral conduct that apply to individuals at home, not interacting with other people at all.  For example, suppose you adopt a rule: Do your homework before you watch television.  (You might have seen a comic strip about this in the <i>Dispatch</i> the other day.)  But then you consider another rule: Do your homework before you watch television, <i>unless</i> "Friends" is on.  You reason to yourself, as a good egoist: "My happiness would be maximized if I followed this rule.  Not only would my homework get done, but I’d get to see my favorite TV show, and doing that wouldn’t keep me from getting my homework.  I mean after all, it’s only a half-hour program."  But if you reason to yourself this way, you’re failing to take something important into consideration.  Namely, <i>what</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>effect</i> <i>of</i> <i>your</i> <i>changing</i> <i>your</i> <i>rule</i>, and allow the exception, <i>in</i> <i>fact</i>, going to be?  In fact, what happens with all but the most disciplined people is that they end up allowing more and more exceptions, until they have basically gotten rid of their rule entirely.
> 
> And in my opinion, if you’ll allow me to ascend my soapbox, that’s exactly the direction that society has gone in.  We do, perhaps, evaluate our moral rules according to their consequences; but what we <i>fail</i> to take account of is the consequences of making our moral rules <i>lax</i>, in particular, the consequences for <i>the</i> <i>other</i> <i>rules</i> <i>that</i> <i>we</i> <i>adopt</i>.  This is how a breakdown in morals, in an individual, and a breakdown in respect for rights and justice, in a society, occurs.  You try to justify an exception to a perfectly useful, reasonable rule; and the exception itself seems perfectly useful and reasonable; but allowing for the exception has the <i>result</i> of undermining your ability to resist making <i>further</i> exceptions.  And at the bottom of this slippery slope is the muck of immorality and injustice.
> 
> So let’s get back to the point.  I presented rule consequentialism and then I asked: How can rule consequentialism justify those rules which give us our rights?  How does it solve the problem of justice?  The immediate reply is to say: individual rules are justified by to the fact that they maximize the amount of goodness in the world.  But then there’s the challenge: Why can’t we adopt rules that say that we ought to do unjust things, like making scapegoats out of tramps?  Why doesn’t that maximize goodness?  Now what I just got done giving you, from atop my soapbox, is an <i>explanation</i> for why making scapegoats out of tramps doesn’t maximize goodness.  Why not?  Again, it’s because when we make exceptions to our the general rules that state our rights, given our experience with human nature, we know that we’ve started down a slippery slope, and the ultimate results are that respect for rights in general is undermined.  And a low respect for rights in general has <i>way</i> worse consequences than disallowing our sheriffs to make scapegoats out of tramps.
> 
> It’s something like this whole story I’ve been spinning out that has, in my opinion, the best chance of explaining and justifying why we think we have inviolable rights, and why justice ought to be upheld.  I think I’d have explain it a lot more, and answer some more objections, before we could say that it was a really comprehensive, compelling solution to the problem of justice.  But at least you have the outlines of a solution.
> 
> Well, that’s it for our discussion of ethics <i>per</i> <i>se</i>.  As we’ve seen, ethics overlaps quite a bit, at least when talking about rights and justice, with political philosophy.  The next item on our plate is political philosophy itself.  I want to make a transition to that topic, however, and tie what we’ve been talking about, as regards rights and justice, into a discussion of the necessity of government.
> 
> Suppose we had a lot more time than we have had to talk about ethics.  And we sat around and hashed things out in great detail, and talked about a lot of other theories of justice.  Then suppose you decide, after all that careful work, that as it turns out, rule consequentialism -- perhaps a rule version of hybrid consequentialism -- is the correct theory of conduct.  So now you’re convinced you know what, in general, you <i>ought</i> to do; and you think you’ve given a philosophical justification for your theory of what you ought to do.
> 
> But isn’t it possible that even after all of that, someone might still <i>not</i> <i>care</i>?  Isn’t it quite possible that someone -- if not you, then someone else -- might say, in private, "Sure I know what I <i>ought</i> to do.  But I don’t <i>care</i> what I <i>should</i> do.  Morality is for chumps.  I’ll violate your rights any day if it’s to my advantage and I can get away with it.  I’m perfectly happy being totally unjust."  Now you <i>know</i> that there are people in the world just like that.  You have probably met some, or at least, you certainly know that they exist.  You can’t reason those people into being good eggs; they’re bad eggs, they’ll take advantage of you and there isn’t a whole lot that you can do about it except to protect yourself.
> 
> The long and short of it is that this is why government is necessary.  You <i>could</i> as it were take the law into your own hands, and see to it personally that others do not violate your rights; but if everyone did that, we would have a state of <i>anarchy</i>.  It’s <i>better</i>, for various reasons, that you leave the administration of justice and punishment up to a legitimate government.  The institution of government is necessary, I think, and I think most of you will agree with me about that.
------
PoliticalPhilosophy|981082641
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See also TheJustificationOfTheState; AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory; 
> 
> In order to introduce what political philosophy is, I want to <i>start</i> by giving you a definition of the word "government":
> 
> A <i>government</i> is an institution, consisting of a group of people and some items at their disposal, which has a monopoly on the legitimate, or at least widely accepted, initiation of force within a given geographical area.
> 
> This is a fairly standard sort of definition of the term "government."  You might find it a little bit surprising though.  When you think of government, you may think of large white buildings, well-groomed people in business suits, and eloquent but vapid speechmaking.  What does all that have to do with the <i>initiation</i> <i>of</i> <i>force</i>?  I’ll tell you -- it has <i>everything</i> to do with the initiation of force.  The whole point of having a government around at all, as we will see, is to make the power of individuals to act aggressively toward other individuals legitimate for government alone.  The power to initiate force is allegedly, and indeed it <i>can</i> be, <i>safer</i> in the hands of a relatively powerful government, that can control its unruly citizens, than it would be in the hands of each individual person.  All the other programs that you see governments enacting are ultimately based on their widely accepted, or legitimate, ability to compel individuals to do things like pay taxes, to appear in court when subpoenaed, to vacate an area when ordered, and so forth.
> 
> Consider this.  Why <i>don’t</i> we call a gang, that makes a certain neighborhood its turf, the <i>government</i> of that neighborhood?  Don’t just say, "Well, it’s obvious that the gang isn’t the <i>government</i>."  I’m asking you to explain <i>why</i> it’s not the government.  I know it’s <i>obvious</i> that the gang isn’t the government; the question is <i>why</i> it’s not.  Here’s <i>my</i> answer: the gang <i>doesn’t</i> have a monopoly on the legitimate, or at least widely accepted, initiation of force within the neighborhood.  It’s the <i>police</i>, and the broader government that the police represent, that have the monopoly on the <i>legitimate</i> use of force.  As long as the police have things relatively under control, the gang isn’t top dog; it’s the city, state, and federal government of that neighborhood.
> 
> Now to see this a little more clearly, change the example.  Fast forward fifty years in the future.  For some reason, maybe due to war, the police will absolutely <i>not</i> go into that neighborhood at all.  Neither will government tax collectors, or dog catchers, or any other agent of the city, state, or federal government.  Nope, within that neighborhood, the gang members have grown up, their numbers have multiplied, and they have set up walls all around the neighborhood; they control who comes in and who goes out; the leader of the gang is the ultimate judge of all the fights that break out in the neighborhood streets; they decide who gets guns and who doesn’t; and so forth.
> 
> <i>Now</i> would you say that the gang members are members of a government?  For all intents and purposes, they are.  And according to the definition I gave you, they are.  Maybe not a <i>good</i> government, but a government.  The gangsters and their stuff -- weapons, cars, houses, drugs, and so forth -- are "a group of people and some items at their disposal, which has a monopoly on the legitimate, or at least widely accepted, initiation of force within a given geographical area," namely their neighborhood.  That group has become the government of the neighborhood.
> 
> Now you might want to object and say, "Look, that’s not a <i>government</i>.  That’s just a gang of <i>hoodlums</i>."  But if you say this, I think you’re forgetting your history.  <i>Most</i> governments in the world began with gangs of hoodlums!  It’s just that eventually, they became <i>respectable</i>.  The United States is one of the few nations in the world that <i>didn’t</i> begin that way; of course, I suppose that Washington and Jefferson might have looked like hoodlums to the English.  And of course, there are even now what we call "rogue nations," that are run, as most of us think, by what amounts to a gang of hoodlums.  The fact that they are a gang of hoodlums <i>doesn’t</i> mean that they’re not the government!  Because unfortunately, plainly, they <i>are</i> the government in those localities!  And they will be until someone with more sense and morality steps up and takes power away from them.  That’s the way of the world.  Government is a really nasty business.  Or at least it can be.
> 
> So, if that’s what government is, we’ve got another sort of question to answer: When is a government <i>legitimate</i>?  When is it a <i>good</i> government?  How can we distinguish the upright and decent governments from the governments of mere "rogue nations"?
> 
> Those are a few of the central questions of political philosophy.  This is another very complex area, difficult to define, but I’ll attempt a definition now anyway:
> 
> <i>Political</i> <i>philosophy</i> is the study of the fundamental questions about government: what it is, why it is needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever.
> 
> As you can see, just from reading this definition, this area of philosophy is positively <i>enormous</i>.  It is probably the area of philosophy that you knew most about already, on account of its being taught to some extent in civics classes.  Next we are going to have to focus in on only one of the many questions that make up political philosophy.  The question we will focus on is the one that is discussed in our reading: why is government needed at all, and what, if anything, makes any particular government legitimate.
------
TheJustificationOfTheState|981082657
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> So far we have defined "government" and used that to introduce a definition of "political philosophy" -- since political philosophy concerns, primarily (but not only), philosophical issues about government.  It just so happens, as we saw, that political philosophy contains a <i>lot</i> of different issues, and there is no way even so much as to <i>summarize</i> those issues without moving so fast that the chapter would be just useless and very difficult to follow.  So we could, but will not, spend a few paragraphs each on the justification of the state, the purpose or function of government, the proper form of government, what the law is, and other basic issues in political philosophy.  Instead, we are going to focus on the first issue, which is one of the most important, if not the most important issue.  Namely: What is the justification of the state?  Or to put it differently: From what source does the <i>legitimate</i> authority of any particular government arise?
> 
> Notice I am using the words "state" and "government" interchangeably here.  There is a loose sense of the word "state" in which all the citizens of a particular territory are part of the state -- in the sense in which we are all part of the United States.  In that sense, "state" means something like "country."  But as the term is usually used in philosophy, "state" has a more restricted meaning; it means, basically, the government.
> 
> Now let’s get clear about what the question at issue is.  I very imprecisely put it as: "What is the justification of the state?"  But as you should know by now, the first way of asking a philosophical question that comes to mind is bound to be woefully imprecise.  If we ask the question and then forge right on ahead to giving an answer, we will end up just wasting a lot of time.  So let’s see what we mean when we ask, "What is the justification of the state?"
> 
> The first thing to observe is that the state, or government, is not some totally monolithic "leviathan" (to use Thomas Hobbes’s term), a single entity with a single mind and a single will -- even though words like "the state" and "the government" invite us to think of it that way.  No, the state is made up of people (such as the president), some items at their disposal or so-called public property (such as government buildings and weapons), and particular habits or traditions (such as those things that are called "laws").  For any given government, there are not always the <i>same</i> people, public property, and laws; that is of course especially true for any relatively long-lived government, such as the United States government.
> 
> Next, recall that what we’re talking about is the <i>justification</i> of the state.  That word, "justification," has turned out to be rather important in our investigations into philosophy.  <i>One</i> kind of justification we encountered was <i>epistemic</i> justification -- that’s the sort of justification that some of our beliefs have.  But obviously, when we talk about the justification of the state, we’re talking about justification in a <i>different</i> sense -- in a <i>moral</i> sense of the word.  If a state is "justified" in this <i>moral</i> sense of the word, then it is, as we say, <i>legitimate</i>.  It is a legitimate government; and it has a moral right to rule.
> 
> But now, we said that the state is made up of people, public property, and a set of traditions such as laws; so what exactly are we talking about when we ask about the <i>moral</i> <i>justification</i> of the state?  Are we asking for the moral justification of the existence of particular politicians, or particular government buildings, or particular laws?  No -- not any one of these things in particular.  So you might say: What we’re asking for is the moral justification of the existence of <i>all</i> <i>of</i> <i>these</i> <i>things</i> <i>together</i>.
> 
> But it’s not everything, taken together, that makes up one <i>particular</i> government that philosophers are interested in showing to be morally justified.  The question isn’t about any one particular government; it’s about an <i>aspect</i> of <i>any</i> government.  Which aspect?  The monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force.  Remember that that’s what we said was <i>essential</i> to the state: the legitimate or at least widely accepted ability to initiate force within a given area.  So if you want me to single out some items for moral justification, from among the items in government that I listed -- people, property, and practices -- it would be: the people in government engaging in any practice that involves threatening or using force.  So then here's the question: "How are the people in government morally justified in engaging in any practice that involves threatening or using force?"
> 
> In the United States at present, there are a lot more than just police officers, judges, and soldiers who can legitimately initiate force.  There are also zoning commissions, the EPA, the FAA, and all sorts of other regulatory bodies.  But the United States is only one example, of course, and you have to remember: the question is, "How are the people in <i>any</i> government morally justified, <i>if</i> <i>and</i> <i>whenever</i> they are morally justified, in engaging in any practice that involves threatening or using force?"
> 
> It’s really important that you understand <i>why</i> we’re asking <i>this</i> question.  In order to understand it, you have to understand, and be persuaded, of the rather strange claim that government is essentially legitimized force.  Once you’ve grasped that point, then when we ask, "What is the justification of the state?" you are just one step away from understanding that that question means, briefly put, "What is the moral justification of government people, government agents, using force?"  What justifies them in using force?  If they couldn’t use force, there would <i>be</i> no government; and that’s precisely <i>why</i> we’re asking what justifies them in using force.  It’s not like I’m trying to be <i>subversive</i> -- I’m just trying to be philosophical.  Anyway, that’s the <i>basic</i> question we’re asking now.
> 
> Next I want us to distinguish <i>two</i> <i>senses</i> of this question.  Like this:
> 
> (1) What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?
> 
> (2) What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?
> 
> The difference between <i>these</i> two questions is reflected in the difference between two <i>other</i> questions.  First, what is the justification of the very existence of the state?  And second, what is the justification of a particular kind of state action?  On the one hand, if we can’t give any justification for the existence of the state at all, if we can’t justify government agents ever using any force at all, then we’re stuck with <i>theoretical</i> <i>anarchism</i>.  (More on that later.)  On the other hand, if we can’t justify a particular kind of state action, if we can’t justify government agents using force to achieve that action’s purpose, then we might still believe that government ought to exist.  We would simply be saying that that is one <i>less</i> function that the government ought to be performing.  Or to put the contrast even more starkly: it’s one thing to say we should get rid of the government entirely; it’s quite a different thing to say, simply, that we should get rid of the Social Security system, or certain defense programs.
> 
> By the way, if you wonder what the Social Security system has to do with force, just ask yourself something.  Suppose an employer did not expect to face heavy fines and possible jail time, if he did <i>not</i> take out money for Social Security tax.  Do you think he would then, <i>voluntarily</i>, pay the tax?  Very possibly <i>not</i>.  It’s the threat of force that keeps people paying taxes, and it’s taxes that keep the government running at all.  So: no tax enforcement, no government.  It’s easy to forget this, but it’s true.
> 
> Anyway, the question I want to focus on is (1), not (2).  I want to ask why the state should exist at all -- why the power of government agents to initiate force should be thought to  to be morally <i>legitimate</i>.
> 
> Now, if you’ll remember, we already asked this question once.  We said that government is necessary in order to keep other people from violating our rights.  Some people are hell-bent on taking our stuff and even our lives and purely as a protective measure we are willing to establish governments that protect us.  That’s at least a "prima facie" reason for the existence of the state.  "Prima facie" means "on first glance."  So on first glance, the reason that governments are needed to exist <i>at</i> <i>all</i> is to protect our rights, and to preserve justice.
------
AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory|981082691
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> But now I want you to consider carefully what, exactly, is being claimed here.  The claim is that the reason the state exists is in order to protect our rights.  But if the essence of the state is the <i>initation</i> <i>of</i> <i>force</i>, that means that it is the initiation of force that protects our rights.  And that of course makes sense: in order to prevent criminals and foreign invaders from harming us, police officers and soldiers are authorized to initiate force <i>against</i> criminals and foreign enemies.
> 
> Remember, though, that the state has a <i>monopoly</i> on the initiation of force; we can protect ourselves from criminals in self-defense, but we cannot go out and punish them ourselves.  That is left up to governments.  Here's another example.  We can give money to charity voluntarily; but we cannot go out and <i>force</i> other people to give money to poor people.  Only the state is permitted to do that, not individual citizens.
> 
> What this means, then, is we have to give up some of the freedom that we would otherwise have, in order to have a government.  At the <i>very</i> least, what we cannot do is initiate force against other people, no matter how annoying or immoral we may think they are.  That is a liberty, a freedom, that we <i>don’t</i> have.  And why don’t we have it?  Because we have given that liberty up to government.  If that liberty, the liberty to initiate force, were retained by many ordinary people, that would undermine the government.  The state exists, and works, only if it has that monopoly on the initiation of force; if it does <i>not</i>, then there are, in fact, any number of as it were competing governments running around within the same geographical area.  In other words, we’d have <i>anarchy</i> in that case.
> 
> I hope this makes it clearer to say that, in order to get protection of your rights from the state, you must give up your liberty to some extent.  And indeed, the more that you want government to do, the more liberty, to do what you like, you have to give up.
> 
> Now there are some people who think, first, that government <i>always</i> winds up <i>violating</i> the very rights it is supposed to be protecting; and, second, liberty to do what you want to do is for various reasons <i>extremely</i> <i>important</i>.  These two claims are different from each other, but the people who hold one view very often hold the other.  As regards the first, they think no government does a good job of protecting rights; they say power corrupts, and so governments are always corrupted eventually, no matter how noble their beginnings are.  As regards the second, which is perhaps more important for these people, liberty to do what you want to do is definitely one of the goods in life.  Some people have written as though they thought liberty was <i>intrinsically</i> good -- desirable for <i>its</i> <i>own</i> <i>sake</i>.  But I think you’ll agree with me when I say it seems very odd to say that liberty is something that is desirable for its own sake.  Aren’t there reasons <i>for</i> <i>which</i> we want liberty?  For example, many people think that in order to pursue our own happiness, we must have a great deal of liberty; meaning that we must not be restrained by other people or by government from doing what we choose.  If that’s right, then liberty would be an <i>instrumentally</i> good thing -- not <i>intrinsically</i> good.
> 
> Anyway, however that is, having views like this, there are some people who think there is <i>no</i> moral justification for government.  Of course, they say a lot <i>more</i> than the two things I listed, in defending this view; but we don’t have time to go into their arguments in any depth.  But let’s at least name and define the position:
> 
> <i>Anarchism</i> is the view that there is no moral justification for the state, i.e., there is no moral justification for government agents initiating force, and any monopoly that a government may have on the power to initiate force is <i>morally</i> <i>illegitimate</i>.
> 
> Now, if we’re going to answer our question, "What is the justification of the state?" then we had better have some reason to reject anarchism, because anarchism says there is <i>no</i> justification for the state.
> 
> But notice what anarchism <i>doesn’t</i> say.  The way I’ve defined it, anarchism does <i>not</i> say that a society with no government would <i>certainly</i> be better than a society with some particular kind of government, such as a constitutional, mixed-economy republic like the United States.  It just says that there is no <i>moral</i> <i>justification</i> for any state; <i>that’s</i> all it says.  But you have to admit -- it sounds kind of strange to say that the government could greatly improve the lives of its constituents, and yet have no moral justification.  I mean, if it <i>does</i> improve the lives of the people under its authority, isn’t <i>that</i> at least the beginnings of a justification?  The fact that the government does help everyone out, in various ways -- isn’t <i>that</i> what gives government a right to exist?  We’ll see about that later.
> 
> Notice another thing that anarchism doesn’t say.  As I’ve defined it, it doesn’t say that we ought to go out and overthrow governments.  It might be entirely morally wrong to revolt, <i>even</i> <i>though</i> there’s no moral justification for the state.  As experience has shown repeatedly, it almost always ends up doing far more harm than good, to try to overthrow the government violently.  Sometimes, as in the case of the American Revolution, it does some good; but of course, you’ll notice that in that case a government was established in the place of the rejected English colonial government.  It’s not like those American revolutionaries were fighting to establish a situation in which there was no government <i>at</i> <i>all</i>!  Indeed, all revolts of any major size have been revolts aiming to <i>change</i> the government -- not to do away with all government entirely.  <i>That</i> would just be silly and destructive, I think.  I doubt I’m going very far out on a limb in saying that, either!
> 
> In saying that a state should do these things, we say that the state should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in an area.  <i>That</i> means that our <i>liberty</i> to do various things is infringed; the state must exercise authority over us, in order to protect our rights.  But liberty is a good thing, something desirable for various reasons.  So we should desire to give it up to a state only for <i>excellent</i> reasons.  Indeed, this raises the question: What, if anything, justifies any particular government’s removal of (some of) our liberties?  Because, remember, the people in the government are human beings like the rest of us; and thus <i>they</i> <i>too</i> are also apt to harm our rights, just as might happen if there were no state at all.  So it becomes pressing to explain <i>when</i> a state is legitimate, or <i>what</i> <i>makes</i> a particular state legitimate.
> 
> Now what anarchism (or, as it is also called,<i>theoretical</i> anarchism) does say, is that there is no way to give a moral justification for the state.  Government agents are <i>never</i> morally justified when they create a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given area.  <i>That’s</i> what anarchism says.
> 
> So it’s pretty clear how we can refute anarchism, right?  What we have to do is to <i>come</i> <i>up</i> <i>with</i> a moral justification for the state.  If you look at it like that, you can regard anarchism as a <i>challenge</i>: because it is what you are stuck with if you <i>fail</i> to adequately explain why the existence of government is morally justified.  So let’s get to work trying to explain that.
> 
> I’m going to discuss one first attempt to justify the state only very briefly.  We’ve already mentioned it: it’s called the <i>natural</i> <i>law</i> theory.  Now (as our text says), just by itself, the natural law theory does not offer any justification of the state.  Because all it says is that there is some set of natural laws, which specify rules of conduct that prescribe our natural duties and natural rights.  We can <i>say</i> all we like that there is some body of law that is natural or appropriate for humankind.  But it requires <i>separate</i> argument, <i>another</i> argument, to show that natural law requires that we establish a government; or to show that natural law can be enforced only if there is a government.  I mean, after all, what if something rather unusual should happen -- what if it turned out that the natural law <i>forbade</i> us from establishing any government?  What if government agents were <i>never</i> morally justified, by natural law, in initiating force against people?  If you think that’s just a ridiculous notion, then I just wonder how you’re going to argue for it.  One thing here at least is clear, and that is that some separate argument <i>is</i> required.  The mere assertion that there <i>is</i> a body of natural law doesn’t even come <i>close</i> to giving a moral justification of the state.
> 
> Now there <i>has</i> been a <i>version</i> of the natural law theory, which <i>did</i> include a justification for the state.  It’s something you’ve probably heard about -- the so-called "divine right of kings."  According to the doctrine of the divine right of kings, monarchs were justified in holding their power by a sort license from God.  Their rule was regarded as a reflection of natural law, which was, in the end, <i>God’s</i> law, God’s intentions for the political organization of human beings.
> 
> If you ever talk about "God-given rights," you are, probably unwittingly, continuing this ancient tradition of regarding natural law as God’s law about how we should be organized politically.  If you think it’s <i>God</i> that gives you the rights to life, liberty, and property, then to that extent at least, you are buying into this notion that God writes the rules in heaven, and our duty is to follow them.
> 
> But remember, if you can, what we said about theological ethics back when we were discussing the philosophy of religion.  The same point we made then applies again now.  We should ask: <i>Why</i> does God want us to establish governments that protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?  I might, I suppose, sound impressive to some of you to say that God <i>does</i> want us to establish governments.  I won’t quarrel with that; if God exists, he probably does want us to establish governments!  And if God exists, then his wishes probably <i>are</i> as good as law!  The question in <i>any</i> case is why God <i>would</i> want us to establish governments.  Surely there’s something about human nature, and about the situation we find ourselves in, that would explain why God commands us to establish governments.  If there is any reason at all, it is <i>that</i> reason that <i>we</i> can use to justify the existence of the state.  And in a way then -- not to be impious -- we can as it were bypass God.  We can bypass God <i>in</i> <i>giving</i> <i>our</i> <i>explanation</i> of why the state ought to exist.  Because we can say, simply: "Our reason for thinking that the state should exist is just the same as God’s reason, which is X."  Then we just have to fill in the X!
> 
> But of course, that’s the whole problem to begin with.  We aren’t any further along in discovering the justification of the state than when we started.  So let’s consider some <i>positive</i> <i>theories</i> about why the state is justified.
------
PoliticalPhilosophy|981082738
1c1
< See also TheJustificationOfTheState; AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory; 
---
> See also TheJustificationOfTheState; AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory; SocialContractTheories; 
------
SocialContractTheories|981082751
1c1,49
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Let’s begin with the social contract theory -- or rather social contract <i>theories</i>, because there are several variations on the same theme.  This is going to take a while to explain, so let me introduce a definition of "social contract theory" to give you an idea of what I’m going to introduce:
> 
> A <i>social</i> <i>contract</i> <i>theory</i> of the state is any theory which says that the existence of the state is morally justified by some sort of <i>agreement</i>, often called a "social contract," that is said hold among the residents of a particular geographical area over which the state has authority.
> 
> Sometimes this theory is called <i>contractarianism</i>.  In order to explain what the social contract theory (or contractarianism) says, I’m going to have to explain what this "agreement" among residents of an area is supposed to amount to -- that is, I’m going to have to explain to you what a social contract is supposed to be.  But before I do that, it will be useful to explain first why this contract is supposed to be necessary at all.
> 
> The 17th-century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, is famous for presenting a sort of useful fiction in political philosophy, called <i>the</i> <i>state</i> <i>of</i> <i>nature</i>.  The state of nature is, basically, the condition we all would be in if government did not exist.  The way it’s <i>sometimes</i> presented, it’s the condition <i>before</i> the rule of law comes into being.  Some have thought, I suppose, that there <i>was</i> a time before any government, any official monopoly on the initiation of the use of force, came into being.  I think that what we know about the social behavior of indigenous peoples in undeveloped countries shows that that might be wrong in point of historical fact.  It is very rare, indeed, that a group of people <i>lacks</i> anything like a government at all, even if the "government" consists only of tribal elders.  That’s why I say the state of nature is a "useful fiction."
> 
> Hobbes -- and others -- invites us to consider what the state of nature would be like.  There are, of course, different views about the matter, but Hobbes’ view is perhaps the most famous.  He thought that the state of nature, the condition of having no government, would in effect be the war of all against all.  We would all be fighting amongst ourselves for scarce resources, grabbing whatever we can.  "The life of man," Hobbes said, would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  Sounds pretty miserable.
> 
> To make things worse, people in the state of nature, according to Hobbes, could not even correctly appeal to any sort of <i>higher</i> justice.  There would be no justice at all, Hobbes thought -- because without law, and an institution to <i>enforce</i> law, there would be no such thing as justice.  A mother could murder her child and that would be perfectly just.  Why?  Because there would be no law forbidding such a thing.  So Hobbes thought that, in order to <i>have</i> justice, there be a law.  If there is no <i>actual</i> law against murder, then murder is not unjust.
> 
> Now, you may disagree with Hobbes about <i>how</i> bad a state of nature might be; but in any case I think we can agree that it wouldn’t be a walk in the park.  Basically, what we’re talking about here is <i>anarchy</i>.  I think it’s not too clear <i>what</i> life would be like in such a state; but I do think it’s pretty clear it wouldn’t be very nice.  Now to be sure, there are some people -- only <i>some</i> of the people who call themselves "anarchists" -- who think that the state of nature would definitely be better than any situation where there is a government.  But the vast majority of people, including most of you I would be willing to predict, would say that the state of nature would be very nasty and brutish indeed, just as Hobbes said.
> 
> Think of it like this: What if you couldn’t call the police when you’re being burglarized or threatened by someone?  What if criminals had only <i>you</i> to fear when they came to take your stuff?  Then they might simply band together into gangs, a few of them against one of you, and you’d be at their mercy.  Yep, that’s how <i>I</i> think it would be: the weak constantly at the mercy of roving bands of thugs.
> 
> "Now wait just a second," you might say.  "If the thugs join forces in order to take my stuff, then what’s to say <i>I</i> wouldn’t join forces with other peaceful, right-respecting people, to <i>stop</i> them from taking my stuff?  We would all agree to protect each other; if one of us is attacked, then the others will defend.  All for one and one for all."  Well, you might do that.  You might form a sort of defensive league.  But what if a gang sees this happening and gets more recruits, and consequently totally outnumbers and overpowers your defensive league?
> 
> "Well then," you might reply, "in that case, I’d try to get more people for the defensive league.  We would all agree to defend each other, or at least to buy guns and supplies for people who will protect us.  Perhaps my league would band together with other peaceful, rights-respecting leagues.  In the end, surely there are more peaceful, rights-respecting people on earth than there are criminally-minded types.  So we’ll able to defend ourselves from them."
> 
> Now that’s kind of interesting, because it’s not clear that we’re talking the state of nature anymore.  If you do indeed successfully recruit <i>enough</i> people for your defensive league, and otherwise band together like-minded people who agree to protect each other from criminals, then your defensive league has become a <i>government</i>.  Maybe not the sort complex, enormous government the United States now has, with a budget of over $1 trillion a year, but a government nonetheless.
> 
> This line of thinking is at the heart of the social contract theory.  The dangers of the state of nature are great; and so we all agree to give up <i>some</i> of our liberty in exchange for the promise of protection by others.  That agreement is what makes the government’s monopoly on the initiation of force <i>morally</i> <i>legitimate</i>.  In other words, it’s <i>our</i> <i>agreement</i> that gives government agents the right to reserve certain kinds of power for themselves; they are, ultimately, not just <i>government</i> agents, but <i>our</i> agents.  They govern by the consent of the governed.  You’ve heard that before -- well, social contract theory is where that catchphrase comes from.
> 
> So what exactly does this "agreement" amount to, anyway?  Do social contract theorists actually say that we <i>have</i>, <i>in</i> <i>fact</i>, agreed to give up some of our liberties so that the government can exist?  If I <i>did</i> <i>in</i> <i>fact</i> agree to this at some point, as an adult citizen of the United States, then where is my signature, or my oath?  I am not aware of ever having made an oath of citizenship.  I guess I recited the Pledge of Allegiance many times as a child; but I’m not sure that counts.
> 
> What Hobbes said isn’t that there is an <i>actual</i> agreement that any of us actually have made.  It’s a <i>hypothetical</i> agreement.  Now what does that mean -- "hypothetical" agreement?  As I understand it, a hypothetical agreement to establish a state is an agreement that I <i>would</i> make, if I <i>were</i> living in a state of nature, and someone made an offer to set up a government in that situation.  To say that I <i>would</i> agree to the establishment of a government in the state of nature is not to say that I <i>have</i> agreed, at any time, to the establishment of the <i>actual</i> government that <i>actually</i> exists.  As far as Hobbes is concerned, in the end, that’s irrelevant.  What gives the state the right to exist is the fact that I <i>would</i> agree to establish it, and to give up the liberty I would have, in the state of nature, to initiate force.  And of course the reason I’d agree to this is that it would be greatly to my advantage.  I’d much rather sleep peacefully, thinking that criminals are not <i>easily</i> going to be able to harm me and take my stuff.  So, sure -- I’d agree to the establishment of a government.  Well if so, then I am party to a <i>hypothetical</i> agreement, which is called a "social contract."  I do agree to give up the liberty to initiate force, and in exchange for that I expect to receive protection from the government; and I <i>do</i> have this hypothetical agreement because I <i>would</i> agree to an offer to establish a government, if I found myself in the state of nature.  That’s basically what Hobbes said.
> 
> John Locke, another Englishman who wrote about fifty years after Hobbes, disagreed with Hobbes about the social contract.  For one thing, he didn’t think the state of nature would be as bad as Hobbes envisioned.  That’s a point we needn’t dwell on though.  Locke also didn’t think that the social contract was a <i>hypothetical</i> agreement; he thought it was an <i>actual</i> agreement.  We <i>actually</i> have agreed to follow the laws of a government if we were born and raised, and come into adulthood in the country over which the government has authority.  This is all the more the case if we take any action, such as voting or paying taxes, that requires us to acknowledge that the government is in place.  So for Locke, it’s an <i>actual</i> social contract that we have; not an ordinary contract of the sort that one signs, of course, but a binding agreement nonetheless.  And it is that actual binding agreement, which we show we have when we vote for example, that gives the government its right the monopoly of the initiation of force.
> 
> In fact, Socrates, the first major philosopher in Western philosophy, believed in this <i>very</i> <i>principle</i> so strongly that he was willing to <i>die</i> for it.  He thought that he had an agreement with the city of Athens to follow its laws; so if the city of Athens sentenced him to death, he thought he had a strict moral obligation to carry out his sentence and die; he thought it was absolutely forbidden that he escape, even though everyone expected him to.  And the reason he thought so is that he thought he had that explicit agreement with the city of Athens.  And you thought philosophy didn’t have any practical applications!
> 
> So there is a very brief introduction to the social contract theory.  There are other versions too, like those of Rousseau and, within the last thirty years, the American John Rawls.    But it’s not like the social contract theory doesn’t have its problems and challenges.  I’m only going to mention two.
> 
> First, there’s the problem of the people who <i>don’t</i> want to make the agreement, or who <i>wouldn’t</i> even in the state of nature -- the problem of dissenters, if you will.  Say we’re in the state of nature and someone comes knocking on my door and says, "We’ve got this great deal going, all you have to do is sign on the dotted line, promise not to attack anyone, and we will protect you from thieves and other criminals."  Well, what if I close the door, saying that I’m not interested?  Is Hobbes really saying that <i>everyone</i> would, in the state of nature, sign on to the establishment of a government?  I mean, <i>would</i> they?  If Hobbes <i>is</i> saying that, he’s really quite naïve!  Lots of people just don’t know what’s <i>good</i> <i>for</i> <i>them</i>.
> 
> So suppose that I <i>wouldn’t</i> agree to the establishment of a government, in the state of nature.  "I will take care of myself, thank you very much, and you and your government can go jump off a cliff" -- that’s what I’d say when the offer is made.  Then here’s the problem: Do I have any obligation <i>not</i> to initiate force, according to the social contract theorist?  Apparently not.  Because the only thing that obligates me to give up my liberty to initiate force is that agreement.  If I don’t make it, or I wouldn’t make it, then it looks like I’m still perfectly free to aggressively assert my will over other people, if I so desire.  I have no agreement, so I would not recognize any government as being legitimate.  And as far as I’m concerned, any government that tries to control me is, in fact, illegitimate.  I never agreed, and never would agree, to give up any of my liberties to it.
> 
> Now, how can social contract theorist reply to this?  It’s a common objection, and it’s rather difficult to answer.  One thing that makes it particularly difficult is that the social contract theorist has to appeal to something <i>else</i>, in order to explain why dissenters <i>are</i> morally obligated to give up their freedom to initiate force.  Surely, if I start a cult and move out to Montana and say I owe no allegiance to the United States, just about everyone here, I think, would say that I <i>do</i> <i>indeed</i> owe allegiance to the United States.  No matter what I say.  Even if deny that I owe any allegiance -- even if I explicitly deny having any sort of social contract with the United States at all.  So, if you do want to say that I owe allegiance to the United States, then it’s not a contract, real or imaginary, that’s binding on me; it must be something else.  The social contract theory, by itself, doesn’t <i>say</i> what else.
> 
> Here’s a second problem for the social contract theory.  What if we start a dandy little government, but then it gets out of hand.  It grows larger and ever more powerful, and more and more authoritarian, until it is arresting and executing people merely for openly disagreeing with government policies, and becomes an all-out totalitarian state.  This has, of course, happened all too many times throughout the course of human history; and it almost certainly will happen again, if not United States, then in some other country that we now regard as relatively civilized and moral.
> 
> So, naturally, even if we do have, at present, an actual or hypothetical agreement with our country, there may come a time when we will want to <i>dissolve</i> the agreement.  So one problem, which is a <i>practical</i> problem, is <i>when</i> we should dissolve the agreement with a government; <i>when</i> we may legitimately declare that we are <i>not</i> morally bound to do what the government says.  If the United States government were to become a totally vicious totalitarian dictatorship -- not something that can be expected to happen anytime soon, but it could eventually -- then at what point would you be morally justified in defying the government?
> 
> That’s one problem but it’s not the objection to social contractarianism.  After all, philosophers like Locke are very well aware that in some situations we may want to break ties with a government; in fact, Locke’s theory on that subject was followed by American revolutionaries in breaking ties with the English government.  The problem for social contractarianism, however, comes in attempting to state the <i>justification</i> of breaking ties with a government.  Surely, we would be justified in defying <i>some</i> governments that might arise.  That seems clearly true.  The question now is <i>why</i> we would be so justified -- what would justify us.
> 
> All that the social contract theory says is that, <i>if</i> we are party to a social contract, then we’re morally bound to give up our liberty to initiate force, and the government that is given that same liberty is legitimate.  That’s all the social contract theory says; so by itself, it doesn’t give us any clear grounds on which to <i>dissolve</i> a social contract.
> 
> And for that matter, why don’t we ask what sort of grounds justified you in agreeing to the social contract in the <i>first</i> place?  Why was that agreement something that, morally, you ought to participate in?  Surely you <i>should</i> participate in a social contract under some circumstances -- if you think it’s very likely that the government will be to everyone’s benefit, for example.  If that’s the reason, we’re getting close to a totally different justification of the state: <i>consequentialist</i> justifications.  So let’s look at that next.
------
PoliticalPhilosophy|981082787
1c1
< See also TheJustificationOfTheState; AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory; SocialContractTheories; 
---
> See also TheJustificationOfTheState; AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory; SocialContractTheories; ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState; ThePurposeOfGovernment
------
ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState|981082803
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Suppose I argue as follows.  "The social contract theory is just <i>incomplete</i>.  It doesn’t answer some very crucial questions about the justification of the state.  Now, I think I have the answers to those questions.  For example, one question is: Why is an irrational, or criminal, dissenter nonetheless obligated to follow the laws of a good government?  Answer: because it’s to the <i>benefit</i> of everyone, including the dissenter, that everyone else follows the laws of a good government.  In other words, it’s the <i>good</i> <i>consequences</i> of giving up the liberty to initiate force to a government that makes giving up that liberty the right thing to do.
> 
> "Or consider that second question: What justifies us in breaking the social contract?  Clearly, if we’re trying to escape the rule of a vicious, immoral, totalitarian government, it is our own self-interest, and indeed the interest of everyone in society (with the <i>possible</i> exception of government thugs) that makes revolution morally permissible, and in some cases morally <i>obligatory</i>.  So even if we do have a social contract with the state, the morality of that contract itself can be defended only on consequentialist grounds: only on grounds that the contract is beneficial.  When the continuation of that contract becomes clearly harmful to us, we have the right and even the duty to break it.  And it’s the fact that a contract with a vicious government <i>is</i> harmful that gives us the right and duty to break the contract."
> 
> I think that, after the chapter about ethics, you can see where this is going.  Basically, it is the application of consequentialism to the problem of the justification of government.  What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?  Ultimately, the justification is the simple fact that that has good consequences -- or at least <i>can</i> have good consequences.  No one would deny that there are corrupt, bad governments.  But giving <i>good</i> governments a monopoly on the initiation of force <i>is</i> morally justified, and not, ultimately, by a social contract, but instead by the clear beneficial consequences of such obediance.  So consider a definition:
> 
> A <i>consequentialist</i> theory of (the justification of) the state is any theory which says that the existence of some states is morally justified by the comparatively <i>beneficial</i> <i>consequences</i> of giving those states a monopoly on the initiation of force.
> 
> The consequentialist can talk about the state of nature just like the social contract theory; it’s just that the consequentialist responds to the horror story about the state of nature differently from the social contract theorist.  The social contract theorist says, for example: "In the state of nature, we would agree to give up some of our liberties to a government, and that is why the existence of government is (or can be) legitimate."  The consequentialist, by contrast, says: "In the state of nature, we would suffer all sorts of inconveniences and harms, and it would be a hard life all around; it would be far better, more beneficial to us individually <i>and</i> collectively, to have at least <i>some</i> manner of government."  So the consequentialist just bypasses this talk of social contracts; or else it gives a moral justification of social contracts, just as it gives a moral justification of government itself, on consequentialist grounds.  That is, solely based on considerations about the good and bad consequences of entering into a social contract, or establishing a government.
> 
> Now, remember that there are <i>different</i> <i>varieties</i> of consequentialism; the three varieties I mentioned are egoism, utilitarianism, and hybrid consequentialism.  Very plausible moral justifications can be given for the existence of the state <i>regardless</i> of which kind of consequentialism it is that you choose.  Even egoism: I can, as an egoist, very well acknowledge that it is to <i>my</i> <i>own</i> <i>individual</i> <i>benefit</i> to give up merely the liberty to initiate force, and perhaps some tax money, in exchange for protection of his rights from a government that has a monopoly on the initiation of force.  And then of course what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: it’s even easier to argue on <i>utilitarian</i> grounds that government is a necessary institution.  (That version could be called "social utilitarianism," which is Halverson’s term.)
> 
> Now there are some people who are <i>thoroughly</i> dissatisfied with this justification of the state.  As Halverson says, this just seems like a mere "practical" or "pragmatic" justification of the existence of the state, rather than a "theoretical" justification.  Consequences -- those are mere "practical" considerations.  I don’t know if you can understand that, but <i>I</i> can’t.  Honestly, what is the difference between a <i>practical</i> and a <i>theoretical</i> justification?  I don’t know.  I understand a related sort of distinction, when it comes to some problems in mathematics and science.  On the one hand, there is theory, the equations, and so forth; and on the other hand, there are particular problems from everyday life that the theory is used solve, and those are practical problems.  That’s a distinction that makes some sense to me.  But what is this distinction between practical and theoretical <i>justifications</i>?  When is a justification "practical," and when is it "theoretical"?
> 
> Or, suppose you think that the distinction between practical and theoretical justifications is clear enough, and you don’t need to explain it.  Then I have a couple of other questions for you.  First, why isn’t a consequentialist justification of the state theoretical?  Consequentialism is a <i>theory</i>, isn’t it?  So then why <i>wouldn’t</i> justification that is based on consequentialism be a <i>theoretical</i> justification?  Second, even if the consequentialist justification of the state is practical, is a <i>practical</i> justification <i>any</i> <i>less</i> <i>successful</i> for being practical?  Isn’t a successful practical justification <i>way</i> better than a shaky theoretical justification?  I mean, isn’t there a case to be made that, everything else being equal, we should <i>prefer</i> the practical to the theoretical?  I think there is.  But of course, to make that case, we would have to have a clearer distinction between practical and theoretical justifications; and I’m not sure that it can be made any clearer.
> 
> Consider next a second objection to the consequentialist justification of the state.  Recall what the good old anarchist says: power corrupts, and any government is bound ultimately to abuse its power.  So even on consequentialist grounds, we should not say that governments have a right to exist; the anarchist maintains that they have no right to exist at all, and they exist only because they have successfully seized power from individuals.
> 
> Here is a way for the consequentialist to reply.  Of course, some states are thoroughly corrupt and indeed they have no right to exist; they do abuse their power, infringing those essential rights that it’s supposed to be protecting, and so forth.  And it <i>might</i> even be true that all governments, over time, are made more and more corrupt by the power they hold; and that it is only revolution that can make a government good again.  That <i>might</i> be true, although I kind of doubt it.  But even if it <i>is</i> true, there can be periods of decades or even centuries during which a people can thrive under a <i>good</i> government.  The fact, if it is a fact, that that good government is going to become corrupt eventually does <i>not</i> mean that the people who thrive under the government <i>today</i> owe no allegiance to it.  Indeed, it makes sense to say that they <i>do</i> owe allegiance to that government, so long as the government is not <i>thoroughly</i> corrupt -- so long as it is not so corrupt that people would be warranted in overthrowing it.
> 
> So the anarchist argues that because some governments are bad, and because all governments <i>tend</i> to become bad, therefore <i>no</i> government is justified.  But that just doesn’t follow.  I can maintain, perfectly consistently, that some governments are bad, and all governments <i>tend</i> to become bad, but also that some governments are good and perfectly justified in their existence.
> 
> What I have <i>yet</i> to do is actually to give you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  All I’ve done so far is <i>asserted</i>, made the bald assertion without argument, that establishing at least <i>some</i> governments would, on the whole, create more good than bad for those under its authority.  But to be honest, I’m not, or not yet, prepared to give you an argument for that assertion.  Because in order to argue for it, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  And that’s the next question we’re going to consider, although we’ll consider it only very briefly.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|981082834
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.
> 
> You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.
> 
> Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.
> 
> One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.
> 
> Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!
> 
> Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
> 
> Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
------
AnarchY|981082841
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A political system in which there is no government.
> 
> The term anarchy is used to describe two essentially opposite political views, one which supports social order, the other which opposes it.
> 
> The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
> 
> The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
------
HistoryOfLevant|981082882
37c37
< Blah blah Parthians, Sassanids, blah.
---
> The seleucids adopted a pro-western stance that alienated both the powerful eastern satraps and the Greeks who had migrated to the east.  During the second century BC the Greek culture lost ground there, and the empire began to break apart.  The province of Bactria revolted, and Parthia was conquered by the semi-nomadic Parni.  By 141 BC the Parthians had established themselves as an empire, after the Seleucid model, and had conquered all of Iran and Mesopotamia.  The Seleucid kingdom continued to decline and its remaining provinces were annexed by the RomanRepublic in 64 BC.
38a39
> Blah blah Sassanids blah.
------
PoLitics|981082893
8c8
< * Capitalism
---
> * CapitalisM
------
JimboWales|981083262
5a6,12
> ----
> 
> <note from=PhillipHankins>  Thanks for the good tidings.  I actually gave a little thought to the benifit of people being able to find me easy.  But then I remembered that people can check the other revisions and find who has been working on a page that way.  And I didn't what to presume any ownership since larry had done some stuff... kinda unwiki, if you will.
> 
> It would be neat if people who wanted to help organize a page signed the bottom so as to spur communication betwixt themselves.  But again, I imagine the revision list is almost as good.  Your point about people finding other stuff I've worked on is the best reason and I hadn't thought of that.  Maybe I'll check around to see what others think of such topics.
> </note>
> ----
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|981083401
13c13,15
< Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
---
> Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
> 
> '''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.
------
LarrysText|981083491
1c1,11
< All these pages I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
---
> All these pages I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
> ----
> OK, here's the deal:
> * I know a lot of this sucks.  It is written to get the general concepts across to Ohio State undergrads.  Yes, some of what I've written might be outright wrong, and most of it can be tightened up considerably.  So, help me do that.  ''Don't'' bother replying to something I've written here.  Just make the change you think is necessary, please.
> * I have taken actual stands on certain issues.  You should de-opinionate these, if you can.  (This, like much other but not all improvement, will have to be done by philosophers who know the issues.)
> * I have saved the text in section-sized chunks, but I think it could have been saved in much smaller chunks.  If you want to do that, that would be Very Cool.
> * Since these are lectures, I refer to myself, the students, Ohio State, readings, other lectures I've given (hence, other parts of the wiki) and other stuff that shouldn't belong on the wiki.  If you want to help totally wikify this text, you would remove all that stuff.  Please?
> * I have saved the sections on pages with titles describing their content.  Ultimately, perhaps, the titles should be changed, or the entirety of a certain page should be split up and put on other pages.  I leave that to you.
> * Finally, you might not like my style, and you might think that I don't present the issues reliably enough, and otherwise feel that this contribution is not exactly a boon to WikiPedia.  If that's the case, you can feel free to replace what I've written with your own golden prose; I'd just appreciate that you convey roughly the same information that I do (i.e., you cover the same topics and say the same (true) things I have to say about them).  If these textbook entries are placeholders before better stuff comes along, that's perfectly fine by me.  The lectures are long since over and it took me all of an hour to upload them to the wiki!  So I won't mind, really!
> 
> I think that's it for now.  Any comments or questions?
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981083837
7c7,9
< I uploaded it to the server.  I suspect we should resave it as a different file type. -- LarrySanger
---
> I uploaded it to the server.  I suspect we should resave it as a different file type. 
> 
> I have also uploaded LarrysText to the server, so now WikiPedia has a veritable boatload of philosophical content.  Now all we have to do is wikify it and remove the bullshit. :-) -- LarrySanger
------
TheProblemOfEvil|981083901
35,37c35
< Similar things can be said about premise (4).  "If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent."  That also seems incontrovertibly true.  If there is anything that God can’t do, anything that doesn’t involve a contradiction anyway, then God isn’t omnipotent.  What it means to be omnipotent is to be able to do everything.  If God were omnipotent then he could certainly eliminate evil.  So I think both premises (3) and (4) have to be accepted.
< 
< '''Note:''' Statement 4 is not quite as obvious as it is being made out to be, and in fact the reason has been pointed out: "that doesn't involve a contradiction."  It is often maintained that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so that any change would be a local improvement to global detriment.  I'm not endorsing this view, of course, but I think it means that we should be a little more cautious on that point.
---
> Similar things can be said about premise (4).  "If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent."  That also seems incontrovertibly true.  If there is anything that God can’t do, anything that doesn’t involve a contradiction anyway, then God isn’t omnipotent.  It is sometimes held that to eliminate evil ''would'' result in a contradiction - that is, we live in the best of all possible worlds.  However, without a lot more justification this can be ignored for the time being.  If God were omnipotent then he could certainly eliminate evil.  So I think both premises (3) and (4) have to be accepted.
51c49
< So after going over each premise of the argument from evil, we have found just <i>one</i> premise, namely (5), that gives us substantial hope of escaping the conclusion.  As I said, maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>theodicy</i>.  A theodicy is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  And mind you, in order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.  I think that when I put it this way, this is a topic you may have thought a fair amount about; maybe some of you already have views about it.
---
> So after going over each premise of the argument from evil, we have found just <i>one</i> premise, namely (5), and ''perhaps'' also statement 4, that gives us substantial hope of escaping the conclusion.  As I said, maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>theodicy</i>.  A theodicy is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  And mind you, in order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.  I think that when I put it this way, this is a topic you may have thought a fair amount about; maybe some of you already have views about it.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|981083971
15c15
< '''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.
---
> '''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
------
CapitalisM|981084054
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A system based on the absence of political intervention in the economy, which rests on the assumption that politics and economics are distinct from one another.  Often capitalism is part of a wider, LibertariaN social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society.
> 
> A capitalist economy has many features, including businesses operating on the profit motive, large scale trade, and prices that fluctuate in response to changes in supply and demand.  Some people consider any economy that prominently exhibits such features to be a capitalist economy, regardless of the degree of political intervention.  Typically when people define capitalism in this way they are denying or not recognizing the distinction between politics and economics.
> 
> No economy in history has been purely capitalist in the sense of having a complete absence of political intervention.  In fact, the idea that an economy could be free of political intervention apparently did not occur to anyone until the late 18th century.  This makes capitalism one of the more radical ideas in human history.
> 
> Capitalist economic theory was first formalized by AdamSmith in 1776, in an attempt to refute MercantilisM.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayrk, and MiltonFriedman.
------
CapitalisM|981084112
7c7
< Capitalist economic theory was first formalized by AdamSmith in 1776, in an attempt to refute MercantilisM.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayrk, and MiltonFriedman.
---
> Capitalist economic theory was first formalized by AdamSmith in 1776, in an attempt to refute MercantilisM.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman.
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981084149
2c2
< 
---
> ----
19a20,22
> 
> --LarrysText
> ----
------
LarrysText|981084350
11c11,13
< I think that's it for now.  Any comments or questions?
---
> I think that's it for now.  Any comments or questions?
> ----
> Could the portions of text be marked with a link to here until they are wiki'ed?  I stumbled into the PhilosophyOfLanguage lecture, with its references to 'earlier' lectures and all...  The msec of confusion was fun and all, but labeling might help.  --PhillipHankins
------
LarrysText|981084425
5a6
> * Please render my prose a little more formal, less lecture-like.
13a15,16
> ----
> Yes, I'll do this if someone doesn't beat me to the punch. -- LarrySanger
------
PhilosophyOfLanguage|981084472
2a3,4
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>
> 
20,22d21
< 
< --LarrysText
< ----
------
PhilosophicalMethod|981084530
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
115c117
< Now as I said a while ago, what motivates us to take up philosophy is doubts about the meaning and justification of our beliefs.  But then I said that <i>other</i> disciplines, such as the natural sciences, study that as well.  I asked what it is that distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines; and I said they differ in the <i>methods</i> they use.  So now that I have stated some generalizations about philosophical method, I am ready to say how philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines.
---
> Now as I said a while ago, what motivates us to take up philosophy is doubts about the meaning and justification of our beliefs.  But then I said that <i>other</i> disciplines, such as the natural sciences, study that as well.  I asked what it is that distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines; and I said they differ in the <i>methods</i> they use.  So now that I have stated some generalizations about philosophical method, I am ready to say how philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines.
------
TheoryOfConduct|981084559
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
------
TheoryOfValue|981084608
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
147c149
< I hope, after all this, you can see why I say that the theory of value has an excellent claim on being the most important area of philosophy.  So much else in life rests on the theory of value that we accept.  Crucial life decisions you make, and the habits you develop, and your deepest political convictions all ultimately rest on the theory of value you adopt.
---
> I hope, after all this, you can see why I say that the theory of value has an excellent claim on being the most important area of philosophy.  So much else in life rests on the theory of value that we accept.  Crucial life decisions you make, and the habits you develop, and your deepest political convictions all ultimately rest on the theory of value you adopt.
------
ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState|981084637
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
23c25
< What I have <i>yet</i> to do is actually to give you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  All I’ve done so far is <i>asserted</i>, made the bald assertion without argument, that establishing at least <i>some</i> governments would, on the whole, create more good than bad for those under its authority.  But to be honest, I’m not, or not yet, prepared to give you an argument for that assertion.  Because in order to argue for it, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  And that’s the next question we’re going to consider, although we’ll consider it only very briefly.
---
> What I have <i>yet</i> to do is actually to give you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  All I’ve done so far is <i>asserted</i>, made the bald assertion without argument, that establishing at least <i>some</i> governments would, on the whole, create more good than bad for those under its authority.  But to be honest, I’m not, or not yet, prepared to give you an argument for that assertion.  Because in order to argue for it, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  And that’s the next question we’re going to consider, although we’ll consider it only very briefly.
------
DefinitionOfPhilosophy|981084747
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
31c33
< I’m not going to tell you that this is a perfect definition, because I’m sure it isn’t.  But I think it should give you a pretty good idea of what "philosophy" means.
---
> I’m not going to tell you that this is a perfect definition, because I’m sure it isn’t.  But I think it should give you a pretty good idea of what "philosophy" means.
------
DefinitionOfLogic|981084843
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
51c53
< Logic, like mathematics and physics, has a theoretical part and an applied part.  Parts (1) and (2) of the definition together describe the theoretical part of logic, and (3) describes the applied part.  And just as a nonmathematician learning physics should study mathematics in order to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> mathematics well, a nonlogician in <i>any</i> task that requires reasoning, such as confirming rational beliefs, should study logic to learn how to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> logic well.  Moreover, like mathematics and physics (and many other things), you have to do quite a bit of <i>practice</i> if you want to gain any facility in using logic.  Logic is a bit unlike other parts of philosophy in that way: in studying books in <i>other</i> areas of philosophy, such as ethics and metaphysics, you’ll rarely see <i>problems</i> at the end of the chapter.  But you might very well do problems in logic, in order to learn how to use logic.  (Of course, that’s not to say that practice, of various sorts, would not help one to learn other areas of philosophy better.  It’s just that the practice would be practice thinking the problems through.)
---
> Logic, like mathematics and physics, has a theoretical part and an applied part.  Parts (1) and (2) of the definition together describe the theoretical part of logic, and (3) describes the applied part.  And just as a nonmathematician learning physics should study mathematics in order to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> mathematics well, a nonlogician in <i>any</i> task that requires reasoning, such as confirming rational beliefs, should study logic to learn how to <i>use</i> or <i>apply</i> logic well.  Moreover, like mathematics and physics (and many other things), you have to do quite a bit of <i>practice</i> if you want to gain any facility in using logic.  Logic is a bit unlike other parts of philosophy in that way: in studying books in <i>other</i> areas of philosophy, such as ethics and metaphysics, you’ll rarely see <i>problems</i> at the end of the chapter.  But you might very well do problems in logic, in order to learn how to use logic.  (Of course, that’s not to say that practice, of various sorts, would not help one to learn other areas of philosophy better.  It’s just that the practice would be practice thinking the problems through.)
------
LarrysText|981084985
16c16,20
< Yes, I'll do this if someone doesn't beat me to the punch. -- LarrySanger
---
> Yes, I'll do this if someone doesn't beat me to the punch. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Since you agreed, I've taken started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  --PhillipHankins
> 
> 
------
LarrysText|981085001
18c18
< Since you agreed, I've taken started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  --PhillipHankins
---
> Since you agreed, I've started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  --PhillipHankins
------
LarrysText|981085239
18c18
< Since you agreed, I've started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  --PhillipHankins
---
> Since you agreed, I've started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  Maybe there should be "remove this notice" or something... then again, surely wiki editors know that sort of thing.  --PhillipHankins
------
DeductionAndInduction|981085343
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
131c133
< Learning the construction, identification, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments are all important parts of learning logic, and well worth practicing, but in this course we won’t have time to do that.  We will, as is the case with a lot of philosophy, have learn those things by <i>doing</i>.  But there is, after all, a <i>great</i> deal that one can learn about logic by doing it.
---
> Learning the construction, identification, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments are all important parts of learning logic, and well worth practicing, but in this course we won’t have time to do that.  We will, as is the case with a lot of philosophy, have learn those things by <i>doing</i>.  But there is, after all, a <i>great</i> deal that one can learn about logic by doing it.
------
ArgumentForms|981085381
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
119c121
< Basically we’re told that it has to be one or the other that’s true; then we’re told that it’s not the one; so we infer that it has to be the other that’s true.
---
> Basically we’re told that it has to be one or the other that’s true; then we’re told that it’s not the one; so we infer that it has to be the other that’s true.
------
MeaningAndDefinitions|981085418
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
75c77
< That brings us to the fifth and final way definitions can go wrong: they can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.  Suppose I defined "love" as "the insensible quivering of the soul."  This is absolute nonsense, and totally useless as a definition in philosophy, however nice it might be in poetry (although I doubt it).  Given a definition like this one has the right to ask: but <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the insensible quivering of the soul?  How would I recognize it?  Is my soul insensibly quivering right now?  And so on.  I’m sure you get the idea.  Definitions should be stated in plain, straightforward language that can be understood by the people to whom you’re giving the definition.
---
> That brings us to the fifth and final way definitions can go wrong: they can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.  Suppose I defined "love" as "the insensible quivering of the soul."  This is absolute nonsense, and totally useless as a definition in philosophy, however nice it might be in poetry (although I doubt it).  Given a definition like this one has the right to ask: but <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the insensible quivering of the soul?  How would I recognize it?  Is my soul insensibly quivering right now?  And so on.  I’m sure you get the idea.  Definitions should be stated in plain, straightforward language that can be understood by the people to whom you’re giving the definition.
------
IdentityAndChange|981085467
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
53c55
< Well, that’s all I wanted to say about identity and change -- two sample relations.  There are a lot of topics in metaphysics we haven’t considered at all.  But we have at least understood some basic facts about our red apple.  We can say: when we say the red apple exists, we means that it is located in space and time, in the world that we are part of.  The apple itself, we might say, is a substance, and its redness is a property.  The redness of the apple is a trope, which resembles the redness of playground balls and flowers.  And though the apple can get soft and rotten while remaining the same apple, once it’s eaten, it is destroyed.
---
> Well, that’s all I wanted to say about identity and change -- two sample relations.  There are a lot of topics in metaphysics we haven’t considered at all.  But we have at least understood some basic facts about our red apple.  We can say: when we say the red apple exists, we means that it is located in space and time, in the world that we are part of.  The apple itself, we might say, is a substance, and its redness is a property.  The redness of the apple is a trope, which resembles the redness of playground balls and flowers.  And though the apple can get soft and rotten while remaining the same apple, once it’s eaten, it is destroyed.
------
MetaphysicsAndOntology|981085546
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
39c41
< In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
---
> In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
------
ProblemOfSubstance|981085568
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
57c59
< Philosophers have talked, as you might have guessed, about both <i>physical</i> substances, or bodies, and <i>mental</i> substance, or minds.  And as I think you can see, the problem of substance arises in both the physical and the mental realms.  I’m going to have to leave the discussion there, as difficult as it is.
---
> Philosophers have talked, as you might have guessed, about both <i>physical</i> substances, or bodies, and <i>mental</i> substance, or minds.  And as I think you can see, the problem of substance arises in both the physical and the mental realms.  I’m going to have to leave the discussion there, as difficult as it is.
------
WhatIsGod|981085649
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
67c69
< Let me be fair to the theists among us now.  I am quite sure that defenders of traditional religions including Christianity would, after our discussion so far, want to say that the no concept view is unduly critical, fastidious, or exacting.  Such people will, I suppose, either believe that moderate mysticism is correct, and provides a sufficiently clear notion of God for human purposes; or that spiritual anthropomorphism is correct, and that it really does give us a way to conceive of the divine mind.
---
> Let me be fair to the theists among us now.  I am quite sure that defenders of traditional religions including Christianity would, after our discussion so far, want to say that the no concept view is unduly critical, fastidious, or exacting.  Such people will, I suppose, either believe that moderate mysticism is correct, and provides a sufficiently clear notion of God for human purposes; or that spiritual anthropomorphism is correct, and that it really does give us a way to conceive of the divine mind.
------
FaithAndRationality|981085669
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
27c29
< This is all just food for thought for you; as always you have the right to think whatever you like.  All right, that’s all I’m going to say about the rationality of faith.  Next what I am going to talk about are some positive reasons to believe that God exists -- in other words, <i>arguments</i> which have as their conclusion the claim, "God exists."
---
> This is all just food for thought for you; as always you have the right to think whatever you like.  All right, that’s all I’m going to say about the rationality of faith.  Next what I am going to talk about are some positive reasons to believe that God exists -- in other words, <i>arguments</i> which have as their conclusion the claim, "God exists."
------
TheCosmologicalArgument|981085690
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
47c49
< I think you can see that, all together, these different replies to the cosmological argument make it difficult for the argument’s defender to hold onto it.  I’m not saying that that can’t be done, because some religious philosophers have indeed used this argument and come up with elaborate replies to the objections I’ve raised.
---
> I think you can see that, all together, these different replies to the cosmological argument make it difficult for the argument’s defender to hold onto it.  I’m not saying that that can’t be done, because some religious philosophers have indeed used this argument and come up with elaborate replies to the objections I’ve raised.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981085710
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
39c41
< Finally, there are questions about consciousness.  What is it?  We say that there is something it’s <i>like</i> to be watching a baby.  When we look at a baby we’re conscious of the baby.  Is there some way to explain what makes a mental event, like looking at a baby, <i>conscious</i>?  Well, what could we explain consciousness in terms of?  If in terms of some physical process, then we face the same old mind-body question in yet <i>another</i> form: Can consciousness be reduced to, explained in terms of, mere physical processes?  Some people have said, vociferously, <i>definitely</i> <i>not</i>.  How could a hunk of grey matter in your brain be the same as <i>the</i> <i>awareness</i> <i>of</i> <i>a</i> <i>pain</i>?  Awareness is a <i>totally</i> different kind of thing from grey matter in your skull.  So they say.  But again, that’s only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.
---
> Finally, there are questions about consciousness.  What is it?  We say that there is something it’s <i>like</i> to be watching a baby.  When we look at a baby we’re conscious of the baby.  Is there some way to explain what makes a mental event, like looking at a baby, <i>conscious</i>?  Well, what could we explain consciousness in terms of?  If in terms of some physical process, then we face the same old mind-body question in yet <i>another</i> form: Can consciousness be reduced to, explained in terms of, mere physical processes?  Some people have said, vociferously, <i>definitely</i> <i>not</i>.  How could a hunk of grey matter in your brain be the same as <i>the</i> <i>awareness</i> <i>of</i> <i>a</i> <i>pain</i>?  Awareness is a <i>totally</i> different kind of thing from grey matter in your skull.  So they say.  But again, that’s only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.
------
TheoryOfJustification|981085729
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
39c41
< If P isn’t justified, then it sure can’t justify Q.  The only way that P could justify Q is if P is itself first justified.
---
> If P isn’t justified, then it sure can’t justify Q.  The only way that P could justify Q is if P is itself first justified.
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981085750
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
157c159
< In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
---
> In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
------
AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory|981085776
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
35c37
< But of course, that’s the whole problem to begin with.  We aren’t any further along in discovering the justification of the state than when we started.  So let’s consider some <i>positive</i> <i>theories</i> about why the state is justified.
---
> But of course, that’s the whole problem to begin with.  We aren’t any further along in discovering the justification of the state than when we started.  So let’s consider some <i>positive</i> <i>theories</i> about why the state is justified.
------
PhilosophyOfPerception|981085794
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
127c129
< The topic of mental images is very complicated and controversial, but I will tell you my own view about it, which is again similar to Reid’s, just to bring this discussion to some closure.  My own view is that in fact, in <i>some</i> sense, we <i>do</i> <i>indeed</i> have images of various sorts in our minds when we perceive, and dream, and hallucinate, and use our imaginations.  But when we actually perceive things, in no sense whatsoever can our sensory images, or sensations, if you will (that’s Reid’s word), be considered the <i>objects</i> of perception, or attention, at all.  The only objects of perception are external objects.  Even if perception is accompanied by images, or sensations, it’s wrong to say we <i>perceive</i> sensations.
---
> The topic of mental images is very complicated and controversial, but I will tell you my own view about it, which is again similar to Reid’s, just to bring this discussion to some closure.  My own view is that in fact, in <i>some</i> sense, we <i>do</i> <i>indeed</i> have images of various sorts in our minds when we perceive, and dream, and hallucinate, and use our imaginations.  But when we actually perceive things, in no sense whatsoever can our sensory images, or sensations, if you will (that’s Reid’s word), be considered the <i>objects</i> of perception, or attention, at all.  The only objects of perception are external objects.  Even if perception is accompanied by images, or sensations, it’s wrong to say we <i>perceive</i> sensations.
------
FreeWillAndDeterminism|981085819
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
139c141
< Anyone who accepts premise (4) of the determinist’s argument is an incompatibilist.  So determinists are incompatibilists, and they deny the existence of free will.  And libertarians are incompatibilists as well; but they deny that all events are causally determined.  What these incompatibilists have in common is the assumption that if a choice is free, then at least some aspect of it is uncaused.  And we just got done debunking that assumption.  I doubt there are any good arguments for it.  So I hope you’ll forgive me if I end up on a somewhat dogmatic note, and say that incompatibilism seems to me pretty obviously false.
---
> Anyone who accepts premise (4) of the determinist’s argument is an incompatibilist.  So determinists are incompatibilists, and they deny the existence of free will.  And libertarians are incompatibilists as well; but they deny that all events are causally determined.  What these incompatibilists have in common is the assumption that if a choice is free, then at least some aspect of it is uncaused.  And we just got done debunking that assumption.  I doubt there are any good arguments for it.  So I hope you’ll forgive me if I end up on a somewhat dogmatic note, and say that incompatibilism seems to me pretty obviously false.
------
TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology|981085905
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
99c101
< The debate between externalists and internalists has been raging in recent years -- the last few decades.  On the one hand you have the externalists saying, for example, that I can be justified in believing that Stockholm is the capital of Sweden even if I have totally forgotten any reason I originally had for believing this; I’m not aware of the justifiers of this belief, but it can still be justified.  On the other hand you have the internalists who counter that if you’re going to be justified in any belief, you’ve definitely got to be at least <i>able</i> <i>to</i> <i>become</i> <i>aware</i> of what justifies your belief.  If you don’t have access to your justifiers, say the internalists, then you aren’t really justified.
---
> The debate between externalists and internalists has been raging in recent years -- the last few decades.  On the one hand you have the externalists saying, for example, that I can be justified in believing that Stockholm is the capital of Sweden even if I have totally forgotten any reason I originally had for believing this; I’m not aware of the justifiers of this belief, but it can still be justified.  On the other hand you have the internalists who counter that if you’re going to be justified in any belief, you’ve definitely got to be at least <i>able</i> <i>to</i> <i>become</i> <i>aware</i> of what justifies your belief.  If you don’t have access to your justifiers, say the internalists, then you aren’t really justified.
------
APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge|981085943
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
> 
33c35
< I suspect that you won’t be surprised if I tell you that most philosophers these days are empiricists, and that they deny the existence of <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> justified beliefs.  They think everything must ultimately be justified based on experience; experience is all we have, in the long run.
---
> I suspect that you won’t be surprised if I tell you that most philosophers these days are empiricists, and that they deny the existence of <i>a</i> <i>priori</i> justified beliefs.  They think everything must ultimately be justified based on experience; experience is all we have, in the long run.
------
KnowLedge|981085961
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
85c87
< The third question about our definition of knowledge is: Is knowledge possible?  Now if you take a look at that definition, you’ll notice something: If I know something, then I am sufficiently justified in believing it.  So we have a way to rephrase the question, "Is knowledge possible?"  Instead, we can ask: "Am I ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge?"  The skeptic is the person who says "No."  So let’s look next at skepticism.
---
> The third question about our definition of knowledge is: Is knowledge possible?  Now if you take a look at that definition, you’ll notice something: If I know something, then I am sufficiently justified in believing it.  So we have a way to rephrase the question, "Is knowledge possible?"  Instead, we can ask: "Am I ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge?"  The skeptic is the person who says "No."  So let’s look next at skepticism.
------
SocialContractTheories|981085991
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
49c51
< And for that matter, why don’t we ask what sort of grounds justified you in agreeing to the social contract in the <i>first</i> place?  Why was that agreement something that, morally, you ought to participate in?  Surely you <i>should</i> participate in a social contract under some circumstances -- if you think it’s very likely that the government will be to everyone’s benefit, for example.  If that’s the reason, we’re getting close to a totally different justification of the state: <i>consequentialist</i> justifications.  So let’s look at that next.
---
> And for that matter, why don’t we ask what sort of grounds justified you in agreeing to the social contract in the <i>first</i> place?  Why was that agreement something that, morally, you ought to participate in?  Surely you <i>should</i> participate in a social contract under some circumstances -- if you think it’s very likely that the government will be to everyone’s benefit, for example.  If that’s the reason, we’re getting close to a totally different justification of the state: <i>consequentialist</i> justifications.  So let’s look at that next.
------
TheMeaningOfMeaning|981086026
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
17c19
< And then among words and phrases we can distinguish different parts of speech, such as noun phrases and adjective phrases, and of course those are going to have different kinds of meaning.  And clearly <i>proper</i> <i>names</i>, which are names that stand for individuals, like "Jerry" and "Barry," and "Paris," and "Venus," are going to have yet another kind of meaning.  Now, there’s no way that I could discuss with you all the different kinds of meaning involved here; so I’m going to focus in on the meaning of just one kind of language item -- proper names.  And remember, we <i>could</i> talk about either the <i>speaker’s</i> meaning when proper names are used, or else about the <i>semantic</i> meaning of proper names themselves.  We’re going to ignore the speaker’s meaning and focus in on semantic meaning.
---
> And then among words and phrases we can distinguish different parts of speech, such as noun phrases and adjective phrases, and of course those are going to have different kinds of meaning.  And clearly <i>proper</i> <i>names</i>, which are names that stand for individuals, like "Jerry" and "Barry," and "Paris," and "Venus," are going to have yet another kind of meaning.  Now, there’s no way that I could discuss with you all the different kinds of meaning involved here; so I’m going to focus in on the meaning of just one kind of language item -- proper names.  And remember, we <i>could</i> talk about either the <i>speaker’s</i> meaning when proper names are used, or else about the <i>semantic</i> meaning of proper names themselves.  We’re going to ignore the speaker’s meaning and focus in on semantic meaning.
------
ProperNames|981086046
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
59c61
< You might object, "Well, wait a minute.  Here’s a nonsense sentence: ‘The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.’  Why couldn’t we just say that that is <i>false</i>?"  Well, here’s why that nonsense sentence can’t be false: if it’s false then its opposite has to be true.  Here’s another principle you can take home with you: "If P is false, then not-P is true."  So just apply that principle to the nonsense sentence I gave you.  We want to say "The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" -- that’s our P -- is <i>false</i>.  Well then, not-P must be true.  So then it must be true that the slithy toves did <i>not</i> gyre and gimble in the wabe.  Yes indeed, I strenuously insist, the slithy toves <i>did</i> <i>not</i> gyre and gimble!  Nope!  And if they did gyre or gimble it certainly wasn’t in the wabe!  Well, that’s just nonsense as you can see.  So, in order to be true <i>or</i> false, as I said, a sentence has to be meaningful.  And as I said, that’s a very important connection between the topics of meaning and truth.
---
> You might object, "Well, wait a minute.  Here’s a nonsense sentence: ‘The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.’  Why couldn’t we just say that that is <i>false</i>?"  Well, here’s why that nonsense sentence can’t be false: if it’s false then its opposite has to be true.  Here’s another principle you can take home with you: "If P is false, then not-P is true."  So just apply that principle to the nonsense sentence I gave you.  We want to say "The slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" -- that’s our P -- is <i>false</i>.  Well then, not-P must be true.  So then it must be true that the slithy toves did <i>not</i> gyre and gimble in the wabe.  Yes indeed, I strenuously insist, the slithy toves <i>did</i> <i>not</i> gyre and gimble!  Nope!  And if they did gyre or gimble it certainly wasn’t in the wabe!  Well, that’s just nonsense as you can see.  So, in order to be true <i>or</i> false, as I said, a sentence has to be meaningful.  And as I said, that’s a very important connection between the topics of meaning and truth.
------
EpistemOlogy|981086071
1a2,3
> ----
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
29c31
< Then, fourth, there is one of the more difficult topics of philosophy -- trying to answer, or otherwise deal with, the challenge that we <i>cannot</i> have knowledge.  A number of philosophers -- not too many, but some -- have said that we cannot have knowledge.  A <i>lot</i> of philosophers have said that it’s very <i>difficult</i> to obtain knowledge; but they don’t deny that we have it, or that we <i>can</i> have it.  Not so many philosophers, however, have gone so far as to say that we have no knowledge at all, or (to say something even stronger) that it is <i>impossible</i> to have knowledge.
---
> Then, fourth, there is one of the more difficult topics of philosophy -- trying to answer, or otherwise deal with, the challenge that we <i>cannot</i> have knowledge.  A number of philosophers -- not too many, but some -- have said that we cannot have knowledge.  A <i>lot</i> of philosophers have said that it’s very <i>difficult</i> to obtain knowledge; but they don’t deny that we have it, or that we <i>can</i> have it.  Not so many philosophers, however, have gone so far as to say that we have no knowledge at all, or (to say something even stronger) that it is <i>impossible</i> to have knowledge.
------
MeaningfulNess|981086099
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
19c21
< And in my opinion anyway, it’s probably going to turn out to be a function of a grammatical combination of meaningful words, plus some other conditions (like, the right words being joined together).  I suspect that that is what would make a sentence understandable, <i>and</i> verifiable or falsifiable, <i>and</i> meaningful.  But that’s all I’m going to say about meaningfulness.  On to epistemology.
---
> And in my opinion anyway, it’s probably going to turn out to be a function of a grammatical combination of meaningful words, plus some other conditions (like, the right words being joined together).  I suspect that that is what would make a sentence understandable, <i>and</i> verifiable or falsifiable, <i>and</i> meaningful.  But that’s all I’m going to say about meaningfulness.  On to epistemology.
------
NaiveRelativismAboutTruth|981086120
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
49c51
< Why am I introducing this term "proposition"?  Well, some philosophers insist that only <i>propositions</i> can be, properly speaking, true or false; sentences are not true or false, properly speaking.  It’s the thing that a sentence <i>says</i>, the <i>proposition</i> that the sentence is making, that is either true or false -- that’s the idea.  Anyway, I’m going to put theories of truth in terms of propositions, as you’ll see.
---
> Why am I introducing this term "proposition"?  Well, some philosophers insist that only <i>propositions</i> can be, properly speaking, true or false; sentences are not true or false, properly speaking.  It’s the thing that a sentence <i>says</i>, the <i>proposition</i> that the sentence is making, that is either true or false -- that’s the idea.  Anyway, I’m going to put theories of truth in terms of propositions, as you’ll see.
------
ProblemOfUniversals|981086150
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
85c87
< The reading goes on to discuss this theory, but we are going to have to leave the discussion there.  A lot of philosophers these days <i>do</i> find something like the resemblance theory as presented here attractive.  But trust me, a lot more can be said on all sides.  In fact, it is not uncommon to find whole graduate-level courses <i>just</i> on the problem of universals.  But onto the next problem.
---
> The reading goes on to discuss this theory, but we are going to have to leave the discussion there.  A lot of philosophers these days <i>do</i> find something like the resemblance theory as presented here attractive.  But trust me, a lot more can be said on all sides.  In fact, it is not uncommon to find whole graduate-level courses <i>just</i> on the problem of universals.  But onto the next problem.
------
TheExistenceOfPhysicalObjects|981086181
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
39c41
< In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
---
> In fact, those are exactly the four questions we are going to try to answer in the rest of our consideration of metaphysics.  If you’re baffled about what these questions are asking, don’t worry -- after we focus on each question individually you will be less confused.
------
TheoriesOfTruth|981086204
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
61c63
< I think that after this very brief discussion of theories of truth, the revised correspondence theory looks most plausible; but we just haven’t discussed them in enough depth for me to be able to say that with any certainty.  But as usual you have been introduced to the terrain: among different theories of truth there are the correspondence theory, the redundancy theory, the coherence theory, and pragmatism.  With such a variety to choose from at the very least you should be convinced that you don’t have to rest content with any sort of relativism that says that truth is just the same as belief.  You can do a heck of a lot better than that.
---
> I think that after this very brief discussion of theories of truth, the revised correspondence theory looks most plausible; but we just haven’t discussed them in enough depth for me to be able to say that with any certainty.  But as usual you have been introduced to the terrain: among different theories of truth there are the correspondence theory, the redundancy theory, the coherence theory, and pragmatism.  With such a variety to choose from at the very least you should be convinced that you don’t have to rest content with any sort of relativism that says that truth is just the same as belief.  You can do a heck of a lot better than that.
------
TheOntologicalArgument|981086250
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
39c41
< There are other versions of the ontological argument besides St. Anselm’s.  So maybe one of those other versions would do better.
---
> There are other versions of the ontological argument besides St. Anselm’s.  So maybe one of those other versions would do better.
------
ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981086307
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
33c35
< So I think this argument from morality is fallacious.  Please notice, in saying this, I am not implying in any way, shape, or form, that God does <i>not</i> exist!  I am also not denying in the least that God’s commands are always right.  What I am denying, rather, is that it is God’s commands <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>themselves</i> which make actions right; I think that those commands would have to have some reasons behind them.  And those reasons are what make the actions right.  So I am simply saying that the argument from morality is not a good argument that God does exist.  You can, as a theist, find <i>much</i> better reasons to support your belief in God.
---
> So I think this argument from morality is fallacious.  Please notice, in saying this, I am not implying in any way, shape, or form, that God does <i>not</i> exist!  I am also not denying in the least that God’s commands are always right.  What I am denying, rather, is that it is God’s commands <i>all</i> <i>by</i> <i>themselves</i> which make actions right; I think that those commands would have to have some reasons behind them.  And those reasons are what make the actions right.  So I am simply saying that the argument from morality is not a good argument that God does exist.  You can, as a theist, find <i>much</i> better reasons to support your belief in God.
------
TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod|981086344
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
9c11
< * TheTeleologicalArgument
---
> * TheTeleologicalArgument
------
TheTeleologicalArgument|981086367
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
29c31
< I think you get the idea.  Suppose that we admit that God is like the designer of machines; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that the <i>Christian</i> God exists.  And I honestly do not know how the defender of the teleological argument can get around that objection.
---
> I think you get the idea.  Suppose that we admit that God is like the designer of machines; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that the <i>Christian</i> God exists.  And I honestly do not know how the defender of the teleological argument can get around that objection.
------
CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus|981086392
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
29c31
< Anyway, then, if the method of common sense is right, we can start our philosophical investigations with common sense, making particular claims about what is true, and also making generalizations, or stating criteria, about when claims are true.  Because both the truth-claims and the criteria-claims can both be principles of common sense.  Moreover, it’s a principle of common sense that our basic faculties are reliable.  Armed with those assumptions, that way, we can immediately reply to various kinds of skepticism, without wasting time thinking about skeptical doubts about dreaming and such.  And that way, too, we can get around Sextus’ problem of the criterion: there is no infinite regress or circle of criteria, because the buck stops with the principles of common sense.
---
> Anyway, then, if the method of common sense is right, we can start our philosophical investigations with common sense, making particular claims about what is true, and also making generalizations, or stating criteria, about when claims are true.  Because both the truth-claims and the criteria-claims can both be principles of common sense.  Moreover, it’s a principle of common sense that our basic faculties are reliable.  Armed with those assumptions, that way, we can immediately reply to various kinds of skepticism, without wasting time thinking about skeptical doubts about dreaming and such.  And that way, too, we can get around Sextus’ problem of the criterion: there is no infinite regress or circle of criteria, because the buck stops with the principles of common sense.
------
TheJustificationOfTheState|981086412
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
31c33
< Now, if you’ll remember, we already asked this question once.  We said that government is necessary in order to keep other people from violating our rights.  Some people are hell-bent on taking our stuff and even our lives and purely as a protective measure we are willing to establish governments that protect us.  That’s at least a "prima facie" reason for the existence of the state.  "Prima facie" means "on first glance."  So on first glance, the reason that governments are needed to exist <i>at</i> <i>all</i> is to protect our rights, and to preserve justice.
---
> Now, if you’ll remember, we already asked this question once.  We said that government is necessary in order to keep other people from violating our rights.  Some people are hell-bent on taking our stuff and even our lives and purely as a protective measure we are willing to establish governments that protect us.  That’s at least a "prima facie" reason for the existence of the state.  "Prima facie" means "on first glance."  So on first glance, the reason that governments are needed to exist <i>at</i> <i>all</i> is to protect our rights, and to preserve justice.
------
ScepticIsm|981086436
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
75c77
< Well, as you know we could go on nearly endlessly about this topic.  It’s very interesting and has received a lot of discussion in philosophy, so there are a lot of arguments on both sides.  I’ve only given you a basic sampling.
---
> Well, as you know we could go on nearly endlessly about this topic.  It’s very interesting and has received a lot of discussion in philosophy, so there are a lot of arguments on both sides.  I’ve only given you a basic sampling.
------
EthIcs|981086460
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
19c21
< And then there is a whole raft of separate branches of applied ethics, which examine ethical problems of different professions.  There are business ethics, medical ethics, and legal ethics, which examine the moral dilemmas faced by business people, doctors, and lawyers, respectively.
---
> And then there is a whole raft of separate branches of applied ethics, which examine ethical problems of different professions.  There are business ethics, medical ethics, and legal ethics, which examine the moral dilemmas faced by business people, doctors, and lawyers, respectively.
------
MetaEthics|981086529
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
139c141
< Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.  But we don’t have time to go into it any further.  We have bigger fish to fry.  
---
> Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.  But we don’t have time to go into it any further.  We have bigger fish to fry.  
------
DefinitioN|981086786
3c3,11
< ''(To be greatly expanded.)''
---
> ''(To be greatly expanded.)''
> 
> def-i-ni-tion:  (de-f&-'ni-sh&n)  noun,  [etymology: middle english diffinicioun, from middle french definition, from latin definition-, definitio, from definire]
> 1 : an act of determining
> 2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
> 3 : the action or process of defining
> 4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
> 
> 
------
TheProblemOfEvil|981086871
0a1,2
> <the following is a portion (partly edited) of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
> 
------
HistoryOfLevant|981087083
39c39,44
< Blah blah Sassanids blah.
---
> The Parthian nobility reacted against growing Roman influences around the turn of the millenium.  Throughout the next century there was a strong expansion of national culture and a dissolution in central authority.  In 114 AD Trajan temporarily occupied Mesopotamia, and with the end of Hadrian's 40-year peace the two powers were at almost constant hostilities.  Mesopotamia was occupied again, but the Parthians recovered and pillaged the Roman provinces.  Shortly thereafter, though, the province of Persia rose up in revolt, and defeated the last Parthian emperor in 224. 
> 
> The new dynasty, the Sasanids, restored central authority.  In this period Zoroastrianism developed into an organized religion with close ties to the new state.  Various sects of Christianity also spread throughout Iran, and Manichaeism developed from the two religions; these were initially tolerated but later persecuted as the Romans followed the opposite route.  Conflicts with Rome, and later the ByzantineEmpire, continued intermittently.
> 
> The Byzantines reached their lowest point under Phocas, with the Sasanids occupying the whole of the eastern Meditteranean.  In 610, though, Heraclius took the thrown and began a succesful counter-attack, expelling the Persians and invading Media and Assyria.  Unable to stop his advance, Khosrows II was assassinated and the Sasanid empire fell into anarchy.  Weakened by their quarrels, neither empire was prepared to deal with the onslaught of the Arabs, newly unified under the banners of IsLam and anxious to expand their faith.  By 650 they had conquered all of Persia, Syria, and Egypt.
> 
------
LarrysText|981087624
14,18c14
< Could the portions of text be marked with a link to here until they are wiki'ed?  I stumbled into the PhilosophyOfLanguage lecture, with its references to 'earlier' lectures and all...  The msec of confusion was fun and all, but labeling might help.  --PhillipHankins
< ----
< Yes, I'll do this if someone doesn't beat me to the punch. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Since you agreed, I've started.  Or did I start before... whatever :)  I'm adding a standard "<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited>" to the top.  Maybe there should be "remove this notice" or something... then again, surely wiki editors know that sort of thing.  --PhillipHankins
---
> I added a note to the top of most of the pages.  I would hope the notes don't last longer than the first couple of edits, which should suffice to make them read suffeciently less like lectures.  And haveing them link here means interested parties can find which ones have not yet been reviewed  (that gives me an idea: PagesToBeReviewed).  That having been said... Thanks for the material, Larry.  I skimmed sections here and there, and it all looks quite good.  Quite a boon for the PhiloSophy section.  I might just look you up and request a copy when I have to teach some undergrad intro class (or will the wikipedia be enough by then...).  --PhillipHankins
------
LarrysText|981088133
14c14
< I added a note to the top of most of the pages.  I would hope the notes don't last longer than the first couple of edits, which should suffice to make them read suffeciently less like lectures.  And haveing them link here means interested parties can find which ones have not yet been reviewed  (that gives me an idea: PagesToBeReviewed).  That having been said... Thanks for the material, Larry.  I skimmed sections here and there, and it all looks quite good.  Quite a boon for the PhiloSophy section.  I might just look you up and request a copy when I have to teach some undergrad intro class (or will the wikipedia be enough by then...).  --PhillipHankins
---
> I added a note to the top of most of the pages.  I would hope the notes don't last longer than the first couple of edits, which should suffice to make them read suffeciently less like lectures.  And haveing them link here means interested parties can find which ones have not yet been reviewed  (that gives me an idea: ReviewRequests).  That having been said... Thanks for the material, Larry.  I skimmed sections here and there, and it all looks quite good.  Quite a boon for the PhiloSophy section.  I might just look you up and request a copy when I have to teach some undergrad intro class (or will the wikipedia be enough by then...).  --PhillipHankins
------
LarrysText|981088631
1c1
< All these pages I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
---
> All [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?search=LarrysText these pages] I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|981088707
20a21,28
>  - section 1 (/SectioN141)
>  - section 2 (/SectioN142)
>  - section 3 (/SectioN143)
>  - section 4 (/SectioN144)
>  - section 5 (/SectioN145)
>  - section 6 (/SectioN146)
>  - section 7 (/SectioN147)
>  - section 8 (/SectioN148)
------
ReviewRequests|981088744
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Have an article that you wouldn't mind some help with?  Like to have an article fact-checked?  Know that your speeling sucks grammar and?
> 
> Add it to the list.  (A description of what needs doing might be cool too.)
> 
> ----
> 
> Larry was kind enough to add a lot of information from some of his PhiloSophy lectures.  They were added "as is", thus could use some wikification.  See LarrysText.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN141|981088834
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /DagnyTaggart visits /UnitedLocomotiveWorks to determine why they consistently fail to deliver the Diesel engines she ordered.  The /PresidentofULW talks four hours without answering directly or saying anything of substance.  After returning to the office, /EddieWillers informs Dagny that /McNamara has quit without explanation.  As Dagny walks home that night she sees the depravity that passes for popular culture: books and movies that trivialize what is glorious, demonize what is moral, and exalt what is base; people who act as if pleasure were a sin that one gets away with.  Depressed, she returns home and listens the soul tonic of /RichardHalley.  As she sits, she sees in the newspaper that /FranciscoDAnconia has returned to /NewYork amidst a scandal in which a married woman tried to kill her husband so she could be with Francisco, who she identifies as her lover.  Francisco says he came to New York to witness the farce - but it is not the farce people are led to beleive that he wants to witness.
> ----
> * Foreshadow
> 
> Dagny sees a precision machine tool anandoned and decaying in the /UnitedLocomotiveWorks  factory; abandoned not because it was valueless, but because the owners could not extract value from it.  This foreshadows another discovery in an even less competent factory - a motor that is pricelss, but which is left abandoned by people who could not see its value.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN141|981089018
1c1
< /DagnyTaggart visits /UnitedLocomotiveWorks to determine why they consistently fail to deliver the Diesel engines she ordered.  The /PresidentofULW talks four hours without answering directly or saying anything of substance.  After returning to the office, /EddieWillers informs Dagny that /McNamara has quit without explanation.  As Dagny walks home that night she sees the depravity that passes for popular culture: books and movies that trivialize what is glorious, demonize what is moral, and exalt what is base; people who act as if pleasure were a sin that one gets away with.  Depressed, she returns home and listens the soul tonic of /RichardHalley.  As she sits, she sees in the newspaper that /FranciscoDAnconia has returned to /NewYork amidst a scandal in which a married woman tried to kill her husband so she could be with Francisco, who she identifies as her lover.  Francisco says he came to New York to witness the farce - but it is not the farce people are led to beleive that he wants to witness.
---
> /DagnyTaggart visits /UnitedLocomotiveWorks to determine why they consistently fail to deliver the Diesel engines she ordered.  The /PresidentofULW talks four hours without answering directly or saying anything of substance.  After returning to the office, /EddieWillers informs Dagny that /McNamara has quit without explanation.  As Dagny walks home that night she sees the depravity that passes for popular culture: books and movies that trivialize what is glorious, demonize what is moral, and exalt what is base; people who act as if pleasure were a sin that one gets away with.  Depressed, she returns home and listens the soul tonic of /RichardHalley.  While she listens, she recalls Halley's struggles as a young composer, his sudden success, and his mysterious disappearance.  She sees in the newspaper that /FranciscoDAnconia has returned to /NewYork amidst a scandal in which a married woman tried to kill her husband so she could be with Francisco, who she identifies as her lover.  Francisco says he came to New York to witness the farce - but it is not the farce people are led to beleive that he wants to witness.
5c5,18
< Dagny sees a precision machine tool anandoned and decaying in the /UnitedLocomotiveWorks  factory; abandoned not because it was valueless, but because the owners could not extract value from it.  This foreshadows another discovery in an even less competent factory - a motor that is pricelss, but which is left abandoned by people who could not see its value.
---
> Dagny sees a precision machine tool anandoned and decaying in the /UnitedLocomotiveWorks  factory; abandoned not because it was valueless, but because the owners could not extract value from it.  This foreshadows another discovery in an even less competent factory - a motor that is pricelss, but which is left abandoned by people who could not see its value.
> ----
> 
> The folowing characters appear in /SectioN141:
> 
>  /ChiefEngineer
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EddieWillers
>  /FranciscoDAnconia
>  /GilbertVail
>  /McNamara - Mentioned.
>  /MrsGilbertVail
>  /PresidentofULW
>  /RichardHalley 
------
HomePage|981089055
6a7,8
> Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on ReviewRequests.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981089086
27a28
>  /ChiefEngineer?
31a33
>  /GilbertVail?
33a36
>  /MrsGilbertVail?
40a44
>  /PresidentofULW?
42c46
<  /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981089108
28c28
<  /ChiefEngineer?
---
>  /ChiefEngineer
33c33
<  /GilbertVail?
---
>  /GilbertVail
36c36
<  /MrsGilbertVail?
---
>  /MrsGilbertVail
44c44
<  /PresidentofULW?
---
>  /PresidentofULW
------
AtlasShrugged/ChiefEngineer|981089181
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN141, /McNamara's /ChiefEngineer phones /EddieWillers to tell him that McNamara has closed his businesss and quit.  No explanation is given.
------
AtlasShrugged/GilbertVail|981089394
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A man allegedly cuckolded by /FranciscoDAnconia.  His wife asserts, and Francisco does not deny, that she and Francisco had an affair over New Years at his villa in the /Andes.  He is shot by his wife, but survives, and when he sues for divorce she threatens to spill the details of his sordid private life.  Just as the scandal is reaching a creascendo in the tabloids, Francisco arrives in town to "witness the farce."
> 
> Gilbert Vail is mentioned in: 
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/MrsGilbertVail|981089530
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Mrs. Gilbert Vail claims she had a love affair with /FranciscoDAnconia in his villa in the Andes.  Afterwards, she shot her husband so she could leave him and be with Francisco.  /GilbertVail survived and sued for divorce, at which point his wife promised to reveal the sordid details of his private life to the press.
> 
> Mrs. Vail is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/PresidentofULW|981089654
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The unnamed president of /UnitedLocomotiveWorks is an incompetent industrialist who considers directness a sign of ill-breeding.  When /DagnyTaggart tries to find out why his company has failed to deliver an order, he refuses to give an answer, despite talking for hours.
> 
> He is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981089703
10a11
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|981089722
9a10
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981089757
4c4,5
<  - /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN141
6c7,8
< According to [mailto:areed2@calstatela.edu Adam Reed] (see http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ayn_Rands_jewish_years/Who_is_Francisco_DAnconia.html) D'Anconia is the only Hero-class character who is recognizably Jewish (of course not in the religious, but in the historical sense, like Ayn Rand herself.) Adam Reed writes:
---
> ---
> * According to [mailto:areed2@calstatela.edu Adam Reed] (see http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ayn_Rands_jewish_years/Who_is_Francisco_DAnconia.html) D'Anconia is the only Hero-class character who is recognizably Jewish (of course not in the religious, but in the historical sense, like Ayn Rand herself.) Adam Reed writes:
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|981090156
2a3,4
> In  /SectioN141 we learn that Richard Halley spent years as a struggling and unappreciated composer.  At age 24 his opera /Phaethon was performed for the first time, to an audience who booed and heckled it.  For years he wrote in obscurity.  After 19 years, /Phaethon was performed again, but this time it was recieved to the greatest ovation the opera house had ever heard.  It appears his critics felt he had paid his dues long enough that he was at last worthy of their approval.  The following day, Halley retired, sold the rights to his music, and disappeared.
> 
6a9
>  /SectioN141 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN141|981090242
2a3,5
> * Setting
> The offices of Taggart Transcontinental, New York in the evening, Dagny's apartment.
> ----
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|981090286
17a18
>  /NewJersey
------
AtlasShrugged/NewJersey|981090319
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> New Jersey is the home of /UnitedLocomotiveWorks.
> 
> New Jersey is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/NewYork|981090352
6c6,7
<  - /SectioN114
---
>  - /SectioN114
>  - /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|981090370
2a3
>  /Andes
------
AtlasShrugged/Andes|981090399
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FranciscoDAnconia has a villa in the Andes.  This is mentioned in /SectioN141.
------
AtlasShrugged/Andes|981090410
1c1
< FranciscoDAnconia has a villa in the Andes.  This is mentioned in /SectioN141.
---
> /FranciscoDAnconia has a villa in the Andes.  This is mentioned in /SectioN141.
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|981090461
5a6
>  /SectioN131 - Alluded to.
8,10c9
< 
< It is alluded to in:
<  /SectioN131
---
>  /Section141
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|981090473
9c9
<  /Section141
---
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981090509
10a11
>  /TheVultureIsMolting
------
AtlasShrugged/TheVultureIsMolting|981090643
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A best selling novel that captures the spirit of the times, The Vulture Is Molting is "a penetrating study of a businessman's greed.  A fearless revelation of man's depravity."  The book is mentioned in /SectioN141 as one of the artifacts of popular culture that depress /DagnyTaggart with its baseness.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981090683
3a4
>  /HalleysFourthConcerto
------
AtlasShrugged/HalleysFourthConcerto|981090798
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The last thing /RichardHallery wrote before he disappeared.  It is a song of rebellion and defiance that seemed to say agony and suffering were not necessary.  /DagnyTaggart listened to this song in /Section141.
------
AtlasShrugged/HalleysFourthConcerto|981090810
1c1
< The last thing /RichardHallery wrote before he disappeared.  It is a song of rebellion and defiance that seemed to say agony and suffering were not necessary.  /DagnyTaggart listened to this song in /Section141.
---
> The last thing /RichardHalley wrote before he disappeared.  It is a song of rebellion and defiance that seemed to say agony and suffering were not necessary.  /DagnyTaggart listened to this song in /SectioN141.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981090833
6a7
>  /Phaethon
------
AtlasShrugged/Phaethon|981091035
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An opera composed by /RichardHalley when he was a young man.  It is based on the Greek myth in which Phaethon steals his father's chariot, and dies in an audacious attempt to drive the sun across the sky.  Halley changed the story, though, into one of triumph, in which Phaethon suceeds.
> 
> When this opera was first performed, it was booed and ridiculed.  Nineteen years later, after years of struggle and hardship, it was performed again to a wildly entusiastic audience.  The day after this performance, Halley disappeared.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981091084
13a14
>  /WayneFalklandHotel
------
AtlasShrugged/WayneFalklandHotel|981091135
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A luxurious hotel in /NewYork.  It is where /FranciscoDAnconia stays when he is in town.
> 
> The Wayne-Falkland Hotel is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN141
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981091159
1a2
>  /CubClub
------
AtlasShrugged/CubClub|981091268
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A night club in /NewYork.  When /FranciscoDAnconia returns to New York, he explains he came because of a hat-check girl at the Cub Club and the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981091291
5a6
>  /MoesDelicatessan
------
AtlasShrugged/MoesDelicatessan|981091313
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A delicatessan in /NewYork.  When /FranciscoDAnconia returns to New York in /SectioN141, he explains he came because of a hat-check girl at the Cub Club and the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
------
AtlasShrugged/CubClub|981091336
1c1
< A night club in /NewYork.  When /FranciscoDAnconia returns to New York, he explains he came because of a hat-check girl at the Cub Club and the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
---
> A night club in /NewYork.  When /FranciscoDAnconia returns to New York in /SectioN141, he explains he came because of a hat-check girl at the Cub Club and the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
------
AtlasShrugged|981091361
30a31
> * /Food
------
AtlasShrugged/Food|981091437
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The food of Atlast Shrugged.
> 
> Liverwurst: In /SectioN141 /FranciscoDAnconia claims he returned to /NewYork in part because of the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
------
AtlasShrugged/Food|981091450
1c1
< The food of Atlast Shrugged.
---
> The food of Atlas Shrugged.
------
ReviewRequests|981091471
8a9,10
> It would be nice if someone could come up with a good way of shortening HistoryOfLevant for me, when they're done with the above.
> 
------
ReviewRequests|981091524
8,10d7
< 
< It would be nice if someone could come up with a good way of shortening HistoryOfLevant for me, when they're done with the above.
< 
------
LarrysText|981092392
1a2,158
> :1   Introduction to Philosophy
> ::WhyPhilosophize --
> 
> I. The motivation to philosophize.	1
> 
> II. Philosophical method.	5
> 
> III. A definition of "philosophy."	18
> 
> IV. The purpose and plan of this course.	22
> 
> 2   Some Rudiments of Logic	24
> 
> I. What is logic?	24
> 
> II. The fundamental concepts of deduction and induction.	28
> 
> III. Valid and cogent argument forms and fallacies.	35
> 
> IV. Meaning and definitions.	38
> 
> 3   Metaphysics	49
> 
> I. Some metaphysical questions.	49
> 
> II. Metaphysics and ontology.	51
> 
> III. The existence of physical objects.	56
> 
> IV. The problem of substance.	60
> 
> V. The problem of universals.	68
> 
> VI. The problem of change.	82
> 
> 4   Philosophy of Religion	91
> 
> I. Introduction.	91
> 
> II. What is God?	95
> 
> III. Faith and rationality.	106
> 
> IV. Two bad arguments for the existence of God.	110
> 
> V. Three traditional arguments for the existence of God	113
> 
> A. The ontological argument.	114
> 
> B. The cosmological argument.	118
> 
> C. The teleological argument.	124
> 
> VI. The argument from evil.	127
> 
> VII. Conclusion.	133
> 
> 5   Philosophy of Mind	135
> 
> I. Introduction.	135
> 
> II. The mind-body problem.	141
> 
> A. Dualism.	144
> 
> B. Physicalism.	151
> 
> C. Other theories of mind.	157
> 
> III. Theory of perception.	163
> 
> IV. The will and its freedom.	178
> 
> A. Determinism.	181
> 
> B. Libertarianism.	184
> 
> C. Compatibilism and the definition of "free will."	188
> 
> 6   Philosophy of Language	193
> 
> I. Introduction.	193
> 
> II. The meaning of "meaning."	195
> 
> III. Proper names.	197
> 
> IV. Meaningfulness.	204
> 
> V. Against relativism about truth.	206
> 
> VI. Theories of truth.	211
> 
> 7   Epistemology	219
> 
> I. Introduction	219
> 
> II. Justification in general.	222
> 
> III. The regress argument and theories of justification.	225
> 
> IV. The sources of justification.	235
> 
> V. Knowledge.	239
> 
> VI. Skepticism.	248
> 
> VII. Common sense.	257
> 
> 8   Ethics	262
> 
> I. Introduction.	262
> 
> II. Meta-Ethics	264
> 
> A. Naturalism	264
> 
> B. Non-naturalism.	269
> 
> C. Non-cognitivism.	275
> 
> III. The theory of value.	279
> 
> A. Values subjectivism.	282
> 
> B. Hedonism.	285
> 
> C. Eudaimonism and other theories of value.	289
> 
> IV. The theory of conduct.	296
> 
> A. Varieties of consequentialism.	298
> 
> B. How to decide on a theory of conduct.	302
> 
> C. The problem of justice.	305
> 
> D. Deontological theories of conduct.	310
> 
> E. Rule consequentialism.	317
> 
> 9   Political Philosophy	323
> 
> I. Introduction.	323
> 
> II. The justification of the state.	325
> 
> III. Anarchism and the natural law theory.	329
> 
> IV. Social contract theories.	334
> 
> V. Consequentialist justifications of the state.	340
> 
> VI. The purpose of government.	344
> 
> 
> 
15,16c172,173
< 
< 
---
> ----
> Thanks very much, Phillip! -- Larry
------
LarrysText|981092429
3,5c3
< ::WhyPhilosophize --
< 
< I. The motivation to philosophize.	1
---
> ::WhyPhilosophize -- PhilosophicalMethod -- DefinitionOfPhilosophy -- PhilosophicalSubdisciplines
------
LarrysText|981093022
4,156c4,19
< 
< II. Philosophical method.	5
< 
< III. A definition of "philosophy."	18
< 
< IV. The purpose and plan of this course.	22
< 
< 2   Some Rudiments of Logic	24
< 
< I. What is logic?	24
< 
< II. The fundamental concepts of deduction and induction.	28
< 
< III. Valid and cogent argument forms and fallacies.	35
< 
< IV. Meaning and definitions.	38
< 
< 3   Metaphysics	49
< 
< I. Some metaphysical questions.	49
< 
< II. Metaphysics and ontology.	51
< 
< III. The existence of physical objects.	56
< 
< IV. The problem of substance.	60
< 
< V. The problem of universals.	68
< 
< VI. The problem of change.	82
< 
< 4   Philosophy of Religion	91
< 
< I. Introduction.	91
< 
< II. What is God?	95
< 
< III. Faith and rationality.	106
< 
< IV. Two bad arguments for the existence of God.	110
< 
< V. Three traditional arguments for the existence of God	113
< 
< A. The ontological argument.	114
< 
< B. The cosmological argument.	118
< 
< C. The teleological argument.	124
< 
< VI. The argument from evil.	127
< 
< VII. Conclusion.	133
< 
< 5   Philosophy of Mind	135
< 
< I. Introduction.	135
< 
< II. The mind-body problem.	141
< 
< A. Dualism.	144
< 
< B. Physicalism.	151
< 
< C. Other theories of mind.	157
< 
< III. Theory of perception.	163
< 
< IV. The will and its freedom.	178
< 
< A. Determinism.	181
< 
< B. Libertarianism.	184
< 
< C. Compatibilism and the definition of "free will."	188
< 
< 6   Philosophy of Language	193
< 
< I. Introduction.	193
< 
< II. The meaning of "meaning."	195
< 
< III. Proper names.	197
< 
< IV. Meaningfulness.	204
< 
< V. Against relativism about truth.	206
< 
< VI. Theories of truth.	211
< 
< 7   Epistemology	219
< 
< I. Introduction	219
< 
< II. Justification in general.	222
< 
< III. The regress argument and theories of justification.	225
< 
< IV. The sources of justification.	235
< 
< V. Knowledge.	239
< 
< VI. Skepticism.	248
< 
< VII. Common sense.	257
< 
< 8   Ethics	262
< 
< I. Introduction.	262
< 
< II. Meta-Ethics	264
< 
< A. Naturalism	264
< 
< B. Non-naturalism.	269
< 
< C. Non-cognitivism.	275
< 
< III. The theory of value.	279
< 
< A. Values subjectivism.	282
< 
< B. Hedonism.	285
< 
< C. Eudaimonism and other theories of value.	289
< 
< IV. The theory of conduct.	296
< 
< A. Varieties of consequentialism.	298
< 
< B. How to decide on a theory of conduct.	302
< 
< C. The problem of justice.	305
< 
< D. Deontological theories of conduct.	310
< 
< E. Rule consequentialism.	317
< 
< 9   Political Philosophy	323
< 
< I. Introduction.	323
< 
< II. The justification of the state.	325
< 
< III. Anarchism and the natural law theory.	329
< 
< IV. Social contract theories.	334
< 
< V. Consequentialist justifications of the state.	340
< 
< VI. The purpose of government.	344
< 
< 
< 
---
> :2   Some Rudiments of Logic
> ::DefinitionOfLogic -- DeductionAndInduction -- ArgumentForms -- MeaningAndDefinitions
> :3   Metaphysics
> ::SomeMetaphysicalQuestions -- MetaphysicsAndOntology -- TheExistenceOfPhysicalObjects -- ProblemOfSubstance -- ProblemOfUniversals -- IdentityAndChange
> :4   Philosophy of Religion
> ::PhilosophyOfReligion -- WhatIsGod -- FaithAndRationality -- ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TheOntologicalArgument -- TheCosmologicalArgument -- TheTeleologicalArgument -- TheProblemOfEvil 
> :5   Philosophy of Mind
> ::PhilosophyOfMind -- TheMindBodyProblem -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- FreeWillAndDeterminism
> :6   Philosophy of Language
> ::PhilosophyOfLanguage -- TheMeaningOfMeaning -- ProperNames -- MeaningfulNess -- NaiveRelativismAboutTruth -- TheoriesOfTruth
> :7   Epistemology
> ::EpistemOlogy -- TheoryOfJustification -- TheRegressArgumentInEpistemology -- APrioriAndAPosteriorKnowledge -- KnowLedge -- ScepticIsm -- CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus 
> :8   Ethics
> ::EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- TheoryOfValue -- TheoryOfConduct
> :9   Political Philosophy
> ::PoliticalPhilosophy -- TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment
------
LanguagE|981093901
31a32
> * PhilosophyOfLanguage
------
SetTheory|981104051
82a83,85
> RESPONSE: It's trivial to prove the existence of cardinals
> as equivalence classes in the indicated way in ZF.
> 
101a105,107
> 
> COMMENT: I don't understand what you have in mind in saying that
> "ZF-AC asserts that it is" - the generalized continuum hypothesis is compatible with ZFC. Further, what does "the 1-to-1 correspondences" refer to?
------
MakeaNewPage|981116920
7c7,9
< If you mean the convention of capitalizing one of the letters inside or at the end of a word, it's part of how the software works.  Last I heard, we're trying to rewrite the software so we can indicate links [[like this]] instead of LikeThis.
---
> If you mean the convention of capitalizing one of the letters inside or at the end of a word, it's part of how the software works.  Last I heard, we're trying to rewrite the software so we can indicate links [[like this]] instead of LikeThis.
> ----
> Sonic: Alternatively, you could keep the old style and display it differently, i.e. if the last letter is uppercase, display it as lowercase and make it a link. If a character in the middle of the word/phrase is uppercase, let it stay uppercase and insert a whitespace in front of it, plus make it a link
------
ErnestHemingway|981117971
1c1
< Hi! I have a great article about Ernest Hemingway, but unfortunately, it is too long for this page (it has about 68k in HTML). If you want to, you can have a look at it at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html and help me make it shorter. sonic_arcormail_de (replace first _ by @ and the other one by . to mail me)
---
> 1.Introduction
3c3
< ----
---
> Death and violence were the two great constants in Hemingway's troubled and ever-changing life. In his infancy, he joined his father on hunting trips and was given his first shotgun at the age of ten. Fifty-one years later, he used one to commit suicide. In the meantime, he had hurt many and many had hurt him. He was a bit like Döblin's Franz Biberkopf, a tough, strong man with strong principles. Life thought that would be too bold to last, and started to hurt him. In fact, much of the beating he had to take and most of the losses he had to cope eith seemed neither his nor anybody else's fault. It seemed that life itself was against him sometimes. Hemingway "believed that life was a tragedy and knew it could only have one end"(Critiques (6.), p. 49), yet he was blessed by it with talent and fame. Maybe that made it harder for him to admit his failures and to correct them. This research paper tries, aside from analyzing the two novels as representatives of his work, to find out the reason for his ongoing decline and to point out mistakes and wrong decisions he made. It also tries to trace alternatives to Hemingway's actual development to reach a conclusion that sums up the effects of violence and death in its various forms upon Ernest Hemingway's life and work.
5c5,54
< Long articles should be divided into sections, and sections should be on different pages, possibly like this:
---
> For easier reading, this text is split in several section. You can get an all-in-one HTML version at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html
> 
> Main Part:Books and Beyond
> 
> /FamousatTwentyFiveThirtyaMaster
> 
> /FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar
> 
> /FromRealitytoFictionAFarewelltoArms
> 
> /TheTimeinBetween
> 
> /SpaininFlames
> 
> /ForWhomtheBellTolls
> 
> Robert Jordan and Frederic Henry: Two Facets of Hemingway
> 
> /FredericHenry
>   Background
>   Character
>   Development
>   Catherine: A vehicle for the women in Hemingway?s life
> 
> /RobertJordan
>   Background
>   Character
>   Development
>   Pablo
> Hemingway Up Close and Personal
> 
> /YoungandInnocent
> 
> /ThingsTurnSour
> 
> /TheEndlessDarkNothingness
> 
> /SureShotsTheSecondWorldWar
> 
> /TheDownwardSpiral
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> /ViolenceandRedemption
> 
> /WhyItWentWrong
> 
> Appendix
> 
> /BibliographY
7,8d55
<  /FamousatTwentyFiveThirtyaMaster
<  /FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar
10d56
< If you break the article down into sections and place those on different pages, there will be no problem with having it be too long for this page.
------
ErnestHemingway|981118074
3c3
< Death and violence were the two great constants in Hemingway's troubled and ever-changing life. In his infancy, he joined his father on hunting trips and was given his first shotgun at the age of ten. Fifty-one years later, he used one to commit suicide. In the meantime, he had hurt many and many had hurt him. He was a bit like Döblin's Franz Biberkopf, a tough, strong man with strong principles. Life thought that would be too bold to last, and started to hurt him. In fact, much of the beating he had to take and most of the losses he had to cope eith seemed neither his nor anybody else's fault. It seemed that life itself was against him sometimes. Hemingway "believed that life was a tragedy and knew it could only have one end"(Critiques (6.), p. 49), yet he was blessed by it with talent and fame. Maybe that made it harder for him to admit his failures and to correct them. This research paper tries, aside from analyzing the two novels as representatives of his work, to find out the reason for his ongoing decline and to point out mistakes and wrong decisions he made. It also tries to trace alternatives to Hemingway's actual development to reach a conclusion that sums up the effects of violence and death in its various forms upon Ernest Hemingway's life and work.
---
> Death and violence were the two great constants in Hemingway's troubled and ever-changing life. In his infancy, he joined his father on hunting trips and was given his first shotgun at the age of ten. Fifty-one years later, he used one to commit suicide. In the meantime, he had hurt many and many had hurt him. He was a bit like D&ouml;blin's Franz Biberkopf, a tough, strong man with strong principles. Life thought that would be too bold to last, and started to hurt him. In fact, much of the beating he had to take and most of the losses he had to cope eith seemed neither his nor anybody else's fault. It seemed that life itself was against him sometimes. Hemingway "believed that life was a tragedy and knew it could only have one end"(Critiques (6.), p. 49), yet he was blessed by it with talent and fame. Maybe that made it harder for him to admit his failures and to correct them. This research paper tries, aside from analyzing the two novels as representatives of his work, to find out the reason for his ongoing decline and to point out mistakes and wrong decisions he made. It also tries to trace alternatives to Hemingway's actual development to reach a conclusion that sums up the effects of violence and death in its various forms upon Ernest Hemingway's life and work.
5c5
< For easier reading, this text is split in several section. You can get an all-in-one HTML version at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html
---
> If you want to know where the quotes are coming from, please refer to the bibliography section. For easier reading, this text is split in several sections, you can get an all-in-one HTML version at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html
------
ErnestHemingway/FamousatTwentyFiveThirtyaMaster|981118343
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> B)Main Part
> 
> I. Books and Beyond
> 
> 1.Famous at Twenty-Five: Thirty a Master
> 
> One cannot really discuss any Hemingway issue without knowledge of the Hemingway style that rocked the literary scene when it first arrived. Below the seemingly simple surface, which had been a revolution of its own right in a time when writing in Victorian sense with neo-Gothic decorations was still governing the literary world, lie allegorical structures of unknown complexity. This style was no natural gift. On the one hand, it was the reward for his immense efforts and the hurts he had to cope with and on the other hand it was, and still is, the epitome of the modern movement, since "No man is an <I>Iland</I>"(For Whom (5.), preface), p.articularly not in 'twenties' Paris, where every author lent the young Hemingway a helping hand and thus contributed to his style.
> 
> After their wedding, the Hemingways decided to live abroad for a while, and, following the advice of Sherwood Anderson, they picked Paris, where Ernest could develop his literary skills better than anywhere else on the planet. At that point of time, the first professional and profound influence had already coined him. Ernest had used to be a reporter for the Kansas City Star, and the Kansas City Star Style Book, which was a guideline the newspaper had established, had lain the foundations for his later art. "Brevity, a reconciliation of vigour with smoothness, the positive approach"(Burgess (9.), p. 19) were its main directives and the young Ernest was willing to adopt them as his personal standard.
> 
> Sherwood Anderson wrote him a letter of recommendation to Gertrude Stein. She became his mentor and opened him the door to the Parisian Modern Movement. His other mentor was Ezra Pound, the founder of Imagism. In retrospective, Hemingway once said about them: "Ezra was right half the time, and when he was wrong, he was so wrong you were never in any doubt about it. Gertrude was always right."(to John Peale Bishop; Cowley (4.), p. xiii). He even considered giving Mr. Pound the Nobel Prize gold medal. At the same time, he became a close friend of James Joyce whose "Ulysses" with its stream-of-consciousness techniques had a tremendous impact on the literary scene. These authors and many others met at Sylvia Beach's Shakespeare &amp; Co., 18 Rue de l'Odéon, Paris.
> 
> But the last impulse he required came in an unsuspected and painful way. His manuscripts, among them "A Farewell to Arms" were stolen at Gare de Lyon when his wife wanted to bring them along to Lausanne to meet him. This loss was a big gain after all, because by re-writing the novel he had also time to reconsider, thus improving it. The second version was a great deal less flowery, stripped of all decoration, reduced to the bare essentials, matter-of-factly, concentrated and compressed.
> 
> During this peaceful life among friends, he was able to develop his literary skills, in times of war, inspired by death, he would use them.
> 
> next: /FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar
------
ErnestHemingway/FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar|981118486
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2.From Boy to Man: Hemingway's First World War
> 
> Once Mr. Hemingway wrote fellow author F. Scott Fitzgerald "We are all bitched from the start and you especially have to be hurt like hell before you can write seriously. But when you get a damned hurt use it- don't cheat with it. Be as faithful to it as a scientist"(Lynn (13.), p. 10) representing his personal motto. Hemingway's first hurts were so grave that it took him nearly ten years to write them down in a novel.
> 
> When he arrived in Europe, he was just another young hotshot out for adventure.En route to the Italian front, he had a stopover in Paris. The city was under constant bombardment from German siege guns, but instead of staying in the relative safety of the Hotel Florida, Ernest advised the taxi driver to bring him to the place where the shells were hitting the ground and he wouldn't stop looking for enemy fire until one shell was tearing apart the facade of a church at the Place de la Madelaine nearby. In retrospective, he said about himself: "I was an awful dope when I went to the last war. I can remember just thinking that we were the home team and the Austrians were the visiting team"(Barron's Book Notes (8.), p. 2).
> 
> But gruesome reality caught up with him very fast, on his first day of duty an ammunition factory exploded in the countryside near Milan, he had to pick up bodies and pieces of bodies, mostly of women working there. This first and extremely cruel encounter with human death had left him shaken, the soldiers he met later weren't all too helpful in lightening this negative impression. Eric Dorman-Smith, for example, quoted Shakespeare's Henry IV Part Two: "By my troth, I care not; a man can die but once; we owe god a death . . . and let it go which way it will, he that dies this year is quit for the next"(Burgess (9.), p. 24). A 50-year-old soldier, to whom he said "You're troppo vecchio for this war, pop." replied "I can die as well as any man."(Burgess (9.), p. 24).
> 
> Still, he wanted to come even closer to where the action was, and was wounded at midnight on the eighth of July while bicycling to a forward command post to deliver chocolate. The exact details remain mysterious, only two things are for sure: A trench mortar shell hit him leaving fragments in both legs, and he received the Silver Medal of Military Valor (medaglia d'argento) from the Italian government. Whether or not he saved another soldier's life by carrying him on his back remains unclear.
> 
> Convalescing in the Ospedale Croce Rossa Americana, Via Alessandro Manzoni in Milan he met Sister Hannah Agnes von Kurowsky, a nurse from Washington, DC. and one of eighteen nurses looking after just four patients. He fell for her, but they never were really together. Soon after his departure, she was in love with somebody else.
> 
> Hemingway's metaphysical movement in this early period was a shift from juvenile life in Oak Park to the horrors of a full scale war. He intruded deeper and deeper into the realm of violence until he stood face to face with death. After this encounter, he returned to -now mature- life and replaced hatred with love.
> 
> next: FromRealitytoFictionAFarewelltoArms
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/FromBoytoManHemingwaysFirstWorldWar|981118551
15c15
< next: FromRealitytoFictionAFarewelltoArms
---
> next: /FromRealitytoFictionAFarewelltoArms
------
ErnestHemingway/FromRealitytoFictionAFarewelltoArms|981118584
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 3.From Reality to Fiction: A Farewell to Arms
> 
> "A Farewell to Arms" came as late as all the other World War One books (Frederic Manning "Her Privates We", Erich Maria Remarque "All Quiet on the Western Front", Richard Aldington "Death of a Hero", Robert Grave "Goodbye to All That", etc.). In the meantime many things had changed in Ernest Hemingway's life, he was not in love with Sister von Kurowsky any longer and had even divorced Hadley by the time his novel was published. He became father of a boy named Patrick and who was, like Henry's son in the novel, delivered by Cesarean section. The intense labor pains of his second wife Pauline were the inspiration for Catherine's labor in the novel. Interestingly enough, Ernest and Pauline were criss-crossing the USA by that time, maybe Ernest tried to escape his past like Frederic Henry did. Last, but not at all least, his father committed suicide, he shot himself in the head with an old Civil War pistol.
> 
> A lot of the novel's characters are based upon real life persons, like Helen Ferguson, who reminds the reader of Kitty Cannell, who "warned Hadley, whom she considered to be a put-upon and long-suffering angel, that her husband was unreliable"(Burgess (9.), p. 40) a number of times as Ferguson did on pages 98 through 99 and 219 through 222, and the priest, who represents Don Giuseppe Bianchi, the priest of the 69th and 70th regiments of the Brigata Ancona. A mystery in its own right is the character Rinaldi who already appeared in "In Our Time".
> 
> One of the main themes the novel deals with is the unity of life and death, which is illustrated with a number of striking pictures like the soldiers carrying ammunition boxes, who "marched as though they were gone six months with child"(A Farewell (1.), p. 4), Frederic's flight in a wagon full of guns and Catherine's death in childbirth. The book itself is not a war novel, but, as Anthony Burgess put it, "a complex statement about the nature of human commitment, p.resented against a background of war vividly caught."(Burgess (9.), p. 55). James F. Light's article "The Religion of Death in A Farewell to Arms ", reprinted in "Critiques of Four Major Novels", reaches the same conclusion. Death and the cruelty of war are ever-present, but dwelling below the surface, and rarely erupting into the line of sight of the protagonist.
> 
> As a criticism of war Frederic Henry thinks and talks about Napoleon time and time again. By confronting the obsolete and romanticized way of making war with the actual situation, Hemingway intended to show the contrast between the official patriotic propaganda and the harsh reality. With Henry's famous monologue "I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice [...]"(A Farewell (1.), p. 165), he is able to develop a wordy philosophy. Sacrifice equaled slaughter, the glory and honor they all came for was replaced by a butchery of unknown extent. This is exactly the disillusionment of the Lost Generation, and it led Frederic to stop thinking. It is displayed with a number of other images, too, for example, when he is offered a sword in an armorer's shop, but replies he went back to the front and thus had no need for it, or when Catherine describes her lover's death ("He didn't have a sabre cut. They blew him all to bits"(A Farewell (1.), p. 19)).
> 
> next: /TheTimeinBetween
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/TheTimeinBetween|981118632
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 4.The Time in Between
> 
> Having published "A Farewell to Arms", the years of struggle were coming to an end. Ernest M. Hemingway now was an author of worldwide reputation, he was happy with Pauline and financially independent. But his luck in business, art and marriage was overshadowed by some serious attacks on his health (anthrax infection, cut eyeball, glass-gash in his forehead, grippe, toothache, hemorrhoids; after "A Farewell to Arms": kidney trouble from fishing in Spain, torn groin muscle, finger gashed to the bone in an accident with a punching ball, laceration of arms and legs and face from a ride on a runaway horse through a deep Wyoming forest, later: car accident in Wyoming his arm was complicatedly broken).
> 
> Following the advice of John Dos Passos, he moved to Key West where he established his first American home. From the old stone house, a wedding present by Pauline's uncle, he would go fishing in the Tortugas waters, frequent Sloppy Joe's, Havana's famous bar, and travel to Spain every once in a while, gathering material for "Death in the Afternoon" and "Winner Take Nothing". A safari led him to Mombassa in fall 1932, Nairobi and Machakos in the Mua Hills. "The Green Hills of Africa", "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" and "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" were the literary results, many animal's lives were the cost.
> 
> His way of life provoked criticism by the Left. Max Eastman and many others demanded greater commitment to the affairs of the people. A young left-winger begged him to give up his lonely, tight-lipped stoicism and to write about truth and justice. For a while, it seemed as if he would do so. His article "Who Murdered the Vets?" for "New Masses", a leftist newspaper, and his book "To Have and Have Not" showed "social awareness", at least up to a certain degree. A little later, he would take political sides more explicitly.
> 
> next: /SpaininFlames
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/SpaininFlames|981118698
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 5.Spain in Flames
> 
> ?was the title of a Loyalist propaganda film he wrote a comment for. Supporting the -mostly Communist- Loyalists further, he and John Dos Passos went to Spain, founded the Contemporary Historians, Inc. which produced another film called "The Spanish Earth". In addition to that, Hemingway became war correspondent for NANA, the North American Newspaper Alliance, thus he saw much of the fighting and could collect experiences for a new novel. While he was in Spain, his second marriage went to pieces. A liaison with Martha Gellhorn was revealed when a Rebel shell hit the hot-water boiler of the correspondents' hotel "Florida".
> 
> After "The Spanish Earth" was boxed and shipped, he left with the promise to propagandize for the Loyalists' cause. He spoke out in Shakespeare & Co. and addressed the Writers' Congress in New York on the fourth of June 1937. In his speech he stressed he was anti-fascist, not pro-Communist(Writer As Artist (7.), p. 224)
>    There is only one form of government [...] that cannot produce good writers,   and that system is fascism. For fascism is a lie told by bullies. A writer   who will not lie cannot live and work fascism.
> 
> Due to his reputation, "The Spanish Earth" was even shown in the White House and his article "Fascism is a Lie" was published in "New Masses". Furthermore, he established an ambulance fund and financed it by collecting money at Hollywood parties.
> 
> He returned to see Franco control two thirds of Spain, the Loyalists still fought on. "The Fifth Column" was finished just before the taking of Teruel in January 1938. He wrote it, according to the preface, under constant bombardment in the Hotel Florida, it appears as though he had again needed the thrilling aura of death to inspire him.
> 
> After short stays in Paris due to liver troubles and in Key West, he came back to Spain to see Loyalists retreating on all fronts, then returned to America to organize the experiences he gathered into a novel, the narrations of the different characters clearly originate here.
> 
> next: /ForWhomtheBellTolls
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/SpaininFlames|981118729
6c6,8
<    There is only one form of government [...] that cannot produce good writers,   and that system is fascism. For fascism is a lie told by bullies. A writer   who will not lie cannot live and work fascism.
---
>    There is only one form of government [...] that cannot produce good writers,
>    and that system is fascism. For fascism is a lie told by bullies. A writer
>    who will not lie cannot live and work fascism.
------
ErnestHemingway/ForWhomtheBellTolls|981118811
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 6.For Whom the Bell Tolls
> 
> Some experiences from the time of World War One have been worked into "For Whom the Bell Tolls". According to Anthony Burgess, the farewell at the station on page 434 is the equivalent of Hemingway's departure to the Italian front. An interesting aspect is that Jordan went to school instead, maybe the war represents for Hemingway, as well as for his character Jordan, a part of his education. The last thoughts of Jordan could refer to Ernest's wounding in Fossalta where it seemed to him "more natural to die than to go on living"(Burgess (9.), p. 22). The gray-haired soldier who already appeared (From Boy to Man) might have been the prototype of Anselmo, while Golz's look is that of real life Polish General "Walter", commander of the XIVth International Brigade.
> 
> To his other fiction, there are parallels, too. Maria's appearance and her behavior are almost identical to Catherine Barkley's. When Robert first embraces her, she erupts in tears, later she stated she didn't care much about herself but wished to do everything for him, and that she was his wife. Like Catherine, she is very preoccupied with death, and even excels her here. It seems as though Hemingway tried to summon the spirit of "A Farewell to Arms" once again, but Maria never was a character as complex as Catherine. In fact, she rarely said or did anything, and at the beginning of the last quarter of the novel Robert even remarked "I know thee very little from talking"(For Whom (5.), p. 365). She appears to be an imitation of Ms. Barkley, but only the facade is identical, in Maria's case, there is nothing behind, except for the story about her parents, but anyone could have told that. Pilar will be discussed in greater detail below (Pablo).
> 
> The story is told by a third-person selective-omniscient narrator and contains far more inner monologue and remembrances of the various characters than "A Farewell to Arms". This, on the one hand, is a necessity, since the book deals with just four days, and on the other hand supports the author's intention to illustrate the diversity and complexity of Spain. By using medieval English he emphasizes the antiquity and formality of the Spanish language and tries to lift the novel onto the level of Shakespearean dramas. In the last part of the novel, the plot is split into two parallel actions, the preparations for the attack and the course of Andrés. This is no unusual technique of storytelling, but with Hemingway, who sharply focused on his protagonist in "A Farewell to Arms", it's a signal. Some say it's a signal of him giving in to the demands of Hollywood directors who wanted books that can be easily used as scripts, but I consider it a signal of him disassociating himself from the protagonist, maybe because of superstition (it brings bad luck to write about one's own end), but more likely because of his inner struggle that will be explained later (Pablo ). At the time the novel was published, it seemed as though he separated the narrator from the protagonist to become what he had always wanted to be: A big, omniscient and ubiquitous daddy who tells all the stories and who's got everything under control. The reader often gets the impression that the characters are the narrator's children, especially when he evaluates them ("Anselmo was a very good man"(For Whom (5.), p. 212), "This was the greatest gift that he [Robert] had, the talent that fitted him for war"(For Whom (5.), p. 421),etc.).
> 
> The main theme of the novel is, as already pointed out in its preface, intense comradeship in the prospect of death, the giving up of the own self for the sake of the cause, for the sake of the people. Robert Jordan, Anselmo and the others are ready do it "as all good men should", the often repeated gesture of embracing or patting on one another's shoulder reinforces the impression of close companionship. One of the best examples is Joaquín. After having been told about the execution of his family, the others are embracing him and comfort him by saying they were his family now. Besides this love for the comrades, there is the love for the Spanish soil, which is represented by the pine-needled forest floor. This love lasts till the very last breath, as the last picture proves. Robert Jordan awaited his death feeling "his heart beating against the pine needle floor of the forest"(For Whom (5.), p. 504).
> 
> A less obvious, but, for the author personally, more important theme is suicide. Alarmingly enough, Hemingway already tried to justify it. Maria and Karkov are always equipped to do it, and Kashkin made Robert do it. The characters, including Robert, would prefer being dead to being captured, and that is Hemingway's first step onto a downward spiral.
> 
> Hemingway frequently used images to produce the dense atmosphere of violence and death his books are renowned for, the main image of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is the machine image. The fear of modern armament destroys, as it already did in "A Farewell to Arms", the conceptions of the ancient art of war: combat, sportsmanlike competition and the aspect of hunting. Heroism becomes butchery, the most powerful picture employed here is the shooting of Maria's parents against the wall of a slaughterhouse. Glory exists in the official dispatches only, the theme "disillusionment" of "A Farewell to Arms" is adapted.
> 
> Especially the fascist planes are dreaded, when they approach, all hope is lost, the efforts of the partizans seem to vanish, their commitment and their abilities become meaningless. "They move like mechanized doom"(For Whom (5.), p. 93), and they wreak havoc with El Sordo and his band, the ideological slogans Joaquín employs "as though they were talismans"(For Whom (5.), p. 328) have no effect, he resorts to praying, but not even that can save him. Every time the planes appear they indicate a certain and pointless death. The same holds true for the automatic weapons ("Never in my life have I seen such a thing, with the troops running from the train and the máquina speaking into them and the men falling"(For Whom (5.), p. 31)) and the artillery, especially the trench mortars that already wounded Lt. Henry ("he knew that they would die as soon as a mortar came up"(For Whom (5.), p. 330)). No longer would the best soldier win, but the one with the biggest gun. The soldiers using those weapons are simple brutes, they lack "all conception of dignity"(For Whom (5.), p. 349) as Fernando remarked, Anselmo insisted "We must teach them. We must take away their planes, their automatic weapons, their tanks, their artillery and teach them dignity"(For Whom (5.), p. 349).
> 
> Apart from this physical threats, much of the violence is executed on a metaphysical level. The arguments between Robert and Pablo, especially the one where Robert tried to provoke Pablo far enough to have a reason to shoot him, is a great metaphysical battle that reminds one of Edward Albee's "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?", where the two main characters cause each other to crack up just by provoking. Pilar also is a very good example for metaphysical violence. She is one of the most brutal characters in the whole novel, and hurts almost everybody, but never actually uses physical force.
> 
> next: /FredericHenry
------
ErnestHemingway/FredericHenry|981118926
1c1,37
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Author Milan Kundera once wrote his characters were not of woman born, but of an idea, of a decision he faced and didn't exploit the possibilities, circumvented a border instead of crossing it. Beyond the border, in fact, beyond the border of his own "I", started the realm in which his characters exist. They were familiar to him, but he could never reach them. I think the same holds true for Hemingway and his characters. Frederic Henry and Robert Jordan are perfect examples of "bordercrossers". Lt. Henry didn't want the medal of honor because he knew he didn't deserve it and deserted when realizing the true nature of war, Lt. Hemingway didn't take such drastic steps though he too had realized how pointless the war was. Robert Jordan took an active part in the Spanish Civil War and was willing to die for the country he loved, Ernest Hemingway was a non-combatant all the time.
> 
> a. Frederic Henry
> 
> 1.Background
> 
> Mr. Hemingway doesn't provide his readers with much information about the family background and the past of Frederic Henry, one simply gets to know that he had quarrels with his relatives and therefore doesn't maintain contact any more. Three family members are briefly mentioned, his mother, sister and grandfather. When asked about his father he states he had none, just a step-father. Maybe Hemingway was still battered by his own father's suicide and therefore removed all information on Frederic's father. Henry came to Italy to study architecture in Rome and, speaking Italian, joined the army for no real reason ("I was a fool"(A Farewell (1.), p. 227)), except for his eagerness for adventure ("In the old days I would have [...] picked a fight"(A Farewell (1.), p. 217)). The sight drafts he receives from his grandfather are the only link to his home, he doesn't pay much attention to his grandfather's letters, the only one mentioned in the whole book is handled in two short lines among many others.
> 2.Character
> 
> Henry tries to keep from thinking throughout the entire book, maybe he, too, fears getting "gloomy"(For Whom (5.), p. 18), he did not want to get emotionally involved in anything, neither in a love affair nor in the war. He was, in a way, convinced of the need for victory, but stated "It [the war] had nothing to do with me"(A Farewell (1.), p. 34). Talking about military maneuvers, he always referred to the Italian army as "them", thus stressing he doesn't see himself as part of the army as an ideological and patriotic institution. He doesn't report much about violence and death, if it happened, he mentioned it briefly, superficially, always refusing to have any feelings about it, always trying to get away from it. Even when he shot one of the Sergeants, he described it as if he was hunting ("I shot three times and dropped one"(A Farewell (1.), p. 182)), trying not to realize he shot a sentient being.
> 
> His attitude towards religion is a bit strange, though. On the one hand, he often said something around the lines "I had no religion"(A Farewell (1.), p. 289), but on the other hand he prayed not only for Catherine's life but also for his own ("Oh, God, I said, get me out of here."(A Farewell (1.), p. 51)). As a matter of fact, Hemingway was a convert under fire and the line "It is in defeat we become Christian"(A Farewell (1.), p. 160) clearly refers to that. The later statements about having no religion can be explained best by Henry's own words "He [the priest] had always known what I did not know and what, when I learned it, was always able to forget."(A Farewell (1.), p. 13).
> 
> Of course, this does not only refer to his religiosity, but also to his opinions about the war. To improve the process of forgetting that enables him to ignore all the violence, he drinks a great lot of alcohol throughout the whole novel ("I'm very brave when I've had a drink"(A Farewell (1.), p. 126)).
> 3.Development
> 
> The wall of emotional numbness Frederic Henry had set up before the novel started, crumbled when he first met Catherine, he felt he couldn't ignore all the sorrow and pain any longer, and began to separate from the rude society at the mess. This progress started when he proposed Catherine "Let's drop the war"(A Farewell (1.), p. 24) and was completed with the discovery "Then I realized it was over for me"(A Farewell (1.), p. 219), he "had made a separate peace"(A Farewell (1.), p. 217). His discovery had a multitude of reasons. First of all, as an ambulance driver, he had seen quite an amount of bloodshed when he carried off the wounded and dead. He could feel the inhumanity even more intense after his own wounding, when the man in the stretcher above him had a hemorrhage and the blood of the dying soldier slowly dripped on his shirt and nobody did anything about it. Prior to his wounding, he discussed with the ambulance drivers he was commanding. Since they agreed with their colleagues later in the novel, who "don't believe in the war anyway"(A Farewell (1.), p. 194), his sacrifice is rendered in vain, he almost died for nothing. It is worth noting that those eight ambulance drivers are the only soldiers to be described in the novel, therefore they act as representatives of the lower levels of the army hierarchy. Thus both Frederic Henry and the reader get the impression that the war is just wanted by the leaders, who don't care about human life (""How are all the wounded evacuated?" "They are not. [...]" "What will I take in the cars?" "Hospital equipment.""(A Farewell (1.), p. 168)) and the ambitious, like Ettore ("He's the boy they're running the war for"(A Farewell (1.), p. 109)). Furthermore, Frederic's talks with the priest in chapters 11 and 26 made him reach a certain state of awareness that left him more vulnerable to the cruelty surrounding him. He seemed to be most affected by the fate of Rinaldi. His prophecy "This war is killing me"(A Farewell (1.), p. 150) makes him commit "self-destruction day by day"(A Farewell (1.), p. 155). Together with all the other influences, his ongoing decline and its inevitable end reaffirmed Henry's decision to leave it all behind and made him condemn the war instead of supporting it by being an officer.
> 4.Catherine: A vehicle for the women in Hemingway's life
> 
> More than most of his other figures, Catherine Barkley is not a character by herself, but much more a vehicle for all kinds of experiences Hemingway made in his life so far. First of all, as she enters the novel, she clearly is the counterpart of the already mentioned Hannah Agnes von Kurowsky, later, when Helen Ferguson is with her and especially when Ferguson complained about Henry, Catherine can be viewed upon as an image of Hadley Richardson. In the end, the labor pains and the Cesarean section are a clear reference to Pauline Pfeiffer.
> 
> But it is not all that easy. Catherine often says about herself that "There isn't any me any more"(A Farewell (1.), p. 96). Only when she is "self-conscious"(A Farewell (1.), p. 125), she is one of those women. When she is with Frederic, she adopts his ideas and vice versa. They form a unit that serves as an item of reflection for Hemingway's theories about life and death, which are always developed in the discussion of the lovers. She knows the poems he quotes and the books he is talking about, they have got so much in common that it's hard to tell them apart. The following dialogue may illustrate this(A Farewell (1.), pp. 125 through 126):
>   "They [the brave] die of course."
>   "But only once."
>   "I don't know. Who said that?"
>   "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one?"
>   "Of course. Who said it?"
>   "I don't know."
>   "He was probably a coward," she said. "He knew a great deal about cowards but
>   nothing about the brave. The brave dies perhaps two thousand deaths if he's
>   intelligent. He simply doesn't mention them."
>   "I don't know. It's hard to see inside the head of the brave."
>   "Yes. That's how they keep that way."
> 
> Without any former explanation, they always know what the other one is talking about. They develop, without disagreeing or arguing, a philosophy that represents Hemingway's code of courage, called "grace under pressure".
> 
> next: /RobertJordan
------
ErnestHemingway/RobertJordan|981119062
1c1,51
< Describe the new page here.
---
> b. Robert Jordan
> 
> 1.Background
> 
> Robert Jordan seems a little older than Frederic Henry, he already is an instructor and came to Spain first in 1925, so he is about 30, Henry is still studying. The links to his grandfather who fought in the American Civil War as did Ernest Hall and Anson Hemingway, the author's own grandfathers, are deeper, but they are just memories, as his grandfather is already dead. He asks him for help and advice and thinks he was "the hell of a good soldier"(For Whom (5.), p. 360) who, being a leader of irregular cavalry, must have been in similar situations. He admires him for having endured four years of Civil War.
> 
> At the time of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" the author's mental wounds had healed enough to allow him to reflect upon his father's suicide. Of course, this reflection is executed by Robert Jordan, but the parallels simply can't be denied. Jordan's father shot himself with an old Civil War pistol, as did Clarence Edmonds Hemingway and Jordan's father did it to "avoid being tortured"(For Whom (5.), p. 70), a reference to Hemingway's father's incurable illnesses. Jordan understands it, but doesn't approve it. He refers to his father as "the other one"(For Whom (5.), p. 361) and considers him a "coward"(For Whom (5.), p. 361). Although he knows his father had become what he was because he was trapped between the famous grandfather whose deeds he could never surpass and his dominating wife, Robert still feels ashamed. He himself is not married, at least not by law or church, and has no brothers or sisters.
> 
> 2.Character
> 
> As Karkov put it, Robert Jordan is "a young American of slight political development but a great way with the Spaniards and a fine partizan record."(For Whom (5.), p. 454). He is no Communist or Marxist but "an anti-fascist"(For Whom (5.), p. 69), just like Hemingway. For the duration of the war, however, he is "under Communist discipline [...], because, in the conduct of the war, they were the only party whose program and whose discipline he could respect."(For Whom (5.), p. 175). He is embarrassed by phrases like "enemies of the people"(For Whom (5.), p. 176) and other communist clichés, dialectics and a "purely materialistic conception of society"(For Whom (5.), p. 324).
> 
> He has the intention to write a book about Spain and the Spanish Civil War, Karkov, much admired and respected by Jordan, aids him because he thinks Jordan writes "absolutely truly"(For Whom (5.), p. 265), like Hemingway did, or at least claimed to do. He considers writing a way to get rid of all the experiences worrying him now. Interestingly enough, he thinks the book will be "Much better than the other"(For Whom (5.), p. 178), most likely referring to "A Farewell to Arms". In spite of having written the book in a third person selective omniscient perspective, Hemingway wants to be identified with Robert Jordan.
> 
> Robert Jordan is not as straight as Frederic Henry. Not only does he show a more differential way of thinking, but also he is inclined to talk to himself, especially in the second half of the novel(For Whom (5.), p. 323)
> 
>   But you like the people of Navarra better than those of any other part of 
>   Spain. Yes. And you kill them. Yes. [...] Don't you know it's wrong to kill?
>   Yes. But you do it? Yes.
> 
> He even insults himself sometimes reminding the reader of the argument between Anselmo and Pablo at the start of the novel.(For Whom (5.), p. 13)
> 
>   "Art thou a brute? Yes. Art thou a beast? Yes, many times. Hast thou a brain?
>    Nay. None."
> 
> Naturally, his attitude towards violence is different from Henry's. He believes it is justified to kill people for the cause, though he does not enjoy it. He is convinced that a victory is the only acceptable solution to this conflict. Their different attitudes result from their different motivations: Henry is just on some kind of adventure holiday while Jordan defends the country he "would rather have been born in"(For Whom (5.), p. 16)
> 
> Because of the gravity of the situation and the importance of his work, he can't permit himself emotions and feelings, he considers them as being luxuries, so he tries to restrain them, but is not always successful in the beginning, it takes him quite a while to extinguish them. (322-323)
> 
> 3.Development
> 
> One of the central aspects of the novel is Robert Jordan's education. In the beginning, Robert Jordan's world is a very simple one, he has got a task and he has got to accomplish it, no matter how high the cost. He knows "it was wrong in the first place and such things accentuate disaster as a snowball rolls up wet snow"(For Whom (5.), p. 413), but "he did not give any importance to what happened to himself"(For Whom (5.), p. 4). When he gets to know the people of Pablo, he fears his orders could harm or even kill them. The responsibility for the ones he likes is hard to bear, and when he fell for Maria, he "would abandon a hero's or a martyr's end gladly"(For Whom (5.), p. 177). At first, he considers this development a corruption of his fighting spirit, but later asks himself: " [...] was it corruption or was it merely that you lost the naïveté that you started with?"(For Whom (5.), p. 255). Especially Pilar became his mentor ("All right, Inglés . Learn. That's the thing. Learn."(For Whom (5.), p. 272)), a trait she could have derived from Hemingway's mentor Gertrude Stein. He learns to value his own life and to enjoy it, even though it's overshadowed by his forthcoming death and when it's over, he hates to leave it all behind.
> 
> Much of his education consisted of looking behind the scenes of the party propaganda. When he heard about the execution of the fascists in Pilar's home village, he is startled. To discover that the Loyalists can be brutal, too, is just the first part of the disclosure slowly emerging on his mind. The other part is the discovery that the dreaded fascist soldiers he is fighting and killing are simple peasants like the Republicans. On page 176, Robert thinks that all Spaniards are equal, just their leaders betray and abuse them, but every time he realizes this, he manages to suppress it, like Frederic Henry, because it would otherwise damage his resolution.
> 
> Apart from the obvious effects of violence on his development, the prospect of an early death influences him greatly. The knowledge that he has got to live his entire life in just four days acts as a catalyst for his development and made it possible in the first place.
> 
> 4.Pablo
> 
> Robert may seem to be the perfect continuation of Frederic Henry, but "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is more than a mere "A Farewell to Arms Part Two". Undoubtedly, the protagonist is the same, but there are those little differences that are already explained above, and apart from them, the major change is the introduction of two more main characters: Pablo and Pilar.
> 
> With Hemingway, it's always useful to try and associate the fictional characters with the ones of his real life. Since the protagonist's identity is well known, it's sound to associate Jordan's beloved Maria with Hemingway's beloved Martha to whom the novel is dedicated. The phonetic similarities in their forenames support this association. Pilar could correspond to Pauline Pfeiffer, since "Pilar" was Pauline's secret codename when Ernest was still married with Hadley. Pablo is, in an informal way, the husband of Pilar and they knew each other for quite a while, like Pauline and Ernest did. They behave like a long-married couple, so maybe Pablo is the personification of an Ernest who hadn't made a clear break with Pauline. Maybe he identifies with Pablo, a useless drunkard most of the time, but when things are getting serious, he shows grace under pressure and acts according to the "No man is an Illand" theme right from the start ("my duty is to those who are with me"(For Whom (5.), p. 16)). Robert Jordan does not value this theme right from the beginning, but seems, with his firm beliefs and his whole life still ahead of him, to be the best possible development Frederic could have had, while Pablo, with the alcoholic sentimentality of a man who knows his best years have already passed, represents the worst possibility. The reality, i.e. the author himself, struggles somewhere in between. On the one hand, he tries to stay away from Pablo, whose enthusiasm and resolution vanished a long time ago, who doesn't care much about politics and who definitely is unwilling to die for the cause, no matter how important it might seem. But on the other hand, he can't be like Robert Jordan, whose single-minded illusions about the strength of their enemies, about the possibility of a victory, about sacrifice, and about the justness of the cause appear very naïve.
> 
> Pablo is what Ernest fears to become and Jordan is what he once was, so the conflict between them could represent Hemingway's struggle with his former self, which is displayed best by Frederic Henry. As observer of this conflict acts Pilar who likes Robert, because he is formed out of the author's early characteristics. She is concerned about the first signs of assimilation Robert already shows, she warns Maria: "You are going to have a drunkard like I have"(For Whom (5.), p. 70).
> 
> What Hemingway tries is to get the best out of both characters, maybe to develop a guideline for his own life. They adopt each other's virtues and are able to drop some of their flaws. Robert gets, mostly via Pilar, some of Pablo's experience and is able to obtain a certain degree of wisdom, while Pablo is forced out of his "stagnation that is repugnant"(For Whom (5.), p. 33) and gets some reaffirmation of his spirit and resolution.
> 
> In spite of that, the differences are still huge and although Robert considers Pablo a smart man he strictly disapproves his brutality and low cunning. Pablo improved a little at the very end of the novel, but Robert still is by far the most virtuous character. If seen under this aspect, the novel's end appears more tragic than it did before, because it is also the end of Hemingway's inner struggle with his Lost Generation ego, that gives in to the drunken cynicism of Pablo, in whom Hemingway implies, deliberately or not, visions of his own future and facts of his present. It is not only the fictional character Robert who dies, but also the part of Hemingway's mind that he represented. He stopped fighting his latent depressions, his alcoholism and his brutality and was slowly overwhelmed by them.
> 
> next: /YoungandInnocent
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/YoungandInnocent|981119110
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> III. Hemingway up Close and Personal
> 
> Hemingway's suicide was not that surprising after all. During all his life he was obsessed with death and, in a way, also with violence. Nevertheless, when his father committed suicide, he strongly condemned this deed as a violation both of what Harvey Breit called Hemingway's "categorical imperative"(Times 1961 (15.), p. 6) courage and his Catholic faith. Why, and when, did the change in mind take place? What were the reasons for his ever-growing inclination to killing and especially to killing himself?
> 
> 1.Young and Innocent
> 
> Oak Park produced a tall, handsome man, strong, smart and ambitious. He had already learned the art of hunting and therefore was no stranger to killing. He also enjoyed a good fight, boxing was one of his passions. His father's prestige as a physician helped him a lot in the small town, he learned about music and art and grew up in a protected, clean and safe neighborhood.
> 
> World War I showed him a different side of life, which did not, however, leave him entirely depressed and broken. His illusions were shattered, but the experiences gathered were invaluable, and, what's more, everything turned out to be all right in the end, the good ones won, his wounds healed completely and Agnes was a mere "Schwärmerei"(Burgess (9.); page 24). He even got decorated, returned as a hero and earned much fame and admiration back home. His luck was completed when he married Hadley Richardson who bore his first son.
> 
> Being a Artist in the "City of Light", as Paris still is called by some, he may have had a hard time from the financial point of view, but all in all the 'twenties were days of friendship, the financial and artistic struggle kept Hemingway fit.
> 
> next: /ThingsTurnSour
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/ThingsTurnSour|981119155
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2.Things Turn Sour
> 
> He divorced Hadley and married Pauline. Because of his Catholic faith, some conscientious conflicts arose, but were finally overcome. In the 100 days Hadley ordered him to stay away from Pauline, "Men Without Women" was created. Afterwards, he married for the second time, his conscience seemed to be cleaned maybe due to his writing, but the next hurt was already under way. His father committed suicide because he couldn't bear the burden of his incurable illnesses any longer. The cowardice in this action must have been a great shame for somebody who is as convinced of the "grace under pressure" doctrine as Ernest. Maybe the sensational suicide of Harry Crosby affected him, too, the founder of the Black Sun Press was a friend of his in Paris.
> 
> His books sold very well and were approved by critics, but with Hemingway's success came his bad behavior. He told Scott Fitzgerald how to write his own novels, and Allen Tate that there was a fixed number of orgasms a man had. He also claimed Ford Madox Ford would be sexually impotent, maybe a hint to his own sexual neurosis. In return, he, too, was criticized and hurt. The journal "Bookman" attacked him as a dirty writer, McAlmon, the publisher of his first, non-commercial book said, according to Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway would be "a fag and a wife-beater"(Burgess (9.), p. 57) and that Pauline was lesbian. Even Gertrude Stein criticized him. In her book "The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas", she claimed Hemingway had derived his style from her own and from Sherwood Anderson's, this shameful origin would be "yellow"(Burgess (9.), p. 64). Most insulting got Max Eastman, who asked Ernest to "come out from behind that false hair on the chest"(Times 1961 (15.), p. 6), and who wrote an essay entitled "Bull in the Afternoon" as a satire on "Death in the Afternoon", a book Hemingway definitely would not joke about.
> 
> It is worth noting that this attacks on his pride and talent were accompanied by the already mentioned injuries (The Time in Between) which kept him almost constantly in bad shape.
> 
> next: /TheEndlessDarkNothingness
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/TheEndlessDarkNothingness|981119263
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 3.The Endless Dark Nothingness
> 
> As we already know, Hemingway was very preoccupied with death, in his youth it was the death of small animals, later of big game or enemies in combat. Death was always present and always threatening, but was, as in the Tibetan yin yang symbol, inseparably linked to life, which Hemingway, like Jim Morrison, considered most intense in the prospect of death. He lived in the borderland, trying to get ever closer to the edge. On the other, on the yin side, waited what the Castilians call the "nada" or the endless dark nothingness.
> 
> Hemingway stood on the yang side: "Life is too short for anything but the one thing that can outface death- human dignity"(Burgess (9.), p. 61). Fernando is the representative of this opinion in "For Whom the Bell Tolls", dignity also appears in the form of gaiety as Robert Jordan mentioned in the first chapter ("It was like having immortality"(For Whom (5.), p. 18)), yet he fears and worships the nada greatly, as the stream-of-consciousness passage of Robert's sexual intercourse with Maria proves(For Whom (5.), p. 171).
> 
>   For him it was a dark passage which led to nowhere, then to nowhere, then again to nowhere, once again to nowhere, always and forever to nowhere, heavy on the elbows in the earth to nowhere, dark, never any end to nowhere, hung on all the time always to unknowing nowhere, this time and again for always to nowhere, now not to be borne once again always and to nowhere, now beyond all bearing up, up, up and into nowhere, suddenly, scaldingly, holdingly all nowhere gone and time absolutely still and they were both there, time having stopped and he felt the earth move out and away from under them.
> 
> The prayer in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place"(Short Stories (3.), p. 481), hinted at in "A Farewell to Arms" on page 13, where the still "numb" Frederic prefers nada, is very similar to this passage.
> Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it all was nada y pues nada y nada y pues nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.
> 
> For Hemingway the human existence was a struggle between light and darkness, between life and death, and the epitome of this struggle were bullfights, Spain's national sport. He became an aficionado after having seen the Pamplona fiesta 1925 which was fictionalized in "The Sun Also Rises". But the book dealing exclusively with this topic was "Death in the Afternoon" where he discussed the metaphysics of bullfighting, the ritualized, almost religious procedures of the blood-soaked spectacle.
> 
> Sadly enough, the country which stood for everything that mattered to Hemingway, his cosmic principles life and death, the struggle between them, and its manifestation in the form of bullfights, was destroyed by the Fascists. In spite of his efforts to support the Loyalists, Franco took over in the spring of 1939, like Mussolini, whom Hemingway called "the biggest bluff in Europe"(Burgess (9.),p. 33), did in Italy 1922.
> 
> After having lost "his" country, he lost his Key West home as a consequence of his divorce in 1940. And at this point of time, the heaviest loss of all had already commenced. The generation he was a part of ceased to exist in the 'forties. Many were dying (Thomas Wolfe 9.15.1938, Ford Madox Ford 6.26.1939, F. Scott Fitzgerald 12.21.1940 (heart attack due to an alcoholic life as described in "The Sun Also Rises"), James Joyce 1.13.1941, Sherwood Anderson 3.8.1941, Virginia Woolf 3.28.1941 (suicide), Getrude Stein 7.27.1946) and some were leaning to the Fascists, like Ezra Pound. He became an Illand, the nothingness engulfed him.
> 
> next: /SureShotsTheSecondWorldWar
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/SureShotsTheSecondWorldWar|981119358
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 4.Sure Shots: The Second World War
> 
> The United States entered World War II on December 7 1941 and for the first time in his life, Hemingway took an active part in a war. Aboard the Pilar, now a Q-Ship, he was ready to fight and sink Nazi submarines threatening the coasts of Cuba and the USA. It is worth noting that, according to Anthony Burgess, he never before shot nor would have shot another human being, and that he was a non-combatant in World War I, in the Sino-Japanese War he was reporting on after having written "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and in the Spanish Civil War, where even the money he collected to support the Loyalists was used on non-belligerent purposes. Perhaps his failure in preventing the Fascists from taking Spain (he was very possessive about this country) had led him to take more drastic actions.
> 
> As the FBI took over the Caribbean counter-espionage, he was disbanded and went to Europe as war correspondent for Collier's. At Ville-dieu-les-Poêles he threw three grenades into a cellar where SS men were hiding, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and his first murder. Seemingly encouraged by that, he declared he would be an unofficial intelligence unit. Later, he acted as an unofficial liaison officer at Rambouillet, and afterwards, he even formed his own partisan group which took part in the liberation of Paris. He tried to step further onto the path of the warrior the personages of his fiction, in this case particularly Pablo, had taken before him.
> 
> By firing his machine pistol at the portrait of Mary Welsh's husband after having placed it atop of the toilet bowl in his room in the Ritz, he proved he wouldn't any longer flinch from killing a man who stood face to face with him. He became a killer like Pablo in the end.
> 
> next /TheDownwardSpiral
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/TheDownwardSpiral|981119408
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 5.The Downward Spiral
> 
> After the war, he started and abandoned a novel about the earth, the sea and the air, and went to Italy where he gathered material for "Across the River and Into the Trees", a homage to Venice. He derived the title from the last words of General Stonewall Jackson, maybe he expected his own end soon. His now divorced third wife appeared as the third wife of the protagonist, Adriana Ivancich as his lover Renata, which means "Reborn" in Latin. Hemingway was longing for his lost youth. The novel was widely disapproved, the majority of reviewers accused him of bad taste, stylistic ineptitude and sentimentality, the last of which is most certainly true and fitted into the pattern that was beginning to emerge: Hemingway grew old.
> 
> He started and, depressed by its mediocrity, abandoned a long sea novel to be published posthumously as "Islands in the Stream". One section of it was published as "The Old Man and the Sea", its enormous impact satisfied and fulfilled Hemingway, probably for the last time in his life. It earned him both the Pulitzer Prize in 1953 and the Nobel Prize in 1954 and restored his international reputation as an author.
> 
> Then, his legendary bad luck struck once again. On a safari he was the victim of two successive plane crashes, the injuries he got away with were grave and numerous, he sprained his right shoulder, arm and left leg, had a grave overall concussion, temporarily lost his vision in the left eye, his hearing in the left ear, had a paralysis of the sphincter, crushed his vertebra, suffered from a ruptured liver, spleen and kidney and was marked by first degree burns on his face, arms and leg. As if this would not be enough, he was badly injured one month later in a bushfire accident which left him with second degree burns on his legs, front torso, lips, left hand and right forearm. This physical hurts caused him to crack up, his strength was gone entirely and so was his will to live. He couldn't even travel to Stockholm personally.
> 
> A glimpse of hope came with the discovery of some of his old manuscripts from 1928 in the Ritz cellars, which were transformed into "A Moveable Feast" . Although some of his energy seemed to be restored, severe drinking problems kept him down, his blood pressure and cholesterol count were perilously high, he suffered from an aorta inflammation, and maybe the depressions accompanying alcoholism had already started. He also lost his Finca Vigía in San Francisco de Paula and was forced to "exile" to Ketchum, Idaho after the situation in Cuba had started to escalate.
> 
> The very last years, 1960 and 1961, were marked by severe paranoia, he feared FBI agents could be after him if Cuba turned to the Russians, that the "Feds"(Burgess (9.), p. 110) would be checking his bank account and that they wanted to arrest him for gross immorality and carrying alcohol, he got upset about perfectly normal photographs in his "Dangerous Summer" article etc. He received treatment for his mental disorders, there were suicide attempts in Spring 1961. He received treatment again, but it could not prevent his suicide on the second of July, 1961. He put the gun to his head and fired.
> 
> next: /ViolenceandRedemption
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/ViolenceandRedemption|981119470
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> C)Conclusion
> 1.Violence and Redemption
> 
> In his novels, Ernest Hemingway used violence extensively, but yet subtly. Never is there a description of death for its own sake, it always contributes to a larger theme, in "A Farewell to Arms" it is mainly human commitment, and in "For whom the Bell Tolls" mainly comradeship. It contributes in an unusual way: Death and violence always act as the opposite, as the imminent threat and as the jet black background that makes the theme stand out sharply, and that's why it is difficult to analyze it. No matter what exactly happens in those two books, violence and death are always involved, but just act as a sort of sublime intensification of the protagonist's feelings and experiences.
> 
> Death appears to be the inevitable end, but this does not make the characters sad or melancholic. Just like a man who is told by a doctor that he has some lethal illness and only four days left until his death, Robert Jordan is willing "to live as full a life in seventy hours as in seventy years"(For Whom (5.), p. 179). In "For Whom the Bell Tolls" everything is compressed and more intense because the prospect of death enables him to relish his life until the very last breath.
> 
> Thus redemption from death does not mean eternal live, but it means to live in the moment, to assume that each day could be the last. That is what the stream-of-consciousness passage during Robert's and Maria's second sexual intercourse(For Whom (5.), p. 406) is all about, the counterpart to the first one which dealt with the nada.
> 
> This, that they were not to have, they were having. They were having now and before and always and now and now and now. Oh, now, now, now, the only now, and above all now, and there is no other now but thou now and now is thy prophet. Now and forever now. Come now, now, for there is no now but now. Yes, now. Now, please now, only now [...]
> 
> His love, to Maria as well as to the comrades, forms "an alliance against death"(For Whom (5.), p. 282). Catherine's commitment to Frederic, the priests commitment to god, Robert's gaiety in the first chapter, they all can outface death. Hemingway's characters can be destroyed by violence and death, but never defeated
> 
> next: /WhyItWentWrong
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/ViolenceandRedemption|981119488
1a2
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/WhyItWentWrong|981119534
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 2.Why It Went Wrong
> 
> Unfortunately, Hemingway wasn't able to use this attitude in his real life. Maybe the pressure simply was to high. The general public did never know the real Ernest Hemingway, who was a human with a human's problems. They only had an abstract ideal they knew from his books, even his close friend James Joyce mixed him up with his characters. Cited verbatim:
> He's a good writer, Hemingway. He writes as he is. He's a big, powerful peasant, as strong as a buffalo. A sportsman. And ready to live the life he writes about. He would never have it if his body had not allowed him to live it. But giants of his sort are truly modest; there is much more behind Hemingway's form than people know. (Burgess (9.), p. 39)
> 
> According to Ford Madox Ford truth was not facts but vision, that is the principle Hemingway's characters are based on and that is what caused Hemingway's failure. He was forced to try and achieve the same straightness and stoicism his characters had. The difference was just that he was a real person, and they were, like Kundera's characters, born of an idea and existed just in fiction.
> 
> Like Robert Jordan's father, he was trapped. On the one hand, he could never surpass his character's deeds and on the other hand, the general public demanded him to do so. He tried and created one myth after the other. He claimed he had an affair with Mata Hari ("but one night I fucked her very well, although I found her to be very heavy throughout the hips and to have more desire for what was done to her than what she was giving to the man"(Burgess (9.), p. 105)), that he joined the Arditi after his wounding, etc. And most people were perfectly willing to believe it, the tale about the Arditi, Italian shock troops, even appeared in Malcolm Cowley's preface to the 1944(Cowley (4.), p. xii) edition of "The Viking Portable Library". He was captured in the structure of his lies, the discrepancy between him and the image he had set up grew larger every day. To be a liar and worthless in comparison to that shining idol must have reinforced his alcohol-related depressions and made him more liable to the hurts he received.
> 
> After all, there is a certain ambivalence of death and violence. It had done some good, it taught him priceless philosophies, but at the same time, it hurt him so much, that they were useless to him. The only thing he could do was to fictionalize them.
> 
> next: /BibliographY
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/BibliographY|981119690
1c1,37
< Describe the new page here.
---
> D)Appendix
> 
> a. Bibliography
> 
> Primary Sources
> 
> 1. Hemingway, Ernest, A Farewell to Arms. London: Arrow Books, 1994
> 
> 2. Hemingway, Ernest (ed. by Carlos Baker), Selected Letters 1917-1961. New York City: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981
> 
> 3. Hemingway, Ernest, The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway The First Forty-Nine Stories and the Play The Fifth Column. New York City: Random House, Inc., 1938
> 
> 4. Hemingway, Ernest, (ed. and intro. by Malcolm Cowley), The Viking Portable Library Hemingway. New York City: The Viking Press, 1944
> 
> 5. Hemingway, Ernest, For Whom the Bell Tolls. London: Arrow Books, 1994
> 
> Secondary Sources
> 
> 6. Baker, Carlos (editor), Ernest Hemingway Critiques of Four Major Novels. New York City: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962
> 7. Baker, Carlos, Hemingway: The Writer as Artist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972
> 
> 8. Berridge, H.R., Barron's Book Notes Ernest Hemingway A Farewell to Arms. Stuttgart: Klett, 1990
> 
> 9. Burgess, Anthony, Hemingway and his world. Norwich: Thames and Hudson, 1978
> 
> 10. Döblin, Alfred, Berlin Alexanderplatz. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1996
> 
> 11. Esslin, Martin (translated from English by Marianne Falk), Das Theater des Absurden. Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1972
> 
> 12. Kundera, Milan (translated from Czech by Michael Henry Heim), The Unbearable Lightness of Being. London: Faber and Faber, 1991
> 
> 13. Lynn, Kenneth S., Hemingway. New York City: Simon and Schuster, 1987
> 
> 14. The New Encyclopædia Britannica 15th Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1993
> 
> 15. ?Hemingway's Prize-Winning Works Reflected Preoccupation With Life and Death? The New York Times, CX (July 3, 1961)
> 
------
ErnestHemingway/BibliographY|981119712
19a20
> 
------
LiteraTure|981119879
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ErnestHemingway
------
ErnestHemingway|981119931
0a1,4
> Grace Under Pressure
> 
> Death and Violence in Ernest Hemingway's Life and Work
> 
------
ErnestHemingway|981119975
4a5,6
> If you want to know where the quotes are coming from, please refer to the bibliography section. For easier reading, this text is split in several sections, you can get an all-in-one HTML version at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html
> 
8,9d9
< 
< If you want to know where the quotes are coming from, please refer to the bibliography section. For easier reading, this text is split in several sections, you can get an all-in-one HTML version at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html
------
SetTheory|981121865
107c107
< "ZF-AC asserts that it is" - the generalized continuum hypothesis is compatible with ZFC. Further, what does "the 1-to-1 correspondences" refer to?
---
> "ZF-AC asserts that it is" - the generalized continuum hypothesis is not implied by ZF-AC. Further, what does "the 1-to-1 correspondences" refer to?
------
SetTheory|981123198
85a86,87
> RESPONSE II: Ok, would you mind providing a reference is to how?  Not that I don't believe you, but it would be nice to have the details...
> 
107a110,111
> 
> RESPONSE: The generalized continuum hypothesis isn't, but its negation is.  Simple contrapostitive of GCH -> AC.  The 1-to-1 correspondences are just those, namely, the things we have to set up to prove that a given set has the same cardinality as another given set.  In ZF+AC, GCH is undecidable, so everything constructed must satisfy GCH (else it would be false) and so be of the same cardinality as some power set of N, ie have some 1-to-1 correspondence between them.  But potentially this 1-to-1 correspondence need not be constructable either, and exist because of AC - this last point I am not sure about.
------
SetTheory|981125579
112a113,119
> COMMENT: Yes, if by ZF-AC you mean ZF plus the negation of
> AC, it is inconsistent with GCH. Your statement that everything
> constructed in ZF+AC must satisfy GCH has no obvious meaning.
> Your implication (if I understand you correctly) that if GCH
> holds every set must be "of the same cardinality of some power
> set of N" is unclear. What do you mean by "a power set of N"?
> 
------
SetTheory|981128266
87a88,95
> See e.g. the chapter on set theory in Mendelson, Introduction
> to Mathematical Logic, for a definition of the cumulative hierarchy of sets: R(0)=the empty set, R(alpha+1)=the power
> set of R(alpha), R(lambda)=union of R(alpha) for alpha<lambda,
> for limit lambda. The axiom of regularity is equivalent to
> the statement that for every set x there is an alpha such that
> x is in R(alpha).The cardinal of x can be defined as the set of sets in R(alpha) that are equivalent to x, where alpha is the smallest beta such that R(beta) contains a set equivalent to x.
> 
> 
------
TaoTehChing|981128753
2a3,7
> COMMENT: Not according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What
> is your source for the statement that the existence of
> Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching
> is not the work of one man is generally accepted.
> 
------
LiteraTure|981130624
1c1,2
< ErnestHemingway
---
> * ErnestHemingway
> * IsaacAsimov
------
HaikuPoem|981131284
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Haiku is one of the most important form of traditional Japanese poetry. Haiku is a very short poetic form, consisting of three lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables each, and must have a special word - the kigo - that indicates in which season the haiku is set. 
> 
> The poet must be concise because of the brevity, while concentrating deep spiritual understanding into the poem. The haiku poet usually takes up the changes of nature which have impressed him in order to express the intangible world of the spirit. 
> 
> Haiku is not written only by professionals. Anyone can easily learn to use the form.
------
IsaacAsimov|981132265
13a14,15
> ----
> * /TheFoundationSeries
------
IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries|981132787
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Over the span of forty two years IsaacAsimov created an epic of Galactic proportions: he showed us the rise and fall of the largest human Empire ever. It consists of seven novels, which although they can be read separately, are closely linked to one another.
> 
> /PreludeToFoundation
> 
> /ForwardTheFoundation
> 
> /Foundation
> 
> /FoundationAndEmpire
> 
> /SecondFoundation
> 
> /FoundationsEdge
> 
> /FoundationAndEarth 
------
IsaacAsimov/PreludeToFoundation|981133003
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It is a prequel to the Foundation Trilogy. For the first time Asimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on Trantor during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of Psychohistory is at risk. 
------
IsaacAsimov/PreludeToFoundation|981133317
1c1
< It is a prequel to the Foundation Trilogy. For the first time Asimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on Trantor during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of Psychohistory is at risk. 
---
> It is a prequel to the FoundationTrilogy. For the first time IsaacAsimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on TrantoR during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of Psychohistory is at risk. 
------
FoundationTrilogy|981133640
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The first three novels of IsaacAsimov's Foundation Series. The were published as short stories in the 1940's, to be later released as separate novels:
> 
> * Foundation
> * Foundation and Empire
> * Second Foundation
> 
> These are the only books, which have been awarded the HugoPrize for the best ScienceFiction Series ever.
> 
> ''See'' IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981134054
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The sixth novel in the IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries.
> 
> The Mayor of Trantor fears that the mysterious Second Foundation, which is thought to be extinct, will bid for power once the new Galactic Empire is established. Councilman Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Terminus are sent on a mission to discover its location. 
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981134086
1c1
< The sixth novel in the IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries.
---
> The sixth novel in the /TheFoundationSeries.
------
IsaacAsimov|981135017
8,9c8
< IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars,
< like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), Foundation's Edge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest Science-fiction short story ever written. 
---
> IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars, like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), /FoundationsEdge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest ScienceFiction short story ever written. 
15c14
< * /TheFoundationSeries
---
> * /TheFoundationSeries
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981135078
3c3
< The Mayor of Trantor fears that the mysterious Second Foundation, which is thought to be extinct, will bid for power once the new Galactic Empire is established. Councilman Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Terminus are sent on a mission to discover its location. 
---
> The Mayor of Terminus fears that the mysterious Second Foundation, which is thought to be extinct, will bid for power once the new Galactic Empire is established. Councilman Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Terminus are sent on a mission to discover its location. 
------
FermatsLastTheorem|981137313
6c6
< in which n is a natural number greater than  2. About this the 17th-century mathematician PierreFermat wrote in 1637 in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of Diophantus' Arithmetica, "I have discovered a  truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it." Mathematicians long
---
> in which n is a natural number greater than  2. About this the 17th-century mathematician PierreDeFermat wrote in 1637 in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of Diophantus' Arithmetica, "I have discovered a  truly remarkable proof but this margin is too small to contain it." Mathematicians long
------
PierreDeFermat|981137428
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> PierreDeFermat was a French mathematician. He is often called the founder of the modern theory of numbers. Together with ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat was one of the two leading mathematicians of the first half of the 17th century. Independently of ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat discovered the fundamental principle of analytic geometry. His methods for finding tangents to curves and their maximum and minimum points led him to be regarded as the inventor of the differential calculus. Through his correspondence with BlaisePascal he was a co-founder of the theory of probability.
> 
> ''See'' FermatsLastTheorem
------
PierreDeFermat|981137488
1c1
< PierreDeFermat was a French mathematician. He is often called the founder of the modern theory of numbers. Together with ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat was one of the two leading mathematicians of the first half of the 17th century. Independently of ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat discovered the fundamental principle of analytic geometry. His methods for finding tangents to curves and their maximum and minimum points led him to be regarded as the inventor of the differential calculus. Through his correspondence with BlaisePascal he was a co-founder of the theory of probability.
---
> PierreDeFermat is often called the founder of the modern theory of numbers. Together with ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat was one of the two leading mathematicians of the first half of the 17th century. Independently of ReneDescartes, PierreDeFermat discovered the fundamental principle of analytic geometry. His methods for finding tangents to curves and their maximum and minimum points led him to be regarded as the inventor of the differential calculus. Through his correspondence with BlaisePascal he was a co-founder of the theory of probability.
------
JRRTolkieN|981139220
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> JRRTolkieN (1892-1973).
> [J.R.R. stands for: John Ronald Reuel]
> 
> English novelist and scholar who achieved fame with his richly inventive epic trilogy TheLordOfTheRings (1954-55). The work consists of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. This remarkable work by the mid-1960s had become, especially in its appeal to young people, a sociocultural phenomenon.
------
LiteraTure|981139259
2c2,3
< * IsaacAsimov
---
> * IsaacAsimov
> * JRRTolkieN 
------
RequestedArticles|981139288
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- JRRTolkieN -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
------
TaoTehChing|981140963
7a8,9
> ''I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and '''then''' you could discuss the problem).  Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger''
> 
------
CategorySchemes|981141206
23c23
< :ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- Literature -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- MuSic -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- DanCe -- MuSic -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
---
> :ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- LiteraryArt -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- MuSic -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- DanCe -- MuSic -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
------
LiteraryArt|981141247
1c1
< LiteraTure -- PoetRy -- DraMa -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein -- StrangerInAStrangeLand
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein -- StrangerInAStrangeLand
------
PoetrY|981141261
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> HaikuPoem
------
WhyPhilosophize|981141417
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
------
PhilosophicalSubdisciplines|981141439
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
17c19
< <i>Political</i> <i>Philosophy</i>: the study of basic topics concerning government, including the purpose of the state, political justice, freedom, the nature of law, and the justification of punishment.
---
> <i>Political</i> <i>Philosophy</i>: the study of basic topics concerning government, including the purpose of the state, political justice, freedom, the nature of law, and the justification of punishment.
------
SomeMetaphysicalQuestions|981141463
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
17c19
< Now, I want to say something before I try to give a definition of the word "metaphysics."  Of all philosophical subjects, metaphysics is bound to look most <i>pointless</i>.  I am sure that some of you, when you heard the questions I just asked, were asking yourselves, "What on earth is the point of even <i>wondering</i> about stuff like this?"  So let me just remind you about what the task of philosophy is.  The task of philosophy is to <i>really</i> <i>get</i> <i>to</i> <i>understand</i> the meaning and justification of our most <i>basic</i> beliefs.  And metaphysics asks questions about <i>the</i> <i>most</i> basic of our beliefs.  Metaphysics is often thought to be the <i>most</i> <i>fundamental</i> part of philosophy.  If my saying that doesn’t help you get over the suspicion that this is all just hifalutin nonsense, just wait.  I am hoping that you will gain some <i>personal</i> <i>experience</i> of how questions in metaphysics underlie, and deeply inform, many other more obviously important questions in philosophy.  So insofar as how you answer metaphysical questions makes a big difference for how you answer other obviously important questions in philosophy, metaphysical questions are themselves important.
---
> Now, I want to say something before I try to give a definition of the word "metaphysics."  Of all philosophical subjects, metaphysics is bound to look most <i>pointless</i>.  I am sure that some of you, when you heard the questions I just asked, were asking yourselves, "What on earth is the point of even <i>wondering</i> about stuff like this?"  So let me just remind you about what the task of philosophy is.  The task of philosophy is to <i>really</i> <i>get</i> <i>to</i> <i>understand</i> the meaning and justification of our most <i>basic</i> beliefs.  And metaphysics asks questions about <i>the</i> <i>most</i> basic of our beliefs.  Metaphysics is often thought to be the <i>most</i> <i>fundamental</i> part of philosophy.  If my saying that doesn’t help you get over the suspicion that this is all just hifalutin nonsense, just wait.  I am hoping that you will gain some <i>personal</i> <i>experience</i> of how questions in metaphysics underlie, and deeply inform, many other more obviously important questions in philosophy.  So insofar as how you answer metaphysical questions makes a big difference for how you answer other obviously important questions in philosophy, metaphysical questions are themselves important.
------
PhilosophyOfReligion|981141499
2a3,4
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
19c21
< In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of <i>theism</i>, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of <i>atheism</i>, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument <i>against</i> the existence of God.  But we are <i>not</i> going to be considering the merits of <i>agnosticism</i>.  This is simply due to time constraints.  But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism.  Agnostics claim that the existence of God <i>cannot</i> be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor.  It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in <i>not</i> <i>thinking</i> <i>about</i> whether or not God exists.  In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists?  No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even <i>thinking</i> about whether or not God exists.  And I’m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time.  Well anyway, <i>we</i> are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry.  And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is.
---
> In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of <i>theism</i>, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of <i>atheism</i>, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument <i>against</i> the existence of God.  But we are <i>not</i> going to be considering the merits of <i>agnosticism</i>.  This is simply due to time constraints.  But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism.  Agnostics claim that the existence of God <i>cannot</i> be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor.  It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in <i>not</i> <i>thinking</i> <i>about</i> whether or not God exists.  In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists?  No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even <i>thinking</i> about whether or not God exists.  And I’m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time.  Well anyway, <i>we</i> are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry.  And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is.
------
PoliticalPhilosophy|981142158
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
23c25
< As you can see, just from reading this definition, this area of philosophy is positively <i>enormous</i>.  It is probably the area of philosophy that you knew most about already, on account of its being taught to some extent in civics classes.  Next we are going to have to focus in on only one of the many questions that make up political philosophy.  The question we will focus on is the one that is discussed in our reading: why is government needed at all, and what, if anything, makes any particular government legitimate.
---
> As you can see, just from reading this definition, this area of philosophy is positively <i>enormous</i>.  It is probably the area of philosophy that you knew most about already, on account of its being taught to some extent in civics classes.  Next we are going to have to focus in on only one of the many questions that make up political philosophy.  The question we will focus on is the one that is discussed in our reading: why is government needed at all, and what, if anything, makes any particular government legitimate.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|981142187
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
> 
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981145189
126a127
> Yeah, I think you're right. I think the freeform linking may be the thing you need. Most of the cruft comes from the poor choice of a LinkPattern (suited best to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PatternLanguage""s). -- SunirShah
------
CategorySchemes|981145620
43a44,50
> ----
> Off the top of my head, I would propose a different system:
> 
> :Understanding the way the world works - PhiloSophy, MathematicsAndStatistics, NaturalSciences
> :Understanding what's actually in it - BiologicalSciences (?), HiStory, GeoGraphy
> :Making stuff for practical use - TechnologY
> :Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
------
CategorySchemes|981145653
45c45
< Off the top of my head, I would propose a different system:
---
> ''(The following is taken from CategorySchemesTalk.  I didn't notice who posted it.)''  Off the top of my head, I would propose a different system:
------
ErnestHemingway/TheEndlessDarkNothingness|981145815
7c7
<   For him it was a dark passage which led to nowhere, then to nowhere, then again to nowhere, once again to nowhere, always and forever to nowhere, heavy on the elbows in the earth to nowhere, dark, never any end to nowhere, hung on all the time always to unknowing nowhere, this time and again for always to nowhere, now not to be borne once again always and to nowhere, now beyond all bearing up, up, up and into nowhere, suddenly, scaldingly, holdingly all nowhere gone and time absolutely still and they were both there, time having stopped and he felt the earth move out and away from under them.
---
> :For him it was a dark passage which led to nowhere, then to nowhere, then again to nowhere, once again to nowhere, always and forever to nowhere, heavy on the elbows in the earth to nowhere, dark, never any end to nowhere, hung on all the time always to unknowing nowhere, this time and again for always to nowhere, now not to be borne once again always and to nowhere, now beyond all bearing up, up, up and into nowhere, suddenly, scaldingly, holdingly all nowhere gone and time absolutely still and they were both there, time having stopped and he felt the earth move out and away from under them.
------
ErnestHemingway|981146185
59a60
> ----
61c62
< 
---
> This is very impressive work and quite an enormous contribution to WikiPedia.  First, Andreas, you do realize, I hope, that by posting it on WikiPedia, you have released this work according to the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense?  Second, is there anything in particular that you would like people to do to this work to render it more encyclopedia-like?  (For some similar instructions-to-the-public, see LarrysText.) -- LarrySanger
------
LibertarianisM|981146307
7c7
< A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.  The libertarian believes the state should not violate individual rights in any for, and so opposes the right and left equally.
---
> A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.  The libertarian believes the state should not violate individual rights in any form, and so opposes the right and left equally.
------
LiteraryArt|981153451
1c1
< LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein -- StrangerInAStrangeLand
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein
------
LiteraTure|981153466
3c3,4
< * JRRTolkieN 
---
> * JRRTolkieN 
> * AynRand
------
EconomicS|981158728
4c4
< The is an economic aspect to almost any topic one can think of - EducatioN, ReLigion, PoLitics, employment, trasport, defence, etc. EconomicS is, therefore,a comprehensive theory of how society works. 
---
> There is an economic aspect to almost any topic one can think of - EducatioN, ReLigion, PoLitics, employment, trasport, defence, etc. EconomicS is, therefore,a comprehensive theory of how society works. 
------
LinkToExternalPages|981159225
11c11,15
< Click on the "edit page" link below to see how the latter example was coded.  It's not hard!
---
> Click on the "edit page" link below to see how the latter example was coded.  It's not hard!
> 
> ----
> 
> If I add words like external link and web link and outside link and linking to the Internet to this page, then searches on these words will return a link to this, the page that has information on how to do that.
------
SetTheory|981159418
127a128,129
> Response: I mean the things that GCH usually asserts are the only cardinals...I'm sorry for the bad terminology but I couldn't think of any better way to put it.
> 
------
PoetrY|981167052
1c1,2
< HaikuPoem
---
> * HaikuPoem
> * LimericK
------
WolVes|981172960
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See WolF
------
WolF|981173104
1c1,118
< Describe the new page here.
---
> WolF:
> 
> The wolf is the quintessential wild animal. Considered brave, even fearless, by admirers; held up as a model of family efficiency and loyalty; feared by those who misunderstand his needs; loved by ecologists; and hated by cattlemen and sheepmen, this wild canid is imbedded deeply in man's cultural and natural history through fairy tales, folklore, and an ill-advised battle against natural predators. People are willing to believe that this creature is related to northern breeds of dogs, but not to their beloved Poodles, Beagles, or Labrador Retrievers. 
> 
> Scientific research conducted over the past century has determined that dogs developed from several subspecies of wolves scattered throughout the world. Thousands of years ago, wolves probably became camp followers, taking advantage of the scraps around the fires and caves of prehistoric man. Perhaps man brought wolf cubs into the family to raise, and eventually began to take advantage of the wolf's ability to hunt and to guard the campsite. Down the millennia, through preference for wolves of certain physical and behavioral characteristics and through genetic mutation, Canis lupus changed shape, size, and color to become the wolf subspecies now known as Canis lupus familiaris. 
> 
> Although most wolves have basically grey coats, hence the common name, the coats usually have a lot of base yellow interspersed between the salt-and-pepper frey and black hair. Wolves anywhere can have coats that grade from almost pure white to yellows, reds, even jet black, although all of the arctic wolves are usually all white. 
> 
> Most of the adult wolves weigh in the vicinity of 75 to 125 pounds (34 to 56 kilograms). Males are usually larger than females by as much as twenty-five percent. There are authenticated records of male wolves weighing as much as 175 pounds (79 kilograms). 
> 
> As large as wolves are, they usually appear to be much larger because of their long hair. In the winter coat, the hair on their back and sides averages 2 to 2.5 inches (5 to 6.3 centimeters) in length. Starting at the base of the neck, the wolf has a teardrop-shaped mane of hair that elongates into just a crest down the spine toward the tail. Over the shoulder, the mane is about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) wide. The hairs in the mane are 4 to 5 inches (10 to 12.7 centimeters) long and are attached to erectorpilli muscles, which allow the hairs to stand on end, making the wolf appear even larger. 
> 
> Extensive studies of the North American wolf species show between 50 to 70 inches (1.3 to 1.8 metres) in total nose-tip-to-tail-tip length. Of that length, one quarter is tail length. 
> 
> Wolves Stand between 27 to 31 inches (68 to 78 centimeters) high at the shoulder. Compared to dogs of the same size, wolves' chests are much narrower. Their legs are also longer in proportion to their body weight than are most dogs. Because of its narrower chest, the wolf's left and right foot tracks closer together than the dogs. 
> 
> Humans are plantigrade, walking upon our entire flat foot, sole to heel. All members of the canine family, and the feline family too, are digitigrade, walking upon just their toe tips. Unless a wolf is lying down, the heel of each foot does not come in contact with the ground. The front feet of a wolf are exceptionally large. This is of great advantage to the wolf when it runs upon snow, as it allows greater weight distribution and more support to prevent the animal from sinking in as deeply when the snow is soft. 
> 
> The wolf is very comfortable in the water, and does not hesitate to wade through icy streams or swim across short stretches of lake. In summer, wolves often bathe in streams to keep cool, and they will readily follow prey into water. They have been known to wash mud from their coats in rivers and streams. They depend on their thick coats in winter, so it is not surprising that they spend part of their leisure time in grooming behavior. It is also likely that the grooming of other pack members helps reinforce the social bonds that tie the pack together. Two wolves will lick each others' coats, nibbling gently with their teeth to remove foreign matter. Reciprocal grooming is especially common during courtship. Injured wolves are intensely groomed by other pack members, providing both physical and mental comfort. 
> 
> Wolves mature physically at a later age than dogs; females have their first estrus (heat) at two years of age or older, and they cycle only once each year, usually in late winter. Males mature at age three or later.
> 
> Wolves in the wild live in family packs, mostly consisting of three to a dozen members, usually related. Each pack has an alpha or top male and an equivalent female, and each top wolf keeps order among the pack members of its gender. Generally, only the top male and female mate, but occasionally the alpha male stands aside and allows the beta (second place) male to breed the alpha female. 
> 
> Only one litter is born to the pack each year, and all the adult wolves assist in raising the cubs. One wolf remains at the den site with the cubs while the others go off to hunt. When the successful hunters return to the den, they regurgitate partially-digested food for the cubs. As the cubs grow and leave the den, the adults take turns cub-sitting, playing with the youngsters and keeping them out of harm's way. 
> 
> Wolves love to play, shouldering one another, bumping bodies together, flopping tails over each other's backs, and leaping up placing forepaws around other' necks. Play especially in pups, develops strength and hunting skills, and aids in establishing pack communication and hierarchy. The intention to play is often signaled by the gesture well known to dog owners of dropping the front quarters into a crouch position, with smiling face and wagging tail. Adult wolves stage mock fights, play chase, and leap on each other. The ambushing of unwary pack members is a favorite game. 
> 
> Unity in the pack is maintained by complex use of facial expressions and body language that establish relationships between individual wolves that benefit the pack. Alpha wolves may place their head or paw on the shoulders of subordinates or grasp the inferior's muzzle in his jaws in play, just a reminder that he is boss. Or he may stare at boisterous subordinates in a C. lupus version of "Knock it off!" 
> 
> Position of the ears, tail, and lips are important in wolf communication. A relaxed but alert wolf or a dominant-aggressive wolf carries his ears up; a submissive or fearful wolf pins them back against the skull. An aggressive wolf carries his tail straight behind, a submissive one tucks his tail between his legs. A wolf ready to fight curls his lips back fully, bares his teeth, stares intently, and raises his hackles. He may growl or not. 
> 
> Submissive wolves avoid eye contact with dominant members of the pack and may turn away from their betters. Many inferior wolves grovel to their superiors, mimicking the cub behavior of soliciting food by licking at the muzzle of the dominant animal. Sometimes, they lie on the ground and expose their bellies to the alpha wolf, and they may urinate to further state their acknowledgement that the alpha is truly the top wolf. Some of you may have noticed this same behavior in your dog. 
> 
> With the cubs, however, all bets are off. All adults accept the attentions, including the sharp teeth, of the cubs. The youngsters are allowed to practice adult behaviors with forbearance, although a particularly painful nip might be followed by a big paw pinning a hapless cub to the ground. Mother may grab a cub by the scruff of the neck and shake him for wandering off, or she may cuff several cubs that refuse to stop roughhousing, but these are manifestations of tough love, designed to keep the cubs safe and teach them manners. 
> 
> The purpose of this social order is to increase hunting prowess and ensure the survival of the pack and therefore the species. Wolves cooperate when they hunt. In some cases, a couple of wolves will watch over the potential prey animal while the rest of the pack relaxes and plays. Then, when the hunt resumes, some wolves may leave the pack and circle ahead of the moose or elk, ready to ambush it. Sometimes wolves encircle a prey animal floundering in deep snow and simply wait for it to tire and collapse. 
> 
> There is a tendency to judge their behavior as cruel or as gentle and loving, but wolves are simply animals that are equipped to survive in a harsh environment. Ascribing human emotions or characteristics to their behavior is inappropriate. To search for vestiges of that behavior in their descendants and attempt to comprehend it can enhance understanding of wolves and of the dogs that share man's home and hearth. 
> 
> Today wolves are endangered species wherever they live, except perhaps in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic and subarctic, where they appear to flourish in the midst of the herds of hundreds of thousands of caribou. Attempts are being made to reintroduce wolves to their former territory to serve as natural predators for deer, elk, and other hoofed animals with burgeoning populations. 
> 
> The Wolf has developed the capacity to survive in the most inhospitable of climates. The wolves in the high arctic endure several winter months of perpetual darkness. Even in Febuary when sun returns to the north, temperatures of -40°C and bitter winds are common. Other wolves are at home in the desert and the dampness of a humid Gulf Coast swamp. 
> 
> Three canids -- dogs, wolves, and coyotes -- seem to crossbreed rather freely. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat popular for these crossbreds and their offspring to be kept as pets. 
> 
> Since the wolf - Canis lupus - is an endangered species, it is illegal to capture a wild wolf for any purpose. However, some folks established colonies of wolves before this status was granted, and they have used these animals to produce wolf hybrids. Most hybrids are crossbred on large breeds of dogs, especially German Shepherd, Chow, Akita, and Alaskan Malamute, and they often combine the worst characteristics of the wolf and the dog breed. 
> 
> The wolf is basically a shy animal, instilled with a fierce need to fit into a pack hierarchy and depending on nuances in body language and facial expression and on hunting skill to survive. A stare is considered a direct challenge and can bring an attack if the animal cannot flee. Wolf jaws are much stronger than those of a dog and are often used to exert dominance. 
> 
> According to Barry Lopez in Of Wolves and Men, the jaws of a wolf have a "crushing pressure of perhaps 1,500 (lbs/square inch) compared to 740 (lbs/square inch) for a German Shepard." The dentition of the wolf consists of twenty-two teeth: twelve incisors, four canines, sixteen pre molars, and ten carnassials and molars. The canines of the wolf are easily 1-inch (2.54 centimeters) long, strong, sharp, and slightly curved. These are the teeth used for grasping prey. The wolf does not chew its food, using its carnassials to scissor off a piece of meat that can then be swallowed in a manageable chunk. 
> 
> The breeds of dog frequently used to produce the hybrid tend to be dominant, fairly independent, and even aloof. They are difficult to train for inexperienced owners and can be aggressive to other dogs and dangerous to cats and other small mammals. This combination of wolf temperament and breed characters can be dangerous in inexperienced hands. 
> 
> Although the lure to own an exotic pet is strong, families who would like a wolf-like animal that is good with children should opt for a well-tempered German Shepherd, a Keeshond, or a Samoyed. More experienced dog owners might consider a Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute, Chow, or Akita. Only those folks who have previously trained a tough northern breed of dog should even consider a hybrid. 
> 
> A wolf hybrid should never be left alone with small children, for children stare, scream, and move quickly. Stares are challenges, and the baby will lose every time. Screams, cries, and quick movements are prey characteristics, and the hybrid may consider the child fair game.
> 
> A hybrid must always know who is top dog, and this alpha status must be earned and maintained with firmness, not punishment. 
> 
> Obedience training is a must. 
> 
> There's no way to predict whether a hybrid will display wolf behavior or dog behavior or something in between. Therefore, hybrid owners should read as much about wolves as possible so they can recognize and deal with the various manifestations of body language, facial expressions and dominant or submissive behaviors they may encounter. A hybrid should always be spayed or neutered to prevent breeding. 
> 
> The responsibility of placing hybrid pups in appropriate homes is far greater than the responsibility of placing any other pup. 
> 
> A hybrid is not a guard dog. Since there are far more subordinate wolves than alpha wolves, and since most wolves don't bark much, a hybrid with wolf behavior is likely to flee rather than guard.
> 
> Female hybrids are less likely to get along with female dogs or hybrids, and male hybrids are unlikely to get along with male dogs or hybrids. 
> 
> The caveats regarding wolf-dog hybrids carries over to coydogs, the coyote-dog hybrids that are becoming more common as coyotes spread throughout the country. Since coyotes are solitary animals not attuned to pack living, the problems encountered with these hybrids may be even greater than those of wolf-dogs. 
> 
> There's no doubt that a hybrid wolf or coyote can be a fine companion for those who understand their wild core. But the thrill of living with such a magnificent creature must be tempered by the knowledge that the animal will forever be unpredictable, that mistakes in training may never be forgiven, and that alpha status must always be reinforced. The average pet-owning family is much better off with "just" a dog. 
> 
> Ask anyone about wolf vocalizations and the howl invariably springs to mind. Even though wolves bark, woof, whine, whimper, yelp, growl, snarl and moan a lot more often than they howl, it is howling that defines the wolf, and fascinates us. So why do wolves howl? 
> 
> The center of a wolf's universe is its pack, and howling is the glue that keeps the pack together. Some have speculated that howling strengthens the social bonds between packmates; the pack that howls together, stays together. That may be so, but chorus howls can also end with nasty quarrels between packmates. Some members, usually the lowest-ranking, may actually be "punished" for joining in the chorus. Whether howling together actually strengthens social bonds, or just reaffirms them, is unknown. 
> 
> We do know, however, that howling keeps packmates together, physically. Because wolves range over vast areas to find food, they are often separated from one another. Of all their calls, howling is the only one that works over great distances. Its low pitch and long duration are well suited for transmission in forest and across tundra, and unique features of each individual's howl allow wolves to identify each other. Howling is a long distance contact and reunion call; separate a wolf from its pack, and very soon it will begin howling, and howling, and howling... 
> 
> When a wolf howls, not only can its packmates hear it, but so can any other wolf within range. These other wolves may be members of hostile adjacent packs that are competitors for territory and prey. Howl too close to these strangers, and they may seek you out, chase you, even kill you. In northern Minnesota, where wolves are protected from humans, the primary cause of death for adult wolves is being killed by wolves from other packs. So howling has its costs (running into the opposition) as well as its benefits (getting back with the pack). Consequently, wolves are careful about where and when they howl, and to whom they howl. 
> 
> For example, a wolf that is separated from its pack may return to an abandoned summer rendezvous site and howl for hours, even in response to a stranger nearby. It was accustomed to howling at that site and probably feels relatively confident and secure there. But that same wolf, away from the old home site, will be much more reserved, and if a stranger howls nearby, it may silently and quickly retreat. Younger wolves, however, act differently. 
> 
> Pups, especially those under four months of age, love to howl and will usually reply to any howling they hear, even that of total strangers. This is understandable, since pups haven't yet learned how to identify their older packmates. 
> 
> Indiscriminate howling is usually not a dangerous proposition for young pups, since they tend to be stuck at a rendezvous site that is relatively far from the neighbors, who likely have pups of their own to raise. More importantly, replying to an adult that howls often leads to a meal, since packmates returning with food frequently howl as they near the home site. But as summer gives way to fall, the benefits of indiscriminate howling decrease. 
> 
> Once pups start to travel with the pack, they begin to enter less secure surroundings. Their neighbors are also traveling more. Distant howls may belong to strangers, so the risks of howling increase. Besides, by now they have had ample time to learn the voices of their own packmates and are able to discriminate friend from foe. By six months of age, pups have become as selective as adult wolves about where, when and to whom they howl. 
> 
> There is one member of the pack who will tend to howl more boldly: the alpha male. The alpha male is the dominant male of the pack, and father of the pups. He is most likely to howl to, and even approach, a stranger -- often with confrontation on his mind. One sign of this aggressiveness can be heard in his voice; his howls become lower-pitched and coarser in tone as he approaches a stranger. Lowering the pitch of a vocalization is a nearly universal sign of increasing aggressiveness in mammals, and in wolves it can sound quite impressive. 
> 
> This behavior points to the second main purpose of howling: helping to maintain spacing between rival packs. When one pack howls, others nearby may reply. Very quickly, all the wolves know each other's location. By advertising their presence, packs can keep their neighbors at bay and avoid accidentally running into them. 
> 
> But the use of howling in spacing is fraught with difficulties. If one pack howls, all its neighbors (within range, of course) now know its location. What if they choose to keep quiet, sneak up, and attack the howlers? Deliberate attacks by one pack on another have been seen, so there are costs to advertising your location. These risks have to be balanced with benefits. An example of this trade-off is sometimes seen during winter, when packs are traveling nomadically within (or even outside) their territories. A pack sitting on a fresh prey kill is very likely to stake its claim and howl, particularly if a stranger howls nearby. As time passes and the kill is consumed, the wolves become less invested in the site and are less likely to reply. Eventually, they may respond to a stranger's howling by silently moving away. 
> 
> When two packs do meet, their relative size usually decides the outcome. Thus small packs are often quite reluctant to howl and draw attention to themselves, whereas large packs howl readily. But packs can fib to one another about their size. 
> 
> When animals compete, they often engage in behaviors designed to exaggerate their size. Wolves stand tall, raise their hackles, ears and tails, and produce low, menacing howls, all to convince their opponent that a retreat from this "big, bad wolf" is the best option. Thus most confrontations involve a lot of bluff and very little bloodshed. Similarly, packs that are able to exaggerate their numbers are more likely to keep their neighbors at bay. The structure of a pack or chorus howl is well suited to this kind of deception. 
> 
> Rather than using howls with a single pure tone, wolves howling in a chorus use wavering or modulated howls. The rapid changes in pitch make it difficult to follow one individual's howls if several others are howling simultaneously. In addition, as the sound travels through the environment, trees, ridges, rock cliffs and valleys reflect and scatter it. As a result, competing packs hear a very complex mix of both direct sound and echoes. If the howls are modulated rapidly enough, two wolves may sound like four or more. Indeed, during the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant reported hearing what he took to be a pack of "not more than 20 wolves" while traveling. A short time later he reached the pair of wolves that had been making all the noise! This phenomenon, called the Beau Geste Effect, may introduce enough uncertainty to make size estimates not only unreliable, but potentially lethal, if a pack underestimates the size of its rival and approaches. 
> 
> So wolves howl to find their companions and keep their neighbors at bay. Popular imagination has long held that they also howl at the moon, but there is no evidence that this is so. Wolves may be more active on moonlit nights, when they can see better, or we may hear them more often on such nights, because we feel more comfortable tramping about in the light of a full moon, but a wolf howling at the moon would be wasting its breath. 
> 
> Scent plays a very important role in the life of the wolf, by smell alone wolves can locate prey, other pack members or enemies. It can tell them if other wolves were in the territory, if they were male or female, and how recently they visited. The wolf has several specialized glands, one around the anus and another on its back about 3 inches (7.6 centimetres) in the front of the base of its tail. The scent from these glands is as individualistic as are our fingerprints and is used by that particular wolf as its personal calling card. These Glands are used to mark boundaries and also to mark trails. These "Scent Stations" are often 100 yards (91 metres) apart. 
> 
> The sense of smell in the wolf is highly developed, as would be expected in an animal possessing numerous scent glands. The distance at which any scent can be detected is governed by atmospheric conditions but, even under the most favorable conditions, 1.75 miles denotes a particularly keen sense of smell. The wolves usually travel until they encounter the scent of some prey species ahead of them. They then move directly toward their prey in an effort to capture it. 
> 
> Next to smell, the sense of hearing is the most acute of the wolf sense. Wolves can hear as far as six miles away in the forest and ten miles in the open. Wolves can hear well up to a frequency of 25 khz. Some researchers believe that the actual maximum frequency detected by wolves is actually much higher, perhaps up to 80 khz (the upper auditory limits for humans is 20 khz), also according to some naturalists wolves' hearing is greater than that of the dog. 
> 
> Wolves also have keen eye sight and are quick to detect the slightest movement of anything in front of them. Being major predators, their eyes are on the front of their heads, and they have probably a little less than 180-degree vision, unlike their prey species, which can see over 300 degrees of a circle. 
> 
> Investigation of taste is made difficult by the fact that the influence of smell often plays a major role in the way a food "tastes." It is known that canines possess taste receptors for the four taste categories: salty, bitter, sweet, and acidic. Felines on the other hand, do not respond to sweetness. The sweetness receptivity would be adaptive use to wolves, as sweet berries and other fruits do play a minor role in their diet. 
> 
> In the wild wolves can live up to 13 years or more, in a protected wolf park or a controlled area of land, a wolf can live to be up to 16 years old. But most wolves usually live to be to around 8 years of age. The record wolf lifespan is about 20 years of age. life in the wild is difficult for the wolf, with human population taking up more and more wolf habitat and with those who would kill the wolf, a long lifespan is unlikely. In a controlled enviroment they can live longer because they are safe from the outside dangers of traps, snares, enemies and poisons. 
> 
> 
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN142|981173854
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> *Plot summary
> /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down his /DagnyTaggart for what he did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
> ----
> * Setting
> The apartment of /JamesTaggart
> ----
> * Characters
> /BettyPope
> /BoardofDirectors
> /JamesTaggart
> /JockBenson
> /JulesMott
> /LizBlane
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN142|981173871
8,13c8,13
< /BettyPope
< /BoardofDirectors
< /JamesTaggart
< /JockBenson
< /JulesMott
< /LizBlane
---
>  /BettyPope
>  /BoardofDirectors
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /JockBenson
>  /JulesMott
>  /LizBlane
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardofDirectors|981173899
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental are a group of men mostly loyal to /JamesTaggart.
> 
> The Board represents the other people whose approval is neccesary for people who are incapable of making decisions on their own, most notably /JamesTaggart, who treats approval of the Board as a scientific test of truth.
> 
> In /SectioN132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
> 
> The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN114
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|981173930
10c10
<  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental: Mentioned.
---
>  /BoardOfDirectors: Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|981173949
10c10
<  /BoardOfDirectors: Mentioned.
---
>  /BoardofDirectors: Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN132|981173978
10c10
<  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontiental
---
>  /BoardofDirectors
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981174004
26c26
<  /BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental
---
>  /BoardofDirectors
46c46
<  /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981174074
0a1
>  /BettyPope
33a35,37
>  /JockBenson
>  /JulesMott
>  /LizBlane
46c50
<  /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged/BettyPope|981174242
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Betty Pope is a wealthy socialite who is having an meaningless sexual affair with /JamesTaggart that coincides with the overall meaninglessness of her life.  She regrets having to wake up every morning because she has to face another empty day.  She is deliberately crude in a way that casts ridicule on her high social position.
> 
> Betty Pope appears in:
>  /SectioN142
------
AtlasShrugged/JockBenson|981174309
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A friend of /BettyPope.  In /SectioN142 she mentions that Jock Benson told her /JamesTaggart didn't really run the railroad, his sister did.
------
AtlasShrugged/JulesMott|981174410
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /TaggartTranscontinental's man in /MexicoCity.  He is the fall guy after the Mexican government nationalizes the /SanSebastianLine.
> 
> Jules Mott appears in:
>  /SectioN142
>  /SectioN143: Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/LizBlane|981174498
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A friend of /BettyPope.  According to Betty Pope, Liz Blane is amusing because she's a bitch.
> 
> Liz Blane is mentioned in /SectioN142.
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental|981174546
1d0
< The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental are a group of men mostly loyal to /JamesTaggart.
3,9d1
< The Board represents the other people whose approval is neccesary for people who are incapable of making decisions on their own, most notably /JamesTaggart, who treats approval of the Board as a scientific test of truth.
< 
< In /SectioN132 we learn the Board approved the development of the /SanSebastianLine and that numerous Board members quit in protest.
< 
< The Board of Directors of Taggart Transcontinental is mentioned in:
<  /SectioN114
<  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental|981174587
1c1
< 
---
> #REDIREDT AtlasShrugged/BoardofDirectors
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardOfDirectorsOfTaggartTranscontinental|981174601
1c1
< #REDIREDT AtlasShrugged/BoardofDirectors
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/BoardofDirectors
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|981174633
16a17
>  /MexicoCity
------
AtlasShrugged/Mexico|981174651
6a7
>  - /SectioN142
------
AtlasShrugged/MexicoCity|981174757
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /JulesMott is /TaggartTranscontinental's representative in Mexico City.
> 
> Mexico City is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN142
>  /SectioN143
> 
> #
> #a
> #b
> #c
> #
------
AtlasShrugged/MexicoCity|981174771
6,11d5
< 
< #
< #a
< #b
< #c
< #
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|981174900
1c1
< A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
---
> A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.  When it is nationalized in /ScetioN142, it is refered to as the San Sebastian Railroad.
7a8,9
>  /SectioN142
>  /SectioN143
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|981174918
1c1
< A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.  When it is nationalized in /ScetioN142, it is refered to as the San Sebastian Railroad.
---
> A branch of /TaggartTranscontinental that serves the /SanSebastianMines in Mexico.  The /SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.  When it is nationalized in /SectioN142, it is refered to as the San Sebastian Railroad.
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981174946
6c6,7
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN142
------
AtlasShrugged/Food|981175014
3c3,5
< Liverwurst: In /SectioN141 /FranciscoDAnconia claims he returned to /NewYork in part because of the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
---
> <b>Liverwurst</b>: In /SectioN141 /FranciscoDAnconia claims he returned to /NewYork in part because of the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan on Third Avenue.
> 
> <b>Shish-kabob</b>: In /SectioN142 /JamesTaggart suggests he might take /BettyPope to the Armenian restaurant for shish-kabob.
------
AtlasShrugged/Food|981175033
1c1
< The food of Atlas Shrugged.
---
> The food of Atlas Shrugged.  Yes, the food of Atlas Shrugged.
5c5
< <b>Shish-kabob</b>: In /SectioN142 /JamesTaggart suggests he might take /BettyPope to the Armenian restaurant for shish-kabob.
---
> <b>Shish-kabob</b>: In /SectioN142 /JamesTaggart suggests he might take /BettyPope to the Armenian restaurant for shish-kabob.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN143|981175579
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> /JamesTaggart addresses the /BoardofDirectors after the /SanSebastianLine is nationalized.  He takes credit for removing everything of value from Mexico, and assures everyone that with his /Washington connections he can get the government to demand just compensation from /Mexico.  He places the blame for his disaster on two men who played only a minor role in the fiasco.
> 
> * Setting
> A meeting of /TaggartTranscontinental's /BoardofDirectors.
> 
> * Characters
>  /BoardofDirectors
>  /ClarenceEddington
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /JulesMott
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental|981175788
1a2,3
> 
> Taggart Transcontinental was founded by /NathanielTaggart who lived three generations (or so) prior to Dagny's generation.  It was built without any grants, loans, or favors from the government, and was the last railroad that was still owned and controlled by its founder's descendants.  It's motto is, From Ocean to Ocean.
------
AtlasShrugged/Mexico|981175825
7a8
>  - /SectioN143
------
AtlasShrugged/Washington|981175862
6a7
>  - /SectioN143
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN144|981176293
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> /OrrenBoyle meets with /JamesTaggart about the Mexican disaster.  They can't believe /FrancisoDAnconia was swindled out of fifteen million dollars, and they assume he must know something they don't know.  James Taggart tries to get make appointment with Francisco but he refuses to see him, because Francisco finds him boring.
> 
> * Setting
> James Taggart's office.
> 
> * Characters
>  /FranciscoDAnconia - Mentioned.
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /OrrenBoyle
>  /JamesTaggartsSecretary
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN144|981176309
2c2
< /OrrenBoyle meets with /JamesTaggart about the Mexican disaster.  They can't believe /FrancisoDAnconia was swindled out of fifteen million dollars, and they assume he must know something they don't know.  James Taggart tries to get make appointment with Francisco but he refuses to see him, because Francisco finds him boring.
---
> /OrrenBoyle meets with /JamesTaggart about the Mexican disaster.  They can't believe /FranciscoDAnconia was swindled out of fifteen million dollars, and they assume he must know something they don't know.  James Taggart tries to get make appointment with Francisco but he refuses to see him, because Francisco finds him boring.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981176370
34a35
>  /JamesTaggartsSecretary
50c51
<  /WorkerNumber1
---
>  /WorkerNumber1
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggartsSecretary|981176480
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN144, /JamesTaggart's unnamed secretary has the unhappy job of explaining to Taggart why /FranciscoDAnconia will not see him: "Senor D'Anconia said that you bore him, Mr. Taggart."
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981176541
5a6
>  /SectioN144
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|981176565
8c8
< 
---
>  /SectioN144
------
AtlasShrugged/OrrenBoyle|981176577
7a8
>  /SectioN144
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN112|981176647
4c4
< Dagny is riding the Taggart Comet back to New York after inspecting the Rio Norte Line.  She hears a brakeman whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.  Faced with this incompetence, she decides to promote /OwenKellogg to superintendent of the Ohio Division.
---
> /DagnyTaggart is riding the /TaggartComet back to /NewYork after inspecting the /RioNorteLine.  She hears a /BrakemaN whistling an unpublished piece from her favorite composer, /RichardHalley, but the brakeman refuses to acknowledge this or say where he heard it.  After falling asleep and waking up, Dagny discovers the train has come to a stop at a siding.  She finds the train crew passively waiting instructions, and gives them orders on how to proceed.  Faced with this incompetence, she decides to promote /OwenKellogg to superintendent of the Ohio Division.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN113|981176706
4c4
< Dagny and the Comet arrive at the Taggart Terminal.  She gets off the train inadvertently whistling the theme from Halley's Fifth Concerto.  The brakeman watches her tensely.
---
> /DagnyTaggart and the Comet arrive at the Taggart Terminal.  She gets off the train inadvertently whistling the theme from /HalleysFifthConcerto.  The /BrakemaN watches her tensely.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN114|981176736
4c4
< Dagny meets with /JamesTaggart and /EddieWillers.  She informs them that she has ordered /ReardenMetal from /ReardenSteel to be used to replace the tracks of the /RioNorteLine.  Later she calls /MrAyers to determine if /RichardHalley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with /OwenKellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
---
> /DagnyTaggart meets with /JamesTaggart and /EddieWillers.  She informs them that she has ordered /ReardenMetal from /ReardenSteel to be used to replace the tracks of the /RioNorteLine.  Later she calls /MrAyers to determine if /RichardHalley ever published a Fifth Concerto.  Mr. Ayers says he has not.  Dagny meets with /OwenKellogg who tells her he is quiting for personal reasons, nothing can make him stay - not even the promotion Dagny had decided to give him.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|981176771
4c4
< Hank Rearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|981176794
4c4
< /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triump, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|981176821
4c4
< /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is pured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is poured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN132|981177013
24c24
< The /NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the /NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
---
> The /NewsstandOwner explicitly explains the symbolism of cigarettes: "I like to think of fire held in man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."  This is a character explaining what cigarettes symbolize to him - it is not a use of literary symbolism.  The literary symbolism of this passage is established when the /NewsstandOwner likens the fire of a cigarette to the fire of the mind.  In Greek mythology, it was this gift of fire that raised men up.  In AtlasShrugged, it is the achievements of the mind that raise men up.  So the disappearance of most of the old brands of cigarettes, which the /NewsstandOwner bemoans, is symbolic of the disappearance of the men of the mind.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN141|981177094
1c1
< /DagnyTaggart visits /UnitedLocomotiveWorks to determine why they consistently fail to deliver the Diesel engines she ordered.  The /PresidentofULW talks four hours without answering directly or saying anything of substance.  After returning to the office, /EddieWillers informs Dagny that /McNamara has quit without explanation.  As Dagny walks home that night she sees the depravity that passes for popular culture: books and movies that trivialize what is glorious, demonize what is moral, and exalt what is base; people who act as if pleasure were a sin that one gets away with.  Depressed, she returns home and listens the soul tonic of /RichardHalley.  While she listens, she recalls Halley's struggles as a young composer, his sudden success, and his mysterious disappearance.  She sees in the newspaper that /FranciscoDAnconia has returned to /NewYork amidst a scandal in which a married woman tried to kill her husband so she could be with Francisco, who she identifies as her lover.  Francisco says he came to New York to witness the farce - but it is not the farce people are led to beleive that he wants to witness.
---
> /DagnyTaggart visits /UnitedLocomotiveWorks to determine why they consistently fail to deliver the Diesel engines she ordered.  The /PresidentofULW talks for hours without answering directly or saying anything of substance.  After returning to the office, /EddieWillers informs Dagny that /McNamara has quit without explanation.  As Dagny walks home that night she sees the depravity that passes for popular culture: books and movies that trivialize what is glorious, demonize what is moral, and exalt what is base; people who act as if pleasure were a sin that one gets away with.  Depressed, she returns home and listens the soul tonic of /RichardHalley.  While she listens, she recalls Halley's struggles as a young composer, his sudden success, and his mysterious disappearance.  She sees in the newspaper that /FranciscoDAnconia has returned to /NewYork amidst a scandal in which a married woman tried to kill her husband so she could be with Francisco, who she identifies as her lover.  Francisco says he came to New York to witness the farce - but it is not the farce people are led to beleive that he wants to witness.
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|981177188
9c9
<  /SectioN141 - Mentioned.
---
>  /SectioN141 - Mentioned prominently.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN142|981177218
2c2
< /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down his /DagnyTaggart for what he did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
---
> /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down /DagnyTaggart for what he did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN142|981177231
2c2
< /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down /DagnyTaggart for what he did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
---
> /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down /DagnyTaggart for what she did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN142|981177243
2c2
< /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down /DagnyTaggart for what she did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
---
> /JamesTaggart awakes at noon, hungover, in his apartment with /BettyPope, with whom he is having a romanceless sexual affair.  He brags about how he is going to bring down /DagnyTaggart for what she did to the /SanSebastianLine.  But before he has a chance to do this, he receives a call from his man in /Mexico telling him the line and the /SanSebastianMines have been nationalized, just as Dagny predicted.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981177298
29a30
>  /ClarenceEddington
------
AtlasShrugged/ClarenceEddington|981177358
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An economic consultant who /JamesTaggart blames for the decision to build the /SanSebastianLine.
> 
> He is mentioned in /SectioN144.
------
AtlasShrugged/ClarenceEddington|981177374
3c3
< He is mentioned in /SectioN144.
---
> He is mentioned in /SectioN143.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN144|981177423
2c2
< /OrrenBoyle meets with /JamesTaggart about the Mexican disaster.  They can't believe /FranciscoDAnconia was swindled out of fifteen million dollars, and they assume he must know something they don't know.  James Taggart tries to get make appointment with Francisco but he refuses to see him, because Francisco finds him boring.
---
> /OrrenBoyle meets with /JamesTaggart about the Mexican disaster.  They can't believe /FranciscoDAnconia was swindled out of fifteen million dollars, and they assume he must know something they don't know.  James Taggart tries to make an appointment with Francisco but he refuses to see him, because Francisco finds him boring.
------
WolF|981178098
4a5,6
> *NOTE from TimShell - This is a good wolf article but the opening paragraph is really unobjective.  "quintessential wild animal", "ill-advised battle against natural predators", and "People are willing to believe that this creature is related to northern breeds of dogs, but not to their beloved Poodles" are all phrases that will be widely contested.
> 
------
KingdomAnimalia|981181232
46c46
< * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens, AardvarK)
---
> * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens, AardvarK, WolF)
------
KingdomAnimalia|981183793
0a1,2
> ''I'd like to start filling in some of these categories, so that new animals can be filed into a tree rather than a flat list.  However, I'm not entirely sure I like the naming system I originally came up with.  Does anyone have an opinion on whether subcategories should be things like PhylumPorifera, PoriFera or SpongE?''
> 
------
WikiPediaFaq|981188971
81a82,83
> ----
> '''Q. Is there a wiki spell check of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''
------
ProjectName|981189235
6a7
> * Anoichtopedia
------
WikiPediaFaq|981189245
83c83
< '''Q. Is there a wiki spell check of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''
---
> '''Q. Is there a wiki <i>spell check</i> of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''
------
KingdomAnimalia|981193476
2a3,8
> Characteristics that set cells off from other eukaryotes:
> * Oogamous, with anteriorly uniflagellate sperm
> * Multicellular diploid individuals with an initial blastula stage (ie zygote divides to form a hollow sphere)
> * Cells separated by septate junctions, presence of collagen in extracellular matrix
> ...and that's about it.  In the "higher" animals (Metazoa) the individuals are differentiated into a variety of cell types, usually grouped to form distinct organs, and typically include muscles and nerves.  The individual is radially or bilaterally symmetrical and has a definite adult morphology (unlike a plant, which just sort of grows).
> 
------
KingdomAnimalia|981193499
3c3
< Characteristics that set cells off from other eukaryotes:
---
> Characteristics that set animals off from other eukaryotes:
------
HomePage|981194466
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, Be Bold In Updating Pages!
3c3
< BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
---
> Business And Economics -- Countries Of The World -- Mathematics And Statistics -- History -- Language -- Religion -- United States -- Politics -- Music -- Sports -- Philosophy -- Science -- Technology --Arts and Entertainment -- Dance -- Literary Art -- Recreation -- Architecture -- Quotes -- Human Computer Interaction -- Category Schemes
5c5
< Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
---
> Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of Requested Articles.
7c7
< Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on ReviewRequests.
---
> Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on Review Requests.
10,16c10,16
< * WhatIsaWiki?  WhatsaWikiFor?  WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
< * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
< * WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia?
< * What are your NewTopics?  Where's the BrilliantProse?  How can we avoid PatentNonsense?
< * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia CategorySchemes?
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikiPediaProcess and WikipediaL.
---
> * What Is a Wiki?  What's a Wiki For?  Why On Earth Would I Want To Contribute To a Wiki?
> * How Does One Edit a Page?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
> * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So Why Arent These Pages Copyedited?
> * Whats The Relationship Between Wikipedia And Nupedia?
> * What are your New Topics?  Where's the Brilliant Prose?  How can we avoid Patent Nonsense?
> * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia Category Schemes?
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPedia Faq.  See also WikiPedia Process and WikipediaL.
18c18
< We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.
---
> We have a Wiki Pedia Announcements page.  Read it; add to it.
21,23c21,23
< * GNUStufF
< * WhichWikiShouldWeUse
< * BritannicaPublicDomain
---
> * GNU StufF
> * Which Wiki Should We Use
> * Britannica Public Domain
------
HomePage|981195104
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, Be Bold In Updating Pages!
---
> This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
3c3
< Business And Economics -- Countries Of The World -- Mathematics And Statistics -- History -- Language -- Religion -- United States -- Politics -- Music -- Sports -- Philosophy -- Science -- Technology --Arts and Entertainment -- Dance -- Literary Art -- Recreation -- Architecture -- Quotes -- Human Computer Interaction -- Category Schemes
---
> BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
5c5
< Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of Requested Articles.
---
> Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
7c7
< Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on Review Requests.
---
> Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on ReviewRequests.
10,16c10,16
< * What Is a Wiki?  What's a Wiki For?  Why On Earth Would I Want To Contribute To a Wiki?
< * How Does One Edit a Page?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
< * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So Why Arent These Pages Copyedited?
< * Whats The Relationship Between Wikipedia And Nupedia?
< * What are your New Topics?  Where's the Brilliant Prose?  How can we avoid Patent Nonsense?
< * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia Category Schemes?
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPedia Faq.  See also WikiPedia Process and WikipediaL.
---
> * WhatIsaWiki?  WhatsaWikiFor?  WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
> * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
> * WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia?
> * What are your NewTopics?  Where's the BrilliantProse?  How can we avoid PatentNonsense?
> * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia CategorySchemes?
> If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikiPediaProcess and WikipediaL.
18c18
< We have a Wiki Pedia Announcements page.  Read it; add to it.
---
> We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.
21,23c21,23
< * GNU StufF
< * Which Wiki Should We Use
< * Britannica Public Domain
---
> * GNUStufF
> * WhichWikiShouldWeUse
> * BritannicaPublicDomain
------
KingdomAnimalia|981196864
1c1
< ''I'd like to start filling in some of these categories, so that new animals can be filed into a tree rather than a flat list.  However, I'm not entirely sure I like the naming system I originally came up with.  Does anyone have an opinion on whether subcategories should be things like PhylumPorifera, PoriFera or SpongE?''
---
> ''I'd like to start filling in some of the phyla, so that new animals can be filed into a tree rather than a flat list.  However, I'm not entirely sure I like the naming system I originally came up with.  Does anyone have an opinion on whether subcategories should be things like PhylumPorifera, PoriFera or SpongE?''
3,7c3,11
< Characteristics that set animals off from other eukaryotes:
< * Oogamous, with anteriorly uniflagellate sperm
< * Multicellular diploid individuals with an initial blastula stage (ie zygote divides to form a hollow sphere)
< * Cells separated by septate junctions, presence of collagen in extracellular matrix
< ...and that's about it.  In the "higher" animals (Metazoa) the individuals are differentiated into a variety of cell types, usually grouped to form distinct organs, and typically include muscles and nerves.  The individual is radially or bilaterally symmetrical and has a definite adult morphology (unlike a plant, which just sort of grows).
---
> '''Characteristics of Animals'''
> 
> Animals are all multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes.  The adults are all diploids and oogamous, ie there is a large non-motile female gamete and a tiny male gamete, which has a characteristic posterior flagellum.  The one finds the other and they fuse to form a zygote, which divides to form a hollow sphere of cells.  
> 
> Other groups have reached this level of organization, eg the green alga ''Volvox.''  But animals have been able to develop much further, thanks to the way the cells are held together.  Instead of being rigidly bound by cell walls, they are linked by much more elastic septate junctions, composing an extracellular matrix including the unique structural protein collagen.  This forms a framework in which cells can be moved about, allowing for much more complicated differentiation.
> 
> The result of this flexibility is an incredible diversity of animal forms.  Except for a few phyla, most notably the sponges, all animals are metazoans: the body is composed of three separate layers (the endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm) with distinct tissues, including muscles and nerves, and is often separated out to form organs.  Most metazoans have a clear adult form, as compared with other multicellular organisms that usually just grow.
> 
> '''Phyla of animals'''
------
KingdomAnimalia|981196920
5c5
< Animals are all multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes.  The adults are all diploids and oogamous, ie there is a large non-motile female gamete and a tiny male gamete, which has a characteristic posterior flagellum.  The one finds the other and they fuse to form a zygote, which divides to form a hollow sphere of cells.  
---
> Animals are all multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes.  The adults are all diploids and oogamous, ie there is a large non-motile female gamete and a tiny male gamete, which has a characteristic posterior flagellum.  The one finds the other and they fuse to form a zygote, which divides to form a hollow sphere of cells called a ''blastula.''
------
KingdomAnimalia|981197736
22c22
< * PhylumCnidaria (=Ctenophora)
---
> * PhylumCnidaria (=Coelentrata)
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981213049
17a18,21
> ----
> Tim, I know you mean well and are trying to provide some decent data on standard of living.  But a good deal of this was clearly selected to lead to a particular impression which it doesn't directly support.  For instance, fewer people have cars in the UK.  However, the UK is a lot smaller than the US, and could quite conceivably have a better system of public transport, so that cars aren't nearly so useful, even as luxuries.  And on the other side of the coin, I suspect that there are many omitted statistics that would go the other way - for instance, how do America's poor compare in education?
> 
> I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias.  That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981214723
21c21
< I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias.  That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral.
---
> I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias.  That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral.  A brief search reveals that there are ''many'' criticisms of his obviously popular works available for comparison purposes.
------
LibertarianisM|981215770
7a8,9
> 
> ''Libertarians certainly believe that the state shouldn't violate individual rights, but that doesn't mean they don't fall on a political spectrum.  Things aren't nearly as simple as state vs non-state; there's the mob, the aristocracy, and the private sector to be considered, and different kinds of libertarian have different opinions about them.''
------
LibertarianisM|981215829
9c9
< ''Libertarians certainly believe that the state shouldn't violate individual rights, but that doesn't mean they don't fall on a political spectrum.  Things aren't nearly as simple as state vs non-state; there's the mob, the aristocracy, and the private sector to be considered, and different kinds of libertarian have different opinions about them.''
---
> ''Libertarians certainly believe that the state shouldn't violate individual rights, but that doesn't mean they don't fall on a political spectrum.  Things aren't nearly as simple as state vs non-state; there's the mob, the aristocracy, and the private sector to be considered, and different kinds of libertarian have different opinions about them.  The LP of the US falls clearly into the right wing category.''
------
JulianSimon|981216589
6a7,11
> Many of the writings of Julian Simon are available online at:
> http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/
> ----
> ''The following statements are of opinion, not fact, and should really be dropped.  Simon's works are controversial and so should not be proclaimed factual.  His works may be creative, and even genius, but so were those of Marx, and most people disagree with those - or show bitter hostilities to them, if you prefer to use the term.''
> 
11,12d15
< Many of the writings of Julian Simon are available online at:
< http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/
------
MeaningfulNess|981218610
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, WikiFication is encouraged>
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981220080
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText that has been wikified; further wikification is encouraged> 
3c3
< Let me introduce the mind-body problem with an example.  Suppose I decide to walk across the room, whereupon I do in fact walk across the room.  In the jargon I’ve just introduced, my decision is a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i>; and my walking across the room is a <i>physical</i> <i>event</i>.  Now on anybody’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved here; namely, something happens in my brain, which tells my legs to start walking.  And this brain event is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
---
> The mind-body problem can be introduced with an example.  Suppose John decides to walk across the room, whereupon he does in fact walk across the room.  John's decision is a <i>MentalEvent</i>; and my walking across the room is a <i>physical</i> <i>event</i>.  Now on anybody’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved here; namely, something happens in my brain, which tells my legs to start walking.  And this brain event is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981220159
15c15
< It also concerns something I am calling "mental events."  That’s one bit of terminology I will introduce.  We need some sort of catch-all phrase that means <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>occurrence</i> of something going on in the mind.  So say I’m walking across the Oval and I <i>see</i> University Hall.  That instance of seeing University Hall is an instance of <i>perception</i> -- something that is supposed to be going on in my mind.  So let’s call that instance of seeing a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i>.  It’s an <i>event</i> because it is something that happens; and it’s <i>mental</i> because it happens in my mind.  If I think to myself, "I am a human being," that thought is a mental event; if I feel happy after doing well on an exam, that’s a mental event.  And so on.
---
> It also concerns something I am calling "MentalEvent''''s."
------
MentalEvent|981220331
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Mental event'' is a sort of catch-all phrase that means <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>occurrence</i> of something going on in the mind.  So say Mary is walking through a park and she <i>sees</i> City Hall.  That instance of seeing City Hall is an instance of <i>perception</i> -- something that is supposed to be going on in Mary's mind.  That instance of seeing is a mental event.  It’s an <i>event</i> because it is something that happens; and it’s <i>mental</i> because it happens in someone's mind.  If Mary thinks to herself, "I am a human being," that thought is a mental event; if she feels happy after doing well on an exam, that’s a mental event.  And so on.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981220439
11c11
< <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>mind</i> is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, and consciousness.
---
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>mind</i> is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind, MentalEvents, MentalFunctions, and ConsciousNess.
13,17c13
< So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  We’ve already talked about that a little, when we discussed the problem of substance as applied to minds.  So let’s talk about the other parts of this definition.
< 
< It also concerns something I am calling "MentalEvent''''s."
< 
< Now look at the next phrase in the definition I gave: "mental functions."  I might as well have said "cognitive processes" instead.  So what are "mental functions" or "cognitive processes"?  I will use those two phrases, "mental functions" and "cognitive processes," interchangeably.  I mean simply such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion.  In other words, all the different things that we can do with our minds.  The event of perceiving University Hall is, of course, different from the entire process, or faculty, of perception, my ability to perceive things.  An instance of seeing is different of course from the ability that makes it possible.  So whenever I engage in one of those cognitive processes like perception, belief, emotion, and so on, a mental event occurs.
---
> So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  We’ve already talked about that a little, when we discussed the problem of substance as applied to minds.
------
MentalFunctions|981220634
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "Mental functions" and "cognitive processes" can be used interchangeably to mean such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion--in other words, all the different things that we can do with our minds.  The event of perceiving City Hall is, of course, different from the entire process, or faculty, of perception--one's ability to perceive things.  In other words, in instance of perceiving is different from the ability that makes it possible.
> 
> Whenever one engage in one a cognitive processes, a MentalEvent occurs.
------
MentalFunctions|981220656
1c1
< "Mental functions" and "cognitive processes" can be used interchangeably to mean such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion--in other words, all the different things that we can do with our minds.  The event of perceiving City Hall is, of course, different from the entire process, or faculty, of perception--one's ability to perceive things.  In other words, in instance of perceiving is different from the ability that makes it possible.
---
> ''Mental functions'' and ''cognitive processes'' can be used interchangeably to mean such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, imagination, conception, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion--in other words, all the different things that we can do with our minds.  The event of perceiving City Hall is, of course, different from the entire process, or faculty, of perception--one's ability to perceive things.  In other words, in instance of perceiving is different from the ability that makes it possible.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981220672
11c11
< <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>mind</i> is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind, MentalEvents, MentalFunctions, and ConsciousNess.
---
> <i>Philosophy</i> <i>of</i> <i>mind</i> is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind, MentalEvent''''s, MentalFunctions, and ConsciousNess.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981220775
13,23c13
< So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  We’ve already talked about that a little, when we discussed the problem of substance as applied to minds.
< 
< There is, moreover, one mental function that accompanies some, or perhaps all, mental events, namely, <i>consciousness</i>.  "Consciousness" is the last term in the definition of "philosophy of mind" I gave.  Often, in ordinary contexts, when we say we are "conscious" we simply mean that we are awake.  But in a philosophical context, the word "consciousness" means something like awareness, or the fact that the mind is as it were directed at something or other.  So when we perceive, we are conscious of what we perceive; when we introspect, we are conscious of our thoughts; when we remember, we are conscious of something that happened in the past, or of some piece of information that we learned; and so on.
< 
< Now, in this philosophical sense of the word "conscious," we are conscious even when we are dreaming; namely, we are conscious of what’s happening in the dream.  But sleep researchers believe there is a sleep stage that happens, called "deep sleep," in which apparently we are not conscious of anything in any sense.  No mental processes that involve consciousness in an ordinary or a philosophical sense are going on.  So deep, dreamless sleep would be an instance where you are alive, and your brain is functioning, but there are no mental events occurring in which there is any element of <i>consciousness</i>.
< 
< Now just a bit more about consciousness.  There has been some debate about the following question: <i>Must</i> one be conscious, in the philosophical sense, whenever a mental event occurs?  For example, is it possible to have a <i>pain</i> which I do not feel?  Some people think not; they think that, in order for something to <i>be</i> a pain, I have to feel it, or be aware of it.  Similarly, if anything is a thought, then I have to be aware of what I’m thinking of; if there is no consciousness, no awareness, of anything at all, then I’m not thinking.  That’s what some philosophers debate about, anyway: Do mental events <i>necessarily</i> involve consciousness?
< 
< Well, what if we answer "No"?  Then of course what we’d be saying is that there are some mental events which do not include an element of consciousness.  These events are going on even though we aren’t aware of them.  In other words, part of the mind is <i>unconscious</i>.  And when I put it like that I’m sure you will be able to recognize what I’m talking about.  Psychologists of course believe that many cognitive processes are unconscious; we are aware of only <i>some</i> of the stuff that’s going on in our minds.  But that is a fairly recent view, something that was made popular only after Freud.
< 
< Let’s return now to the definition of the philosophy of mind I gave.  I said it is the philosophical study of the nature of the mind and of mental functions.  So some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
---
> So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  Some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
------
HumanComputerInteraction|981220833
29a30,31
> Adam I have to agree with you 100%. There is nothing more annoying than FlashingBanners while trying to read a page. [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WcGing WcGing]
> 
------
ConsciousNess|981221161
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> There is, on the view of very many philosophers, one mental function that accompanies some, or perhaps all, MentalEvents, namely, <i>consciousness.</i>  Often, in ordinary contexts, when we say we are "conscious" we simply mean that we are awake.  But in a philosophical context, the word "consciousness" means something like awareness, or the fact that the mind is as it were directed at something or other.  So when we perceive, we are conscious of what we perceive; when we introspect, we are conscious of our thoughts; when we remember, we are conscious of something that happened in the past, or of some piece of information that we learned; and so on.
> 
> In this philosophical sense of the word "conscious," we are conscious even when we are dreaming; we are conscious of what’s happening in the dream.  But sleep researchers believe there is a sleep stage that happens, called "deep sleep," in which apparently we are not conscious of anything in any sense.  No mental processes that involve consciousness in an ordinary or a philosophical sense are going on.  So deep, dreamless sleep would be an instance in which one is alive, and one's brain is functioning, but there are no mental events occurring in which there is any element of consciousness.
> 
> There has been some debate about the following question: <i>Must</i> one be conscious, in the philosophical sense, whenever a mental event occurs?  For example, is it possible to have a <i>pain</i> that one does not feel?  Some people think not; they think that, in order for something to <i>be</i> a pain, one has to feel it or be aware of it.  Similarly, if anything is a thought, then one has to be aware of that of which one is thinking (indeed, that seems nearly a tautology); if there is no consciousness, no awareness, of anything at all, then one is not thinking.  Philosophers ask: Do MentalEvents <i>necessarily</i> involve consciousness?
> 
> Suppose we answer "No."  Then of course what we’d be saying is that there are some MentalEvent""s that do not include an element of consciousness.  These events are going on even though we aren’t aware of them.  In other words, part of the mind is <i>unconscious.</i>  Put like that, it's easy to recognize why the thesis is compelling.  Psychologists of course believe that many cognitive processes are unconscious; we are aware of only <i>some</i> of the stuff that’s going on in our minds.  That is a fairly recent view, something that was made popular only after Freud.
------
ConsciousNess|981221232
1c1
< There is, on the view of very many philosophers, one mental function that accompanies some, or perhaps all, MentalEvents, namely, <i>consciousness.</i>  Often, in ordinary contexts, when we say we are "conscious" we simply mean that we are awake.  But in a philosophical context, the word "consciousness" means something like awareness, or the fact that the mind is as it were directed at something or other.  So when we perceive, we are conscious of what we perceive; when we introspect, we are conscious of our thoughts; when we remember, we are conscious of something that happened in the past, or of some piece of information that we learned; and so on.
---
> There is, on the view of very many philosophers, one mental function that accompanies some, or perhaps all, MentalEvent""s, namely, <i>consciousness.</i>  Often, in ordinary contexts, when we say we are "conscious" we simply mean that we are awake.  But in a philosophical context, the word "consciousness" means something like awareness, or the fact that the mind is as it were directed at something or other.  So when we perceive, we are conscious of what we perceive; when we introspect, we are conscious of our thoughts; when we remember, we are conscious of something that happened in the past, or of some piece of information that we learned; and so on.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981221467
19c19
< But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between mental events and physical events -- you know, events that occur in the body, including the brain.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
---
> But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between MentalEvents and PhysicalEvents.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981221494
19c19
< But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between MentalEvents and PhysicalEvents.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
---
> But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
------
PhysicalEvent|981221583
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Physical events'' are events that occur in the physical world, including the brain and other parts of the human body.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  These are to be distinguished from MentalEvents.
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981222193
3c3,7
< The mind-body problem can be introduced with an example.  Suppose John decides to walk across the room, whereupon he does in fact walk across the room.  John's decision is a <i>MentalEvent</i>; and my walking across the room is a <i>physical</i> <i>event</i>.  Now on anybody’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved here; namely, something happens in my brain, which tells my legs to start walking.  And this brain event is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
---
> ''The mind-body problem'' is the problem of determining the relationship between the human body and its mind.  Are our minds something different from our physical bodies?  Suppose we think that the mind is a substance of some sort--a MentalSubstance.  We might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, a mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will we maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that we cannot explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?
> 
> Suppose instead that we deny that the mind is some mysterious substance, and we hold instead that there are only <i>MentalEvent""s</i> and that "the mind" designates no more than a series of mental events?  We can still inquire about the relation between mind and body a different way, in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when John feels a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in John's brain, such as the firing of some special group of NeuroN""s?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  
> 
> The mind-body problem can be introduced more fully with an example.  Suppose John decides to walk across the room, whereupon he does in fact walk across the room.  John's decision is a MentalEvent and his walking across the room is a PhysicalEvent.  On anyone’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved, namely, something happens in John's brain, which tells John's legs to start walking.  This BrainEvent is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
------
BrainEvent|981222327
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Anything that happens in the brain is a ''brain event.''  While clearly a kind of PhysicalEvent, some philosophers, when they discuss TheMindBodyProblem, argue that ''some'' (certainly not all) brain events are also MentalEvents.
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981222607
7c7
< The mind-body problem can be introduced more fully with an example.  Suppose John decides to walk across the room, whereupon he does in fact walk across the room.  John's decision is a MentalEvent and his walking across the room is a PhysicalEvent.  On anyone’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved, namely, something happens in John's brain, which tells John's legs to start walking.  This BrainEvent is <i>closely</i> connected with my decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, I decided to walk across the room.  Now we might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea seems, or might seem, absurd.
---
> The mind-body problem can be introduced more fully with an example.  Suppose John decides to walk across the room, whereupon he does in fact walk across the room.  John's decision is a MentalEvent and his walking across the room is a PhysicalEvent.  On anyone’s accounting, there is <i>another</i> physical event involved, namely, something happens in John's brain, which tells John's legs to start walking.  This BrainEvent is <i>closely</i> connected with John's decision; the brain event happens at about the same time, or right after, John decides to walk across the room.  We might ask: How is it possible that a decision, which is something mental, resulted in something in your brain, which is something physical?  If we say that the mental and the physical are <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i>, then how can one have any <i>causal</i> impact on the other?  How can a mere mental event, a decision, actually cause neurons in my brain to start firing?  The very idea might seem absurd.
9c9
< So maybe a better description of the situation is this: my decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When I decide to take my trip across the room, a group of neurons fire in my brain.  I am not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as my decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.  Now, I don’t know if you can understand that proposal; to a lot of people it sounds really strange to say that a mental process is no more than a special kind of physical process.  The mind, they say, is more spiritual, ethereal, and so it just isn’t the <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i>  that can be physical.  And they have other reasons as well for rejecting this reduction of the mental to the physical.
---
> On one view (see PhilosophicalView) to be introduced, a better description of the situation is this: John's decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When John decides to take my trip across the room, a group of NeuroN""s fire in his brain.  He is not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as his decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So, on the view in question, there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.  Now, I don’t know if you can understand that proposal; to a lot of people it sounds really strange to say that a mental process is no more than a special kind of physical process.  The mind, they say, is more spiritual, ethereal, and so it just isn’t the <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i>  that can be physical.  And they have other reasons as well for rejecting this reduction of the mental to the physical.
------
PhilosophicalView|981222709
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Philosophers are fond of describing the stands they take on particular philosophical disputes as ''views.''  They also call them ''theories.''  These are all instances of PhilosophicalJargon.
------
PhilosophicalView|981222742
1c1
< Philosophers are fond of describing the stands they take on particular philosophical disputes as ''views.''  They also call them ''theories.''  These are all instances of PhilosophicalJargon.
---
> Philosophers are fond of describing the stands they take on particular philosophical disputes as ''views.''  They also call them ''theories.''  These phrases are instances of PhilosophicalJargon.
------
FootBall|981222831
37c37,39
< Yahoo! UK - just as any other decent sports site - calls it European FootBall in order to distinguish between FootBall played in Europe and FootBall played on other continents, eg. South America. I would like to remind my fellow Americans that FootBall, by definition is played using one's feet, and not by holding on to it with your hands and running around like a headless chicken.
---
> Yahoo! UK - just as any other decent sports site - calls it European FootBall in order to distinguish between FootBall played in Europe and FootBall played on other continents, eg. South America. I would like to remind my fellow Americans that FootBall, by definition is played using one's feet, and not by holding on to it with your hands and running around like a headless chicken.
> ----
> And then enters the [http://www.bomis.com/rings/xfl XFL] or [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?XfL XfL]
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981223024
9c9
< On one view (see PhilosophicalView) to be introduced, a better description of the situation is this: John's decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When John decides to take my trip across the room, a group of NeuroN""s fire in his brain.  He is not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as his decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So, on the view in question, there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.  Now, I don’t know if you can understand that proposal; to a lot of people it sounds really strange to say that a mental process is no more than a special kind of physical process.  The mind, they say, is more spiritual, ethereal, and so it just isn’t the <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i>  that can be physical.  And they have other reasons as well for rejecting this reduction of the mental to the physical.
---
> On one view (see PhilosophicalView) to be introduced, a better description of the situation is this: John's decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When John decides to take my trip across the room, a group of NeuroN""s fire in his brain.  He is not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as his decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So, on the view in question, there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.
11c11
< So in fact what <i>some</i> philosophers have believed -- but hardly anyone anymore -- is that the reduction goes the other way.  We should explain what bodies are in terms of mental goings-on; so the physical can be reduced to the mental.  When I walked across the room, really that was happening <i>only</i> in my mind, or in our minds all at the same time.  There is, on this view, nothing more to my walking across the room than our having the thought, or the perception, that that happens.  This view would also solve the problem of how the mental can affect the physical.  Since physical events are themselves nothing more than a special kind of mental event, then of course there isn’t any trouble about how a decision, which is obviously a mental event, can result in my body moving, which is also a mental event, although less obviously so.
---
> To many people it sounds really strange to say that a mental process is no more than a special kind of physical process.  The mind, they say, is more spiritual, ethereal, and so it simply is not the <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>thing</i>  that can be physical.  And they have other reasons as well for rejecting this reduction of the mental to the physical.
13c13
< Explaining a piece of terminology will be helpful here.  I’ve been talking about <i>reducing</i> the mental to the physical, and <i>reducing</i> the physical to the mental; so what exactly does "reduction" mean?  This is itself a very difficult, complicated question, but we’re going to have to ignore the difficulties.  The <i>basic</i> notion is this: If I <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever I talk about X, I can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead</i>.  So if I reduce the mental to the physical, then whenever I talk of pains, thoughts, and decisions, I can be understood as talking about physical events in my brain.  But then you might ask: does that mean that I think that pains, thoughts, and decisions don’t <i>exist</i>?  Well, not necessarily; and usually not.
---
> So in fact what <i>some</i> philosophers have believed instead--but hardly anyone anymore--is that the ReducTion goes the other way.  We should explain what bodies are in terms of mental goings-on; so the physical can be reduced to the mental.  When John walked across the room, really that was happening <i>only</i> in John's mind and perhaps also in each of our minds individually at the same time.  There is, on this view, nothing more to John's walking across the room than our having the thought, or the perception, that that happens.  This view would also solve the problem of how the mental can affect the physical.  Since physical events are themselves nothing more than a special kind of mental event, then of course there is no trouble about how a decision, which is obviously a mental event, can result in our bodies moving, which is also a mental event, although less obviously so.
15c15
< Let me give you an example of a reduction in a field we’ve already studied.  Take the bundle theory.  The bundle theory says that objects may be reduced to collections of properties; so whenever we talk about objects, we can be understood to be talking about bundles of properties.  Now let me ask you: do you think that the bundle theory says that <i>objects</i> <i>don’t</i> <i>exist</i> ?  Well, maybe not objects as we had thought of them; but the theory <i>is</i> trying to give an account of what objects <i>are</i>; namely, they are bundles of properties!  So the bundle theory saying that objects don’t <i>exist</i> -- just that they are the same as bundles of properties.  Philosophers mean about the same thing when they talk about what exists <i>ultimately</i>.  The bundle theory says that <i>ultimately</i>, it’s properties and bundles that exist, not objects.  The things that exist "ultimately" are precisely the things to which other things are reduced.
---
> CONTINUE WIKIFICATION FROM HERE
------
ReducTion|981223456
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Reduction'' is a difficult piece of philosophical terminology.  The <i>basic</i> notion is this: If we <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever we talk about X, we can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead.</i>
> 
> So, for example, if we reduce the mental to the physical, then whenever we talk of pains, thoughts, and decisions, we can be understood as talking about physical events in the brain.  Does that mean that we must then think that pains, thoughts, and decisions don’t <i>exist</i>?  Not necessarily and usually not.
> 
> Here is an example of a reduction from MetaPhysics.  The BundleTheory says that objects can be reduced to collections of properties; so whenever we talk about objects, we can be understood to be talking about bundles of properties.  Does this mean that the bundle theory says that <i>objects</i> <i>don’t</i> <i>exist</i> ?  Perhaps not objects as we had thought of them, but the theory <i>is</i> trying to give an account of what objects <i>are</i>; namely, they are bundles of properties.  So the bundle theory is not denying that objects <i>exist</i>--just that objects are the same as bundles of properties.  The only reason one would have for maintaining, then that the bundle theory holds that objects do not exist is if you think that, according to our ordinary concepts, something simply ''cannot'' both be a bundle of properties ''and'' an object.  
> 
> Philosophers mean about the same thing when they talk about what exists <i>ultimately</i>.  For example, the bundle theory says that <i>ultimately</i>, properties and bundles thereof exist, rather than objects.  The things that exist "ultimately" are precisely the things to which other things are reduced.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981223602
17c17
< But of course there are <i>other</i> questions we could ask about what the mind is.  For example, is the mind something different from physical bodies?  Suppose you think that the mind is a substance of some sort -- a mental substance.  You might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, this mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will you maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that you can’t explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?  All right, that’s one question.
---
> But of course there are <i>other</i> questions we could ask about what the mind is.  Are our minds something different from our physical bodies?  Suppose we think that the mind is a substance of some sort--a MentalSubstance.  We might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, a mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will we maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that we cannot explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?
19c19
< But what if we don’t think that the mind is some mysterious substance, and that there are only mental <i>events</i>, and that the mind is no more than a series of mental events?  Well, we can still ask the last question, about the relation between mind and body, a different way.  And this other way of putting it is probably better.  We can put it in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when I feel a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in my brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons?  Now this question we <i>will</i> examine.  I’ll explain the problem more completely later on; the problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
---
> Suppose instead that we deny that the mind is some mysterious substance, and we hold instead that there are only <i>MentalEvent""s</i> and that "the mind" designates no more than a series of mental events?  We can still inquire about the relation between mind and body a different way, in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when John feels a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in John's brain, such as the firing of some special group of NeuroN""s?  The problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981223681
13c13
< So the philosophy of mind is concerned with the nature of the mind.  Some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
---
> Some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
17c17
< But of course there are <i>other</i> questions we could ask about what the mind is.  Are our minds something different from our physical bodies?  Suppose we think that the mind is a substance of some sort--a MentalSubstance.  We might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, a mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will we maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that we cannot explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?
---
> But of course there are <i>other</i> questions we could ask about what the mind is; we might raise TheMindBodyProblem.  Are our minds something different from our physical bodies?  Suppose we think that the mind is a substance of some sort--a MentalSubstance.  We might still ask: Is there some way to explain what the mind, a mental substance, <i>is</i>, in terms of physical substance?  Or will we maintain that the mind is something <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical bodies, and that we cannot explain what the one is in terms of the other at all?
19c19
< Suppose instead that we deny that the mind is some mysterious substance, and we hold instead that there are only <i>MentalEvent""s</i> and that "the mind" designates no more than a series of mental events?  We can still inquire about the relation between mind and body a different way, in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when John feels a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in John's brain, such as the firing of some special group of NeuroN""s?  The problem is called "TheMindBodyProblem."
---
> Suppose instead that we deny that the mind is some mysterious substance, and we hold instead that there are only <i>MentalEvent""s</i> and that "the mind" designates no more than a series of mental events?  We can still inquire about the relation between mind and body a different way, in terms of the relation between MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s.  We can ask: Are mental events <i>totally</i> <i>different</i> from physical events, so that you can’t explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events <i>somehow</i> explainable as being the <i>same</i> as physical events?  For example, when John feels a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even <i>possibly</i> the same as something that occurs in John's brain, such as the firing of some special group of NeuroN""s?
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981223952
9c9
< On one view (see PhilosophicalView) to be introduced, a better description of the situation is this: John's decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When John decides to take my trip across the room, a group of NeuroN""s fire in his brain.  He is not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as his decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So, on the view in question, there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.
---
> On one view (see PhilosophicalView), a better description of the situation is this: John's decision is <i>itself</i> a physical event.  When John decides to take my trip across the room, a group of NeuroN""s fire in his brain.  He is not aware of those neurons; but the firing of those neurons is itself just the same as his decision.  There isn’t any more to the decision than that physical event.  So, on the view in question, there’s no trouble thinking about how a mental event can have a physical effect; mental events are <i>themselves</i> physical.  Ultimately, <i>everything</i> is physical.
15c15
< CONTINUE WIKIFICATION FROM HERE
---
> The three above-described views about the relationship between the mental and the physical have names:
17c17
< All right, I have given you three different views about the relationship between the mental and the physical.  Now I am going to give names to those views:
---
> <i>DualIsm</i> is the view that mental events and physical events are totally different kinds of events.
19c19
< <i>Dualism</i> is the view that mental events and physical events are totally different kinds of events.
---
> <i>PhysicalIsm</i>, or <i>materialism</i>, is the view that mental events are nothing more than a special kind of physical event.
21c21
< <i>Physicalism</i>, or <i>materialism</i>, is the view that mental events are nothing more than a special kind of physical event.
---
> <i>PhenomenalIsm</i>, or <i>subjective</i> <i>idealism</i>, is the view that physical events are nothing more than a special kind of mental event.
23c23
< <i>Phenomenalism</i>, or <i>subjective</i> <i>idealism</i>, is the view that physical events are nothing more than a special kind of mental event.
---
> The mind-body problem, to put it as generically and broadly as possible, is this question: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>the</i> <i>mental</i> <i>and</i> <i>the</i> <i>physical</i>?  For the sake of simplicity, we can state the problem in terms of mental and physical <i>events.</i>  I could put it just as well in terms of <i>processes</i>, or of <i>consciousness.</i>  So the problem restated is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>mental</i> <i>events</i> <i>and</i> <i>physical</i> <i>events</i>?  
25,27c25
< The mind-body problem, to put it as generically and broadly as possible, is this question: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>the</i> <i>mental</i> <i>and</i> <i>the</i> <i>physical</i>?  Now, just for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to state the problem in terms of mental and physical <i>events</i>.  I could put it just as well in terms of <i>processes</i>, or of <i>consciousness</i>.  So the problem restated is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>the</i> <i>basic</i> <i>relationship</i> <i>between</i> <i>mental</i> <i>events</i> <i>and</i> <i>physical</i> <i>events</i>?  
< 
< There are, then, three basic choices: mental and physical events are totally different, and cannot be reduced to each other (which is dualism); mental events are to be reduced to physical events (which is physicalism); and physical events are to be reduced to mental events (which is phenomenalism).  To put it in terms of what exists "ultimately," we could say that according to dualism, <i>both</i> mental <i>and</i> physical events exist ultimately; according to physicalism, only <i>physical</i> events exist ultimately; and according to phenomenalism, only <i>mental</i> events exist ultimately.  Physicalism and phenomenalism are both varieties of <i>monism</i>; monism is the view that only one sort of stuff in the universe exists ultimately (as opposed to dualism which holds that there are two kinds of stuff).  So there are two kinds of monism, namely, physicalism and phenomenalism.  But there is, actually, another kind of monism.  Namely, <i>neutral</i> <i>monism</i>.  Neutral monism is the view that mental and physical events are both to be reduced to aspects of some neutral stuff, which stuff considered by itself is neither physical nor mental.  Neutral monism was introduced by the 17th century Dutch philosopher, Spinoza; and a version of it was recently revived by a very prominent American philosopher, Donald Davidson.
---
> There are, then, three basic choices: mental and physical events are totally different, and cannot be reduced to each other (which is DualIsm); mental events are to be reduced to physical events (which is PhysicalIsm); and physical events are to be reduced to mental events (which is PhenomenalIsm).  To put it in terms of what exists "ultimately," we could say that according to dualism, <i>both</i> mental <i>and</i> physical events exist ultimately; according to physicalism, only <i>physical</i> events exist ultimately; and according to phenomenalism, only <i>mental</i> events exist ultimately.  Physicalism and phenomenalism are both varieties of <i>MonIsm.</i>
------
MonIsm|981224033
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Monism'' is the PhilosophicalView that only one sort of stuff in the universe exists ultimately (as opposed to DualIsm, which holds that there are two kinds of stuff).  So there are two kinds of monism, namely, PhysicalIsm and PhenomenalIsm.  But there is, actually, another kind of monism: <i>NeutralMonism.</i>
------
NeutralMonism|981224117
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Neutral monism'' is the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are both to be reduced (see ReducTion) to aspects of some neutral stuff, which stuff considered by itself is neither physical nor mental.  Neutral monism was introduced by the great 17th-century Jewish-Dutch philosopher, BaruchSpinoza, and a version of it was recently revived by a very prominent American philosopher, DonaldDavidson.
------
IdentityAndChange|981224181
10a11,13
>  I would argue there is no end to existence. Only change of form. 
>  From life to ashes, from building to rubble. WcGing
> 
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981224218
25c25
< There are, then, three basic choices: mental and physical events are totally different, and cannot be reduced to each other (which is DualIsm); mental events are to be reduced to physical events (which is PhysicalIsm); and physical events are to be reduced to mental events (which is PhenomenalIsm).  To put it in terms of what exists "ultimately," we could say that according to dualism, <i>both</i> mental <i>and</i> physical events exist ultimately; according to physicalism, only <i>physical</i> events exist ultimately; and according to phenomenalism, only <i>mental</i> events exist ultimately.  Physicalism and phenomenalism are both varieties of <i>MonIsm.</i>
---
> There are, then, three basic choices: mental and physical events are totally different, and cannot be reduced to each other (which is DualIsm); mental events are to be reduced to physical events (which is PhysicalIsm); and physical events are to be reduced to mental events (which is PhenomenalIsm).  To put it in terms of what exists "ultimately," we could say that according to dualism, <i>both</i> mental <i>and</i> physical events exist ultimately; according to physicalism, only <i>physical</i> events exist ultimately; and according to phenomenalism, only <i>mental</i> events exist ultimately.  Physicalism and phenomenalism are both varieties of <i>MonIsm</i>; of monism there is one further variety, namely NeutralMonism.
32,79d31
< 
< I suspect many of you might be thinking to yourselves: "This is ridiculous.  Look, there is the mind, and there is the body, and they are two totally different things.  There might be some puzzles about how they interact but obviously they <i>do</i> interact.  So what’s all the fuss?  All those other theories you listed are just <i>silly</i>."  Now if you think this way, my job is to get you to see that that puzzle about how the mind and body interact is more serious than you might have thought.  But first let’s get the theory more clearly stated.
< 
< The view we’re talking about consists of all of the following claims: mental and physical events both exist, but neither type of event can be reduced to the other type, and mental events are both causes and effects of physical events.   This is called <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>.  It is also called <i>Cartesian</i> <i>dualism</i>, because it is the kind of dualism that the great 17th-century French philosopher Descartes advocated.  This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism -- probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  So in addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When I touch a hot stove, and burn my skin, I feel a pain.  Touching the stove and burning my skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when I feel the pain, I say, "Ouch!" -- and my saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  You put the belief in that interaction together with dualism and you’ve got a very commonsense sort of theory of mind.  In fact our reading calls this "the commonsense theory of mind," and I agree with that characterization.
< 
< Let’s look at some arguments for dualism.  How would we go about arguing for this theory?  I mean, aside from pointing out that it’s extremely commonsensical.  That’s got to count for something; perhaps it counts for a lot indeed.  But if we can help it the mere fact that it’s a matter of common sense shouldn’t be our <i>only</i> reason for accepting a theory.  So how would we go about arguing for dualism?  We point out the differences between the mental and the physical.  So let’s do that.  Let’s go over the differences between mental events and physical events.
< 
< First, mental events are not publicly observable.  When I touch the hot stove, you may see me whip back my hand and say "Ouch!" but you are not feeling my pain.  Unless you’re Mr. Spock, or God, you can’t as it were get inside my mind and take a look at what’s going on in there.  And of course it’s not just because my mind is hidden beneath my skull.  If you knew just where to look in my brain, you wouldn’t be able to see thoughts and feelings jiggling around in there.  That’s just not how it works.  So unlike physical events, like fireworks displays, mental events are private, not publicly observable.
< 
< Second, mental events are often said not to be spatially located.  Where is my pain supposed to be?  Maybe you could say in my fingertips, because they hurt.  But is that where the <i>feeling</i> is?  Does it really make sense to say that the <i>feeling</i> is in my aching fingertips?  That sounds a little funny, anyway.  A better example would be an emotion like happiness.  When I say I’m happy, can I locate my happiness in my head, or does it exist all my body, or something?  Doesn’t that sound odd?  It would seem better to say that my happiness isn’t the sort of thing that <i>can</i> be located in a particular place.
< 
< Third, more generally, mental events do not seem to have various physical properties which physical events have.  For one thing, mental events do not involve anything having mass, or physical motion.  We can’t weigh a thought.  We can’t say that a feeling has a velocity of 10 miles an hour.  To say such things is to talk nonsense.  Now you might say: that’s only because mental events are <i>events</i>.  You can’t say that physical events have mass or velocity either.  Point well enough taken; that’s true, no event, per se, has mass or velocity.  But physical events do <i>involve</i> objects which have mass and velocity.  Mental events do not have any components which have mass and velocity.  For example, when I think, "I like ice cream," I have a concept of ice cream; and my concept of ice cream has no mass and velocity.  Nothing involved in my appreciation for ice cream would appear to have any such physical properties.  This is a point to which we will have to return.  But on the face of it, this seems pretty obvious.
< 
< Fourth, mental events have a certain <i>subjective</i> quality to them, which physical events obviously do not.  I mean, for example, what a burned finger feels like, what sky blue looks like, what nice music sounds like, and so on.  I’m going to expand on this fourth point at some length.  Recently, philosophers have been calling the subjective aspects of mental events <i>qualia</i>, and they also call them <i>raw</i> <i>feels</i>.  There is something <i>that</i> <i>it’s</i> <i>like</i> to feel pain, to see a familiar shade of blue, and so on; there are <i>qualia</i> involved in these mental events.  And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.  Just think of what that would involve.  You’d be saying: <i>feeling</i> <i>the</i> <i>top</i> <i>of</i> <i>my</i> <i>hand</i> <i>right</i> <i>now</i>, this "raw feel" I’m experiencing right now, is <i>itself</i> nothing more than a physical event.
< 
< In fact, there is an article by an American, Thomas Nagel, that came out in the late 70’s called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"  In this article Nagel argued roughly as follows.  You are familiar with the fact that bats use a certain kind of sonar, right?  They emit high-pitched shrieks which allow them to fly around in dark caves; they can tell how far away the walls are based on how their shrieks echo around in the cave.  Bat sonar allows bats to perceive distance, shape, size, and so on, in a way similar to, but obviously different from the way vision works for us.  Now Nagel invited us to ask, "So what <i>is</i> it like to be a bat, flying around in the dark using bat sonar?"  Surely bats do have experiences; we just don’t know what they are.  Suppose we were to take apart a bat brain and figure out how the neural apparatus for bat sonar works.  No doubt biologists have actually done so, dissected bat brains and so forth.  But in understanding how the bat brain works, do those biologists learn <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>like</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> <i>a</i> <i>bat</i>?  Well of course not.  They’re mucking around in the grey matter of bats.  In order to know what it’s like to be a bat, and to have bat sonar, why, you’d have to be a bat.  So argued Nagel.
< 
< So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that if indeed there are "bat qualia," then there are peculiar mental events of a sort that only bats have, and we cannot learn what they are like even if we have a detailed understanding of physical events going on in the bat brain.  Or to put it even more simply: there is a strange "bat sonar experience" we’ll never have.  We won’t have it even if we learn what physical events in bat brains are associated with bat sonar.  So that’s excellent evidence that mental events cannot be reduced to physical events; mental events must be regarded as quite a different sort of thing from physical events.  Really, you can make the same point without even bringing up weird cases like bat sonar.  Just think of your own unique feelings.  Do you think that a psychologist could, simply by digging around in your brain and doing tests on your grey matter, ever learn what that feeling was like?
< 
< So there are at least four major differences between the mental and the physical, which make it difficult, to say the least, to understand how one might <i>reduce</i> the mental to the physical.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  That seems to give us considerable reason to think that the mind and the body are two totally different categories of being.  So there you have one basic, powerful argument for dualism.
< 
< But there is another argument that I’m sure weighs heavily in some of your minds.  Namely, that you have an immortal souls that can survive your bodily death.  Traditional Christianity, like many other religions, teaches that you have a soul which is as different from your body as water is from rock.  Your body will die and then your soul will go to heaven, or hell, or who knows where.  If you believe this then you practically <i>must</i> believe in dualism.  The only way that you can avoid believing in dualism is if you accept phenomenalism, which holds that everything is, ultimately, mental.  But in any event you absolutely cannot hold that the soul is reducible to anything physical.  If events in your soul <i>were</i> reducible to events in your brain, then when your brain stopped functioning, your soul would cease to exist.
< 
< It’s not clear to me that this ought to be looked upon as an <i>argument</i> <i>for</i>  dualism, simply because those who challenge dualism from a physicalist position will not at all be impressed by it.  I mean, suppose you are trying to support dualism against a physicalist, who thinks that everything is, at bottom, physical.  Will it be at all impressive to say, "If I have an immortal soul, then mental events cannot be reduced to physical events"?  Not at all; the physicalist is precisely the sort of person who denies that you have an immortal soul, and who demands proof that in fact you <i>do</i> have an immortal soul.  You may not particularly care that you can’t convince the physicalist; but the point is that you should not do something that looks so much like begging the question.  Because if you argue: "I have an immortal soul; therefore dualism is true," then it sure does look like you’re begging the question.  You should prove that dualism is true, and thus that you have an immaterial, non-physical soul, <i>before</i> you try to prove that your soul is immortal!
< 
< So as far as arguing for dualistic interactionism goes, let’s just stick with the differences between the mental and the physical that I stated before.  Now, those are evidence for the <i>dualism</i> part.  What about the interactionism part, that is, the claim that mental and physical events causally interact?  Here we can just cite observational evidence.  We observe that physical events cause all sorts of mental events, and vice-versa.  Indeed, it’s hard to know how one might argue <i>against</i> the fact that there is such interaction, since it appears to go on all the time.  Anyway then, that’s all I’m going to say in favor of dualistic interactionism.
< 
< This theory has come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially this century.  The basic problem is: If dualism is true, then it is hard to see how mental and physical events can possibly interact causally.  How can something totally immaterial affect something totally material?  That’s the basic problem.  But let me break this basic problem into three parts.
< 
< First, it is not clear <i>where</i> the interaction would take place.  Burning my fingers causes pain, right?  Well, apparently there is some chain of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; <i>and</i> <i>then</i>, I feel pain.  But the pain is not supposed to be spatially located.  So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take place?  If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say, "But I thought pains weren’t located anywhere."  And you, as a dualist, might stick to your guns and say, "That’s right, pains <i>aren’t</i> located anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain <i>is</i> located in the brain."  But then we have a very strange causal relation on our hands.  The cause is located in a particular place but the effect is not located anywhere.  Well, you might say, that might be puzzling but it’s not a devastating criticism.
< 
< So look at a second problem about the interaction.  Namely, <i>how</i> does the interaction take place?  Maybe you think, "Well, that’s a matter for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection between mental and physical events."  But philosophers have something to say about the matter, because the <i>very</i> <i>idea</i> of a <i>mechanism</i>, which explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be very strange, at best.  Why do I say it would be strange?  Compare it to a mechanism that we <i>do</i> understand.  Take a very simple causal relation, such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go into the pocket.  Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain amount of force as its mass accelerates across the pool table, and then that force is transferred to the eight ball, which then heads toward the pocket.  Now compare that to the situation in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to fire and thus cause my body to move across the room.  The decision, "I will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not have physical properties such as force.  If it has no force, then how on earth could it cause any neuron to fire?  Is it magic?  Honestly, how could something without any physical properties have any physical <i>effects</i> at all?
< 
< Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as follows.  You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact that there is a mystery doesn’t mean that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> no interaction.  Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is between two totally different sorts of events."  Now I expect that some of you may want to say this.  But the problem with it is that it does not seem to answer the full power of the objection.
< 
< So let me explain the objection more precisely.  Let’s take as our example my decision to walk across the room.  We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room.  The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical <i>causing</i> a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no <i>physical</i> event which causes the firing.  That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air.  Do you see?  Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven’t explained where the <i>physical</i> energy, for the firing, came from.  It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.
< 
< As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy."  According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant."  Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed.  This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics.  So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.
< 
< Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
< 
< I said before that there are different kinds of dualism.  I am really not going to have time to discuss the other kinds.  But the other kinds do, anyway, accept that mental events and physical events both exist, and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
< 
< Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
< 
< As I said, we just don’t have time to discuss these or any other kinds of dualism.
< 
< 
------
DualIsm|981224297
1c1,43
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I suspect many of you might be thinking to yourselves: "This is ridiculous.  Look, there is the mind, and there is the body, and they are two totally different things.  There might be some puzzles about how they interact but obviously they <i>do</i> interact.  So what’s all the fuss?  All those other theories you listed are just <i>silly</i>."  Now if you think this way, my job is to get you to see that that puzzle about how the mind and body interact is more serious than you might have thought.  But first let’s get the theory more clearly stated.
> 
> The view we’re talking about consists of all of the following claims: mental and physical events both exist, but neither type of event can be reduced to the other type, and mental events are both causes and effects of physical events.   This is called <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>.  It is also called <i>Cartesian</i> <i>dualism</i>, because it is the kind of dualism that the great 17th-century French philosopher Descartes advocated.  This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism -- probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  So in addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When I touch a hot stove, and burn my skin, I feel a pain.  Touching the stove and burning my skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when I feel the pain, I say, "Ouch!" -- and my saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  You put the belief in that interaction together with dualism and you’ve got a very commonsense sort of theory of mind.  In fact our reading calls this "the commonsense theory of mind," and I agree with that characterization.
> 
> Let’s look at some arguments for dualism.  How would we go about arguing for this theory?  I mean, aside from pointing out that it’s extremely commonsensical.  That’s got to count for something; perhaps it counts for a lot indeed.  But if we can help it the mere fact that it’s a matter of common sense shouldn’t be our <i>only</i> reason for accepting a theory.  So how would we go about arguing for dualism?  We point out the differences between the mental and the physical.  So let’s do that.  Let’s go over the differences between mental events and physical events.
> 
> First, mental events are not publicly observable.  When I touch the hot stove, you may see me whip back my hand and say "Ouch!" but you are not feeling my pain.  Unless you’re Mr. Spock, or God, you can’t as it were get inside my mind and take a look at what’s going on in there.  And of course it’s not just because my mind is hidden beneath my skull.  If you knew just where to look in my brain, you wouldn’t be able to see thoughts and feelings jiggling around in there.  That’s just not how it works.  So unlike physical events, like fireworks displays, mental events are private, not publicly observable.
> 
> Second, mental events are often said not to be spatially located.  Where is my pain supposed to be?  Maybe you could say in my fingertips, because they hurt.  But is that where the <i>feeling</i> is?  Does it really make sense to say that the <i>feeling</i> is in my aching fingertips?  That sounds a little funny, anyway.  A better example would be an emotion like happiness.  When I say I’m happy, can I locate my happiness in my head, or does it exist all my body, or something?  Doesn’t that sound odd?  It would seem better to say that my happiness isn’t the sort of thing that <i>can</i> be located in a particular place.
> 
> Third, more generally, mental events do not seem to have various physical properties which physical events have.  For one thing, mental events do not involve anything having mass, or physical motion.  We can’t weigh a thought.  We can’t say that a feeling has a velocity of 10 miles an hour.  To say such things is to talk nonsense.  Now you might say: that’s only because mental events are <i>events</i>.  You can’t say that physical events have mass or velocity either.  Point well enough taken; that’s true, no event, per se, has mass or velocity.  But physical events do <i>involve</i> objects which have mass and velocity.  Mental events do not have any components which have mass and velocity.  For example, when I think, "I like ice cream," I have a concept of ice cream; and my concept of ice cream has no mass and velocity.  Nothing involved in my appreciation for ice cream would appear to have any such physical properties.  This is a point to which we will have to return.  But on the face of it, this seems pretty obvious.
> 
> Fourth, mental events have a certain <i>subjective</i> quality to them, which physical events obviously do not.  I mean, for example, what a burned finger feels like, what sky blue looks like, what nice music sounds like, and so on.  I’m going to expand on this fourth point at some length.  Recently, philosophers have been calling the subjective aspects of mental events <i>qualia</i>, and they also call them <i>raw</i> <i>feels</i>.  There is something <i>that</i> <i>it’s</i> <i>like</i> to feel pain, to see a familiar shade of blue, and so on; there are <i>qualia</i> involved in these mental events.  And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.  Just think of what that would involve.  You’d be saying: <i>feeling</i> <i>the</i> <i>top</i> <i>of</i> <i>my</i> <i>hand</i> <i>right</i> <i>now</i>, this "raw feel" I’m experiencing right now, is <i>itself</i> nothing more than a physical event.
> 
> In fact, there is an article by an American, Thomas Nagel, that came out in the late 70’s called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"  In this article Nagel argued roughly as follows.  You are familiar with the fact that bats use a certain kind of sonar, right?  They emit high-pitched shrieks which allow them to fly around in dark caves; they can tell how far away the walls are based on how their shrieks echo around in the cave.  Bat sonar allows bats to perceive distance, shape, size, and so on, in a way similar to, but obviously different from the way vision works for us.  Now Nagel invited us to ask, "So what <i>is</i> it like to be a bat, flying around in the dark using bat sonar?"  Surely bats do have experiences; we just don’t know what they are.  Suppose we were to take apart a bat brain and figure out how the neural apparatus for bat sonar works.  No doubt biologists have actually done so, dissected bat brains and so forth.  But in understanding how the bat brain works, do those biologists learn <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>like</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> <i>a</i> <i>bat</i>?  Well of course not.  They’re mucking around in the grey matter of bats.  In order to know what it’s like to be a bat, and to have bat sonar, why, you’d have to be a bat.  So argued Nagel.
> 
> So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that if indeed there are "bat qualia," then there are peculiar mental events of a sort that only bats have, and we cannot learn what they are like even if we have a detailed understanding of physical events going on in the bat brain.  Or to put it even more simply: there is a strange "bat sonar experience" we’ll never have.  We won’t have it even if we learn what physical events in bat brains are associated with bat sonar.  So that’s excellent evidence that mental events cannot be reduced to physical events; mental events must be regarded as quite a different sort of thing from physical events.  Really, you can make the same point without even bringing up weird cases like bat sonar.  Just think of your own unique feelings.  Do you think that a psychologist could, simply by digging around in your brain and doing tests on your grey matter, ever learn what that feeling was like?
> 
> So there are at least four major differences between the mental and the physical, which make it difficult, to say the least, to understand how one might <i>reduce</i> the mental to the physical.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  That seems to give us considerable reason to think that the mind and the body are two totally different categories of being.  So there you have one basic, powerful argument for dualism.
> 
> But there is another argument that I’m sure weighs heavily in some of your minds.  Namely, that you have an immortal souls that can survive your bodily death.  Traditional Christianity, like many other religions, teaches that you have a soul which is as different from your body as water is from rock.  Your body will die and then your soul will go to heaven, or hell, or who knows where.  If you believe this then you practically <i>must</i> believe in dualism.  The only way that you can avoid believing in dualism is if you accept phenomenalism, which holds that everything is, ultimately, mental.  But in any event you absolutely cannot hold that the soul is reducible to anything physical.  If events in your soul <i>were</i> reducible to events in your brain, then when your brain stopped functioning, your soul would cease to exist.
> 
> It’s not clear to me that this ought to be looked upon as an <i>argument</i> <i>for</i>  dualism, simply because those who challenge dualism from a physicalist position will not at all be impressed by it.  I mean, suppose you are trying to support dualism against a physicalist, who thinks that everything is, at bottom, physical.  Will it be at all impressive to say, "If I have an immortal soul, then mental events cannot be reduced to physical events"?  Not at all; the physicalist is precisely the sort of person who denies that you have an immortal soul, and who demands proof that in fact you <i>do</i> have an immortal soul.  You may not particularly care that you can’t convince the physicalist; but the point is that you should not do something that looks so much like begging the question.  Because if you argue: "I have an immortal soul; therefore dualism is true," then it sure does look like you’re begging the question.  You should prove that dualism is true, and thus that you have an immaterial, non-physical soul, <i>before</i> you try to prove that your soul is immortal!
> 
> So as far as arguing for dualistic interactionism goes, let’s just stick with the differences between the mental and the physical that I stated before.  Now, those are evidence for the <i>dualism</i> part.  What about the interactionism part, that is, the claim that mental and physical events causally interact?  Here we can just cite observational evidence.  We observe that physical events cause all sorts of mental events, and vice-versa.  Indeed, it’s hard to know how one might argue <i>against</i> the fact that there is such interaction, since it appears to go on all the time.  Anyway then, that’s all I’m going to say in favor of dualistic interactionism.
> 
> This theory has come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially this century.  The basic problem is: If dualism is true, then it is hard to see how mental and physical events can possibly interact causally.  How can something totally immaterial affect something totally material?  That’s the basic problem.  But let me break this basic problem into three parts.
> 
> First, it is not clear <i>where</i> the interaction would take place.  Burning my fingers causes pain, right?  Well, apparently there is some chain of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; <i>and</i> <i>then</i>, I feel pain.  But the pain is not supposed to be spatially located.  So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take place?  If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say, "But I thought pains weren’t located anywhere."  And you, as a dualist, might stick to your guns and say, "That’s right, pains <i>aren’t</i> located anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain <i>is</i> located in the brain."  But then we have a very strange causal relation on our hands.  The cause is located in a particular place but the effect is not located anywhere.  Well, you might say, that might be puzzling but it’s not a devastating criticism.
> 
> So look at a second problem about the interaction.  Namely, <i>how</i> does the interaction take place?  Maybe you think, "Well, that’s a matter for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection between mental and physical events."  But philosophers have something to say about the matter, because the <i>very</i> <i>idea</i> of a <i>mechanism</i>, which explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be very strange, at best.  Why do I say it would be strange?  Compare it to a mechanism that we <i>do</i> understand.  Take a very simple causal relation, such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go into the pocket.  Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain amount of force as its mass accelerates across the pool table, and then that force is transferred to the eight ball, which then heads toward the pocket.  Now compare that to the situation in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to fire and thus cause my body to move across the room.  The decision, "I will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not have physical properties such as force.  If it has no force, then how on earth could it cause any neuron to fire?  Is it magic?  Honestly, how could something without any physical properties have any physical <i>effects</i> at all?
> 
> Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as follows.  You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact that there is a mystery doesn’t mean that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> no interaction.  Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is between two totally different sorts of events."  Now I expect that some of you may want to say this.  But the problem with it is that it does not seem to answer the full power of the objection.
> 
> So let me explain the objection more precisely.  Let’s take as our example my decision to walk across the room.  We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room.  The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical <i>causing</i> a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no <i>physical</i> event which causes the firing.  That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air.  Do you see?  Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven’t explained where the <i>physical</i> energy, for the firing, came from.  It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.
> 
> As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy."  According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant."  Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed.  This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics.  So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.
> 
> Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
> 
> I said before that there are different kinds of dualism.  I am really not going to have time to discuss the other kinds.  But the other kinds do, anyway, accept that mental events and physical events both exist, and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
> 
> Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981224361
29,73c29
< 
< 
< A. Dualism.
< 
< B. Physicalism.
< 
< Let’s look next at a very different theory of mind, in the theory that the mental can be reduced to the physical.  This view is usually called <i>physicalism</i>.  It is also called <i>materialism</i> or <i>identity</i> <i>materialism</i>.  The term "physicalism" is less misleading because it does not have any misleading connotations; if we called the view "materialism," you might think that we were talking about something that had to do with the desire for wealth, possessions, and so forth, but obviously we’re not talking about that.  We’re talking about a theory about the mind.  "Physicalism" is better also because it implies that the mental can be reduced to whatever is <i>physical</i>, meaning, whatever is described ultimately by physics; and as we all know, physics describes a lot more than just matter, it also describes energy.  So the view is that we can reduce mental events to events that are made up entirely of matter and energy.  And remember what we mean by "reduce" here: "If I <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever I talk about X, I can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead</i>."  So here’s the claim: Whenever we talk about mental events, we can be <i>properly</i> understood to be talking about <i>events</i> <i>that</i> <i>are</i> <i>made</i> <i>up</i> <i>entirely</i> <i>of</i> <i>matter</i> <i>and</i> <i>energy</i>.
< 
< I suppose that this sounds very strange.  I know it sounded very strange the first time I heard it.  So let me give you an example, and I’ll try to make this as plausible as I can.  In fact there is a hackneyed example that is used when philosophers talk about this stuff.  For some reason philosophers these days always use <i>pain</i> as an example of a mental event; why not pleasure, I say?    There is supposed to be a certain kind of nerve fiber that leads from your limbs to your brain, called <i>C</i>-<i>fibers</i>, and whenever you’re in pain, the story goes, your C-fibers are firing; and whenever your C-fibers are firing, then you’re in pain.  I suppose we might test this claim empirically, with experiments, right?  Suppose I sit you down in my lab, and I insert some probe into your spine, right next to your C-fibers; then I find some clever way to cause you pain.  You say, "Ouch!" and tell me that you are in pain.  I say, "Good!" and sure enough I see that your C-fibers are firing.
< 
< My apologies if I’m getting the facts all wrong.  But the point is in some such way, we are supposed to be able to study which neural states, and brain states, are <i>associated</i> with which mental states.  Now surely that would be very interesting if we were to find that, in order to be in pain, we would have to have firing C-fibers -- wouldn’t it?  For that matter, a neuroscientist might notice that when you engage in deep thought, the frontal lobe of your brain is extremely active.  When we engage in reasoning and complex conceptualization, the neurons in a certain part of the brain are firing; that seems to indicate that there is some sort of close association between hard thought and frontal lobe activity.
< 
< So the suggestion now is that the event of feeling pain is just the same as C-fibers firing.  That is why Halverson calls the theory "identity materialism"; types of mental events, like pain, are <i>identical</i> to types of physical events, like C-fiber firing.  So, pain is <i>reducible</i> <i>to</i> C-fiber firing.  This particular theory is also called "the type-type identity theory," since mental event types are matched up with physical event types.  And mind you, again, not just matched up or associated with -- but actually <i>the</i> <i>very</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i>.  The pain I experience when I bash my thumb with a hammer is really nothing more than those C-fibers going off.
< 
< Now, some of you might hear this and think that I am <i>denying</i> that pain, or anything mental, <i>really</i> exists.  In other words, since I’m saying now that mental events are really only physical events, you think that I’m saying there <i>aren’t</i> any mental events.  But that is <i>not</i> my claim.  Mental events do exist; they are simply identical to physical events of a certain kind.
< 
< It so happens that there <i>is</i> a theory about the mind, called <i>eliminativism</i>, which says that the mind, mental events, and all the rest of that <i>simply</i> <i>do</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  The best-known proponent of this theory is an American, Paul Churchland.  He says that this talk of mental events, thinking and such, is all just a fiction, just folks tales, which is going to be replaced with more scientific talk, when the science of the brain and the nervous system is sufficiently developed.  When that time comes, the eliminativists say, we won’t use this out-dated talk of feelings, thoughts, pains, etc.  We’ll talk about C-fibers firing, and frontal lobes being activated, and so forth.  All that talk of love, hate, decisions, beliefs, and so forth, will look antiquated and silly in the same way that talk of ghosts, demons, and witches now looks antiquated and silly.  I’m not even going to tell you why some philosophers buy into this theory -- it’s pretty unpopular, as you might have guessed -- I’m just telling you that it exists, so I can contrast physicalism with it.  Physicalism <i>does</i> hold that mental events <i>exist</i>.
< 
< Nonetheless, you still might think that physicalism is a very strange theory, that is totally contrary to common sense.  So you might object, as follows.  This will be the only objection to physicalism I’ll state, but it’s rather complex.  Just remember now all those differences that we listed between mental and physical events.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there is seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  How on earth could anyone say that mental events are <i>just</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i> physical events?  There are all these obvious differences, so you <i>can’t</i> reduce the mental to the physical!  So physicalism has to be wrong.
< 
< Here is how the physicalist would reply.  Let’s go over each of those alleged differences between mind and matter.  The first one is: mental events are not publicly observable.  The physicalist would say: well, OK, so mental events cannot be <i>seen</i> by other people; but neither can the sorts of physical events we’re talking about.  A C-fiber firing is not only buried inside your nervous system; it is also not detectable except with special instruments.  So we could very well say that C-fiber firing is not publicly observable.
< 
< If you’re a dualist, you’re probably not going to be happy with this reply.  You’ll probably say that the physicalist is missing the point.  The point is really that mental events aren’t <i>observable</i> <i>by</i> <i>other</i> <i>people</i> <i>at</i> <i>all</i>.  Other people can’t jump into my mind and as it were mentally look over my shoulder while I’m feeling pain and having deep thoughts.  Maybe Mr. Spock can do that but you and I can’t.  So, you, or a dualist, might say, what follows from that?  What follows is that feeling pain can’t be the same as C-fibers firing; other people can probe my nervous system and observe my C-fibers firing but they definitely <i>aren’t</i> observing my pain, no matter how carefully they observe my C-fibers or any other part of my nervous system.  It doesn’t  matter; my mental states can’t be <i>observed</i> by other people at all!  That’s how I think the dualist would reply.
< 
< How do you suppose the physicalist counter that?  Let me play the role of the physicalist.  So I would reply by saying that, really, if "publicly observable" just means "observable by other people," then your mental states <i>are</i> publicly observable.  Mental events <i>can</i> be observed by other people.  So what exactly would I be doing, then, if I <i>did</i> observe your pain?  Would I have to feel your pain myself?  In other words, in order for me to observe your pain, would <i>I</i> have to have the same aches and hurts that <i>you</i> have?  Surely not.  Why would you think that?  In order for me to observe your pain, it seems to me I simply have to observe <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> <i>that</i> <i>you</i> <i>are</i> <i>in</i> <i>pain</i>.  And if, as a physicalist, I hold that pain is the same as C-fibers firing, then all I have to do is observe your C-fibers firing, and <i>voila</i> -- I am observing the fact that you are in pain.  The dualist isn’t going to be at all happy with this reply; but let’s leave that debate and move on to those other supposed differences between mind and body.
< 
< The second difference is that mental events are not spatially located.  So here’s how the dualist will object to physicalism on that point: mental events are not spatially located, but physical events <i>are</i> spatially located.  So mental events are obviously different from physical events.
< 
< Here’s how I, the physicalist, can reply to that point.  I can concede that, for example, when I make a decision, I do not <i>see</i> or otherwise <i>perceive</i> my decision as being located anywhere.  I am just immediately aware of my decision, once I’ve made it.  But does that mean that the event of my decision in fact <i>isn’t</i> located anywhere?  I mean, simply because I’m not <i>aware</i> of its location, does it follow <i>from</i> that, that my decision doesn’t <i>have</i> a location at all?  I don’t see how that follows.  Why can’t we just say: a decision is a certain type of event in the brain.  When this event occurs, I’m aware of making a decision.  But I am not aware of where the decision itself is taking place, namely in my brain.  That doesn’t mean that the decision isn’t taking place in my brain.  Why think that?
< 
< OK, let’s look at the third alleged difference between the mental and the physical.  The third difference is: mental events do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity.  The physicalist would say that neural events have electro-chemical properties; but the dualist would reply that the very idea of a mental event being a physical event in the brain and nervous system is absurd, <i>precisely</i> <i>because</i> that would mean that mental events have electro-chemical properties, and other physical properties as well.
< 
< I’ll bet some of you can predict how our physicalist will reply.  As the physicalist, I will say: "Why is that absurd?  Let me try to figure out why you think it’s absurd that mental events might have physical properties.  Maybe you think that since you’re not <i>aware</i> of any electro-chemical properties of your mental events, it somehow follows that your mental events <i>don’t</i> have any such properties.  But once again, that inference just doesn’t follow.  It assumes that, if all your pains, decisions, and thoughts had some electro-chemical properties, then you’d be aware of those properties.  But why think that?  Do you have to be aware of <i>all</i> of the properties that your mental events have?  Do you have to be aware of <i>everything</i> that is true of the processes of your mind?  Of course not.  There is a lot of unconscious stuff going on in your mind, a lot of stuff you’re not aware of.  So then, why <i>not</i> think that your decisions, your pains, and other mental events have electro-chemical properties?  The only thing that would make that suggestion absurd is if you thought you had to be aware of everything going on in your mind.  But you don’t have to be aware of everything going in your mind.
< 
< Finally, let’s look at the fourth supposed difference between the mental and the physical.  It is probably the hardest to deal with: there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to mental events.  In other words, there is a first-person, felt, immediate, personal, subjective aspect to mental events.  Physical events do not have this subjective aspect; physical events are not qualia.  When dualism claims this, it is basically throwing down the gauntlet to physicalism.  "Look," the dualist says, "there just <i>is</i> this subjective aspect to my pain; it makes sense to ask, ‘What does your pain feel like?’  But it doesn’t make sense to ask, ‘What does your C-fiber firing feel like?’  C-fiber firing does not have this subjective aspect.  So you can’t reduce pain to C-fiber firing."
< 
< How could a physicalist reply to this?  Well, I think it’s not as difficult a problem as some might like to make it out to be.  If I’m a physicalist, then my claim is that C-fiber firing, or maybe some other brain event, <i>just</i> <i>is</i> awareness of pain.  And so it follows, of course, that C-fiber firing, or the brain event, <i>does</i> have a subjective aspect; and that it <i>does</i> make sense to ask, "What does your C-fiber firing feel like?"
< 
< But once again, the dualist is likely to say, "OK, say we open you up and look at your C-fibers firing away.  Are we going to see this subjective aspect, the pain <i>qualia</i> that we talked about?"  Well, the answer to <i>that</i> is clearly no.  But is that a problem?  After all, we <i>experience</i> pain only if it’s <i>our</i> C-fibers that are firing.  If you open my spine up and use scientific instruments to look at my wildly firing C-fibers, then of course <i>you</i> won’t be experiencing pain.  In order for <i>you</i> to experience pain, <i>your</i> C-fibers would have to be firing.  So here’s the point then: the dualist wants to object that a physical event cannot have a subjective aspect; the physicalist protests and says there’s no good reason <i>not</i> to think that physical events can have subjective aspects.  Why <i>couldn’t</i> they?  We can <i>detect</i> a physical event in someone else without <i>ourselves</i> being in a subjective state.  But so what?  Why should I expect to be in pain when I see someone <i>else’s</i> C-fibers fire?  It’s only the firing of <i>my</i> <i>own</i> C-fibers that constitutes <i>my</i> <i>own</i> pain.  So, President Clinton to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot feel my pain!
< 
< So on all four counts, the physicalist has a way to explain how these <i>supposed</i> differences between the mental and the physical <i>aren’t</i> really differences at all.  This undermines crucial support for dualism and greatly increases the plausibility of physicalism.  It is not so absurd, or at least not so <i>obviously</i> absurd, to say that types of mental events are the same as, and reducible to, some types of physical events.  We just have to put these issues in the right light.  And physicalism has one very clear advantage over dualistic interactionism, namely, that there is no mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events takes place.  Right?  Simply because mental events are, at bottom, themselves types of physical events.
< 
< Next time we will conclude our discussion of the mind-body problem, and move on to the theory of perception.
< 
< 
---
> See also DualIsm and PhysicalIsm.
------
PhysicalIsm|981224414
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The theory that the mental can be reduced (see ReducTion) to the physical is usually called <i>physicalism</i>.  It is also called <i>materialism</i> or <i>identity</i> <i>materialism</i>.  The term "physicalism" is less misleading because it does not have any misleading connotations; if we called the view "materialism," you might think that we were talking about something that had to do with the desire for wealth, possessions, and so forth, but obviously we’re not talking about that.  We’re talking about a theory about the mind.  "Physicalism" is better also because it implies that the mental can be reduced to whatever is <i>physical</i>, meaning, whatever is described ultimately by physics; and as we all know, physics describes a lot more than just matter, it also describes energy.  So the view is that we can reduce mental events to events that are made up entirely of matter and energy.  And remember what we mean by "reduce" here: "If I <i>reduce</i> X to Y, then whenever I talk about X, I can be understood to be talking about Y <i>instead</i>."  So here’s the claim: Whenever we talk about mental events, we can be <i>properly</i> understood to be talking about <i>events</i> <i>that</i> <i>are</i> <i>made</i> <i>up</i> <i>entirely</i> <i>of</i> <i>matter</i> <i>and</i> <i>energy</i>.
> 
> I suppose that this sounds very strange.  I know it sounded very strange the first time I heard it.  So let me give you an example, and I’ll try to make this as plausible as I can.  In fact there is a hackneyed example that is used when philosophers talk about this stuff.  For some reason philosophers these days always use <i>pain</i> as an example of a mental event; why not pleasure, I say?    There is supposed to be a certain kind of nerve fiber that leads from your limbs to your brain, called <i>C</i>-<i>fibers</i>, and whenever you’re in pain, the story goes, your C-fibers are firing; and whenever your C-fibers are firing, then you’re in pain.  I suppose we might test this claim empirically, with experiments, right?  Suppose I sit you down in my lab, and I insert some probe into your spine, right next to your C-fibers; then I find some clever way to cause you pain.  You say, "Ouch!" and tell me that you are in pain.  I say, "Good!" and sure enough I see that your C-fibers are firing.
> 
> My apologies if I’m getting the facts all wrong.  But the point is in some such way, we are supposed to be able to study which neural states, and brain states, are <i>associated</i> with which mental states.  Now surely that would be very interesting if we were to find that, in order to be in pain, we would have to have firing C-fibers -- wouldn’t it?  For that matter, a neuroscientist might notice that when you engage in deep thought, the frontal lobe of your brain is extremely active.  When we engage in reasoning and complex conceptualization, the neurons in a certain part of the brain are firing; that seems to indicate that there is some sort of close association between hard thought and frontal lobe activity.
> 
> So the suggestion now is that the event of feeling pain is just the same as C-fibers firing.  That is why Halverson calls the theory "identity materialism"; types of mental events, like pain, are <i>identical</i> to types of physical events, like C-fiber firing.  So, pain is <i>reducible</i> <i>to</i> C-fiber firing.  This particular theory is also called "the type-type identity theory," since mental event types are matched up with physical event types.  And mind you, again, not just matched up or associated with -- but actually <i>the</i> <i>very</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i>.  The pain I experience when I bash my thumb with a hammer is really nothing more than those C-fibers going off.
> 
> Now, some of you might hear this and think that I am <i>denying</i> that pain, or anything mental, <i>really</i> exists.  In other words, since I’m saying now that mental events are really only physical events, you think that I’m saying there <i>aren’t</i> any mental events.  But that is <i>not</i> my claim.  Mental events do exist; they are simply identical to physical events of a certain kind.
> 
> It so happens that there <i>is</i> a theory about the mind, called <i>eliminativism</i>, which says that the mind, mental events, and all the rest of that <i>simply</i> <i>do</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  The best-known proponent of this theory is an American, Paul Churchland.  He says that this talk of mental events, thinking and such, is all just a fiction, just folks tales, which is going to be replaced with more scientific talk, when the science of the brain and the nervous system is sufficiently developed.  When that time comes, the eliminativists say, we won’t use this out-dated talk of feelings, thoughts, pains, etc.  We’ll talk about C-fibers firing, and frontal lobes being activated, and so forth.  All that talk of love, hate, decisions, beliefs, and so forth, will look antiquated and silly in the same way that talk of ghosts, demons, and witches now looks antiquated and silly.  I’m not even going to tell you why some philosophers buy into this theory -- it’s pretty unpopular, as you might have guessed -- I’m just telling you that it exists, so I can contrast physicalism with it.  Physicalism <i>does</i> hold that mental events <i>exist</i>.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still might think that physicalism is a very strange theory, that is totally contrary to common sense.  So you might object, as follows.  This will be the only objection to physicalism I’ll state, but it’s rather complex.  Just remember now all those differences that we listed between mental and physical events.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there is seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  How on earth could anyone say that mental events are <i>just</i> <i>the</i> <i>same</i> <i>as</i> physical events?  There are all these obvious differences, so you <i>can’t</i> reduce the mental to the physical!  So physicalism has to be wrong.
> 
> Here is how the physicalist would reply.  Let’s go over each of those alleged differences between mind and matter.  The first one is: mental events are not publicly observable.  The physicalist would say: well, OK, so mental events cannot be <i>seen</i> by other people; but neither can the sorts of physical events we’re talking about.  A C-fiber firing is not only buried inside your nervous system; it is also not detectable except with special instruments.  So we could very well say that C-fiber firing is not publicly observable.
> 
> If you’re a dualist, you’re probably not going to be happy with this reply.  You’ll probably say that the physicalist is missing the point.  The point is really that mental events aren’t <i>observable</i> <i>by</i> <i>other</i> <i>people</i> <i>at</i> <i>all</i>.  Other people can’t jump into my mind and as it were mentally look over my shoulder while I’m feeling pain and having deep thoughts.  Maybe Mr. Spock can do that but you and I can’t.  So, you, or a dualist, might say, what follows from that?  What follows is that feeling pain can’t be the same as C-fibers firing; other people can probe my nervous system and observe my C-fibers firing but they definitely <i>aren’t</i> observing my pain, no matter how carefully they observe my C-fibers or any other part of my nervous system.  It doesn’t  matter; my mental states can’t be <i>observed</i> by other people at all!  That’s how I think the dualist would reply.
> 
> How do you suppose the physicalist counter that?  Let me play the role of the physicalist.  So I would reply by saying that, really, if "publicly observable" just means "observable by other people," then your mental states <i>are</i> publicly observable.  Mental events <i>can</i> be observed by other people.  So what exactly would I be doing, then, if I <i>did</i> observe your pain?  Would I have to feel your pain myself?  In other words, in order for me to observe your pain, would <i>I</i> have to have the same aches and hurts that <i>you</i> have?  Surely not.  Why would you think that?  In order for me to observe your pain, it seems to me I simply have to observe <i>the</i> <i>fact</i> <i>that</i> <i>you</i> <i>are</i> <i>in</i> <i>pain</i>.  And if, as a physicalist, I hold that pain is the same as C-fibers firing, then all I have to do is observe your C-fibers firing, and <i>voila</i> -- I am observing the fact that you are in pain.  The dualist isn’t going to be at all happy with this reply; but let’s leave that debate and move on to those other supposed differences between mind and body.
> 
> The second difference is that mental events are not spatially located.  So here’s how the dualist will object to physicalism on that point: mental events are not spatially located, but physical events <i>are</i> spatially located.  So mental events are obviously different from physical events.
> 
> Here’s how I, the physicalist, can reply to that point.  I can concede that, for example, when I make a decision, I do not <i>see</i> or otherwise <i>perceive</i> my decision as being located anywhere.  I am just immediately aware of my decision, once I’ve made it.  But does that mean that the event of my decision in fact <i>isn’t</i> located anywhere?  I mean, simply because I’m not <i>aware</i> of its location, does it follow <i>from</i> that, that my decision doesn’t <i>have</i> a location at all?  I don’t see how that follows.  Why can’t we just say: a decision is a certain type of event in the brain.  When this event occurs, I’m aware of making a decision.  But I am not aware of where the decision itself is taking place, namely in my brain.  That doesn’t mean that the decision isn’t taking place in my brain.  Why think that?
> 
> OK, let’s look at the third alleged difference between the mental and the physical.  The third difference is: mental events do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity.  The physicalist would say that neural events have electro-chemical properties; but the dualist would reply that the very idea of a mental event being a physical event in the brain and nervous system is absurd, <i>precisely</i> <i>because</i> that would mean that mental events have electro-chemical properties, and other physical properties as well.
> 
> I’ll bet some of you can predict how our physicalist will reply.  As the physicalist, I will say: "Why is that absurd?  Let me try to figure out why you think it’s absurd that mental events might have physical properties.  Maybe you think that since you’re not <i>aware</i> of any electro-chemical properties of your mental events, it somehow follows that your mental events <i>don’t</i> have any such properties.  But once again, that inference just doesn’t follow.  It assumes that, if all your pains, decisions, and thoughts had some electro-chemical properties, then you’d be aware of those properties.  But why think that?  Do you have to be aware of <i>all</i> of the properties that your mental events have?  Do you have to be aware of <i>everything</i> that is true of the processes of your mind?  Of course not.  There is a lot of unconscious stuff going on in your mind, a lot of stuff you’re not aware of.  So then, why <i>not</i> think that your decisions, your pains, and other mental events have electro-chemical properties?  The only thing that would make that suggestion absurd is if you thought you had to be aware of everything going on in your mind.  But you don’t have to be aware of everything going in your mind.
> 
> Finally, let’s look at the fourth supposed difference between the mental and the physical.  It is probably the hardest to deal with: there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to mental events.  In other words, there is a first-person, felt, immediate, personal, subjective aspect to mental events.  Physical events do not have this subjective aspect; physical events are not qualia.  When dualism claims this, it is basically throwing down the gauntlet to physicalism.  "Look," the dualist says, "there just <i>is</i> this subjective aspect to my pain; it makes sense to ask, ‘What does your pain feel like?’  But it doesn’t make sense to ask, ‘What does your C-fiber firing feel like?’  C-fiber firing does not have this subjective aspect.  So you can’t reduce pain to C-fiber firing."
> 
> How could a physicalist reply to this?  Well, I think it’s not as difficult a problem as some might like to make it out to be.  If I’m a physicalist, then my claim is that C-fiber firing, or maybe some other brain event, <i>just</i> <i>is</i> awareness of pain.  And so it follows, of course, that C-fiber firing, or the brain event, <i>does</i> have a subjective aspect; and that it <i>does</i> make sense to ask, "What does your C-fiber firing feel like?"
> 
> But once again, the dualist is likely to say, "OK, say we open you up and look at your C-fibers firing away.  Are we going to see this subjective aspect, the pain <i>qualia</i> that we talked about?"  Well, the answer to <i>that</i> is clearly no.  But is that a problem?  After all, we <i>experience</i> pain only if it’s <i>our</i> C-fibers that are firing.  If you open my spine up and use scientific instruments to look at my wildly firing C-fibers, then of course <i>you</i> won’t be experiencing pain.  In order for <i>you</i> to experience pain, <i>your</i> C-fibers would have to be firing.  So here’s the point then: the dualist wants to object that a physical event cannot have a subjective aspect; the physicalist protests and says there’s no good reason <i>not</i> to think that physical events can have subjective aspects.  Why <i>couldn’t</i> they?  We can <i>detect</i> a physical event in someone else without <i>ourselves</i> being in a subjective state.  But so what?  Why should I expect to be in pain when I see someone <i>else’s</i> C-fibers fire?  It’s only the firing of <i>my</i> <i>own</i> C-fibers that constitutes <i>my</i> <i>own</i> pain.  So, President Clinton to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot feel my pain!
> 
> So on all four counts, the physicalist has a way to explain how these <i>supposed</i> differences between the mental and the physical <i>aren’t</i> really differences at all.  This undermines crucial support for dualism and greatly increases the plausibility of physicalism.  It is not so absurd, or at least not so <i>obviously</i> absurd, to say that types of mental events are the same as, and reducible to, some types of physical events.  We just have to put these issues in the right light.  And physicalism has one very clear advantage over dualistic interactionism, namely, that there is no mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events takes place.  Right?  Simply because mental events are, at bottom, themselves types of physical events.
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981224546
30,69d29
< 
< C. Other theories of mind.
< 
< We concluded last time on an upbeat note for physicalism.  I had given you some ways that the physicalist could reply to the dualist’s objections; in so doing, I tried to make it plain how some people can hold what, on first glance at least, looks like an absurd claim, that mental events are simply a type of physical event -- brain or neural events.  Now I should note that this is just one kind of physicalism; we may call it <i>neural</i> <i>type</i> <i>physicalism</i>, because it says that mental event types are <i>types</i> <i>of</i> <i>nervous</i> <i>system</i> <i>events</i>.  It is more commonly called "the type-type identity theory."
< 
< I’m going to present an objection to neural type physicalism.  But first I’m going to present another kind of physicalism; I’m going to discuss it very quickly, because mainly I want to use it to make quite clear how neural type physicalism is only one kind of physicalism.  In the middle of this century, it was very fashionable to try to reduce mental events to <i>behavior</i>.  This view is called <i>analytical</i> <i>behaviorism</i>, because the idea is that we can ultimately analyze, or reduce, talk of mental events and processes in terms of things that humans say, express, and do.  In other words, analytical behaviorism says that what a mental event <i>is</i>, is a propensity, a tendency, to display a certain set of behaviors -- words, facial expressions, bodily postures, and actions.  If you want to see whether someone believes that God exists, you look at what he says, how he reacts when you say "God exists," whether he goes to church, and so on.  And his belief is constituted by those behaviors; in other words, there isn’t any more to his belief that God exists than those behaviors.  Or to take another example, the good old example of pain.  Analytical behaviorism would say that pain is nothing more than the tendency to wince, to grimace, to pull back quickly from the source of something causing bodily damage, to say "ouch" and "that hurts," and similar behaviors.  That’s all there is to pain!
< 
< Well, I’m not going to discuss the merits of analytical behaviorism.  Hardly anyone believes it anymore.  Good riddance, I say.  But this theory is an example of another kind of physicalism.  Why?  Because it <i>does</i> say that mental events are reducible to physical events; behaviors are physical events, and behaviorism says that mental events are reducible to behaviors.  So how does behaviorism different from the sort of physicalism I was talking about last time, neural type physicalism?  Well, it’s a different <i>type</i> of physical event that mental events are being reduced to.  On the one hand, neural type physicalism says that mental events can be reduced to types of neural or brain events.  On the other hand, analytical behaviorism says that mental events can be reduced to types of behavioral events.  So basically here’s a question we might ask: If types of mental event can be reduced to types of physical event, then <i>which</i> types of physical event?  Neural type physicalism gives one answer; analytical behaviorism gives a different answer.
< 
< This leads me, finally, to that objection to neural type physicalism that I said I was going to give.  The objection is this: we have construed the types <i>too</i> <i>narrowly</i>.  Maybe there are types of physical events that mental events might be reducible to, that are nothing like neural states.  I’d better give you an example if you’re to see what I’m talking about.  Suppose after some years, superscientists were to build a robot that was given sensory receptors, could talk intelligently on a wide variety of subjects, could carry out a variety of difficult tasks, and even had what appeared to be emotional reactions to its surroundings -- and so forth.  In short, somehow, scientists had created what appeared to be a conscious, intelligent machine.  Now, there is considerable debate over whether such a machine is possible -- whether it is possible to, as it were, <i>build</i> <i>a</i> <i>mind</i> <i>from</i> <i>scratch</i>.  But just assume, for the sake of argument, that such a machine <i>is</i> possible, and that it <i>does</i> have thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and so on.  So then mental events are occurring in this machine.
< 
< Now let’s say our superscientists did not use anything much like the human nervous system to build this robot.  They used some sort of special circuitry -- very high-tech microchips and whatnot.  In that case, it is not any type of <i>neural</i> <i>or</i> <i>brain</i> <i>event</i> to which we would reduce the robot’s mental events.  It would be a -- what should we call it? -- a circuitry event!  And then in that case mental events could be reducible <i>not</i> <i>just</i> to neural events, but also to <i>circuitry</i> events.  So here then is the objection to neural type physicalism: the types we’re reducing mental events to is too narrow.  To include the mental events of high-tech conscious robots, we should describe the physical events in some way that would include <i>both</i> neural events <i>and</i> circuitry events.  Not <i>just</i> neural events.
< 
< Or suppose that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  So there might be some alien species that does not have anything quite like our brain or nervous system.  Say this species is intelligent, and conscious, and has a mind, but its mental events are identical to a different type of physical event; instead of neurons, they have schmeurons, say.  Well then, if we want to be physicalists, then we should allow that mental events can be reduced to neural events, <i>or</i> circuitry events, or to schmeural events!  As you can see, the list might go on.
< 
< In any case, I think that this neatly refutes neural type physicalism.  Neural type physicalists are biased in favor of the physical types that the human species has.  So philosophers of mind, trying to be clever, have named this bias <i>species</i> <i>chauvinism</i>.  That means that neural type physicalists are irrationally disposed in favor of their own species, when it comes to describing the physical types that mental events reduce to, or are identical to.
< 
< Suppose after all this, I still think that dualism is wrong, and I admit that neural type physicalism is wrong; but I still think that <i>some</i> kind of physicalism is still basically right.  I think that everything basically has to reduce to the physical; only the physical exists ultimately.  So then what are my options?  Is there a way for me to hold onto physicalism, so I can get around the species chauvinism accusation?  Well, there are basically two ways.  The first way is find an <i>even</i> <i>broader</i> type of event, which describes <i>all</i> the different specific physical event types that different species, or robots, might have.  This is called functionalism.  The second way is to deny that we are reducing mental event <i>types</i>, and talk instead of reducing mental event <i>tokens</i>.  This I will call token physicalism.  I’m not going to talk about either theory in much depth, because I’ll tell the truth -- by now we have gotten quite far away from any issues that were talked about throughout most of the history of philosophy.  All of these issues about the different kinds of physicalism have arisen in the last fifty or sixty years or so.
< 
< So first I will briefly explain functionalism.  Functionalism asks: what do neural events, <i>and</i> circuitry events, <i>and</i> schmeural events <i>all</i> have in common?  The answer: it can’t be any <i>particular</i> <i>type</i> of physical hardware that they have in common.  It’s not neurons, microchips, or schmeurons.  So what do they have in common?  What they have in common is that they are all structurally similar, or <i>functionally</i> similar.  What do I mean by that?  Well, to similar sorts of inputs, each of these physical types gives a similar sort of output.  Let me give a simple example.  The human, the robot, and the alien are all going to feel pain when you damage their bodies; and they are all going to have roughly similar reactions, such as announcing that they’re in pain, avoiding the source of the damage, and perhaps striking back or getting angry.
< 
< So here is a simple definition of "functionalism":
< 
< <i>Functionalism</i> is the view that mental events are the same as functional states; and a <i>functional</i> <i>state</i> is a state a physical system is in, when it has a set of sensory and other inputs, together with a set of potential behavioral outputs.
< 
< So say I’m thinking about bananas.  That mental event is, according to functionalism, a functional state; and that just means a state described by various inputs and outputs.  For example, an input would be that someone has said the word "bananas" to me and off I go thinking about bananas; and then a potential output would be to go get a banana and eat it.  So my mental event, thinking about bananas, is just a functional state, and the functional state is specified by the inputs of the event and the outputs of the event.
< 
< Well of course there is a lot we could say about functionalism.  For one thing, if all we have at our disposal, to describe mental events, is their inputs and outputs, then have we really described the mental event <i>itself</i> adequately?  It would be a little like saying that an oak tree could be adequately described like this: "Oak trees result from acorns (that’s the oak tree input) and they are cut up to make tables (that’s the oak tree output)."  Yeah, but (you might ask) what is an <i>oak</i> <i>tree</i> <i>itself</i>?  You might ask a similar thing of functionalists.  "OK, so mental events have certain inputs and outputs; I can accept that; but what is a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i> <i>itself</i>?"  Unfortunately, we don’t have time to go into it.  But for what it is worth, functionalism is probably the most popular theory of mind today.  So obviously a lot more can be said about it.
< 
< I said there is a second way to get around the species chauvinism objection.  This can be called <i>token</i> <i>physicalism</i>.  More commonly called "the token-token identity theory."  Whatever you want to call it, I’ll define as follows:
< 
< <i>Token</i> <i>physicalism</i> is the view that tokens of mental events may be reduced to tokens of physical events.
< 
< The idea here is that we are giving up trying to give <i>general</i> <i>accounts</i> of mental event types.  So for example we won’t try to reduce the whole category of pleasure, or the whole category of pain, to any single mental event type.  We’ll focus in on individual, single, pleasures and pains.  And we say, of those mental event <i>tokens</i>, that each one is identical to, and reducible to, some physical event token.  In our case, we might say that an individual pain is the same as an individual instance of my C-fibers firing.  But we might say something quite different about the pain of an alien from Alpha Centauri.  The point in either case, though, is that it’s <i>tokens</i> of mental events that are reduced to <i>tokens</i> of physical events.
< 
< I’m just going to give one little objection to this theory.  Namely, what does the following phrase mean? -- "Token of a mental event."  Token physicalism can’t tell us.  I mean, suppose a scientist had reduced a slew of mental event tokens to physical event tokens.  So I’d say, "Great work!  But just what do all of those mental event tokens have in common, that makes us say that they are tokens of <i>mental</i> events, as opposed to any other kind of event?"  What distinguishes the mental event tokens from tokens of other kinds of events?  That’s the question: What distinguishes mental event tokens?  Dualism, remember, says that the mental is an ultimate, fundamental category of being; it can’t be explained in terms of anything nonmental.  So dualism doesn’t have to answer this question.  And neural type physicalism at least promises to answer the question; it says that we will discover just exactly what all the different mental events have in common, which makes them all mental events; and it’s going to be some special type of event in the brain.
< 
< But token physicalism can’t answer this question; it can’t tell us what mental event tokens have in common; and why not?  Because if <i>any</i> theory tells us what mental event tokens have in common, then the theory is describing mental event <i>types</i>.  Just think: that is <i>precisely</i> what mental event tokens have in common: they are all tokens of mental event <i>types</i>.  What do human pain and alien pain in common?  They are both tokens of the type, pain.  So, if we describe what all mental event tokens have in common, then we have for that very reason described a mental event type!  And then the token physicalist would have to talk about mental event types; and that means we’ve basically given up token physicalism.  Well, that’s the only thing I’m going to say about token physicalism.  My usual disclaimers apply.
< 
< In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
------
PhysicalIsm|981224599
35c35,73
< So on all four counts, the physicalist has a way to explain how these <i>supposed</i> differences between the mental and the physical <i>aren’t</i> really differences at all.  This undermines crucial support for dualism and greatly increases the plausibility of physicalism.  It is not so absurd, or at least not so <i>obviously</i> absurd, to say that types of mental events are the same as, and reducible to, some types of physical events.  We just have to put these issues in the right light.  And physicalism has one very clear advantage over dualistic interactionism, namely, that there is no mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events takes place.  Right?  Simply because mental events are, at bottom, themselves types of physical events.
---
> So on all four counts, the physicalist has a way to explain how these <i>supposed</i> differences between the mental and the physical <i>aren’t</i> really differences at all.  This undermines crucial support for dualism and greatly increases the plausibility of physicalism.  It is not so absurd, or at least not so <i>obviously</i> absurd, to say that types of mental events are the same as, and reducible to, some types of physical events.  We just have to put these issues in the right light.  And physicalism has one very clear advantage over dualistic interactionism, namely, that there is no mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events takes place.  Right?  Simply because mental events are, at bottom, themselves types of physical events.
> 
> I have given you some ways that the physicalist could reply to the dualist’s objections; in so doing, I tried to make it plain how some people can hold what, on first glance at least, looks like an absurd claim, that mental events are simply a type of physical event -- brain or neural events.  Now I should note that this is just one kind of physicalism; we may call it <i>neural</i> <i>type</i> <i>physicalism</i>, because it says that mental event types are <i>types</i> <i>of</i> <i>nervous</i> <i>system</i> <i>events</i>.  It is more commonly called "the type-type identity theory."
> 
> I’m going to present an objection to neural type physicalism.  But first I’m going to present another kind of physicalism; I’m going to discuss it very quickly, because mainly I want to use it to make quite clear how neural type physicalism is only one kind of physicalism.  In the middle of this century, it was very fashionable to try to reduce mental events to <i>behavior</i>.  This view is called <i>analytical</i> <i>behaviorism</i>, because the idea is that we can ultimately analyze, or reduce, talk of mental events and processes in terms of things that humans say, express, and do.  In other words, analytical behaviorism says that what a mental event <i>is</i>, is a propensity, a tendency, to display a certain set of behaviors -- words, facial expressions, bodily postures, and actions.  If you want to see whether someone believes that God exists, you look at what he says, how he reacts when you say "God exists," whether he goes to church, and so on.  And his belief is constituted by those behaviors; in other words, there isn’t any more to his belief that God exists than those behaviors.  Or to take another example, the good old example of pain.  Analytical behaviorism would say that pain is nothing more than the tendency to wince, to grimace, to pull back quickly from the source of something causing bodily damage, to say "ouch" and "that hurts," and similar behaviors.  That’s all there is to pain!
> 
> Well, I’m not going to discuss the merits of analytical behaviorism.  Hardly anyone believes it anymore.  Good riddance, I say.  But this theory is an example of another kind of physicalism.  Why?  Because it <i>does</i> say that mental events are reducible to physical events; behaviors are physical events, and behaviorism says that mental events are reducible to behaviors.  So how does behaviorism different from the sort of physicalism I was talking about last time, neural type physicalism?  Well, it’s a different <i>type</i> of physical event that mental events are being reduced to.  On the one hand, neural type physicalism says that mental events can be reduced to types of neural or brain events.  On the other hand, analytical behaviorism says that mental events can be reduced to types of behavioral events.  So basically here’s a question we might ask: If types of mental event can be reduced to types of physical event, then <i>which</i> types of physical event?  Neural type physicalism gives one answer; analytical behaviorism gives a different answer.
> 
> This leads me, finally, to that objection to neural type physicalism that I said I was going to give.  The objection is this: we have construed the types <i>too</i> <i>narrowly</i>.  Maybe there are types of physical events that mental events might be reducible to, that are nothing like neural states.  I’d better give you an example if you’re to see what I’m talking about.  Suppose after some years, superscientists were to build a robot that was given sensory receptors, could talk intelligently on a wide variety of subjects, could carry out a variety of difficult tasks, and even had what appeared to be emotional reactions to its surroundings -- and so forth.  In short, somehow, scientists had created what appeared to be a conscious, intelligent machine.  Now, there is considerable debate over whether such a machine is possible -- whether it is possible to, as it were, <i>build</i> <i>a</i> <i>mind</i> <i>from</i> <i>scratch</i>.  But just assume, for the sake of argument, that such a machine <i>is</i> possible, and that it <i>does</i> have thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and so on.  So then mental events are occurring in this machine.
> 
> Now let’s say our superscientists did not use anything much like the human nervous system to build this robot.  They used some sort of special circuitry -- very high-tech microchips and whatnot.  In that case, it is not any type of <i>neural</i> <i>or</i> <i>brain</i> <i>event</i> to which we would reduce the robot’s mental events.  It would be a -- what should we call it? -- a circuitry event!  And then in that case mental events could be reducible <i>not</i> <i>just</i> to neural events, but also to <i>circuitry</i> events.  So here then is the objection to neural type physicalism: the types we’re reducing mental events to is too narrow.  To include the mental events of high-tech conscious robots, we should describe the physical events in some way that would include <i>both</i> neural events <i>and</i> circuitry events.  Not <i>just</i> neural events.
> 
> Or suppose that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  So there might be some alien species that does not have anything quite like our brain or nervous system.  Say this species is intelligent, and conscious, and has a mind, but its mental events are identical to a different type of physical event; instead of neurons, they have schmeurons, say.  Well then, if we want to be physicalists, then we should allow that mental events can be reduced to neural events, <i>or</i> circuitry events, or to schmeural events!  As you can see, the list might go on.
> 
> In any case, I think that this neatly refutes neural type physicalism.  Neural type physicalists are biased in favor of the physical types that the human species has.  So philosophers of mind, trying to be clever, have named this bias <i>species</i> <i>chauvinism</i>.  That means that neural type physicalists are irrationally disposed in favor of their own species, when it comes to describing the physical types that mental events reduce to, or are identical to.
> 
> Suppose after all this, I still think that dualism is wrong, and I admit that neural type physicalism is wrong; but I still think that <i>some</i> kind of physicalism is still basically right.  I think that everything basically has to reduce to the physical; only the physical exists ultimately.  So then what are my options?  Is there a way for me to hold onto physicalism, so I can get around the species chauvinism accusation?  Well, there are basically two ways.  The first way is find an <i>even</i> <i>broader</i> type of event, which describes <i>all</i> the different specific physical event types that different species, or robots, might have.  This is called functionalism.  The second way is to deny that we are reducing mental event <i>types</i>, and talk instead of reducing mental event <i>tokens</i>.  This I will call token physicalism.  I’m not going to talk about either theory in much depth, because I’ll tell the truth -- by now we have gotten quite far away from any issues that were talked about throughout most of the history of philosophy.  All of these issues about the different kinds of physicalism have arisen in the last fifty or sixty years or so.
> 
> So first I will briefly explain functionalism.  Functionalism asks: what do neural events, <i>and</i> circuitry events, <i>and</i> schmeural events <i>all</i> have in common?  The answer: it can’t be any <i>particular</i> <i>type</i> of physical hardware that they have in common.  It’s not neurons, microchips, or schmeurons.  So what do they have in common?  What they have in common is that they are all structurally similar, or <i>functionally</i> similar.  What do I mean by that?  Well, to similar sorts of inputs, each of these physical types gives a similar sort of output.  Let me give a simple example.  The human, the robot, and the alien are all going to feel pain when you damage their bodies; and they are all going to have roughly similar reactions, such as announcing that they’re in pain, avoiding the source of the damage, and perhaps striking back or getting angry.
> 
> So here is a simple definition of "functionalism":
> 
> <i>Functionalism</i> is the view that mental events are the same as functional states; and a <i>functional</i> <i>state</i> is a state a physical system is in, when it has a set of sensory and other inputs, together with a set of potential behavioral outputs.
> 
> So say I’m thinking about bananas.  That mental event is, according to functionalism, a functional state; and that just means a state described by various inputs and outputs.  For example, an input would be that someone has said the word "bananas" to me and off I go thinking about bananas; and then a potential output would be to go get a banana and eat it.  So my mental event, thinking about bananas, is just a functional state, and the functional state is specified by the inputs of the event and the outputs of the event.
> 
> Well of course there is a lot we could say about functionalism.  For one thing, if all we have at our disposal, to describe mental events, is their inputs and outputs, then have we really described the mental event <i>itself</i> adequately?  It would be a little like saying that an oak tree could be adequately described like this: "Oak trees result from acorns (that’s the oak tree input) and they are cut up to make tables (that’s the oak tree output)."  Yeah, but (you might ask) what is an <i>oak</i> <i>tree</i> <i>itself</i>?  You might ask a similar thing of functionalists.  "OK, so mental events have certain inputs and outputs; I can accept that; but what is a <i>mental</i> <i>event</i> <i>itself</i>?"  Unfortunately, we don’t have time to go into it.  But for what it is worth, functionalism is probably the most popular theory of mind today.  So obviously a lot more can be said about it.
> 
> I said there is a second way to get around the species chauvinism objection.  This can be called <i>token</i> <i>physicalism</i>.  More commonly called "the token-token identity theory."  Whatever you want to call it, I’ll define as follows:
> 
> <i>Token</i> <i>physicalism</i> is the view that tokens of mental events may be reduced to tokens of physical events.
> 
> The idea here is that we are giving up trying to give <i>general</i> <i>accounts</i> of mental event types.  So for example we won’t try to reduce the whole category of pleasure, or the whole category of pain, to any single mental event type.  We’ll focus in on individual, single, pleasures and pains.  And we say, of those mental event <i>tokens</i>, that each one is identical to, and reducible to, some physical event token.  In our case, we might say that an individual pain is the same as an individual instance of my C-fibers firing.  But we might say something quite different about the pain of an alien from Alpha Centauri.  The point in either case, though, is that it’s <i>tokens</i> of mental events that are reduced to <i>tokens</i> of physical events.
> 
> I’m just going to give one little objection to this theory.  Namely, what does the following phrase mean? -- "Token of a mental event."  Token physicalism can’t tell us.  I mean, suppose a scientist had reduced a slew of mental event tokens to physical event tokens.  So I’d say, "Great work!  But just what do all of those mental event tokens have in common, that makes us say that they are tokens of <i>mental</i> events, as opposed to any other kind of event?"  What distinguishes the mental event tokens from tokens of other kinds of events?  That’s the question: What distinguishes mental event tokens?  Dualism, remember, says that the mental is an ultimate, fundamental category of being; it can’t be explained in terms of anything nonmental.  So dualism doesn’t have to answer this question.  And neural type physicalism at least promises to answer the question; it says that we will discover just exactly what all the different mental events have in common, which makes them all mental events; and it’s going to be some special type of event in the brain.
> 
> But token physicalism can’t answer this question; it can’t tell us what mental event tokens have in common; and why not?  Because if <i>any</i> theory tells us what mental event tokens have in common, then the theory is describing mental event <i>types</i>.  Just think: that is <i>precisely</i> what mental event tokens have in common: they are all tokens of mental event <i>types</i>.  What do human pain and alien pain in common?  They are both tokens of the type, pain.  So, if we describe what all mental event tokens have in common, then we have for that very reason described a mental event type!  And then the token physicalist would have to talk about mental event types; and that means we’ve basically given up token physicalism.  Well, that’s the only thing I’m going to say about token physicalism.  My usual disclaimers apply.
> 
> In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
------
DualIsm|981224657
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText; further wikification is encouraged> 
> 
43c45
< Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
---
> Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
------
PhysicalIsm|981224676
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText; further wikification is encouraged> 
> 
73c75
< In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
---
> In the interests of mercy, let me say that I’m not trying to make you believe that we can’t know which theory of mind is correct -- I don’t want you to leave class being skeptics about philosophical questions about the mind.  Generally, in the interests of objectivity and general intellectual responsibility, I feel it is my duty to tell you about most of the leading philosophical theories of the different subjects we’re studying, and some arguments for and against them.  So, the mere fact that I’m not telling you that one theory is The Truth doesn’t mean that I have no views about what The Truth is.  In fact, I do think that one particular theory of mind is better than the others -- I’m just not telling what it is!  And the mere fact that I’m presenting objections to all of the theories I’ve stated doesn’t mean that I think we can’t know which one is correct, or that they are all false; all I’m trying to do is to introduce you to the issues.  Philosophical issues are more complicated than you might have thought when you came into this class.  So if you want to have really well-informed views on these issues, it’s just the same as having really well-informed views on issues in chemistry, or in political science, or in computer programming.  It’s going to take research and long hard thinking.
------
LibertarianisM|981224813
9a10,11
> 
>  - I think a definition of 'right-wing' is necessary if you are going to make that claim.
------
LarrysText|981225442
11c11
< ::PhilosophyOfMind -- TheMindBodyProblem -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- FreeWillAndDeterminism
---
> ::PhilosophyOfMind -- MentalEvent -- MentalFunctions -- ConsciousNess -- TheMindBodyProblem -- ReducTion -- MonIsm -- NeutralMonism -- DualIsm -- PhysicalIsm PhilosophyOfPerception -- FreeWillAndDeterminism
34a35,45
> ----
> Update, Feb. 3, from LarrySanger: as an example of how I would like this text to be wikified, I have started working on wikifying [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=PhilosophyOfMind&revision=1 the original PhilosophyOfMind entry] and [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=TheMindBodyProblem&revision=1 the original TheMindBodyProblem entry].  In the process of wikifying these pages, as you can see by comparing the originals (click on the bracketed links) with the most recent versions (PhilosophyOfMind and TheMindBodyProblem), I have done the following:
> * Prised out large portions of the text that belong in their own headings; see DualIsm and PhysicalIsm 
> * Prised out smaller portions of text that explicate jargon; see MentalEvent, MentalFunctions, ConsciousNess, ReducTion, MonIsm, NeutralMonism
> * Invented a few new entries along the way; see PhysicalEvent, NeuroN (planned--go ahead, do it yourself), BrainEvent, PhilosophicalView
> * Changed some of the "I" talk to "magisterial-we" talk
> * Deleted parts of the text that make it easier to read/listen to (this was padding)
> * Deleted parts of the text that made transitions from one part to another (this isn't going to be one continuous text when we're done with it)
> * Did a little copyediting, tightening up, and even added a thought or two
> * Etc.?
> Go thou and do likewise--please!
------
LarrysText|981225528
38a39
> * ''Importantly,'' I added links to the new entries created by prised-out text in the appropriate places in the table of contents above.  This is useful for someone who wants to follow the original text.
------
BillClinton|981226851
5c5,7
< There's a great deal more to be said about him -- let's try to keep it nonpartisan and encyclopedic?
---
> Known also for granting the most controversial PresidentialPardon in US history.
> 
> There's a great deal more to be said about him -- let's try to keep it nonpartisan and encyclopedic?
------
IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries|981227035
1c1
< Over the span of forty two years IsaacAsimov created an epic of Galactic proportions: he showed us the rise and fall of the largest human Empire ever. It consists of seven novels, which although they can be read separately, are closely linked to one another.
---
> Over the span of forty two years IsaacAsimov created an epic of Galactic proportions: he showed us the rise and fall of the largest human Empire ever. It consists of seven volumes (about 800,000 words), which although they can be read separately, are closely linked to one another.
3c3
< /PreludeToFoundation
---
> /PreludeToFoundation (1988)
5c5
< /ForwardTheFoundation
---
> /ForwardTheFoundation (1991)
7c7
< /Foundation
---
> /Foundation (1951)
9c9
< /FoundationAndEmpire
---
> /FoundationAndEmpire (1952)
11c11
< /SecondFoundation
---
> /SecondFoundation (1953)
13c13
< /FoundationsEdge
---
> /FoundationsEdge (1982)
15c15
< /FoundationAndEarth 
---
> /FoundationAndEarth (1983)
------
IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries|981227088
15a16,18
> 
> ----
> ''see'' also FoundationTrilogy
------
IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries|981227171
18c18
< ''see'' also FoundationTrilogy
---
> ''see'' FoundationTrilogy
------
FoundationTrilogy|981227323
3,5c3,5
< * Foundation
< * Foundation and Empire
< * Second Foundation
---
> * Foundation (1951)
> * Foundation and Empire (1952)
> * Second Foundation (1953)
7a8,10
> 
> IsaacAsimov returned to the series in 1982 and wrote four new volumes before he passed away ten years later.
> 
------
IsaacAsimov/PreludeToFoundation|981227476
1c1
< It is a prequel to the FoundationTrilogy. For the first time IsaacAsimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on TrantoR during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of Psychohistory is at risk. 
---
> Being the first volume of /TheFoundationSeries, it is also one of two prequels to the FoundationTrilogy. For the first time IsaacAsimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on TrantoR during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of PsychohistorY is at risk. 
------
IsaacAsimov/PreludeToFoundation|981227543
1c1
< Being the first volume of /TheFoundationSeries, it is also one of two prequels to the FoundationTrilogy. For the first time IsaacAsimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on TrantoR during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of PsychohistorY is at risk. 
---
> Being the first volume of /TheFoundationSeries, it is also one of two prequels to the FoundationTrilogy. For the first time IsaacAsimov chronicles the life of Hari Seldon, the man who laid the framework for the grandest project humanity has ever attempted. The story takes place on /TrantoR during the reign of Emperor Cleon I. Hari is pursued by powerful enemies and the future of PsychohistorY is at risk. 
------
IsaacAsimov/TrantoR|981227785
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The planet TranntoR was the capital of the /FirstGalacticEmpire. Its land surface of 200 million sq. km. was -- with exception of the Imperial Palace area -- entirely domed. It consisted of an enourmous MegalopoliS that stretched deep underground and was a home to 40,000,000,000 (40 bil.) inhabitants.
------
IsaacAsimov/TrantoR|981227798
1c1
< The planet TranntoR was the capital of the /FirstGalacticEmpire. Its land surface of 200 million sq. km. was -- with exception of the Imperial Palace area -- entirely domed. It consisted of an enourmous MegalopoliS that stretched deep underground and was a home to 40,000,000,000 (40 bil.) inhabitants.
---
> The planet TrantoR was the capital of the /FirstGalacticEmpire. Its land surface of 200 million sq. km. was -- with exception of the Imperial Palace area -- entirely domed. It consisted of an enourmous MegalopoliS that stretched deep underground and was a home to 40,000,000,000 (40 bil.) inhabitants.
------
LibertarianisM|981227926
11a12,13
> 
> ''Fair enough.  Left-wing means belief in more equality and right-wing in less - not meant disparagingly, since to much equality is a bad thing too (HarrisonBergeron).  In any case, this puts people who believe in fair process to the right of people who believe in fair outcome.  And, as it happens, this is what a free market is; thus economically at least, the LP is on the right.  This may not be the best definition of left-right, but it sums up what most people mean by the terms.''
------
IsaacAsimov/TheFoundationSeries|981228011
15a16,18
> ----
> * /TrantoR
> 
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981228687
21c21
< I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias.  That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral.  A brief search reveals that there are ''many'' criticisms of his obviously popular works available for comparison purposes.
---
> I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias.  That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral.  A brief search reveals that there are ''many'' criticisms of his obviously popular works available for comparison purposes.  I think what might be a good idea is to put AmericasPoor as a subpage of JulianSimon, and there sum up his arguments and those of his opponents.
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981228746
1c1
< Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  If we're being careful, we won't formulate it this way, in terms of truth.  Instead, we'll say the law is: for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.
---
> Variously formulated, the gist of the Law of Noncontradiction is that a proposition and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and "in the same respect."  If we're being careful, we won't formulate it this way, in terms of truth (it might then might be confused with ThePrincipleOfBivalence).  Instead, we'll say the law is: for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.  In Aristotle's formulation: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
3c3
< The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers.  See also TheLawOfExcludedMiddle and ThePrincipleOfBivalence.
---
> The Law of Noncontradiction is almost universally affirmed by philosophers.  See also TheLawOfExcludedMiddle and ThePrincipleOfBivalence.
------
CityBerlin|981228860
4,10c4
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN. 
< 
< 
< ----
< ''The bavarian Capital in this time was Munich, which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT"''
< 
< Munich has ALWAYS been the capital of Bavaria. --WojPob
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN.
------
GermanY|981228902
25c25
< BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA. 
---
> BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA.  The Bavarian Capital is MunicH (German ''M&uuml;nich,'' which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT."
------
GermanY|981228948
25c25
< BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA.  The Bavarian Capital is MunicH (German ''M&uuml;nich,'' which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT."
---
> BTW: It's not true that all Germans like "Sauerkraut and Eisbein", and not many people there are wearing short leather trousers even not in BavariA.  The Bavarian Capital is MunicH (German ''München'') which is famous of its big beer festival, the "OktoberfesT."
------
ReviewRequests|981229017
4d3
< 
6,7c5,7
< 
< Larry was kind enough to add a lot of information from some of his PhiloSophy lectures.  They were added "as is", thus could use some wikification.  See LarrysText.
---
> Larry was kind enough to add a lot of information from some of his PhiloSophy lectures.  They were added "as is", thus could use some wikification.  See LarrysText for discussion of how it should be wikified.
> ----
> In the mere opinion of LarrySanger, the following pages need (as of Feb. 3) serious editing and/or refactoring and/or creation of *Talk or *Discussion pages: AlTruism; GottfriedLeibniz; CommonSense; AppliedEthics; DeconstructionIsm; SoCrates; EthicsVsMorals; BillClinton; LibertarianisM; UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving; FootBall; ConsequentialIsm.
------
WikiPediaProcess|981229094
2a3,4
> Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy.
> ----
43c45
< '''A.'''  I can't answer the question definitively but I can say that you can easily link to images elsewhere.  So, perhaps as a temporary solution, you can always upload, elsewhere, an image, then link to it from WikiPedia.  The wiki programmers must know more, though...
---
> '''A.'''  I can't answer the question definitively but I can say that you can easily link to images elsewhere.  So, perhaps as a temporary solution, you can always upload, elsewhere, an image, then link to it from WikiPedia.  The wiki programmers must know more, though...
------
LibertarianisM|981229296
13a14,16
> 
> ----
> This is a good definition, but the part about equality is misleading.  If the left wants economic equality, there must be political inequality, as the state treats different people differently (different tax rates, for example).  Furthermore, one group, the political elite, must have the power to impose their views on others, while dissenters are deprived of the political power to prevent this.  Thus the distribution of political power is unequal in a left-wing regime.  So the left does not stand for equality, it stand for one type of equality at the expense of others.  The right, as it is being used here, is not concerned with equality _or_ inequality, or any other outcome, but with fair processes.  So to define the issue in terms of more equality vs. less equality is misleading.  But we have a good start for a new page on the right-left spectrum, if someone want to step up and do that. - TimShell
------
RefactoringPolicy|981229327
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''How much and how often should refactoring be done?'''
> 
> View 1.  As often as one sees something incorrect, obviously biased/partisan.  It is better to change a page immediately, when one sees something perceived to be a problem, rather than to discuss changes that need to be made.  Adherents of this view: LarrySanger
> 
> View 2.  Only after a discussion has played out.  It is better to let the original author of a page to make changes to it.  Adherents of this view: 
> 
> '''Should discussion occur on the page itself or instead on a *Talk or *Discussion page?'''
> 
> View 1.  On the page itself.  Adherents of this view:
> 
> View 2.  On a *Talk or *Discussion page, always (or almost always).  Adherents of this view: LarrySanger
> 
> '''What is the purpose of refactoring?'''
> 
> View 1. 
> 
> View 2.
> 
> View 3.
------
ReviewRequests|981229444
7c7
< In the mere opinion of LarrySanger, the following pages need (as of Feb. 3) serious editing and/or refactoring and/or creation of *Talk or *Discussion pages: AlTruism; GottfriedLeibniz; CommonSense; AppliedEthics; DeconstructionIsm; SoCrates; EthicsVsMorals; BillClinton; LibertarianisM; UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving; FootBall; ConsequentialIsm.
---
> In the mere opinion of LarrySanger, the following pages need (as of Feb. 3) serious editing and/or refactoring and/or creation of *Talk or *Discussion pages: AlTruism; GottfriedLeibniz; CommonSense; AppliedEthics; DeconstructionIsm; SoCrates; EthicsVsMorals; BillClinton; LibertarianisM; UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving; FootBall; ConsequentialIsm.  ''Please see RefactoringPolicy.''
------
NeuroN|981229558
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The basic cells of the nervous systems of animals, whose job is to transmit and process signals.  Neurons occur both in nerves and the brain.  The former are mostly for bringing sensory information in and controlling bodily functions; sometimes nerves are hooked up to elicit a response on their own, called a ''reflex'', but more often reactions are decided in the brain.
> 
> An individual neuron has a sort-of-amoeboid cell body, from which extends a long (potentially several metres) projection called the axon, and numerous shorter protoplasmic branches called dendrites.  Hormones called neurotransmitters are received on the dendrites and affect the voltage of the cell, normally around -50 mV thanks to the ion pump.  When it reaches a certain threshold level, there is a dramatic change in the ion pump that causes a electric pulse to travel along the axon.  When it reaches the terminals there, it stimulates them to release other neurotransmitters, which are either applied to another neuron or to some kind of muscle.
------
WikiPediaProcess|981230322
45a46,47
> 
> '''A2.'''  The ''next'' release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like &infin; for the infinity symbol, &Delta; for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc.  See the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html list of standard characters] for more information.  Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols.  For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required.  (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.)  --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)
------
LibertarianisM|981230469
16a17,20
> 
> The moderate right deals with fair processes.  The extreme right (fascism) doesn't deal with any sort of equality at all, and the moderate left deals with fair outcome, which I would say is objectively more equality than that of the moderate right, since people end up being practically equal rather than theoretically equal.  So I stand by that definition.  I think it's a little misleading only in that it seems to imply you can never be too far left, because people have been conditioned to think that any kind of equality is good equality, which isn't true.
> 
> By the way, you are wrong to claim that left-wing economics necessarily implies an unequal distribution of political power.  What about a socialist direct democracy?  Such things are fully possible - Athens leaned that way - and yet it can hardly be said that power is being wielded by an elite, since all decisions are made by the whole citizenry.  And, as I've said, there are such things as ''libertarian socialists'', though I don't know the details of how their state would work. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
NamingConventions|981231497
54c54,62
< ''In most cases this can be codified fairly easily, and so applied without an etymological dictionary.  Usually the letter immediately preceding the first O would get capitalized: GeoMetry, DemoCracy, PhiloSophy, BioLogy.  Words that end in I stems would have the last I capitalized: MarxIsm, PolitIcs, ChristianIty, SkiIng.  Failing those, you could just look for some common stem words: Al-, -Lysis, -Archy, etc.''
---
> ''In most cases this can be codified fairly easily, and so applied without an etymological dictionary.  Usually the letter immediately preceding the first O would get capitalized: GeoMetry, DemoCracy, PhiloSophy, BioLogy.  Words that end in I stems would have the last I capitalized: MarxIsm, PolitIcs, ChristianIty, SkiIng.  Failing those, you could just look for some common stem words: Al-, -Lysis, -Archy, etc.''
> ----
> Various animal articles are coming in, so I'd like to fill in some of the hierarchy thet fit into.  Does anyone have any idea about how groups should be named?  Some possibilities:
> 
> * PhylumPorifera (one difficulty is that not all groups have clear ranks)
> * PoriFera
> * SpongE
> 
> Note also that high-level taxa could get named differently from low-level taxa: KingdomAnimalia, WolF.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how they'd like groups named?
------
FootBall|981232511
37a38,41
> 
> <i>Whoever wrote this deserves a round of applause, it made
> me laugh out load</i>--JimboWales
> 
------
FootBall|981232529
39,40c39,40
< <i>Whoever wrote this deserves a round of applause, it made
< me laugh out load</i>--JimboWales
---
> <em>Whoever wrote this deserves a round of applause, it made
> me laugh out load</em>--JimboWales
------
RefactoringPolicy|981232855
6a7,8
> View 3.  The middle road -- respect for a dialogue _qua_ dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak early on can avoid a flame war.  To refactor or not will often depend on the context, and so either rule 1 (change immediately) or rule 2 (wait for the discussion to end) are too extreme.  Adherents of this view: JimboWales
> 
12a15,16
> View 3.  The decision to keep the discussion where it is, or move it to a *Discussion page, is contextual.  Factors involved in the decision include such things as: how long is the discussion likely to continue, is resolution likely, is the discussion particularly flame-likely, etc. -- JimboWales
> 
19c23
< View 3.
---
> View 3.  I propose that there is a long-run and short-run purpose.  The long-run purpose is to turn a discussion into a resource.  The short-run purpose is to channel a discussion in a useful direction, i.e. to help aim it at the future time when it can be a resource. --JimboWales
------
BillClinton|981232978
6a7,8
> During his time in office, he was one of the most popular Presidents in history, despite the scandals.  Many people viewed the scandals as being merely sexual in nature, and not worthy of political consequences.  Partisans of this view might argue that the impeachment was more about politics than any genuine concern with lying to the GrandJury.
> 
------
CliffordAdams|981233034
3a4,5
> 
> CliffordAdams is a hero to me for helping us with this project, and for his excellent software.  --JimboWales
------
JulianSimon|981233236
11a12,13
> ''I agree.  If this were a collection of polemics, it would be appropriate to let this stand as-is.  But it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should attempt to stick to something like _consensus opinion_, which may be different from _truth_.  The job of an encyclopedia is to present ideas, not to advocate for them.'' --JimboWales
> 
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981233293
19c19
< Tim, I know you mean well and are trying to provide some decent data on standard of living.  But a good deal of this was clearly selected to lead to a particular impression which it doesn't directly support.  For instance, fewer people have cars in the UK.  However, the UK is a lot smaller than the US, and could quite conceivably have a better system of public transport, so that cars aren't nearly so useful, even as luxuries.  And on the other side of the coin, I suspect that there are many omitted statistics that would go the other way - for instance, how do America's poor compare in education?
---
> TimShell, I know you mean well and are trying to provide some decent data on standard of living.  But a good deal of this was clearly selected to lead to a particular impression which it doesn't directly support.  For instance, fewer people have cars in the UK.  However, the UK is a lot smaller than the US, and could quite conceivably have a better system of public transport, so that cars aren't nearly so useful, even as luxuries.  And on the other side of the coin, I suspect that there are many omitted statistics that would go the other way - for instance, how do America's poor compare in education?
------
RefactoringPolicy|981233605
23a24,29
> 
> ----
> ----
> '''Discussion:'''
> 
> Occasionally a useful middle-ground is to separate the commonly-accepted summary from the discussion.  A good way to do this is to place the summary at top, then use two horizontal lines and a word like '''Discussion:''' before the discussion.  If the discussion grows large or unweildy, it can later be separated into other page(s).  --CliffordAdams
------
RefactoringPolicy|981235385
29a30,32
> ----
>  * Policy policy
> If Wikipedia achieves its potential there will be thousands of people writing and editing articles.  There is no system in place that would allow all of this activity to be monitored by some central authority to insure compliance with various policies.  With this in mind, we should not try now to lay down policies as if the project is easily controlled.  We should assume that policies will emerge from use and experience.  We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be.
------
RefactoringPolicy|981235884
31c31
<  * Policy policy
---
> <b> * Policy policy</b>
------
RefactoringPolicy|981235929
32c32
< If Wikipedia achieves its potential there will be thousands of people writing and editing articles.  There is no system in place that would allow all of this activity to be monitored by some central authority to insure compliance with various policies.  With this in mind, we should not try now to lay down policies as if the project is easily controlled.  We should assume that policies will emerge from use and experience.  We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be.
---
> If Wikipedia achieves its potential there will be thousands of people writing and editing articles.  There is no system in place that would allow all of this activity to be monitored by some central authority to insure compliance with various editorial policies.  With this in mind, we should not try now to lay down policies as if the project is easily controlled.  We should assume that policies will emerge from use and experience.  We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be. - TimShell
------
RefactoringPolicy|981236827
32a33,34
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily so.  Even if policies can't be enforced, making some guidelines and some reason for the guidelines clear to any visitor will undoubtedly influence their writing style.  And, more importantly, people will probably model their contributions to a fair extent after what is already here.  So in this formative period we have a good opportunity to set the course, even though the ship may turn later. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
LibertarianisM|981237083
3c3,4
< You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates.
---
> You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. ''- it also occurs 
> that this should probably be removed.  A party's home page is probably the worst place to find out any objective information about its views.  If this link belongs anywhere, it belongs on a list of American parties.''
20c21
< By the way, you are wrong to claim that left-wing economics necessarily implies an unequal distribution of political power.  What about a socialist direct democracy?  Such things are fully possible - Athens leaned that way - and yet it can hardly be said that power is being wielded by an elite, since all decisions are made by the whole citizenry.  And, as I've said, there are such things as ''libertarian socialists'', though I don't know the details of how their state would work. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> By the way, you are wrong to claim that left-wing economics necessarily implies an unequal distribution of political power.  What about a socialist direct democracy?  Such things are fully possible - Athens leaned that way - and yet it can hardly be said that power is being wielded by an elite, since all decisions are made by the whole citizenry.  And, as I've said, there are such things as ''libertarian socialists'', though I don't know the details of how their state would work. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
LibertarianisM|981237102
3c3
< You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. ''- it also occurs 
---
> You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. - ''it also occurs 
------
LibertarianisM|981237202
3,4c3,4
< You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. - ''it also occurs 
< that this should probably be removed.  A party's home page is probably the worst place to find out any objective information about its views.  If this link belongs anywhere, it belongs on a list of American parties.''
---
> You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. - 
> ''It also occurs to me that this should probably be removed.  A party's home page is probably the worst place to find out any objective information about its views.  If this link belongs anywhere, it belongs on a list of American parties.''
------
LarrySanger|981238747
19a20,28
> ----
> I'm going to treat this page like email, since it probably doesn't belong in the pedia itself.  I found your lecture on TheProblemOfEvil quite enjoyable, and an argument occurred to
> me which I thought I might bounce off of you.
> 
> I suppose I might call it evil relativism.  That is to say, evil is simply any event which lowers one's enjoyment (in the most general sense) - the lower half of our happiness scale.  If we eliminated everything we consider evil - natural as well as man-made, *we* would certainly notice the difference.  But say the temperature still was allowed to vary from 50 degrees F in the winter to 85 degrees F in the summer, and that one being caught outside in winter without a coat was the most unpleasant thing that ever might happen to us.  We would probably never complain (indeed, many of us would relish that rare feeling of goosebumps), but would not our grandchildren consider this the most extreme possible evil?
> 
> If one accepts this argument, that evil is perceived relatively and is part of any effable universe, would this not nullify argument 4?
> 
> -J
------
BillClinton|981239380
9a10,11
> ----
> RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for beind an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob
------
BillClinton|981239409
11c11
< RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for beind an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob
---
> RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for being an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob
------
SnowBoarding|981241413
5,6d4
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
< ----
8,9c6
< ----
< Advice for everybody (free): don't listen to big ZED.
---
> 
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981241445
66c66,70
< And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
---
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
> ----
> From SnowBoarding:
> 
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
------
JimboWales|981241676
12a13,15
> 
> Just a question: could you tell me where the WikiPedia server is? 
> My timezone is GMT+1 -- the times on the RecentChanges page are about GMT-8, so I'd go for somewhere on the US West Coast. -- WojPob
------
AsciiArt|981241974
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Basically, AsciiArt consists of pictures which are created without using graphic elements. They are "non-graphical graphics". Its palette is limited to the symbols and characters that is available to you on your QWERTY-keyboard.
> 
> [http://www.pobratyn.com Example of AsciiArt]
------
AtlasShrugged/MrsNathanielTaggart|981243818
1c1
< The wife of /NathanielTaggart is mentioned briefly in /SectioN132.  According to legend, Nathaniel Taggart put his wife up as collateral for a loan, which her consent.  She was a dignified southern lady from a good family, from which she was disinherited when she ran off with the Nat Taggart, still a poor adventurer at the time.
---
> The wife of /NathanielTaggart is mentioned briefly in /SectioN132 and in /SectioN152.  According to legend, Nathaniel Taggart put his wife up as collateral for a loan, which her consent.  She was a beautiful, dignified southern lady from a good family, from which she was disinherited when she ran off with the Nat Taggart, still a poor adventurer at the time.  Her name was Dagny, and is /DagnyTaggart's namesake.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981243856
1c1
< The main character in AtlasShrugged.
---
> The main character in AtlasShrugged (also the name of /MrsNathanielTaggart).
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981244083
21a22,37
> ----
> The European stereotype on US Standard living is the following:
> 
> 1. No public healthcare ( ever seen ER w/George Clooney).
> 
> 
> 2. Primitive Social Policy - large number of homeless people (that's probably Hollywood's fault).
> 
> 
> 3. Everyone drives their car to the next Mall - no public transport.
> 
> 
> 4. EVERYONE has a gun and is willing to shoot you at sight.
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above ''America's poor are well fed'' just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981244668
37c37
< PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above ''America's poor are well fed'' just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob
---
> PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above ''America's poor are well fed'' just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? Ever seen a homeless person witha microwave and an A/C??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981244848
37c37
< PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above ''America's poor are well fed'' just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? Ever seen a homeless person witha microwave and an A/C??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob
---
> PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above ''America's poor are well fed'' just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? Ever seen a homeless person with a microwave and an A/C??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981246969
21a22,24
> 
> *Since the contents of this page has nothing to do with JulianSimon it would not be desirable to move it to a JulianSimon subpage.
> 
27d29
< 
30d31
< 
33d33
< 
36d35
< 
37a37,38
> 
> * It would be very difficult to present a complete picture, but we can hopefully move towards that goal.  If you feel the picture is not complete, feel free to add more data to this section.
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981246990
23c23
< *Since the contents of this page has nothing to do with JulianSimon it would not be desirable to move it to a JulianSimon subpage.
---
> *Since the contents of this page have nothing to do with JulianSimon it would not be desirable to move it to a JulianSimon subpage.
------
RioNorteLine|981247492
1,9c1
< A branch of AtlasShrugged/TaggartTranscontinental that runs from Cheyenne, Wyoming to El Paso, Texas.
< 
< It is mentioned in:
<   AtlasShrugged111
<   AtlasShrugged114
<   AtlasShrugged132  
< 
< It is alluded to in:
<   AtlasShrugged131
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine
------
SanSebastianLine|981247552
1c1
< A branch of Taggart Transcontinentel that serves the San Sebastian Mines in Mexico.  The SanSebastianLine is nationalized by the Mexican government soon after completion.
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine
3,6d2
< It is mentioned in:
<   AtlasShrugged114
<   AtlasShrugged131
<   AtlasShrugged132
------
FriendsofGlobalProgress|981247599
1c1
< A social organization that PhilipRearden is associated with.  It is mentioned in AtlasShrugged121.
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/FriendsofGlobalProgress
------
BrakemaN|981247652
1,7c1
< An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
< 
< DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  When she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
< 
< * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
---
> Someone who stops a train in an emergency.
------
AyersMusicPublishingCompany|981247695
1,4c1
< Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of RichardHalley.  Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of HalleysFifthConcerto.
< 
< * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 4 (AtlasShrugged114)
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/AyersMusicPublishingCompany
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981247733
38c38,40
< * It would be very difficult to present a complete picture, but we can hopefully move towards that goal.  If you feel the picture is not complete, feel free to add more data to this section.
---
> * It would be very difficult to present a complete picture, but we can hopefully move towards that goal.  If you feel the picture is not complete, feel free to add more data to this section.
> 
> '''A:''' My point is that stats will not do the job. The whole industrialised world has got a problem. -- WojPob
------
AtlasShruggedPlaces|981247746
1,49c1
< Places mentioned in Atlas Shrugged:
< 
< Argentina (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Arizona (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< California (AtlasShrugged121)
< 
< Chicago (AtlasShrugged112)
< 
< Chile (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Cleveland (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
< 
< Colorado (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged114)
< 
< Cheyenne, Wyoming (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< El Paso, Texas (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< Fifth Avenue (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< Hudson River (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< Louisiana (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Mexico, People's State of (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Middle West (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Minnesota (AtlasShrugged121)
< 
< New Mexico (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< New York (AtlasShrugged111, AtlasShrugged113, AtlasShrugged114)
< 
< Ohio (AtlasShrugged112, AtlasShrugged114)
< 
< Philadelphia (AtlasShrugged114, AtlasShrugged121)
< 
< Redding (Connecticut?) (AtlasShrugged121)
< 
< San Francisco (AtlasShrugged111)
< 
< United States (AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Washington (AtlasShrugged121, AtlasShrugged131, AtlasShrugged132)
< 
< Wilmington (Delaware?) (AtlasShrugged121)
---
> #REDIRECT AtlasShrugged/Places
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981248062
24a25,26
> The contents of the page are more or less derived from what statistics Simon decided to publish, and were selected to support his conclusion.  Since the statistics don't actually have much reflection on anyone's living conditions (see my and Woj's comments below) I think it has more to do with him than with anything else.
> 
------
WojPob|981248299
6,9d5
< 
< ''Brief question - I couldn't help but notice on the (very nice) stuff you put up about Polish and other Slavic tongues, that you say they separated out around 3000 BC (I checked on Britannica and it agrees with you, just in case).  However most of the source's I've seen have the various other IndoEuropean groups separate out a millenium later, e.g. Celtic, Greek.  Would you happen to know why these are so different?''
< 
< ''Some searching finds that there are (as should be expected) a bunch of different chronologies for the separation of Indo-European languages.  First of all, the Europeans started migrating into Europe at least as early as 2500-2000 BC, which was earlier than I had thought (not an expert at all).  The dialects separate out much earlier than that, though the slavs supposedly aren't discernable as a distinct group until about 1400 BC.  This probably refers to their separation out from the baltic peoples.  I'll do some more reading and fix up anything I happened to say that was wrong. --JoshuaGrosse''
------
UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving|981248550
1,48d0
< The nation with the highest living standard in human history.
< 
< ''Whoa, that's pretty darn far from a fact.  The UN has been picking Canada, although its reasons are probably political, and as far as the poor are concerned it's probably some socialist country like Sweden.  I don't actually know.  I just know that you can't go around making such statements as if they aren't opinions.''
< 
< - I looked that up recently and report from memory, but the details should be available in any almanac.   - Tim
< 
< ----
< 
< I assume you are referring to the claim about the standard of living in the United States.  I would politely take issue with the notion that one can simply look up a "fact" like that in an almanac.
< 
< As a counterpoint, it is worth pointing out that Canada has been ranked number one on the United Nations Human Development Index for about six years running.  I would not claim that this means that ''Canada'' has the highest standard of living in the world, however.
< ----
< ''LarrySanger edited the above two paragraphs, doing his part to try to keep this wiki civil.  :-)''
< ----
< Yes, I believe one can look up per capita income in an almanac. - Tim
< 
< Standard of living is per capita income?  I think that's even further from a fact...at least, you would be hard-pressed to defend it.  If I was paid well, but had to work 20 hours a day in a poorly ventilated cardboard tube and eat rice-cakes, would I have a high standard of living?
< ----
< ''LarrySanger has a sneakin' suspicion that this dispute has been a SemanticDispute from the beginning.''
< 
< Well, when I say "far from a fact", I don't mean false...just not true. :)
< 
< ''LarrySanger would like to point out that, according to TheLawOfNoncontradiction, if it ain't true, it's false.''
< 
< That's not the law of non-contradiction, that's TertiumNonDatur.  And it doesn't always hold.  For instance, the sentence x+3=4 is neither true nor false until we assign a value to x.  That's the very essence of semantics.
< 
< When you say "that" in "That's not the law of non-contradiction," what are you referring to?  See TheLawOfNoncontradiction for text relevant to your second claim; obviously, ''propositions'' are required for the law to apply, not propositional functions. -- Oh, I see, you're making the point that TheLawOfNoncontradiction is different from ThePrincipleOfBivalence.  Fair play, if you mean to say that Tim's claim isn't, in fact, a proposition. -- There, I've supplied brief entries explaining these terms to the uninitiated. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Income is the most commonly used measure of standard of living.  An alternative measure is comsumption, closely related to income but adjusted for taxaxtion.
< 
< Consumption per capita by nation, 1985, as a percentage of US total:
< 
<  United States: 100
<  West Germany: 70
<  France: 70
<  Italy: 65
<  Japan: 65
<  United Kingdom: 65
<  Austria: 60
<  Finland: 60
<  Soviet Union: 30
< 
< Figures are rounded off but accurate.  Data first published by A. Bergson, "The USSR Before the Fall: How Poor and Why," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:4 (Fall 1991), p. 29-44, 31.  Reprinted in JulianSimon's 'The State of Humanity'.
< 
< ----
< 
< I propose the following for this page.  As I understand it, this page is a subpage under 'UnitedStates', and so it should be about the standard of living of the UnitedStates.
< 
53,55d4
< 
< I think this is a thoughtful way to write about the issues, rather than to simply argue about them. It is possible to achieve balance.  --JimboWales
< 
------
LibertarianisM|981249379
1,21c1
< Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be is free to do anything he/she wants, so long as he/she do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  Libertarians emphasize that human relationships can be either voluntary or involuntary, and that they <i>should</i> be voluntary.  In effect this is a claim that human relationships should not be characterized by violence or deception.
< 
< You can learn more at http://www.lp.org, the home page of the LibertarianParty of the UnitedStates. - 
< ''It also occurs to me that this should probably be removed.  A party's home page is probably the worst place to find out any objective information about its views.  If this link belongs anywhere, it belongs on a list of American parties.''
< 
< ''Also note that libertarianism is not strictly a right wing ideology; formal anarchism is apparently referred to as Libertarian Socialism.''
< 
< A libertarian is even likely to reject the legitimacy of the right/left dichotomy.  The conflict between right and left is seen to be, in essence, a dispute over the particular form in which the state will violate individual rights.  The libertarian believes the state should not violate individual rights in any form, and so opposes the right and left equally.
< 
< ''Libertarians certainly believe that the state shouldn't violate individual rights, but that doesn't mean they don't fall on a political spectrum.  Things aren't nearly as simple as state vs non-state; there's the mob, the aristocracy, and the private sector to be considered, and different kinds of libertarian have different opinions about them.  The LP of the US falls clearly into the right wing category.''
< 
<  - I think a definition of 'right-wing' is necessary if you are going to make that claim.
< 
< ''Fair enough.  Left-wing means belief in more equality and right-wing in less - not meant disparagingly, since to much equality is a bad thing too (HarrisonBergeron).  In any case, this puts people who believe in fair process to the right of people who believe in fair outcome.  And, as it happens, this is what a free market is; thus economically at least, the LP is on the right.  This may not be the best definition of left-right, but it sums up what most people mean by the terms.''
< 
< ----
< This is a good definition, but the part about equality is misleading.  If the left wants economic equality, there must be political inequality, as the state treats different people differently (different tax rates, for example).  Furthermore, one group, the political elite, must have the power to impose their views on others, while dissenters are deprived of the political power to prevent this.  Thus the distribution of political power is unequal in a left-wing regime.  So the left does not stand for equality, it stand for one type of equality at the expense of others.  The right, as it is being used here, is not concerned with equality _or_ inequality, or any other outcome, but with fair processes.  So to define the issue in terms of more equality vs. less equality is misleading.  But we have a good start for a new page on the right-left spectrum, if someone want to step up and do that. - TimShell
< 
< The moderate right deals with fair processes.  The extreme right (fascism) doesn't deal with any sort of equality at all, and the moderate left deals with fair outcome, which I would say is objectively more equality than that of the moderate right, since people end up being practically equal rather than theoretically equal.  So I stand by that definition.  I think it's a little misleading only in that it seems to imply you can never be too far left, because people have been conditioned to think that any kind of equality is good equality, which isn't true.
< 
< By the way, you are wrong to claim that left-wing economics necessarily implies an unequal distribution of political power.  What about a socialist direct democracy?  Such things are fully possible - Athens leaned that way - and yet it can hardly be said that power is being wielded by an elite, since all decisions are made by the whole citizenry.  And, as I've said, there are such things as ''libertarian socialists'', though I don't know the details of how their state would work. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  There are various different strains of libertarianism, depending on what exactly they consider an individual's rights to be, that vary from the far right to the far left across the PoliticalSpectrum.
------
AnarchY|981249544
5c5
< The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
---
> The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
7c7
< The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
---
> The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
------
AustriA|981250231
11a12,14
> 
> ---- 
> The leader of the fpoe, the party being in the current coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. 
------
AustriA|981250647
14a15,17
> ---- 
> 
> Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment.
------
AustriA|981250936
15d14
< ---- 
17c16,17
< Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment.
---
> 
> Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment -- WojPob
------
AustriA|981251131
14c14
< The leader of the fpoe, the party being in the current coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. 
---
> The leader of the fpoe, the party being in the current coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. Please  do something. 
------
AustriA|981251310
14c14
< The leader of the fpoe, the party being in the current coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. Please  do something. 
---
> The leader of the fpoe, the party, which is a member of the coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. Please  do something. 
------
HomelessnesS|981255267
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Homelessness describes a condition in which a person does not have a permanent place of residence.
> 
> In the UnitedStates in the 1980s, homelessness became an important political topic and is widely assumed to have risen dramatically at this time.  However, it is very difficult to prove this assumption, because data for previous years is almost completely non-existent.  It is not certain to what extent this new focus on homelessness represents an increase in the extent of the problem, or an increase in public awareness of a condition that had always existed without comment.
> 
> Attempts to measure homelessness are often saddled with difficulties of ascertainment, definition, and methodology.  There is no obvious direct way to count people who are defined as being 'not in a home'.  Indirect methods, such as counting people who sleep in shelters or who eat at soup kitchens, provide estimates that can vary widely in degree of accuracy.  Additionally, the definition of homelessness can be broadened to include, for example, a man who sleeps on a friend's couch until he finds a place of his own.  Methodological questions such as, should a person who is homeless just one night in the year be included in the annual total, can also cloud the issue.
> 
> There are numerous possible causes of homelessness.  Some people claim the problem is due to inadequate social services such as public housing.  Some studies suggest rent control and other housing regulations create homelessness by reducing the supply of housing.  Social changes, such as the movement to recognize the rights of those considered mentally ill, could lead to increased homelessness, as such people can no longer be arbitrarily rounded up and dumped into mental hospitals.  Such a change occured in the United States in the early 1980s, where it is now estimated that one-third of homeless persons have some form of mental illness.  Substance abuse may be a cause as well - an estimated other third of America's homeless have substance abuse problems.
> 
> Traditionally single men have constituted the overwhelming majority of the homeless.  In the 1980s there was a sharp rise in the number of homeless families in certain parts of the United States (notably New York City).  Most homeless families consist of an unmarried mother and children.
> 
------
JulianSimon|981258199
9,17d8
< ----
< ''The following statements are of opinion, not fact, and should really be dropped.  Simon's works are controversial and so should not be proclaimed factual.  His works may be creative, and even genius, but so were those of Marx, and most people disagree with those - or show bitter hostilities to them, if you prefer to use the term.''
< 
< ''I agree.  If this were a collection of polemics, it would be appropriate to let this stand as-is.  But it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should attempt to stick to something like _consensus opinion_, which may be different from _truth_.  The job of an encyclopedia is to present ideas, not to advocate for them.'' --JimboWales
< 
< This challenge rests on the evidence. The data to date do not support the arguments of the doomsayers. On the contrary, the trends tend in a direction opposite of what they predict. 
< 
< The theory Simon developed to account for this is a textbook example of truly creative thinking. He cut across the grain of accepted wisdom to produce a strikingly original interpretation of the facts. In this and in other works he exhibits many of t hose characteristics normally associated with genius (not the least of which is a tendency to incite bitter hostility amongst intellectual mediocrities). 
< 
------
TheLawOfNoncontradiction|981259339
3a4,10
> 
> ----
> However, see [ftp://www.phil.mq.edu.au/pub/grestall/lnclem.pdf] for a paper (in PDF format) on "paraconsistent" logics and non-contradiction:
> 
> :Abstract: There is widespread agreement that the law of non-contradiction is an important logical principle. There is less agreement on exactly what the law amounts to. This unclarity is brought to light by the emergence of paraconsistent logics in which contradictions are tolerated (in the sense that not everything need follow from a contradiction, and that there are "worlds" in which contradictions are true) but in which the statement [not (A and not-A)] (it is not the case that A and not-A) is still provable.  This paper attempts to clarify the connection between different readings of the law of non-contradiction, the duality between the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, and connections with logical consequence in general.
> 
> ...and [http://andstuff.org/NonContradiction] for more discussion of this "law".
------
LarrySanger|981271662
28c28,30
< -J
---
> -J
> ----
> It would be a criticism of premise 7 (that evil exists in the world), not of premise 4, as far as I can tell.  The proposal is that evil is relative, and therefore, because someone in much worse conditions than we're in now would not consider the conditions we're in now as evil, evil doesn't exist.  I don't really agree that this latter conclusion really follows form the premise that evil is relative, but I think you might be on to something here.  I really don't know that much about this area of philosophy, to tell the truth. -- LarrySanger
------
BrakemaN|981271734
1c1,7
< Someone who stops a train in an emergency.
---
> An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
> 
> DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  When she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
> 
> * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
>    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
------
BrakemaN|981272022
1c1
< An unnamed brakeman working on the TaggartComet.  (His name may be revealed later in the book).
---
> Someone who stops a train in an emergency.
3,7c3
< DagnyTaggart hears BrakemaN whistling the theme of a concerto.  When she asks him what piece it's from, he says HalleysFifthConcerto.  When Dagny points out RichardHalley only wrote four concertos, BrakemaN claims he made a mistake and he doesn't recall where he heard the piece.
< 
< * Appearances in AtlasShrugged
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 2 (AtlasShrugged112)
<    Part 1, Chapter 1, section 3 (AtlasShrugged113)
---
> (Perhaps you wanted to see AtlasShrugged/BrakemaN.)
------
RefactoringPolicy|981273473
7c7,10
< View 3.  The middle road -- respect for a dialogue _qua_ dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak early on can avoid a flame war.  To refactor or not will often depend on the context, and so either rule 1 (change immediately) or rule 2 (wait for the discussion to end) are too extreme.  Adherents of this view: JimboWales
---
> View 3.  The middle road -- respect for a dialogue ''qua'' dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak early on can avoid a flame war.  To refactor or not will often depend on the context, and so either rule 1 (change immediately) or rule 2 (wait for the discussion to end) are too extreme.  Adherents of this view: JimboWales
> ----
> I understand your point, Jimbo, but mainly what I'm concerned about is that people will start treating WikiPedia as yet another discussion forum, rather than an encyclopedia.  As I see it--and you can feel free to disagree and act however you please, this being a wiki after all--all that emotional energy that goes into hashing through partisan and other issues could much more easily be channelled toward improving articles.  The purpose of the wiki, as I see it, is--well, it's whatever people make it--but what I'd like it to be is the creation of good encyclopedia articles.  Discussing things is ''usually'' aimed at changing people's minds.  But what's the point of doing that on the wiki (except some ancillary social reason)?  To improve articles, presumably.  But what's stopping us from just going right in and improving them?  Why engage in the discussion?  You'd have to have a good reason, I think.  So just go in and make the changes, I say.  The article author can always go in and look at your changes and decide to change it back, or, if he's reasonable, just make sure that the views on the table are fairly presented. -- LarrySanger
> ----
15a19,21
> ----
> There's an excellent reason for ''WikiPedia'' in particular to encourage the practice of moving discussions to separate pages: the pages are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not discussions.  What contextual factors would outweigh this?  Sure, there might be some.  Can I have an example, though? -- LarrySanger
> ----
19c25
< View 1. 
---
> View 1.  There is one main purpose to refactoring and editing pages in general, and that is to create good encyclopedia articles.  Adherents: LarrySanger
23c29
< View 3.  I propose that there is a long-run and short-run purpose.  The long-run purpose is to turn a discussion into a resource.  The short-run purpose is to channel a discussion in a useful direction, i.e. to help aim it at the future time when it can be a resource. --JimboWales
---
> View 3.  I propose that there is a long-run and short-run purpose.  The long-run purpose is to turn a discussion into a resource.  The short-run purpose is to channel a discussion in a useful direction, i.e. to help aim it at the future time when it can be a resource.  Adherents: JimboWales
31,34c37
< <b> * Policy policy</b>
< If Wikipedia achieves its potential there will be thousands of people writing and editing articles.  There is no system in place that would allow all of this activity to be monitored by some central authority to insure compliance with various editorial policies.  With this in mind, we should not try now to lay down policies as if the project is easily controlled.  We should assume that policies will emerge from use and experience.  We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be. - TimShell
< 
< I don't think this is necessarily so.  Even if policies can't be enforced, making some guidelines and some reason for the guidelines clear to any visitor will undoubtedly influence their writing style.  And, more importantly, people will probably model their contributions to a fair extent after what is already here.  So in this formative period we have a good opportunity to set the course, even though the ship may turn later. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> My main reason for opposing this habit, and advocating that people move discussion to discussion pages, is that WikiPedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles (right?), and encyclopedia articles don't have discussion right there on the page itself.  The effect of having the discussion right there on the page itself makes it seem as though the discussion is just as important (an end in itself, as it were) as the article, which it most ''certainly'' is not, in my opinion. -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaProcess|981273493
3c3
< Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy.
---
> Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy and PolicyPolicy.
------
PolicyPolicy|981273504
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <b> * Policy policy</b>
> If Wikipedia achieves its potential there will be thousands of people writing and editing articles.  There is no system in place that would allow all of this activity to be monitored by some central authority to insure compliance with various editorial policies.  With this in mind, we should not try now to lay down policies as if the project is easily controlled.  We should assume that policies will emerge from use and experience.  We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be. - TimShell
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily so.  Even if policies can't be enforced, making some guidelines and some reason for the guidelines clear to any visitor will undoubtedly influence their writing style.  And, more importantly, people will probably model their contributions to a fair extent after what is already here.  So in this formative period we have a good opportunity to set the course, even though the ship may turn later. -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> Good question.  But I'd agree with Joshua.  Though I think you're right in many cases, Tim--experience is the best guide.  Surely the case of NuPedia shows that the best policy is discovered through a combination of "a priori" policy-setting in the beginning, to be modified later in light of experience. -- LarrySanger
------
RefactoringPolicy|981273535
37c37,39
< My main reason for opposing this habit, and advocating that people move discussion to discussion pages, is that WikiPedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles (right?), and encyclopedia articles don't have discussion right there on the page itself.  The effect of having the discussion right there on the page itself makes it seem as though the discussion is just as important (an end in itself, as it were) as the article, which it most ''certainly'' is not, in my opinion. -- LarrySanger
---
> My main reason for opposing this habit, and advocating that people move discussion to discussion pages, is that WikiPedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles (right?), and encyclopedia articles don't have discussion right there on the page itself.  The effect of having the discussion right there on the page itself makes it seem as though the discussion is just as important (an end in itself, as it were) as the article, which it most ''certainly'' is not, in my opinion. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> ''See also PolicyPolicy.''
------
PhysicalEvent|981273795
1c1
< ''Physical events'' are events that occur in the physical world, including the brain and other parts of the human body.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  These are to be distinguished from MentalEvents.
---
> ''Physical events'' are events that occur in the physical world, including the brain and other parts of the human body.  Something that happens in the brain is a physical event.  These are to be distinguished from MentalEvent""s.
------
BrainEvent|981273823
1c1
< Anything that happens in the brain is a ''brain event.''  While clearly a kind of PhysicalEvent, some philosophers, when they discuss TheMindBodyProblem, argue that ''some'' (certainly not all) brain events are also MentalEvents.
---
> Anything that happens in the brain is a ''brain event.''  While clearly a kind of PhysicalEvent, some philosophers, when they discuss TheMindBodyProblem, argue that ''some'' (certainly not all) brain events are also MentalEvent""s.
------
AtlasShrugged|981274482
13c13
< Exactly when AtlasShrugged is meant to take place is kept deliberately vague.  There are numerous early 20th century technologies available, but the political situtation is clearly different from actual history.  It is as if history had changed around 1900, and the world went unimpeded down a gradual path towards socialism for perhaps 40 years, with no World War, and no rise of fascism in Europe.  There are many examples of early 20th century /Technology in Atlas Shrugged, but no post-war technologies such as jet planes, atomic weapons, helicoptors, or television.
---
> Exactly when AtlasShrugged is meant to take place is kept deliberately vague.  In /SectioN152 the population of /NewYork is given as 7 million.  The historical /NewYorkCity reached 7 million people in the 1930s, placing the novel sometime after that.  There are numerous early 20th century technologies available, but the political situtation is clearly different from actual history.  It is as if history had changed around 1900, and the world went unimpeded down a gradual path towards socialism for perhaps 40 years, with no World War, and no rise of fascism in Europe.  There are many examples of early 20th century /Technology in Atlas Shrugged, but no post-war technologies such as jet planes, atomic weapons, helicoptors, or television.
------
AtlasShrugged|981274738
30a31
> * /TopicsOfNote
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981274867
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Crime
> 
> * Lying
> The sympathetic characters of /AtlasShrugged do not tell lies.  Even when they are clearly trying to conceal something, they do not rely on overt falsehood, even when it is obvious that they could do so without being found out.  There are a few exceptions.
> # In
------
TaoTehChing|981274892
3,9d2
< COMMENT: Not according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What
< is your source for the statement that the existence of
< Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching
< is not the work of one man is generally accepted.
< 
< ''I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and '''then''' you could discuss the problem).  Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger''
< 
22a16,22
> ----
> COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. 
> ----
> 
> I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger 
> 
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981275211
2a3,4
> Common street crime is conspicuously absent in /AtlasShrugged.  Characters walk the streets with no thought of being mugged or attacked.
> 
5c7,10
< # In
---
> 
> # In /SectioN112 /BrakemaN tells /DagnyTaggart he does not recall the name of the song he was whistling or where he heard it.
> # In /SectioN141 /FranciscoDAnconia tells the press he came to /NewYork because of a hat check girl and the liverwurst at Moe's Delicatessan.
> # In /SectioN151 we learn /DagnyTaggart once lied to her mother about a cut to her lip that /FranciscoDAnconia had given her.  This was the only lie she ever told.
------
JulianSimon|981275688
3c3
< He authored of many books and quite a few articles, mostly on economic subjects. He is best known for his work on population, natural resources, and immigration. 
---
> He authored of many books and quite a few articles, mostly on economic subjects. He is best known for his work on population, natural resources, and immigration.  His works are often quoted by LibertarianS.
5c5
< His book 'TheUltimateResource,' later reissued as 'TheUltimateResource2,' is a massive, fact-heavy assault on the conventional wisdom of population growth and resource consumption. In it, Simon challenged the neo-Malthusian notion that an increase in population has negative economic consequences, that population is a drain on natural resources, and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. 
---
> His book 'TheUltimateResource,' later reissued as 'TheUltimateResource2,' is a massive assault on the conventional wisdom of population growth and resource consumption. In it, Simon challenged the neo-Malthusian notion that an increase in population has negative economic consequences, that population is a drain on natural resources, and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN145|981275893
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> The /NationalAllianceofRailroads passes the /AntiDogEatDogRule which gives them the power to dictate which railroads can operate in which regions of the country.  The rule was crafted by /OrrenBoyle with the purpose of driving the /PhoenixDurango out of /Colorado, so /TaggartTranscontinental would not have to compete with them any longer.  After the vote, /JamesTaggart storms into /DagnyTaggart's office and gloats about how he has ruined their competitor, which in his mind is a victory over Dagny.  She calls him a rotten bastard and rushes out.
> 
> * Setting
> A meeting of the /NationalAllianceofRailroads and the office of /DagnyTaggart.
> 
> * Characters
>  /BoardofDirectors 
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /DanConway
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /OrrenBoyle
------
AtlasShrugged/BoardofDirectors|981275926
9c9,10
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN145
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981275951
11a12
>  /SectioN145
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981275982
3a4
>  /DanConway
------
AtlasShrugged/DanConway|981276315
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Dan Conway is the middle-aged president of the /PhoenixDurango railroad.  Running a railroad is just about the only thing he knows.  When the /AntiDogEatDogRule is used to drive his business out of /Colorado, he loses the will to fight, and resigns himself to a quiet life of books and fishing.  He claims that somebody had to be sacrificed, it turned out to be him, and he has no right to complain, bowing to the will of the majority.  When pressed he says he doesn't really believe this is right, but he can't understand why it is wrong and what the alternative might be.  He is trapped by a moral code that makes him a willing victim, and rather than challenge that morality, he simply gives up.
> 
> Don Conway appears in:
>  /SectioN145
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981276434
1c1
< The Phoenix-Durango is an old, small railroad located in the Southwest that has been insignificant for most of its existence.  However, the Phoenix-Durango grows rapidly when /EllisWyatt revives the economy of /Colorado, and /TaggartTranscontinental's /RioNorteLine fails to service Wyatt adequately.  Later, /JamesTaggart conspires to get the Phoenix-Durango regulated out of business.
---
> The Phoenix-Durango is an old, small railroad located in the Southwest run by /DanConway that has been insignificant for most of its existence.  However, the Phoenix-Durango grows rapidly when /EllisWyatt revives the economy of /Colorado, and /TaggartTranscontinental's /RioNorteLine fails to service Wyatt adequately.  Later, /JamesTaggart conspires to get the Phoenix-Durango driven out of /Colorado.
7c7
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981276465
7a8,9
>  /SectioN145
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|981276497
5c5,6
<  - /SectioN114
---
>  - /SectioN114
>  - /SectioN145
------
AtlasShrugged/NationalAllianceofRailroads|981276664
1c1
< An industry group that uses political pull to get its way.  /OrrenBoyle has friends on the National Alliance of Railroads, and he gets them to support legislation that will help ruin a competitor of /TaggartTranscontinental.
---
> An industry group formed to promote the welfare of the industry as a whole, requiring members to sacrifice their individual interests for the common good.  /OrrenBoyle has friends on the National Alliance of Railroads, and he gets them to support the /AntiDogEatDogRule that uses a string of pretenses to drive the /PhoenixDurango out of /Colorado.
4a5
>  /SectioN145
------
AtlasShrugged/AntiDogEatDogRule|981276903
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule is passed by the /NationalAllianceofRailroads in /SectioN145, allegedly to prevent "destructive competition" between railroads.  The rule gives the Alliance the authority to forbid competition between railroads in certain parts of the country.  It was crafted by /OrrenBoyle as a favor for /JamesTaggart, with the purpose of driving the /PhoenixDurango out of /Colorado.
------
TaoTehChing|981278081
1c1
< The Tao Teh Ching is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow named Lao Tzu, who was a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of that time.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed.
---
> The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his given name was Li Erh.  Recent archeological discovery of Chines scrolls from 100-150 BC reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus undermining support for modern theories that the work was contributed to and changed by several authors over the centuries.
------
TaoTehChing|981278134
1c1
< The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his given name was Li Erh.  Recent archeological discovery of Chines scrolls from 100-150 BC reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus undermining support for modern theories that the work was contributed to and changed by several authors over the centuries.
---
> The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his given name was Li Erh.  Recent archeological discovery of Chinese scrolls from 100-150 BC reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus undermining support for modern theories that the work was contributed to and changed by several authors over the centuries.
------
AtlasShrugged|981278238
5c5
< The theme of AtlasShrugged is the role of the mind in human society.  Rand argues that independent thinking, and the creativity and inventiveness that comes from this, is the motor that runs the world.  In AtlasShrugged she shows what she thinks would happen to the world if the "men of the mind" went on strike: the motor of the world would shut down, and civilization would fall apart.  This is a direct assault on the MarxisT LaborTheoryOfValue, which was popular at the time of writing.
---
> The theme of AtlasShrugged is the role of the mind in human society.  Rand argues that independent thinking, and the creativity and inventiveness that comes from this, is the motor that runs the world.  In AtlasShrugged she shows what she thinks would happen to the world if the "men of the mind" went on strike: the motor of the world would shut down, and civilization would fall apart.  This is a direct assault on the LaborTheoryOfValue, which was popular at the time of writing.
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981279343
0a1,3
> * Atlas
> According to /AtlasShrugged, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders.  But in the GreekMyths, AtlaS stands on the earth and holds up the sky.  In the statues that represent Atlas, the big round thing on his back represents the heavens, which, because of the apparent circular motion of the planets around the earth, were conceived of us being round.  Some tellings of the Atlas myth have him carrying both the earth and the heavens on his back, but this appears to be a modern retelling; further research might confirm this.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981279369
2c2
< According to /AtlasShrugged, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders.  But in the GreekMyths, AtlaS stands on the earth and holds up the sky.  In the statues that represent Atlas, the big round thing on his back represents the heavens, which, because of the apparent circular motion of the planets around the earth, were conceived of us being round.  Some tellings of the Atlas myth have him carrying both the earth and the heavens on his back, but this appears to be a modern retelling; further research might confirm this.
---
> As told in AtlasShrugged, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders.  But in the GreekMyths, AtlaS stands on the earth and holds up the sky.  In the statues that represent Atlas, the big round thing on his back represents the heavens, which, because of the apparent circular motion of the planets around the earth, were conceived of us being round.  Some tellings of the Atlas myth have him carrying both the earth and the heavens on his back, but this appears to be a modern retelling; further research might confirm this.
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981279398
2c2
< As told in AtlasShrugged, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders.  But in the GreekMyths, AtlaS stands on the earth and holds up the sky.  In the statues that represent Atlas, the big round thing on his back represents the heavens, which, because of the apparent circular motion of the planets around the earth, were conceived of us being round.  Some tellings of the Atlas myth have him carrying both the earth and the heavens on his back, but this appears to be a modern retelling; further research might confirm this.
---
> As told in AtlasShrugged, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders.  But in the GreekMyths, AtlaS stands on the earth and holds up the sky.  In the statues that represent Atlas, the big round thing on his back represents the heavens, which, because of the apparent circular motion of the planets around the earth, were conceived of as being round.  Some tellings of the Atlas myth have him carrying both the earth and the heavens on his back, but this appears to be a modern retelling; further research might confirm this.
------
AtlasShrugged|981279489
13c13
< Exactly when AtlasShrugged is meant to take place is kept deliberately vague.  In /SectioN152 the population of /NewYork is given as 7 million.  The historical /NewYorkCity reached 7 million people in the 1930s, placing the novel sometime after that.  There are numerous early 20th century technologies available, but the political situtation is clearly different from actual history.  It is as if history had changed around 1900, and the world went unimpeded down a gradual path towards socialism for perhaps 40 years, with no World War, and no rise of fascism in Europe.  There are many examples of early 20th century /Technology in Atlas Shrugged, but no post-war technologies such as jet planes, atomic weapons, helicoptors, or television.
---
> Exactly when AtlasShrugged is meant to take place is kept deliberately vague.  In /SectioN152 the population of /NewYork is given as 7 million.  The historical /NewYorkCity reached 7 million people in the 1930s, placing the novel sometime after that.  There are numerous early 20th century technologies available, but the political situtation is clearly different from actual history.  It is as if history had changed around 1900, and the world went unimpeded down a gradual path towards socialism for perhaps 40 years, with no World War, and no rise of fascism in Europe.  There are many examples of early 20th century /Technology in Atlas Shrugged, but no post-war technologies such as jet planes, atomic weapons, helicoptors, computers, or television.
------
AtlasShrugged/Philadelphia|981279579
5,6c5,6
<  - /SectioN114 - /DagnyTaggart says she is going to Philadelphia to meet /HankRearden.
<  - /SectioN121
---
>  - /SectioN114
>  - /SectioN121
------
AtlasShrugged/Arizona|981279623
1c1
< Arizona is a state where the /PhoneixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
> Arizona is a state where the /PhoenixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
------
KingdomAnimalia|981280775
1c1
< ''I'd like to start filling in some of the phyla, so that new animals can be filed into a tree rather than a flat list.  However, I'm not entirely sure I like the naming system I originally came up with.  Does anyone have an opinion on whether subcategories should be things like PhylumPorifera, PoriFera or SpongE?''
---
> '''Introduction'''
3c3
< '''Characteristics of Animals'''
---
> '''Development and evolution'''
5c5
< Animals are all multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes.  The adults are all diploids and oogamous, ie there is a large non-motile female gamete and a tiny male gamete, which has a characteristic posterior flagellum.  The one finds the other and they fuse to form a zygote, which divides to form a hollow sphere of cells called a ''blastula.''
---
> Adult animals are typically diploids, producing small motile sperm and large non-motile eggs.  In all forms the fertilized zygote intially divides to form a hollow sphere called a ''blastula''.  This then undergoes rearrangement and differentiation.  Blastulae are probably representative of the sort of colonies animals evolved from; similar forms occur among other flagellates, e.g. ''Volvox''.  However none of these other groups really ever progressed further, and large multicellular forms tend to develop by progressive growth instead.
7c7
< Other groups have reached this level of organization, eg the green alga ''Volvox.''  But animals have been able to develop much further, thanks to the way the cells are held together.  Instead of being rigidly bound by cell walls, they are linked by much more elastic septate junctions, composing an extracellular matrix including the unique structural protein collagen.  This forms a framework in which cells can be moved about, allowing for much more complicated differentiation.
---
> What makes animals different?  The answer lies in the way the cells are held together.  Instead of being simply stuck together or held in place by thick walls, animal cells are linked by septate junctions, composed mainly of elastic proteins - collagen is characteristic - that make up the extracellular matrix.  Sometimes this is calcified to form shells, bones, or spicules, but otherwise it's fairly flexible and can serve as a framework, upon which cells can move about and be reorganized.
9c9,13
< The result of this flexibility is an incredible diversity of animal forms.  Except for a few phyla, most notably the sponges, all animals are metazoans: the body is composed of three separate layers (the endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm) with distinct tissues, including muscles and nerves, and is often separated out to form organs.  Most metazoans have a clear adult form, as compared with other multicellular organisms that usually just grow.
---
> The animals other than the sponges, and a few problematic phyla, form a clear subgroup called the Metazoa.  In these forms the blastula invaginates and cells migrate or pinch into the interior.  The resulting form is called a ''gastrula'' and has a clear digestive tract, with three separate layers of cells - called the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm - that differentiate into various tissues, including muscles and nerves.
> 
> The first forms that might represent animals appear in the fossil record around the end of the Precambrian.  These are called Vendians and are exceedingly difficult to relate to later forms.  Other than them, virtually every phylum makes a more or less simultaneous appearance during the Cambrian.  This massive adaptive radiation may have come about because of climate change or a simple genetic innovation, and is so sudden that it is usually called the CambrianExplosion.
> 
> '''Systematics and ecology'''
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981304276
127c127,129
< Yeah, I think you're right. I think the freeform linking may be the thing you need. Most of the cruft comes from the poor choice of a LinkPattern (suited best to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PatternLanguage""s). -- SunirShah
---
> Yeah, I think you're right. I think the freeform linking may be the thing you need. Most of the cruft comes from the poor choice of a LinkPattern (suited best to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PatternLanguage""s). -- SunirShah
> ----
> Any of the ideas of Jeff Duntemann's Virtual Encyclopedia been concisdered here? I haven't consumed the whole wikipedia yet, so I don't know if maybe even Jeff's 1995 original proposition was the progenitor of this whole structure, kind of a global napsterwiki. http://dev-developer.earthweb.com/visualdev/9909_vol10/57duntemann.html -- JerryMuelver
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981304492
129c129
< Any of the ideas of Jeff Duntemann's Virtual Encyclopedia been concisdered here? I haven't consumed the whole wikipedia yet, so I don't know if maybe even Jeff's 1995 original proposition was the progenitor of this whole structure, kind of a global napsterwiki. http://dev-developer.earthweb.com/visualdev/9909_vol10/57duntemann.html -- JerryMuelver
---
> Any of the ideas of Jeff Duntemann's Virtual Encyclopedia been considered here? I haven't consumed the whole wikipedia yet, so I don't know if maybe even Jeff's 1995 original proposition was the progenitor of this whole structure, kind of a global napsterwiki. http://dev-developer.earthweb.com/visualdev/9909_vol10/57duntemann.html -- JerryMuelver
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|981307385
129a130,131
> ----
> Interesting article--but from skimming it rather quickly, it looks like more of a proposal for [http://www.dmoz.org dmoz.org] rather than for WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger
------
WikiPediaProcess|981307720
3c3
< Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy and PolicyPolicy.
---
> Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy and PolicyPolicy and RulesToConsider.
------
RulesToConsider|981308293
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.
> 
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
> 
> ''See ExplainJargonDebate''
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.
> 
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
> 
> ''See AvoidBiasDebate''
------
WikiPediaProcess|981308552
3c3,7
< Let's talk about RefactoringPolicy and PolicyPolicy and RulesToConsider.
---
> '''Policy issues that have their own pages'''
> * PolicyPolicy
> * RefactoringPolicy
> * NamingConventions
> * RulesToConsider
4a9,11
> ----
> '''Unclassified, random, but interesting WikiPediaProcess discussion:
> 
8,11d14
< ----
< I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."] -- LarrySanger
< ----
< ''See discussion on NamingConventions.''
------
JerryMuelver|981308586
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I'm an interloper, a newly-converted wiki fan, exploring the applications and formats of collaborative thinking. Current projects: 
> *http://northernvibes.com -- Community project experiment for Northern Wisconsin
> *http://unumondo.com -- Esperanto
> * and soon http://allmyfaqs.com -- An experimental notion to distill the best of the answers to newbie questions in all fields.
> 
------
RulesToConsider|981308639
17c17,25
< ''See AvoidBiasDebate''
---
> ''See AvoidBiasDebate''
> 
> ----
> 
> '''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]
> 
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
> 
> ''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
------
NamingConventions|981308859
47a48,51
> A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
> 
> I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
> ----
62c66
< Note also that high-level taxa could get named differently from low-level taxa: KingdomAnimalia, WolF.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how they'd like groups named?
---
> Note also that high-level taxa could get named differently from low-level taxa: KingdomAnimalia, WolF.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how they'd like groups named?
------
RulesToConsider|981308909
7c7
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver
15c15
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver
23c23
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver
25c25
< ''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
---
> ''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
------
WikiPediaProcess|981308992
6a7
> * LinkingToExternalImages
10c11
< '''Unclassified, random, but interesting WikiPediaProcess discussion:
---
> '''Unclassified, random, but interesting WikiPediaProcess discussion:'''
16,25d16
< A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.
< 
< I second this request.  I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}.  Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too.  Don't hold your breath.
< ----
< It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image.  This was done, for example, on the FidDle page.  But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia.  Is this wrong?  Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not?  What do you think?
< ----
< Interesting question.  I linked an article (a pretty long one) in HelL, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless.  Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether?  Then what of my link?  The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material.  If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back.  However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't.  Who has a definitive answer on this?
< ----
< I'd say just go get permission.  But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page.  That's '''my''' view, anyway.
< ----
27,32d17
< ----
< What's to stop the BadGuyS(TM) from deleting accurate stuff and replacing it with PatentNonsense?  This is possible, but we have ways of avoiding DisRuption.  See WikiPediaFaq for more information.
< ----
< So, Larry, you DO want chaos on a website?  Do you think it will become self organising, or will it get hit by multiple failure syndrome?
< 
< LarrySanger answers: I think it will be self-organizing.  See [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors Ward Cunningham's original wiki].  But in the case of WikiPedia, I dunno!  Guess we'll see!  (I suggest you remove this question and answer to WikiPediaFaq.)
------
LinkingToExternalImages|981309006
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image.  This was done, for example, on the FidDle page.  But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia.  Is this wrong?  Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not?  What do you think?
> ----
> Interesting question.  I linked an article (a pretty long one) in HelL, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless.  Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether?  Then what of my link?  The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material.  If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back.  However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't.  Who has a definitive answer on this?
> ----
> I'd say just go get permission.  But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page.  That's '''my''' view, anyway.
------
GNUStufF|981309128
9a10,11
> ----
> Is there any link between WikiPedia/NuPedia and the announced GNUPedia project? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
10a13,15
> WikiPedia fulfils many of the principles (such as freedom from closed editorial controls) advocated by the GNUPedia project, however it is not directly derived from that project.  Note that GNUPedia has changed its name and focus; it is now known as "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia".  It is currently focused more on the development of new encyclopedia software than on actively gathering articles, however because of the common licensing approach taken by Nupedia and Wikipedia, articles posted here can be used in the GNE software when it eventually becomes available for public use, and/or can be submitted to Nupedia for formal peer review and inclusion in that project.  GNE is accepting article submissions, but is asking for some time to finish their software before displaying them publically.  -- BryceHarrington
> 
> See also WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia.
------
WikiPediaProcess|981309222
20,23d19
< ----
< You were very right to do so.  I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< These questions should go in the WikiPediaFaq, but actually they've already been answered.  Second question removed to the WikiPediaFaq.
25,27c21
< Is there any link between WikiPedia/NuPedia and the announced GNUPedia project? -- Torsten Wöllert (tor.sten@internet.lu)
< 
< See WhatsTheRelationshipBetweenWikipediaAndNupedia and GNUStufF.
---
> You were very right to do so.  I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- LarrySanger
29,31c23
< WikiPedia fulfils many of the principles (such as freedom from closed editorial controls) advocated by the GNUPedia project, however it is not directly derived from that project.  Note that GNUPedia has changed its name and focus; it is now known as "GNE is Not an Encyclopedia".  It is currently focused more on the development of new encyclopedia software than on actively gathering articles, however because of the common licensing approach taken by Nupedia and Wikipedia, articles posted here can be used in the GNE software when it eventually becomes available for public use, and/or can be submitted to Nupedia for formal peer review and inclusion in that project.  GNE is accepting article submissions, but is asking for some time to finish their software before displaying them publically.  -- BryceHarrington----
< '''Q'''. For the Math articles there is a crying need to have more symbols, like the Greek alphabet, Integral and Summation symbols, infinity, and more, as well as the capability to 
< show graphs, depict figures, and much more. Are there any tools to do this, other than linking to a another web page? RoseParks
---
> '''Q'''. For the Math articles there is a crying need to have more symbols, like the Greek alphabet, Integral and Summation symbols, infinity, and more, as well as the capability to show graphs, depict figures, and much more. Are there any tools to do this, other than linking to a another web page? RoseParks
35c27
< '''A2.'''  The ''next'' release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like &infin; for the infinity symbol, &Delta; for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc.  See the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html list of standard characters] for more information.  Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols.  For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required.  (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.)  --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)
---
> '''A2.'''  The ''next'' release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like &infin; for the infinity symbol, &Delta; for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc.  See the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html list of standard characters] for more information.  Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols.  For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required.  (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.)  --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)
------
RulesToConsider|981309339
2a3,4
> See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.
> 
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981310464
3,9c3
< It’s possible to do a great deal of philosophy without talking about human beings at all.  We can talk about the existence of physical objects, space and time, the problem of substance, the problem of universals, change and identity, what numbers are, and a great many other topics without having to discuss what human beings are.  And we could, without talking about human beings, explore an area which is important, but which I haven’t even mentioned until now, namely the philosophy of biology.  The philosophy of biology looks for a definition of "life," in the sense of being alive, and tries to come to grips with some of the fundamental properties of living beings, such as proper functioning.  Now, I think it’s very useful to regard human beings as, first and foremost, <i>living</i> beings with a certain number of natural systems which have their proper functioning.  We have a respiratory system, for example the proper functioning of which allows our bodies to get the oxygen we need in order to survive.  Similarly with our circulatory system, or digestive system, and so forth.
< 
< Well, the nervous system, including our brain and nerves is, of course, a natural system just like our respiratory system, with a proper function (or rather, a whole very complex set of proper functions).  Our nervous system is incredibly complex and highly developed.  In fact it is so highly developed that many people think that the mind is something quite over and above the mere human brain and nervous system.  But <i>is</i> the mind really something quite over and above the brain and nervous system?  Well, in this chapter, we’re going to discuss that question.
< 
< As I said, it is possible to do a lot of philosophy without talking about human beings.  But probably <i>most</i> of philosophy <i>does</i> in some way depend on questions about human nature and the human situation.  And the human mind is of course fundamental to human nature.  So, a great deal of the rest of philosophy ultimately rests on questions about the human mind.  Thus, if we do want to talk about the rest of philosophy, practically the first topic that we have to take up, is the nature of the human mind.
< 
< So this is going to be a chapter about some of the most important topics in the philosophy of mind.  Before I explain those specific topics, I am going to try to explain in general what the philosophy of mind is, and introduce some terminology.  Let me begin with a definition of the field:
---
> It is possible to do a lot of philosophy without talking about human beings.  But probably <i>most</i> of philosophy <i>does</i> in some way depend on questions about human nature and the human situation, and the human mind is of course fundamental to human nature.  So, a great deal of the rest of philosophy ultimately rests on questions about the human mind.
13c7
< Some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  I think you can understand that each of these involve some very hard questions.  I want to talk fairly briefly about each of these questions.
---
> Some of questions asked in the philosophy of mind are simply what the mind is, what mental events are, what each type of cognitive process involves, and what consciousness is.  Each of these involve some very hard questions.
15c9
< The first question is: What is the mind?  As I said, I’ve already given you a short introduction to this question when I explained how the problem of substance can be applied to the mind.  Is the mind nothing more than a series of particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth, or is it something <i>over</i> <i>and</i> <i>above</i> those particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth?  But when we ask that really we’re doing nothing but asking what the relation is between the mind and mental events.  In other words, we could simply restate the question in terms of mental events, like this: Is the mind nothing more than a series of mental events, or is it something over and above the mental events that we say occur "in" it?  This isn’t a question we are going to try to answer.
---
> The first question is: What is the mind?  Is the mind nothing more than a series of particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth, or is it something <i>over</i> <i>and</i> <i>above</i> those particular thoughts, feelings, and so forth?  When we ask that, we are simply asking what the relation is between the mind and MentalEvents.  In other words, we could simply restate the question in terms of mental events, like this: Is the mind nothing more than a series of mental events, or is it something over and above the mental events that we say occur "in" it?  This isn’t a question we are going to try to answer.
21c15,19
< I am sure this is confusing, because there are a lot of questions being asked here!  Well so far I’ve presented several different questions that the philosophy of mind asks: What is the mind, a substance or just a series of mental events?  Is the mind somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, the body?  Are mental events somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, physical events?  Each of these questions are ways of interpreting the more ambiguous questions we started with, such as, "What is the mind?" and "What are mental events?"
---
> So far we’ve presented several different questions that the philosophy of mind asks: What is the mind, a substance or just a series of mental events?  Is the mind somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, the body?  Are mental events somehow reducible to, or explainable in terms of, physical events?  Each of these questions are ways of interpreting the more ambiguous questions we started with, such as, "What is the mind?" and "What are mental events?"
> 
> We can also ask questions about the different specific CognitiveProcesses, and of course we might ask what cognitive processes <i>in</i> <i>general</i> are supposed to be.  In that case, we’d be asking what distinguishes a <i>cognitive</i> process from any <i>other</i> kind of process.  That is another way of putting TheMindBodyProblem.  We can also ask a series of more specialized questions, about <i>each</i> <i>individual</i> cognitive process.
> 
> Take perception as an example.  Philosophers ask what is going on when we perceive something--when we see, hear, taste, touch, and so on.  But philosophers are not interested in the particular mechanisms that allow us to see--for example, they do not study the shape of the eye or how the optical nerve carries information to the brain.  They are interested in even more basic questions.  They ask: Do we perceive physical objects <i>directly</i> with our senses, or do we form mental images of some sort, which we use to <i>represent</i> physical objects and their properties?  These are questions raised by the PhilosophyOfPerception.  The philosophy of perception is all about how our minds come in contact with the world outside our minds.
23c21
< Now what about questions about the different cognitive processes?  Of course we might ask what cognitive processes <i>in</i> <i>general</i> are supposed to be.  You know, we’d be asking what distinguishes a <i>cognitive</i> process from any <i>other</i> kind of process.  That is another way of putting the mind-body problem.  But let’s ignore that for now.  We can also ask a series of more specialized questions, about <i>each</i> <i>individual</i> cognitive process.  Take perception as an example.  Philosophers ask what is going on when we perceive something -- when we see, hear, taste, touch, and so on.  But philosophers aren’t interested in the particular mechanisms that allow us to see -- for example, they aren’t interested in the shape of the eye, or how the optical nerve carries information to the brain.  They are interested in even more basic sort of stuff.  They ask: Do we perceive physical objects <i>directly</i> with our senses, or do we form mental images of some sort, which we use to <i>represent</i> physical objects and their properties?  Don’t worry if you don’t understand that question; we’re going to be discussing it at length next time, when we talk about the philosophy of perception.  Really, the philosophy of perception is all about how our minds come in contact with the world outside our minds.
---
> Another example the will, or volition.  When we choose to do something we are using our wills, or engaging in volition.  There is, of course, one special and very difficult question that philosophers ask about this process, namely, is the will free?  If Mary decides to walk across the room, that seems to be entirely up to her; she could have chosen otherwise.  But if the universe is determined, and especially if our will really is after all just a physical process, then it certainly does seem as though Mary didn’t have control over <i>everything</i> that led up to her deciding to walk across the room.  So was she free or wasn’t she?  That is a question addressed under the general heading "FreeWillAndDeterminism."
25c23
< Then as I’m sure you can imagine, there are a lot of questions that can be asked about <i>other</i> mental functions, such as memory, forming concepts, reasoning, the emotions, and so on.  Needless to say, we don’t even have time to formulate the questions, let alone consider answers to them.  But there is one other cognitive process that I want to mention now, because we <i>are</i> going to be spending a day on it, namely, the will, or volition.  When we choose to do something we are using our wills, or engaging in volition.  There is, of course, one special and very difficult question that philosophers ask about this process, namely, is the will free?  If I decide to walk across the room, that seems to be entirely up to me; I could have chosen otherwise.  But if the universe is determined, and especially if my will really is after all just a physical process, then it certainly does seem as though I didn’t have control over <i>everything</i> that led up to my deciding to walk across the room.  So was I free or wasn’t I?  That’s the question we’ll take up next week, when we discuss the problem of free will and determinism.
---
> Finally, consider some questions about consciousness.  What is it?  We say that there is something it’s <i>like</i> to be watching a baby.  When we look at a baby we are conscious of the baby.  Is there some way to explain what makes a mental event, like looking at a baby, <i>conscious</i>?  Well, what could we explain consciousness in terms of?  If in terms of some physical process, then we face the same old mind-body question in yet <i>another</i> form: Can consciousness be reduced to, explained in terms of, mere physical processes?  Some people have said, vociferously, <i>definitely</i> <i>not</i>.  How could a hunk of grey matter in your brain be the same as <i>the</i> <i>awareness</i> <i>of</i> <i>a</i> <i>pain</i>?  Awareness is a <i>totally</i> different kind of thing from grey matter in your skull.
27c25
< Finally, there are questions about consciousness.  What is it?  We say that there is something it’s <i>like</i> to be watching a baby.  When we look at a baby we’re conscious of the baby.  Is there some way to explain what makes a mental event, like looking at a baby, <i>conscious</i>?  Well, what could we explain consciousness in terms of?  If in terms of some physical process, then we face the same old mind-body question in yet <i>another</i> form: Can consciousness be reduced to, explained in terms of, mere physical processes?  Some people have said, vociferously, <i>definitely</i> <i>not</i>.  How could a hunk of grey matter in your brain be the same as <i>the</i> <i>awareness</i> <i>of</i> <i>a</i> <i>pain</i>?  Awareness is a <i>totally</i> different kind of thing from grey matter in your skull.  So they say.  But again, that’s only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.
---
> But that is only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.  Indeed there are a lot of questions that can be asked about all the <i>other</i> mental functions, such as memory, forming concepts, reasoning, the emotions, and so on.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981310524
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikified, but please contribute more, improve, etc.  This isn't a sophisticated discussion of the philosophy of mind, it's just a simple introduction.  It can certainly be improved.> 
25c25
< But that is only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.  Indeed there are a lot of questions that can be asked about all the <i>other</i> mental functions, such as memory, forming concepts, reasoning, the emotions, and so on.
---
> But that is only one question that can be asked about consciousness.  There are other questions.  Indeed there are a lot of questions that can be asked about all the <i>other</i> mental functions, such as memory, forming concepts, reasoning, the emotions, and so on.
------
AlgorithmS|981311908
3a4,6
> ----
> It is well known that robots can only dance with an algorithm, so I guess that's right.
> 
------
WikiPediaProcess|981315325
6a7
> * CategorySchemes and CategorySchemesTalk
27c28
< '''A2.'''  The ''next'' release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like &infin; for the infinity symbol, &Delta; for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc.  See the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html list of standard characters] for more information.  Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols.  For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required.  (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.)  --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)
---
> '''A2.'''  The ''next'' release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like &infin; for the infinity symbol, &Delta; for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc.  See the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html list of standard characters] for more information.  Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols.  For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required.  (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.)  --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)
------
BillClinton|981322734
11c11,14
< RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for being an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob
---
> RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for being an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob
> 
> 
> BillClintionDiscussion
------
BillClinton|981323080
12,14c12,13
< 
< 
< BillClintionDiscussion
---
> ----
> Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the "http://www.americorps.org/":AmeriCorps.  These people do good stuff, imho. --PhillipHankins
------
ItalY|981323148
10c10
< Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times. Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY. The latter include AC Milan, AS Roma, Juventus Torino and FiorentinA.
---
> Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times. Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY. The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Torino and FiorentinA.
------
BillClinton|981323156
13c13
< Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the "http://www.americorps.org/":AmeriCorps.  These people do good stuff, imho. --PhillipHankins
---
> Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [http://www.americorps.org/ AmeriCorps].  These people do good stuff, imho. --PhillipHankins
------
BillClinton|981323939
13c13
< Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [http://www.americorps.org/ AmeriCorps].  These people do good stuff, imho. --PhillipHankins
---
> Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [http://www.americorps.org/ AmeriCorps].  These people do good stuff, imho.  Then there is all the stuff about national health care, nafta, welfare reform, increasing money for student loans ... lots more than the scandal happened.  He was also the govoner of Arkansas a few times.  (this page entails lots of hmwk)  --PhillipHankins
------
LarrySanger|981325199
30c30,32
< It would be a criticism of premise 7 (that evil exists in the world), not of premise 4, as far as I can tell.  The proposal is that evil is relative, and therefore, because someone in much worse conditions than we're in now would not consider the conditions we're in now as evil, evil doesn't exist.  I don't really agree that this latter conclusion really follows form the premise that evil is relative, but I think you might be on to something here.  I really don't know that much about this area of philosophy, to tell the truth. -- LarrySanger
---
> It would be a criticism of premise 7 (that evil exists in the world), not of premise 4, as far as I can tell.  The proposal is that evil is relative, and therefore, because someone in much worse conditions than we're in now would not consider the conditions we're in now as evil, evil doesn't exist.  I don't really agree that this latter conclusion really follows form the premise that evil is relative, but I think you might be on to something here.  I really don't know that much about this area of philosophy, to tell the truth. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Hey, Larry, where did you do your phil grad?  --curiousPhillipHankins
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981336697
0a1
>  /AntiDogEatDogRule
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN146|981337379
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> /DagnyTaggart visits /DanConway in order to try to persuade him to fight the /AntiDogEatDogRule, and to discuss morality.  Conway admits the ruling is not fair, but he doesn't feel he has any right to fight the will of the majority.  He meekly resigns himself to running his railroads in Arizona.  Conway states, "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed.  If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain."  This is an important passage because it introduces the concept of the /SanctionOfTheVictim.
> 
> * Setting
> A meeting in an unspecified location, presumably in /NewYork.
> 
> * Characters:
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /DanConway
>  /EllisWyatt: Mentioned.
>  /JamesTaggart: Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981337404
13c13
< 
---
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|981337428
6c6,7
<  - /SectioN132
---
>  - /SectioN132
>  - /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|981337443
8a9
>  /SectioN146 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981337464
8a9
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|981337477
6a7
>  - /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/Arizona|981337539
1c1,6
< Arizona is a state where the /PhoenixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
> Arizona is the home of the /PhoenixDurango railroad.  
> 
> Arizona is mentioned in:
> 
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/NewMexico|981337615
1c1,5
< New Mexico is a state where the /PhoneixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine. It is mentioned in /SectioN111. 
---
> New Mexico is a state where the /PhoenixDurango has successfully obtained the freight business that formerly went to the /RioNorteLine.  After the passage of the /AntiDogEatDogRule the /PhoenixDurango is forces to abandon operations in New Mexico, as well as in /Colorado.
> 
> New Mexico is mentioned in
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/NationalAllianceofRailroads|981337653
5c5,6
<  /SectioN145
---
>  /SectioN145
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|981337665
9c9,10
<  /SectioN141
---
>  /SectioN141
>  /SectioN146
------
AtlasShrugged|981337703
24a25
> * /Concepts
------
AtlasShrugged/Concepts|981337737
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Important concepts in /AtlasShrugged:
> 
>  /SanctionOfTheVictim
------
AtlasShrugged/Concepts|981337748
1c1
< Important concepts in /AtlasShrugged:
---
> Important concepts in AtlasShrugged:
------
AtlasShrugged/SanctionOfTheVictim|981338892
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Sanction of the Victim is defined as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrifical victim for the 'sin' of creating values."
> 
> The entire story of AtlasShrugged can be seen as an answer to the question, what would happen if this sanction was revoked?  When Atlas shrugs, relieving himself of the burden of carry the world, he is revoking his sanction.
> 
> The concept is apparently original in the thinking of AynRand and is foundational to her moral theory.  She holds that evil is a parasite on the good and can only exist if the good tolerates it.  To quote from /GaltsSpeech: "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us", and, "I saw that evil was impotent...and the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it."  Morality requires that we do not santion our own victimhood.
> 
> Throughout AtlasShrugged, characters admit that there is something wrong with the world but they cannot put there finger on what it is.  The concept they cannot grasp is the sanction of the victim.  The first person to grasp the concept is /JohnGalt, who vows to stop the motor of the world by getting the creators of the world to withhold their sanction.
> 
> We first glimpse the concept in /SectioN121 when /HankRearden feels he is duty-bound to support his family, despite their hostility towards him.
> 
> In /SectioN146 the principle is stated explicitly by /DanConway: "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed. If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain."
------
AtlasShrugged/SanctionOfTheVictim|981338946
7c7
< Throughout AtlasShrugged, characters admit that there is something wrong with the world but they cannot put there finger on what it is.  The concept they cannot grasp is the sanction of the victim.  The first person to grasp the concept is /JohnGalt, who vows to stop the motor of the world by getting the creators of the world to withhold their sanction.
---
> Throughout AtlasShrugged, numerous characters admit that there is something wrong with the world but they cannot put there finger on what it is.  The concept they cannot grasp is the sanction of the victim.  The first person to grasp the concept is /JohnGalt, who vows to stop the motor of the world by getting the creators of the world to withhold their sanction.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN146|981339095
2c2
< /DagnyTaggart visits /DanConway in order to try to persuade him to fight the /AntiDogEatDogRule, and to discuss morality.  Conway admits the ruling is not fair, but he doesn't feel he has any right to fight the will of the majority.  He meekly resigns himself to running his railroads in Arizona.  Conway states, "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed.  If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain."  This is an important passage because it introduces the concept of the /SanctionOfTheVictim.
---
> /DagnyTaggart visits /DanConway in order to try to persuade him to fight the /AntiDogEatDogRule, and to discuss morality.  Conway admits the ruling is not fair, but he doesn't feel he has any right to fight the will of the majority.  He meekly resigns himself to running his railroads in Arizona.  Conway states, "I suppose somebody's got to be sacrificed.  If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain."  This is an important passage because it is the first explicit statement the concept of the /SanctionOfTheVictim.
------
MathematicalGrouP|981339098
17a18,19
> For the proof of the '''uniqueness of the identity element''' and the '''uniqueness of the inverse of an element''' in a GrouP, see ElementaryGroupTheory.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|981339168
4c4
< /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is poured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is poured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  This is the first glimpse of the /SanctionOfTheVictim, which is a central concept of AtlasShrugged.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN121|981339215
4c4
< /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is poured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way.  This is the first glimpse of the /SanctionOfTheVictim, which is a central concept of AtlasShrugged.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
---
> /HankRearden watches triumphantly as the first order of /ReardenMetal is poured.  He reflects n the ten years of struggle to produce Rearden Metal, and as he walks home he reviews his life.  To celebrate his triumph, Rearden makes a bracelet out of the first Rearden Metal that is poured and gives it to his wife, Lillian.  Lillian cannot appreciate the triumph this gift symbolizes and uses the occassion to ridicule her husband's sentimentalism.  She makes a big deal about Rearden attending a party she is throwing in three months time.  Also at the Rearden home are his brother Philip, his mother, and a friend, /PaulLarkin, who has come to warn Rearden of possible trouble in /Washington.  His family insults and criticizes Rearden for the crime of being able to support them.  He tries to understand their behavior but cannot come to acknowledge the depths of their depravity.  He believes they are expressing the same concerns that he feels, but only in a different way, and the he is morally required to tolerate them because they are weaker than he is.  This is the first glimpse of the /SanctionOfTheVictim, which is a central concept of AtlasShrugged.  The abuse Rearden receives from his family in the second part of this scene creates a stark contrast to the triumphant achievement at the mill in the firs part of the scene.
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|981339872
1c1,43
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FirstTheorems  
> 
> Given a Group (G,*) defined as:
> 
> 
> G in a NonEmpty SeT and “*” is a BinaryOperation, such that:
> *1).  (G,) has closure. That is, if a and b belong to (G,*), then a*b belongs to (G,*)
> *2).  The operation * is associative, that is, if a, b, and c belong to (G,*), then (a*b)*c)=(a*(b*c).      
> *3).  (G,*) contains an identity element, say e, that is, if a belongs to (G,*), then e*a=a*e=a.
> *4).  Every element in (G,*) has an inverse, that is, of a belongs to (G,*), there is an element b in (G,*) such that a*b=b*a=e.
> 
> First Theorem: 
> 
> The identity element of a GrouP (G,*) is unique.
> 
> *Proof:
> *	Suppose there were two elements, e and e’ (G,*), such that for all a in (G,*)
>         a*e=e*a=e and a*e’=e’*a=a.
> *	Then e*e’=e’ by the definition of identity element (3).
> *	And e*e’=e, also by the definition of the identity element (3).
> *	Then e=e’.
> *	The identity element in a GrouP (G,*) is unique.
> 
> Second Theorem:
> 
> Given a group (G,*), and an element x in (G,*), there is only one element y such that y*x=x*y=e. ( The inverse of each element in (G,*) is unique.)
> 
> *Proof 
> *	Suppose there are two elements, y and y’ in (G,*) such that for x, an element of    (G,*), y*x=x*y=e and y’*x=x*y’=e.
> *	Then y’=y’*e, by definition of identity element (3).
> *	Then y’=y’*(x*y), since x*y=e.
> *	Then y’=(y’*x)*y, by the associativity property of (G,*) (2).
> *	Then y’=e*y, since y’*x=e
> *	Then y’=y, since e is the identity element (3).
> *	Therefore, the inverse of an element x in a GrouP, (G,*) is unique.
> 
> Notice the method of proof, which is the same for both theorems and quite common in
> MathematicS. It is called, the Indirect Method of Proof.
> *	First, one assumes that the proposition one is trying to prove if false.
> *	Then, one tries to get a contradiction.
> *	If this is successful, then the assumption that the proposition is false, is, itself, false. Hence, the proposition is true.
> 
> 
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|981340134
12c12
< First Theorem: 
---
> ''First Theorem'': 
16c16
< *Proof:
---
> *'''Proof''':
24c24
< Second Theorem:
---
> ''Second Theorem'':
28c28
< *Proof 
---
> *'''Proof''' 
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|981340219
38c38
< MathematicS. It is called, the Indirect Method of Proof.
---
> MathematicS. It is called, the ''Indirect Method of Proof''.
------
BillClinton|981340399
13c13
< Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [http://www.americorps.org/ AmeriCorps].  These people do good stuff, imho.  Then there is all the stuff about national health care, nafta, welfare reform, increasing money for student loans ... lots more than the scandal happened.  He was also the govoner of Arkansas a few times.  (this page entails lots of hmwk)  --PhillipHankins
---
> Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [http://www.americorps.org/ AmeriCorps].  These people do good stuff, imho.  Then there is all the stuff about national health care, nafta, welfare reform, increasing money for student loans ... lots more than the scandal happened.  He was also the governor of Arkansas a few times.  (this page entails lots of hmwk)  --PhillipHankins
------
JimboWales|981340493
15c15,18
< My timezone is GMT+1 -- the times on the RecentChanges page are about GMT-8, so I'd go for somewhere on the US West Coast. -- WojPob
---
> My timezone is GMT+1 -- the times on the RecentChanges page are about GMT-8, so I'd go for somewhere on the US West Coast. -- WojPob
> ----
> 
> SanDiego, CaliforniA is the location of Bomis.  LarrySanger lives (for now) in LasVegas, NevadA.  
------
JulianSimon|981340677
2a3,5
> JulianSimon and PaulErlich entered into a famous /wager, betting
> on a mutually agreed upon metric of resource scarcity.
> 
------
JulianSimon|981340776
3c3
< JulianSimon and PaulErlich entered into a famous /wager, betting
---
> JulianSimon and PaulErlich entered into a famous /Wager, betting
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981341355
9c9
< The sympathetic characters of /AtlasShrugged do not tell lies.  Even when they are clearly trying to conceal something, they do not rely on overt falsehood, even when it is obvious that they could do so without being found out.  There are a few exceptions.
---
> The sympathetic characters of AtlasShrugged do not tell lies.  Even when they are clearly trying to conceal something, they do not rely on overt falsehood, even when it is obvious that they could do so without being found out.  There are a few exceptions.
13a14,19
> 
> * Social classes
> 
> Rand is sometimes called an elitist.  This claim is probably accurate if we allow for the fact that Rand had her own standard of eliteness.  She did not favor the rich over the poor, or the high-born over the low-born.  She favored the men of virtue over those who lacked virtue.  Throughout AtlasShrugged, virtue is equated with creative ability.
> 
> Different social classes are represented among both the heroes and the villains of AtlasShrugged.  Among the heroes, /JohnGalt and /HankRearden are from working class backgrounds, while /DagnyTaggart and /FranciscoDAnconia are from wealthy families.  Among the villains, /FredKinnan is from a working class background, while /JamesTaggart and /BettyPope are from wealthy families.
------
JulianSimon/Wager|981341574
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> JulianSimon and PaulEhrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980,
> betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990.
> 
> Simon and Erlich agreed to bet on the price of several commodity metals.  Erlich chose 5 metals: copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten.
> 
> JulianSimon won handily.
> 
> (More details should be filled in here.
> [http://www.overpopulation.com/simon_bet.html this page] has a lot of detail, and presumably somewhere we could find a pro-Ehrlich page to find out if there are any additional counter-arguments.
------
PaulEhrlich|981341669
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous JulianSimon/Wager with JulianSimon.
------
PaulEhrlich|981341693
1c1
< Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous JulianSimon/Wager with JulianSimon.
---
> Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
------
LarrySanger|981341768
32a33,34
> ----
> Ohio State--wrote my dissertation on epistemic circularity, George Pappas was my advisor with Marshall Swain a committee member.
------
PaulEhrlich|981341789
1a2,3
> 
> Apparently, there was another PaulEhrlich who won the 1908 NobelPrize.  Related?
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981345140
13a14
>  /SectioN147
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN147|981345164
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> /EllisWyatt appears suddenly and unexpectedly in DagnyTaggart's office.  He issues an ultimatum, saying if /TaggartTranscontinental fails to run trains the way his business requires, his business will fail - and he will drag them down with him.  Dagny surpises him by quietly assuring him, without excuses or explanations, that he will get the service he requires.
> 
> Wyatt states, "You expect to feed off me while you can and to find another carcass to pick dry after you have finished mine."  He understands that the parasites are dependent upon him, and when he issues his ultimatum, he is refusing to grant the /SanctionOfTheVictim.  Thus Ellis Wyatt is a sharp contrast to /DanConway in the previous section.  The responses of these two men to the /AntiDogEatDogRule represent opposite sides of the book's central conflict - one accedes to being a victim, one refuses.
> 
> * Setting
> /DagnyTaggart's office at /TaggartTranscontinental.
> 
> * Characters
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EllisWyatt
>  /HankRearden - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|981345191
7a8
>  - /SectioN147
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|981345206
8c8
<  - /SectioN147
---
>  - /SectioN147 - First appearance.
------
AtlasShrugged/HankRearden|981345222
8a9
>  /SectioN147
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981345257
9a10
>  /SectioN147
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|981345280
7a8
>  - /SectioN147
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|981345301
10a11
>  /SectioN147
------
SiberianHusky|981359029
1a2,3
> ----
> A breed of sled dog developed in northeastern SiberiA; they resemble the larger AlaskanMalamute'''s''', Descended from the WolF.
------
SetTheory|981365160
129a130,137
> COMMENT: I will assume then that by saying that a cardinal
> satisfies GCH you mean that it is not a counterexample to
> GCH, i.e. it is not a cardinal k or 2^k such that 2^k is greater than the successor of k. However, that "everything constructed in
> ZF+AC must satisfy GCH" has no obvious interpretation on which
> it is correct. For example, is the power set of the set of
> natural numbers "constructed in ZF+AC"? If so, what does it
> mean that it satisfies GCH?
> 
------
SportS|981367162
33a34
> * MartialArts
------
MartialArts|981367284
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Martial Arts are a group of sports where you compete to your opponent by fighting him with several techniques. This techniques vary from sport to sport. Very famous martial arts are KaratE, KickBoxing and TaeKwonDo.
------
KickBoxing|981367744
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Kickboxing is a MartialArt which was developed out of Muai Thai or Thai Boxing.
> 
> It is allowed to hit with fists and feet, and to hit above the hip. In some forms it is also allowed to hit on the ties, or some more painful spots. Hitting with elbows and knees is forbidden, which is a difference to Thai Boxing.
------
KickBoxing|981367783
1c1
< Kickboxing is a MartialArt which was developed out of Muai Thai or Thai Boxing.
---
> Kickboxing is a MartialArts which was developed out of Muai Thai or Thai Boxing.
------
TaoTehChing|981370318
2a3,17
> COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical
> statement. To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote:
> 
>   Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
>   in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second   century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record     describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of     Chou, and further states that he is said to have
>   personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius).
>   It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be        found, for other chronicles state the date of the death of Lao    Tzu to precede that of the birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half    a century.
> 
> Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses
> doubt about the authenticity of the available information.
> Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion
> that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one
> man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views
> as accepted fact.
> 
------
MartialArts|981377292
1c1,21
< Martial Arts are a group of sports where you compete to your opponent by fighting him with several techniques. This techniques vary from sport to sport. Very famous martial arts are KaratE, KickBoxing and TaeKwonDo.
---
> Martial Arts are a group of sports where you compete to your opponent by fighting him with several techniques. This techniques vary from sport to sport. Very famous martial arts are KaratE, KickBoxing and TaeKwonDo.
> Martial Arts can de different in terms of their heritage, their age, the region they were developed, and if they are accompanied with a system of beliefs.
> 
> Martial Arts from Asia:
> 
> Aikido
> KaratE
> MuayThai
> TaeKwonDo
> JudO
> JujutsU
> 
> Martial Arts developed in Europe:
> 
> KickboxinG
> SavatE
> 
> Martial Arts developed in South America:
> 
> CapoeirA
> BrazilianJujutsu
------
MartialArts|981377314
15c15
< KickboxinG
---
> KickBoxing
------
TaoTehChing|981379788
7c7,9
<   in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second   century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record     describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of     Chou, and further states that he is said to have
---
>   in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
>    century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record     describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
>     Chou, and further states that he is said to have
9c11,14
<   It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be        found, for other chronicles state the date of the death of Lao    Tzu to precede that of the birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half    a century.
---
> 
>   It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be     
>    found, for other chronicles state the date of the death of Lao    Tzu to precede that of the birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half
>     a century.
------
TaoTehChing|981379898
8,14c8,12
<    century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record     describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
<     Chou, and further states that he is said to have
<   personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius).
< 
<   It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be     
<    found, for other chronicles state the date of the death of Lao    Tzu to precede that of the birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half
<     a century.
---
>   century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
>   describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
>   Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
>   personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
>   inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|981380400
38c38
< MathematicS. It is called, the ''Indirect Method of Proof''.
---
> MathematicS. It is called, among other things, the ''Indirect Method of Proof'' and ''Proof by Contradiction''.
------
MathematicalGrouP|981380524
18c18
< For the proof of the '''uniqueness of the identity element''' and the '''uniqueness of the inverse of an element''' in a GrouP, see ElementaryGroupTheory.
---
> The proof of the '''uniqueness of the identity element''' and the '''uniqueness of the inverse of an element''' in a GrouP, falls under ElementaryGroupTheory.
------
TopOlogy|981380616
78a79,84
> 
> ----
> 
> Better yet the discussion of the non-existence in our physical universe of Moebius (Mobius, whatever) strips (and everything else) could be edited out altogether.  It adds very little substantive value to the understanding of any branch of mathematics, certainly not topology as I understand it.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|981388810
39c39
< *	First, one assumes that the proposition one is trying to prove if false.
---
> *	First, one assumes that the proposition one is trying to prove is false.
------
HareKrishna|981390487
7,9c7
< Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.  (This guy reminds me of BuddHa.  Coincidence or plagiarism?)
< 
< Sufficient enlightenment has the potential to free the individual from the cycle of life and death altogether. 
---
> Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.  Sufficient enlightenment has the potential to free the individual from the cycle of life and death altogether. 
17a16,19
> 
> ----
> 
> Comments moved to HareKrishnaTalk
------
HareKrishnaTalk|981390768
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> (This guy [Prabhupada] reminds me of BuddHa.  Coincidence or plagiarism?)
> ----
> That BuddhIsm, HinduIsm, HareKrishna, JainIsm and other religions developed in that geographic area would sound similar is more inevitability than coincidence, as the fabric of that culture and the nature of its religions are tightly intertwined.  The personage of Rama as GodHead is distinctly Hindu.  AyeSpy
------
PolicyPolicy|981394617
6c6,9
< Good question.  But I'd agree with Joshua.  Though I think you're right in many cases, Tim--experience is the best guide.  Surely the case of NuPedia shows that the best policy is discovered through a combination of "a priori" policy-setting in the beginning, to be modified later in light of experience. -- LarrySanger
---
> Good question.  But I'd agree with Joshua.  Though I think you're right in many cases, Tim--experience is the best guide.  Surely the case of NuPedia shows that the best policy is discovered through a combination of "a priori" policy-setting in the beginning, to be modified later in light of experience. -- LarrySanger
> 
> I disagree with Tim's statement that "We should not try to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be."  We should not, of course, expect at the outset that we will get it all right, and so we should be prepared to change course in the future.  The interesting thing about the wiki software is that social norms are ultimately the only policy.  Saying, today, that
> we will have "loose" social norms, versus "tight" social norms, is ''itself'' a policy, set today, with a particular vision of the future in mind.  We should attempt to anticipate what the lessons of experience will be, and of course we should be prepared to change course as we learn new things.  --JimboWales
------
BillClinton|981395242
11a12,19
> 
> The UnitedStatesPresident has the power, under the UnitedStatesConstitution, to pardon people for crimes committed.
> 
> Clinton critics argue that Clinton's many last minute pardons were more political than those of the past, and in some cases are baffling except in light of large donations to Clinton campaigns.
> 
> Clinton supporters can no doubt point to many other highly political pardons in history, including for example GeraldFord's
> pardon of RichardNixon.  I'm sure that in the entire sordid history of politics, there have been many other cases of apparent pardons for money.
> 
------
BusinessAndIndustry|981395897
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is a category index page.  For now, I am entering random
> things that I have found which might eventually go under this
> category.
> 
> BusinessSchools
------
TheLaw|981395954
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This may become a category index page.  For now, I will just
> enter some things that I have found.
> 
> UnitedStatesConstitution
------
UnitedStatesConstitution|981396010
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /ArticleOne
> /ArticleTwo
> 
> 
> /AmendmentOne
> /AmendmentTwo
------
UnitedStatesConstitution|981396058
1,2c1,2
< /ArticleOne
< /ArticleTwo
---
> */ArticleOne
> */ArticleTwo
5,6c5,6
< /AmendmentOne
< /AmendmentTwo
---
> */AmendmentOne
> */AmendmentTwo
------
UnitedStatesConstitution|981396241
0a1
> */Preamble
2a4,8
> */ArticleThree
> */ArticleFour
> */ArticleFive
> */ArticleSix
> */ArticleSeven
6a13,37
> */AmendmentThree
> */AmendmentFour
> */AmendmentFive
> */AmendmentSix
> */AmendmentSeven
> */AmendmentEight
> */AmendmentNine
> */AmendmentTen
> */AmendmentEleven
> */AmendmentTwelve
> */AmendmentThirteen
> */AmendmentFourteen
> */AmendmentFifteen
> */AmendmentSixteen
> */AmendmentSeventeen
> */AmendmentEighteen
> */AmendmentNineteen
> */AmendmentTwenty
> */AmendmentTwentyone
> */AmendmentTwentytwo
> */AmendmentTwentythree
> */AmendmentTwentyfour
> */AmendmentTwentyfive
> */AmendmentTwentysix
> */AmendmentTwentyseven
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/Preamble|981396284
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/Preamble|981396363
1c1
< We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 
---
> We the people of the UnitedStates, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleOne|981396531
1c1,177
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a SenatE and HouseofRepresentatives. 
> 
> Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several
> states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state
> legislature. 
> 
> No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of
> the UnitedStates, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. 
> 
> Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according
> to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
> service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be
> made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years,
> in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each
> state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled
> to chuse three, MassachusettS eight, RhodeIsland and ProvidencePlantations one, ConnecticuT five, New York six, New Jersey
> four, PennsylvaniA eight, DelawarE one, Maryland six, VirginiA ten, NorthCarolina five, SouthCarolina five, and Georgia three. 
> 
> When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill
> such vacancies. 
> 
> The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 
> 
> Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof
> , for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. 
> 
> Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three
> classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the
> expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second
> year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof
> may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 
> 
> No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United
> States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. 
> 
> The VicePresidentoftheUnited States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 
> 
> The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he
> shall exercise the office of President of the United States. 
> 
> The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.
> When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the
> concurrence of two thirds of the members present. 
> 
> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
> office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
> indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. 
> 
> Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by
> the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing
> Senators. 
> 
> The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they
> shall by law appoint a different day. 
> 
> Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each
> shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
> attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. 
> 
> Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of
> two thirds, expel a member. 
> 
> Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their
> judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of
> those present, be entered on the journal. 
> 
> Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any
> other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 
> 
> Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out
> of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from
> arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any
> speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 
> 
> No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority
> of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no
> person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. 
> 
> Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
> amendments as on other Bills. 
> 
> Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the
> President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which
> it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
> reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other
> House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all
> such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the
> bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days
> (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless
> the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 
> 
> Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on
> a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be
> approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,
> according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 
> 
> Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
> common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
> United States; 
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States; 
> 
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; 
> 
> To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; 
> 
> To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; 
> 
> To establish post offices and post roads; 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
> their respective writings and discoveries; 
> 
> To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; 
> 
> To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; 
> 
> To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; 
> 
> To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; 
> 
> To provide and maintain a navy; 
> 
> To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
> service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
> militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 
> 
> To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
> particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like
> authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
> magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And 
> 
> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
> vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. 
> 
> Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
> prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such
> importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. 
> 
> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety
> may require it. 
> 
> No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. 
> 
> No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be
> taken. 
> 
> No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. 
> 
> No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall
> vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. 
> 
> No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and
> account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. 
> 
> No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall,
> without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king,
> prince, or foreign state. 
> 
> Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit
> bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or
> law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. 
> 
> No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
> necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports,
> shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the
> Congress. 
> 
> No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into
> any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such
> imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
------
BusinessSchool|981396558
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See BusinessSchools
------
HomePage|981398307
4a5,6
> I am reminded of "The Foundation" trilogy by Isaac Asimov.
> 
------
HomePage|981398433
5,6d4
< I am reminded of "The Foundation" trilogy by Isaac Asimov.
< 
------
LiteraTure|981398614
4a5
> * RobertHeinlein 
------
LiteraryArt|981398661
1c1
< LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction -- RobertHeinlein
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction
------
TaoTehChing|981399314
1c1
< The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his given name was Li Erh.  Recent archeological discovery of Chinese scrolls from 100-150 BC reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus undermining support for modern theories that the work was contributed to and changed by several authors over the centuries.
---
> The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing orginally named Lao Tzu, generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote a supposed "biography" of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his birth name was Li Erh.  
3,4c3,28
< COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical
< statement. To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote:
---
> Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually bamboo tiles called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
> 
> As early as the 1930's, a way to resolve disputes over authorship without declaring who is right or wrong (a Taoist solution, if you will) may have been proposed. In an essay accompanying a translation by Wai-tao and Dwight Goddard, Dr. Kiang Kang-hu offers, "Three Taoist sages who lived two or three hundred or more years apart, according to history, are commonly believed to be the same man, who by his wisdom had attained longevity… The simpler and more probable solution of the confusion is to accept the historicity of all three but to give credit for the original writing to Lao-Tzu and consider the others as able disciples and possibly editors. The book in its present form might not have been written until the third century BC… for it was engraved on stone tablets soon after that time". credit for some verses might be conditionally given tolater Taoists "without detracting from the larger credit that belongs to Lao-Tzu".
> 
> Several modern versions of religious Taoism (Daoism) are replete with polytheism, ancestor worship, ceremony of various kinds, and alchemic efforts to achieve longevity.
> 
> What is attributed to Lao Tzu contains none of the above.
> 
> Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical; and exceedingly practical.
> 
> The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  Your author refrains from quoting the Tao directly, as each English Language interpretation (including even interpretation of the three-character title), of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say that Lao Tzu demonstrated an understanding of such principles as these:
> 
> Force begets force.  One whose needs are simple will find them fulfilled.  Wealth does not enrich the spirit.  Self-interest and self-importance are vain and self-destructive.  Victory in war is not glorious and not to be celebrated, but stems from devastation, and is to be mourned.  The harder one tries, the more resistance he will create for himself.  The more one acts in harmony with the universe, the more he will achieve, with less effort.  The truly wise make little of their own wisdom - for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know.  It is wise to repay kindness with kindness and to repay evil with kindness.  We are our brothers' keepers.  Skill averts waste.  When we lose the fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values.  Stupidity leads to force.  The wise are responsible for the foolish.  The honest are responsible for the dishonest.  The teacher is responsible for his student.  Glorification of wealth, power and beauty beget crime, envy and shame.  The "feminine" qualities of flexibility and suppleness are superior to "masculine" strength and rigidity.  Everything in its own time and place.
> 
> Behind all this, Lao Tzu speaks of the ineffable Tao, or the "Way," which is described as the indivisible and indescribable unifying principle of the universe, from which all flows.  It is without time, form or substance, and exterior/senior to these traits.  The simpler one becomes, the greater hope he has of co-existing with the Tao, which is the only way one can truly understand it.  
> 
> In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower." -- AyeSpy
> ----
> COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. 
> ----
> 
> I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> (moved here from the body of the text -- AyeSpy) COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical
> statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote:
21,35d44
< Several modern versions of Taoism (Daoism) are replete with polytheism, ancestor worship, ceremony of various kinds, and alchemic efforts to achieve longevity.
< 
< What is written by Lao Tzu contains none of the above.
< 
< Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical, and exceedingly practical.
< 
< The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  I refrain here from quoting the Tao directly, as every English Language interpretation, of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say that Lao Tzu demonstrates an understanding of such principles as these:
< 
< Force begets force.  One whose needs are simple will find them fulfilled.  Wealth does not enrich the spirit.  Self-interest and self-importance are vain and self-destructive.  Victory in war is not glorious and not to be celebrated, but stems from devastation, and is to be mourned.  The harder one tries, the more resistance he will create for himself.  The more one acts in harmony with the universe, the more he will achieve, with less effort.  The truly wise make little of their own wisdom -for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know.  It is wise to repay kindness with kindness and to repay evil with kindness.  We are our brothers' keepers.  Skill averts waste.  When we lose the fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values.  Stupidity leads to force.  The wise are responsible for the foolish.  The honest are responsible for the dishonest.  The teacher is responsible for his student.  Glorification of wealth, power and beauty beget crime, envy and shame.  The "feminine" qualities of flexibility and suppleness are superior to "masculine" strength and rigidity.  Everything in its own time and place.
< 
< Behind all this, Lao Tzu speaks of the ineffable Tao, or the "Way," which is described as the indivisible and indescribable unifying principle of the universe, from which all flows.  It is without time, form or substance, and exterior/senior to these traits.  The simpler one becomes, the greater hope he has of co-existing with the Tao, which is the only way one can truly understand it.  
< 
< In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower." -- AyeSpy
< ----
< COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. 
38c47,48
< I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger 
---
> I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed.  I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching.  It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it.
> 
------
LarrySanger|981399587
1c1,5
< EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Home town is AnchorageAlaska.  Presently living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
---
> EditorInChief of NuPedia and (with JimboWales) instigator of WikiPedia.  Ph.D. PhiloSophy, 2000, OhioState.  Home town is AnchorageAlaska.
> 
> Inflicted LarrysText first on Ohio State students, and now on WikiPedia.
> 
> Presently living in LasVegas for a few months and then it's on to RussiA for a few more months; possibly Ireland after that.  This is all possible because LarrySanger works online.  You should be envious.  He would be if he weren't he.
34c38
< Ohio State--wrote my dissertation on epistemic circularity, George Pappas was my advisor with Marshall Swain a committee member.
---
> Ohio State--wrote my dissertation on epistemic circularity, George Pappas was my advisor with Marshall Swain a committee member.
------
LarrysText|981400063
1c1,5
< All [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?search=LarrysText these pages] I've uploaded this evening (Feb. 1) are sections of a set of lectures I wrote out one quarter (and read to my poor students).  This will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this (if you're into it, that is!).
---
> This is a series of introductory philosophy lectures LarrySanger wrote out completely and read to his unfortunate OhioState students in the spring of 1998.  Printed out it's about 350 pages long.  Its audience is average undergraduates who have never had a philosophy class before.  It covers, in a conversational yet concise fashion, all the main subdisciplines of philosophy, with a few exceptions (e.g., PhilosophyOfScience and AestheticS are omitted).  This material will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for WikiPedia.  On this page, we can discuss how to do this.
> 
> See all [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?search=LarrysText these pages] to search for all current pages that mention 'LarrysText'.
> 
> Table of contents (please keep this updated as you wikify!):
32c36
< I added a note to the top of most of the pages.  I would hope the notes don't last longer than the first couple of edits, which should suffice to make them read suffeciently less like lectures.  And haveing them link here means interested parties can find which ones have not yet been reviewed  (that gives me an idea: ReviewRequests).  That having been said... Thanks for the material, Larry.  I skimmed sections here and there, and it all looks quite good.  Quite a boon for the PhiloSophy section.  I might just look you up and request a copy when I have to teach some undergrad intro class (or will the wikipedia be enough by then...).  --PhillipHankins
---
> I added a note to the top of most of the pages.  I would hope the notes don't last longer than the first couple of edits, which should suffice to make them read sufficiently less like lectures.  And having them link here means interested parties can find which ones have not yet been reviewed (that gives me an idea: ReviewRequests).  That having been said... Thanks for the material, Larry.  I skimmed sections here and there, and it all looks quite good.  Quite a boon for the PhiloSophy section.  I might just look you up and request a copy when I have to teach some undergrad intro class (or will the wikipedia be enough by then...).  --PhillipHankins
46c50
< Go thou and do likewise--please!
---
> Go thou and do likewise--please!
------
MonIsm|981400397
1c1,5
< ''Monism'' is the PhilosophicalView that only one sort of stuff in the universe exists ultimately (as opposed to DualIsm, which holds that there are two kinds of stuff).  So there are two kinds of monism, namely, PhysicalIsm and PhenomenalIsm.  But there is, actually, another kind of monism: <i>NeutralMonism.</i>
---
> ''Monism'' is the PhilosophicalView that only one sort of stuff in the universe exists ultimately (see ReducTion).  Monism is to be distinguished from DualIsm, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of stuff.
> 
> So there are two kinds of monism, namely, PhysicalIsm and PhenomenalIsm; the former holds that the mental can be reduced to the physical, and the latter holds the converse.
> 
> There is, in fact, another kind of monism, <i>NeutralMonism,</i> which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of "neutral stuff."
------
TaoTehChing|981403039
3c3
< Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually bamboo tiles called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
---
> Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
------
TaoTehChing|981404872
3c3
< Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
---
> Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200 BC) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
5c5
< As early as the 1930's, a way to resolve disputes over authorship without declaring who is right or wrong (a Taoist solution, if you will) may have been proposed. In an essay accompanying a translation by Wai-tao and Dwight Goddard, Dr. Kiang Kang-hu offers, "Three Taoist sages who lived two or three hundred or more years apart, according to history, are commonly believed to be the same man, who by his wisdom had attained longevity… The simpler and more probable solution of the confusion is to accept the historicity of all three but to give credit for the original writing to Lao-Tzu and consider the others as able disciples and possibly editors. The book in its present form might not have been written until the third century BC… for it was engraved on stone tablets soon after that time". credit for some verses might be conditionally given tolater Taoists "without detracting from the larger credit that belongs to Lao-Tzu".
---
> As early as the 1930's, a way to resolve disputes over authorship without declaring who is right or wrong (a Taoist solution, if you will) may have been proposed. In an essay accompanying a translation by Wai-tao and Dwight Goddard, Dr. Kiang Kang-hu offers, "Three Taoist sages who lived two or three hundred or more years apart, according to history, are commonly believed to be the same man, who by his wisdom had attained longevity… The simpler and more probable solution of the confusion is to accept the historicity of all three but to give credit for the original writing to Lao-Tzu and consider the others as able disciples and possibly editors. The book in its present form might not have been written until the third century BC… for it was engraved on stone tablets soon after that time".  Credit for some verses might be conditionally given to later Taoists "without detracting from the larger credit that belongs to Lao-Tzu".
------
DaoDeJing|981404908
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See TaoTehChing.
------
LiteraTure|981406485
5a6
> * StanislawLem
------
StanislawLem|981406737
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Polish satirical and philosophical ScienceFiction writer, whose novel SolariS (1961) was filmed by Andrei Tarkovsky in 1971. StanislawLem's books have been translated into some 30 languages and sold over 10 million copies. He is probably the best single ScienceFiction author of the late 20th century not to write in English.
> 
> StanislawLem was born in Lvov, PolanD in 1921 (now Lviv, UkrainE) as the son of a physician. He studied medicine at Lwów University and at Jagiellonian University in CracoW, but his studies were interrupted by World War II. During the war and NazI occupation Lem worked as a car mechanic and welder, and was a member of the resistance fighting against the Germans. Toward the end of the war PolanD was occupied by the RedArmy and the country was closely controlled by the SovietUnion for the next 50 years. In 1946 Lem moved to CracoW. After finishing his studies StanislawLem received his MD. He worked a research assistant in a scientific institution and started to write stories on his spare time.
> 
------
RulesToConsider|981408181
15c15
< '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.
---
> '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.
------
IsaacAsimov|981409200
14a15
> * ThreeLawsOfRobotics
------
ThreeLawsOfRobotics|981409517
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A set of three laws set up by IsaacAsimov, which Robots, appearing in his novels, have to obey.
> 
> : 1. A robot may not harm a human being, or allow a human being to be harmed
> : 2. A robot must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
> : 3. A robot must protect his own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict the First or Second Law.
> 
> ''Source: IsaacAsimov, Foundation's Edge''
------
ThreeLawsOfRobotics|981409606
1c1
< A set of three laws set up by IsaacAsimov, which Robots, appearing in his novels, have to obey.
---
> A set of three laws set up by IsaacAsimov, which Robots, appearing in his novels, have to obey:
4c4
< : 2. A robot must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
---
> : 2. A robot must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981418184
2a3,7
> ''' Febraury 6, 2001'''
> 
> inspired by wikipedia i started an similar project for my local esperanto-group. It uses real html.
> if you are interested in or if you have any suggestions -> just give me a hint! norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de
> 
------
PaulEhrlich|981418319
1c1
< Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
---
> Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.----
3c3,6
< Apparently, there was another PaulEhrlich who won the 1908 NobelPrize.  Related?
---
> Apparently, there was another PaulEhrlich who won the 1908 NobelPrize.  Related?----
> The Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Erlich received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.
> His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at The Nobel Prize e-site:
> *   http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1908/ehrlich-bio.html
------
CityBerlin|981418526
3,4c3,4
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. 
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. Up to 1999, the Capital of West-GermanY was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN.
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. While the western part insite of beeing geographically divided from wetern germany remaind belonging to it. 
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. This move from the east-germany government was due to economically and political reasons. After the breakdown of communism in europe the town was united is soon became capital of germany.
------
CityBerlin|981418637
4c4,7
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. This move from the east-germany government was due to economically and political reasons. After the breakdown of communism in europe the town was united is soon became capital of germany.
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. 
> This move from the east-germany government was due to economically and political reasons. After the breakdown of communism in europe the town was united  and
> soon became capital of germany. And it was Kennedy who said with some funny accent 
> "ich bin ein berliner".
------
PaulEhrlich|981418681
5,6c5,7
< His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at The Nobel Prize e-site:
< *   http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1908/ehrlich-bio.html
---
> His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at :
> *   [http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1908/ehrlich-bio.html/
> Nobel Museum Site]
------
CityBerlin|981418708
3c3
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. While the western part insite of beeing geographically divided from wetern germany remaind belonging to it. 
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. While the western part inspite of beeing geographically divided from western germany remained belonging to western germany. 
------
CityBerlin|981419747
3c3,4
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany. While the western part inspite of beeing geographically divided from western germany remained belonging to western germany. 
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany, while the western part of the city, in spite of being geographically divided from WestGermany, continued to belong to WestGermany.
> 
5,7c6,10
< This move from the east-germany government was due to economically and political reasons. After the breakdown of communism in europe the town was united  and
< soon became capital of germany. And it was Kennedy who said with some funny accent 
< "ich bin ein berliner".
---
> This was undertaken by the East German government for economic and political reasons.  According to most Westerners, the reason for it was to prevent East Germans from immigrating to the West.
> 
> After the breakdown of CommunIsm in Europe the city, like the country, was united and soon became capital of all of Germany once again.
> 
> Kennedy gave a speech about the BerlinWall in which he said, with a bad accent, "Ich bin ein Berliner"--something Germans found hilarious, since it meant he's a kind of beer (a Berliner beer).  He should have said "Ich bin Berliner."  (Now, can anyone say what Kennedy's <i>point</i> was?)
------
CityBerlin|981419906
5,6c5
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin. 
< This was undertaken by the East German government for economic and political reasons.  According to most Westerners, the reason for it was to prevent East Germans from immigrating to the West.
---
> In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.  This was undertaken by the East German government for economic and political reasons.  According to most Westerners, the reason for it was to prevent East Germans from immigrating to the West.  So, up to 1999, the Capital of WestGermany was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN.
10c9
< Kennedy gave a speech about the BerlinWall in which he said, with a bad accent, "Ich bin ein Berliner"--something Germans found hilarious, since it meant he's a kind of beer (a Berliner beer).  He should have said "Ich bin Berliner."  (Now, can anyone say what Kennedy's <i>point</i> was?)
---
> Kennedy gave a speech about the BerlinWall in which he said, with a bad accent, "Ich bin ein Berliner"--something Germans found hilarious, since it meant he's a kind of beer (a Berliner beer).  He should have said "Ich bin Berliner."  (Now, can anyone say what Kennedy's <i>point</i> was?)
------
CityBerlin|981419919
1c1
< BerliN is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mil. inhabitants.
---
> Berlin is the capital of GermanY and the biggest city in this country with 3.5 mil. inhabitants.
------
CityBerlin|981419964
3,5c3
< During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany, while the western part of the city, in spite of being geographically divided from WestGermany, continued to belong to WestGermany.
< 
< In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.  This was undertaken by the East German government for economic and political reasons.  According to most Westerners, the reason for it was to prevent East Germans from immigrating to the West.  So, up to 1999, the Capital of WestGermany was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN.
---
> During the ColdWar of the 20th Cenrury the east part of Berlin was the capital of EastGermany, while the western part of the city, in spite of being geographically divided from WestGermany, continued to belong to WestGermany.  In 1962 the BerlinWall was built, dividing the city into WestBerlin and EastBerlin.  This was undertaken by the East German government for economic and political reasons.  According to most Westerners, the reason for it was to prevent East Germans from immigrating to the West.  So, up to 1999, the Capital of WestGermany was a small town in NordrheinWestfalen called BonN.
------
PaulEhrlich|981420627
1c1
< Famous author of ThePopulationBomb and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.----
---
> There have been two famous Dr. Paul Ehrlichs:
3,5c3,7
< Apparently, there was another PaulEhrlich who won the 1908 NobelPrize.  Related?----
< The Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Erlich received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.
< His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at :
---
> Paul R. Ehrlich is author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
> 
> ----
> 
> A German, Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), won the 1908 NobelPrize in Physiology and Medicine.  He was noted for his work in hematology, immunology, and chemotherapy.  His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at:
7c9
< Nobel Museum Site]
---
> Nobel Museum Site]
------
PaulEhrlich|981420724
1c1
< There have been two famous Dr. Paul Ehrlichs:
---
> There have been two famous Dr. Paul Ehrlichs
3c3,5
< Paul R. Ehrlich is author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
---
> ----
> 
> An American, Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-), is author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
7c9
< A German, Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), won the 1908 NobelPrize in Physiology and Medicine.  He was noted for his work in hematology, immunology, and chemotherapy.  His life was depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis. His biography is available at:
---
> A German, Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), won the 1908 NobelPrize in Physiology and Medicine.  He is noted for his work in hematology, immunology, and chemotherapy.  His life is depicted in the movie ''The Magic Bullet'', which focused on his cure for syphilis.  His biography is available at:
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981421143
3c3
< ''' Febraury 6, 2001'''
---
> ''' February 6, 2001'''
5,6c5,15
< inspired by wikipedia i started an similar project for my local esperanto-group. It uses real html.
< if you are interested in or if you have any suggestions -> just give me a hint! norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de
---
> Inspired by WikiPedia, I started an similar project for my local Esperanto group.  It uses real html.
> 
> If you are interested in or if you have any suggestions, just give me a hint! -- norman.werner@student.uni-magdeburg.de
> 
> ''Please post the address of your wiki, please!''
> 
> ''' February 5, 2001'''
> 
> TimShell is working on an enormous "Cliff Notes"-style summary of AynRand""'s book ''AtlasShrugged''.  We have also been graced with an enormous entry about ErnestHemingway.
> 
> We've added some RulesToConsider for you to consider, sign, modify, and add to.  But those of you who don't like rules can go about your business.  Ain't wiki great?  :-)
------
FaithAndRationality|981421754
11c11
< So here then is the claim: If I have <i>faith</i> that God exists, then I believe that God exists, but I do not claim to have any other beliefs which make it more probably true that God exists.  Faith is belief without reasons.  Hence, fideism may be stated as the view that one ought to believe that God exists, but one should to base that belief on any other beliefs; one should, instead, accept it without any reasons at all.  At least <i>initially</i>.  There are some kinds of moderate fideism which say that one should have faith to begin with, and only then, when one’s faith is strong enough, go out in search of reasons to believe.
---
> So here then is the claim: If I have <i>faith</i> that God exists, then I believe that God exists, but I do not claim to have any other beliefs which make it more probably true that God exists.  Faith is belief without reasons.  Hence, fideism may be stated as the view that one ought to believe that God exists, but one should not base that belief on any other beliefs; one should, instead, accept it without any reasons at all.  At least <i>initially</i>.  There are some kinds of moderate fideism which say that one should have faith to begin with, and only then, when one’s faith is strong enough, go out in search of reasons to believe.
------
PhiloSophy|981422162
19c19
< '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' '''SanIty''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
PhiloSophy|981423246
19c19
< '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' '''SanIty''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
SanIty|981423768
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient.
> 
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, '''proper functioning''', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading us to the conclusion that if one is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
> 
> Who shall determine, however, what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas?  To what degree must errancy intrude into the picture before one is determined no longer sane, but InSane?  
> 
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may observe the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, take the next deductive step, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.
> 
> More than mere accuracy has been introduced to the picture, however, as conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  
> 
> 
> (to be completed as time permits) -- AyeSpy
------
PhilosophyOfPsychology|981424009
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> IssuesofPhilosophyOfPsychology
------
PhilosophyOfPsychology|981424119
1c1
< IssuesofPhilosophyOfPsychology
---
> Issues of '''PhilosophyOfPsychology:'''  SanitY
------
PhilosophyOfPsychology|981424140
1c1
< Issues of '''PhilosophyOfPsychology:'''  SanitY
---
> Issues of '''PhilosophyOfPsychology:'''  SanIty
------
PhiloSophy|981427425
13c13
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon --  AlbertCamus -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BlaisePascal -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore
------
GreekMythology|981428099
9c9
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA
------
HerA|981428168
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Zeus' better half...
------
PaulEhrlich|981430146
5c5
< An American, Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-), is author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books on the dangers of population growth.  StanfordUniversity professor.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
---
> An American, Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-), is a StanfordUniversity professor and a renowned entomologist specializing in LepidopterA (butterflies).  He is the author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books which apply the lessons of population zoology to economic issues such as resource use and population growth.  His predicitions of massive global starvation and resource depletion have so far been proven wrong.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
11c11
< Nobel Museum Site]
---
> Nobel Museum Site]
------
PaulEhrlich|981430177
5c5
< An American, Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-), is a StanfordUniversity professor and a renowned entomologist specializing in LepidopterA (butterflies).  He is the author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books which apply the lessons of population zoology to economic issues such as resource use and population growth.  His predicitions of massive global starvation and resource depletion have so far been proven wrong.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
---
> An American, Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-), is a StanfordUniversity professor and a renowned entomologist specializing in LepidopterA (butterflies).  He is the author of ''ThePopulationBomb'' and other books which apply the lessons of population zoology to economic issues such as resource use and population growth.  His predicitions of massive global starvation and resource depletion have so far proven wrong.  Participant in a famous wager with JulianSimon, see JulianSimon/Wager.
------
HerA|981431072
1c1
< Zeus' better half...
---
> In GreekMythology, goddess of marriage, wife and sister of ZeuS.  Spends most of her time plotting revenge on the other women her husband consorts with.  ''[Hardly Zeus' better half...]''
------
LibertarianisM|981432040
1c1,3
< Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  There are various different strains of libertarianism, depending on what exactly they consider an individual's rights to be, that vary from the far right to the far left across the PoliticalSpectrum.
---
> Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  
> 
> In the narrow sense of the term, ''libertarian'' includes only such people on the right of the economic spectrum, who define rights in terms of things like freedom to keep property and equality of process.  The private sector is left to control itself - compare AnarchoCapitalism and contrast AnarchoSyndicalism.
------
PhiloSophy|981434134
13c13
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon --  AlbertCamus -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes --NicholasMalebranche -- GottfriedLeibniz -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- BlaisePascal -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes -- NicholasMalebranche -- BaruchSpinoza -- GottfriedLeibniz -- BlaisePascal -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore -- RudolphCarnap -- JeanPaulSartre -- AlbertCamus -- WVOQuinE -- NelsonGoodman
------
HoldComeWhatMay|981434163
1c1
< A phrase popularized by the late HarVard philosophy professor, WillardVQuine.  Beliefs that are "held come what may" are beliefs one is unwilling to give up, regardless of any evidence with which one might be presented.  Quine held (on a perhaps simplistic construal) that there are no beliefs that one ought to hold come what may--in other words, all beliefs are rationally revisable.  Many philosophers are to the contrary, believing that, for example, TheLawsOfThought cannot be revised and may be held come what may.
---
> A phrase popularized by the late HarVard philosophy professor, WVOQuinE.  Beliefs that are "held come what may" are beliefs one is unwilling to give up, regardless of any evidence with which one might be presented.  Quine held (on a perhaps simplistic construal) that there are no beliefs that one ought to hold come what may--in other words, all beliefs are rationally revisable.  Many philosophers are to the contrary, believing that, for example, TheLawsOfThought cannot be revised and may be held come what may.
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeast|981434210
1c1
< On Quine's conception of a person's set of beliefs as a "seamless web," there is no proposition one could not in principle give up (if there were, there would be a "seam" in the web, protecting the principle from revision or rejection)or HoldComeWhatMay. However, some beliefs may be more useful than others, or may be implicated by a large number of beliefs. Examples might be laws of logic, or the belief in an external world of physical objects. Altering such portions of the web would have immense, ramifying consequences. It is better to alter auxilliary beliefs around the edges of the web in the face of new evidence unfriendly to one's central principles. Thus, while one might agree that there is no belief one can hold come what may, there are some for which there is ample practical ground to hold more stubbornly at least.
---
> On WVOQuinE's conception of a person's set of beliefs as a "seamless web," there is no proposition one could not in principle give up (if there were, there would be a "seam" in the web, protecting the principle from revision or rejection)or HoldComeWhatMay. However, some beliefs may be more useful than others, or may be implicated by a large number of beliefs. Examples might be laws of logic, or the belief in an external world of physical objects. Altering such portions of the web would have immense, ramifying consequences. It is better to alter auxilliary beliefs around the edges of the web in the face of new evidence unfriendly to one's central principles. Thus, while one might agree that there is no belief one can hold come what may, there are some for which there is ample practical ground to hold more stubbornly at least.
3,7c3
< One may certainly hold more stubbornly at least to those notions which serve to give context, comprehensibility, and utility to other notions.
< 
< Care should be taken, however, not to exclude new information which is not inherently self-contradictory.  To the degree that new data conflicts with a large body of mutually consistent observations (note:  observations - not beliefs) one may more safely devalue it, but that a new idea was not suggested by one's interpretation of earlier data is not the same as to say that one may safely discard it because it comes as a complete surprise.  Rather, "surprise" information, instead of being automatically viewed with skepticism, may be be held in a bullpen while it is compared with other cross-verifying observations, and, if not inherently inconsistent with old data, accepted conditionally for purposes of comparison with new input in order to see what it does or does not explain.
< 
< People call this "having an open mind." -- AyeSpy
---
> HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeastTalk
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeastTalk|981434220
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One may certainly hold more stubbornly at least to those notions which serve to give context, comprehensibility, and utility to other notions.
> 
> Care should be taken, however, not to exclude new information which is not inherently self-contradictory.  To the degree that new data conflicts with a large body of mutually consistent observations (note:  observations - not beliefs) one may more safely devalue it, but that a new idea was not suggested by one's interpretation of earlier data is not the same as to say that one may safely discard it because it comes as a complete surprise.  Rather, "surprise" information, instead of being automatically viewed with skepticism, may be be held in a bullpen while it is compared with other cross-verifying observations, and, if not inherently inconsistent with old data, accepted conditionally for purposes of comparison with new input in order to see what it does or does not explain.
> 
> People call this "having an open mind." -- AyeSpy
------
HerA|981434323
1c1,2
< In GreekMythology, goddess of marriage, wife and sister of ZeuS.  Spends most of her time plotting revenge on the other women her husband consorts with.  ''[Hardly Zeus' better half...]''
---
> In GreekMythology, goddess of marriage, wife and sister of ZeuS.  Spends most of her time plotting revenge on the other women her husband consorts with.  ''[Hardly Zeus' better half...]''----
> ''[Clearly a man's point of view...]''
------
SanIty|981434791
11d10
< 
12a12,15
> ----
> This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573719 mental health] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761553774 insanity (topic in the law)]
> 
> ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?
------
SanIty|981434873
15c15
< ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?
---
> ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity?
------
HerA|981437879
1,2c1,4
< In GreekMythology, goddess of marriage, wife and sister of ZeuS.  Spends most of her time plotting revenge on the other women her husband consorts with.  ''[Hardly Zeus' better half...]''----
< ''[Clearly a man's point of view...]''
---
> In GreekMythology, goddess of marriage, wife and sister of ZeuS.  Spends most of her time plotting revenge on the other women her husband consorts with.  Called Juno by the Romans.----
> ''[Hardly Zeus' better half...]'' - ''[Clearly a man's point of view...]''
> 
> Maybe.  Zeus was far from a model husband (though what god was?) but even so Hera never struck me as particularly nice.  "My three favorite cities are Sparta, Mycenae, and Tyrins...destroy one whenever you want, so long as I see Troy burn to the ground."  That'll learn someone for not calling her pretty.  Not that the other gods are much better...but this much can be said for Zeus: sometimes he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut. :)
------
ReviewRequests|981444150
7c7
< In the mere opinion of LarrySanger, the following pages need (as of Feb. 3) serious editing and/or refactoring and/or creation of *Talk or *Discussion pages: AlTruism; GottfriedLeibniz; CommonSense; AppliedEthics; DeconstructionIsm; SoCrates; EthicsVsMorals; BillClinton; LibertarianisM; UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving; FootBall; ConsequentialIsm.  ''Please see RefactoringPolicy.''
---
> In the mere opinion of LarrySanger, the following pages need (as of Feb. 3) serious editing and/or refactoring and/or creation of *Talk or *Discussion pages: AlTruism; GottfriedLeibniz; CommonSense; AppliedEthics; DeconstructionIsm; SoCrates; EthicsVsMorals; BillClinton; LibertarianisM; FootBall; ConsequentialIsm.  ''Please see RefactoringPolicy.''
------
DualIsm|981444894
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText; further wikification is encouraged> 
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText; wikification has begun on it but further wikification is encouraged> 
3c3
< I suspect many of you might be thinking to yourselves: "This is ridiculous.  Look, there is the mind, and there is the body, and they are two totally different things.  There might be some puzzles about how they interact but obviously they <i>do</i> interact.  So what’s all the fuss?  All those other theories you listed are just <i>silly</i>."  Now if you think this way, my job is to get you to see that that puzzle about how the mind and body interact is more serious than you might have thought.  But first let’s get the theory more clearly stated.
---
> ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.  The most common variety of dualism is DualisticInteractionism.
5c5
< The view we’re talking about consists of all of the following claims: mental and physical events both exist, but neither type of event can be reduced to the other type, and mental events are both causes and effects of physical events.   This is called <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>.  It is also called <i>Cartesian</i> <i>dualism</i>, because it is the kind of dualism that the great 17th-century French philosopher Descartes advocated.  This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism -- probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  So in addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When I touch a hot stove, and burn my skin, I feel a pain.  Touching the stove and burning my skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when I feel the pain, I say, "Ouch!" -- and my saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  You put the belief in that interaction together with dualism and you’ve got a very commonsense sort of theory of mind.  In fact our reading calls this "the commonsense theory of mind," and I agree with that characterization.
---
> This is the CommonSense view of the mind--or so it would seem.  But there is a puzzle about how the mind and body interact, and this puzzle is perhaps more serious than the commonsense dualistic view of mind might be prepared to admit.
------
DualisticInteractionism|981445143
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <The following a snippet of LarrysText, wikified; further development requested>
> 
> <i>Dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i> is the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s both exist, but neither type of event can be reduced (see ReducTion) to the other type, and mental events are both causes and effects of physical events.   It is also called <i>Cartesian</i> <i>dualism</i>, because it is the kind of dualism that the great 17th-century French philosopher Descartes advocated.
> 
> This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism--probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  In addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, which this theory shares with all other kinds of DualIsm, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When Johnny touches a hot stove and burns his skin, he feels a pain.  Touching the stove and burning his skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when he feels the pain, he says, "Ouch!"--and his saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  If we put the belief in that interaction together with DualIsm, we have got a very CommonSense theory of mind.
------
DualIsm|981445382
3c3
< ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.  The most common variety of dualism is DualisticInteractionism.
---
> ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.  The most common variety of dualism is DualisticInteractionism.  The latter is the CommonSense view of the mind--or so it would seem.  But there is a puzzle about how the mind and body interact causally, and this puzzle is more serious than might appear at first.  See DualisticInteractionism for details.
5,43c5
< This is the CommonSense view of the mind--or so it would seem.  But there is a puzzle about how the mind and body interact, and this puzzle is perhaps more serious than the commonsense dualistic view of mind might be prepared to admit.
< 
< Let’s look at some arguments for dualism.  How would we go about arguing for this theory?  I mean, aside from pointing out that it’s extremely commonsensical.  That’s got to count for something; perhaps it counts for a lot indeed.  But if we can help it the mere fact that it’s a matter of common sense shouldn’t be our <i>only</i> reason for accepting a theory.  So how would we go about arguing for dualism?  We point out the differences between the mental and the physical.  So let’s do that.  Let’s go over the differences between mental events and physical events.
< 
< First, mental events are not publicly observable.  When I touch the hot stove, you may see me whip back my hand and say "Ouch!" but you are not feeling my pain.  Unless you’re Mr. Spock, or God, you can’t as it were get inside my mind and take a look at what’s going on in there.  And of course it’s not just because my mind is hidden beneath my skull.  If you knew just where to look in my brain, you wouldn’t be able to see thoughts and feelings jiggling around in there.  That’s just not how it works.  So unlike physical events, like fireworks displays, mental events are private, not publicly observable.
< 
< Second, mental events are often said not to be spatially located.  Where is my pain supposed to be?  Maybe you could say in my fingertips, because they hurt.  But is that where the <i>feeling</i> is?  Does it really make sense to say that the <i>feeling</i> is in my aching fingertips?  That sounds a little funny, anyway.  A better example would be an emotion like happiness.  When I say I’m happy, can I locate my happiness in my head, or does it exist all my body, or something?  Doesn’t that sound odd?  It would seem better to say that my happiness isn’t the sort of thing that <i>can</i> be located in a particular place.
< 
< Third, more generally, mental events do not seem to have various physical properties which physical events have.  For one thing, mental events do not involve anything having mass, or physical motion.  We can’t weigh a thought.  We can’t say that a feeling has a velocity of 10 miles an hour.  To say such things is to talk nonsense.  Now you might say: that’s only because mental events are <i>events</i>.  You can’t say that physical events have mass or velocity either.  Point well enough taken; that’s true, no event, per se, has mass or velocity.  But physical events do <i>involve</i> objects which have mass and velocity.  Mental events do not have any components which have mass and velocity.  For example, when I think, "I like ice cream," I have a concept of ice cream; and my concept of ice cream has no mass and velocity.  Nothing involved in my appreciation for ice cream would appear to have any such physical properties.  This is a point to which we will have to return.  But on the face of it, this seems pretty obvious.
< 
< Fourth, mental events have a certain <i>subjective</i> quality to them, which physical events obviously do not.  I mean, for example, what a burned finger feels like, what sky blue looks like, what nice music sounds like, and so on.  I’m going to expand on this fourth point at some length.  Recently, philosophers have been calling the subjective aspects of mental events <i>qualia</i>, and they also call them <i>raw</i> <i>feels</i>.  There is something <i>that</i> <i>it’s</i> <i>like</i> to feel pain, to see a familiar shade of blue, and so on; there are <i>qualia</i> involved in these mental events.  And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.  Just think of what that would involve.  You’d be saying: <i>feeling</i> <i>the</i> <i>top</i> <i>of</i> <i>my</i> <i>hand</i> <i>right</i> <i>now</i>, this "raw feel" I’m experiencing right now, is <i>itself</i> nothing more than a physical event.
< 
< In fact, there is an article by an American, Thomas Nagel, that came out in the late 70’s called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"  In this article Nagel argued roughly as follows.  You are familiar with the fact that bats use a certain kind of sonar, right?  They emit high-pitched shrieks which allow them to fly around in dark caves; they can tell how far away the walls are based on how their shrieks echo around in the cave.  Bat sonar allows bats to perceive distance, shape, size, and so on, in a way similar to, but obviously different from the way vision works for us.  Now Nagel invited us to ask, "So what <i>is</i> it like to be a bat, flying around in the dark using bat sonar?"  Surely bats do have experiences; we just don’t know what they are.  Suppose we were to take apart a bat brain and figure out how the neural apparatus for bat sonar works.  No doubt biologists have actually done so, dissected bat brains and so forth.  But in understanding how the bat brain works, do those biologists learn <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>like</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> <i>a</i> <i>bat</i>?  Well of course not.  They’re mucking around in the grey matter of bats.  In order to know what it’s like to be a bat, and to have bat sonar, why, you’d have to be a bat.  So argued Nagel.
< 
< So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that if indeed there are "bat qualia," then there are peculiar mental events of a sort that only bats have, and we cannot learn what they are like even if we have a detailed understanding of physical events going on in the bat brain.  Or to put it even more simply: there is a strange "bat sonar experience" we’ll never have.  We won’t have it even if we learn what physical events in bat brains are associated with bat sonar.  So that’s excellent evidence that mental events cannot be reduced to physical events; mental events must be regarded as quite a different sort of thing from physical events.  Really, you can make the same point without even bringing up weird cases like bat sonar.  Just think of your own unique feelings.  Do you think that a psychologist could, simply by digging around in your brain and doing tests on your grey matter, ever learn what that feeling was like?
< 
< So there are at least four major differences between the mental and the physical, which make it difficult, to say the least, to understand how one might <i>reduce</i> the mental to the physical.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  That seems to give us considerable reason to think that the mind and the body are two totally different categories of being.  So there you have one basic, powerful argument for dualism.
< 
< But there is another argument that I’m sure weighs heavily in some of your minds.  Namely, that you have an immortal souls that can survive your bodily death.  Traditional Christianity, like many other religions, teaches that you have a soul which is as different from your body as water is from rock.  Your body will die and then your soul will go to heaven, or hell, or who knows where.  If you believe this then you practically <i>must</i> believe in dualism.  The only way that you can avoid believing in dualism is if you accept phenomenalism, which holds that everything is, ultimately, mental.  But in any event you absolutely cannot hold that the soul is reducible to anything physical.  If events in your soul <i>were</i> reducible to events in your brain, then when your brain stopped functioning, your soul would cease to exist.
< 
< It’s not clear to me that this ought to be looked upon as an <i>argument</i> <i>for</i>  dualism, simply because those who challenge dualism from a physicalist position will not at all be impressed by it.  I mean, suppose you are trying to support dualism against a physicalist, who thinks that everything is, at bottom, physical.  Will it be at all impressive to say, "If I have an immortal soul, then mental events cannot be reduced to physical events"?  Not at all; the physicalist is precisely the sort of person who denies that you have an immortal soul, and who demands proof that in fact you <i>do</i> have an immortal soul.  You may not particularly care that you can’t convince the physicalist; but the point is that you should not do something that looks so much like begging the question.  Because if you argue: "I have an immortal soul; therefore dualism is true," then it sure does look like you’re begging the question.  You should prove that dualism is true, and thus that you have an immaterial, non-physical soul, <i>before</i> you try to prove that your soul is immortal!
< 
< So as far as arguing for dualistic interactionism goes, let’s just stick with the differences between the mental and the physical that I stated before.  Now, those are evidence for the <i>dualism</i> part.  What about the interactionism part, that is, the claim that mental and physical events causally interact?  Here we can just cite observational evidence.  We observe that physical events cause all sorts of mental events, and vice-versa.  Indeed, it’s hard to know how one might argue <i>against</i> the fact that there is such interaction, since it appears to go on all the time.  Anyway then, that’s all I’m going to say in favor of dualistic interactionism.
< 
< This theory has come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially this century.  The basic problem is: If dualism is true, then it is hard to see how mental and physical events can possibly interact causally.  How can something totally immaterial affect something totally material?  That’s the basic problem.  But let me break this basic problem into three parts.
< 
< First, it is not clear <i>where</i> the interaction would take place.  Burning my fingers causes pain, right?  Well, apparently there is some chain of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; <i>and</i> <i>then</i>, I feel pain.  But the pain is not supposed to be spatially located.  So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take place?  If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say, "But I thought pains weren’t located anywhere."  And you, as a dualist, might stick to your guns and say, "That’s right, pains <i>aren’t</i> located anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain <i>is</i> located in the brain."  But then we have a very strange causal relation on our hands.  The cause is located in a particular place but the effect is not located anywhere.  Well, you might say, that might be puzzling but it’s not a devastating criticism.
< 
< So look at a second problem about the interaction.  Namely, <i>how</i> does the interaction take place?  Maybe you think, "Well, that’s a matter for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection between mental and physical events."  But philosophers have something to say about the matter, because the <i>very</i> <i>idea</i> of a <i>mechanism</i>, which explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be very strange, at best.  Why do I say it would be strange?  Compare it to a mechanism that we <i>do</i> understand.  Take a very simple causal relation, such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go into the pocket.  Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain amount of force as its mass accelerates across the pool table, and then that force is transferred to the eight ball, which then heads toward the pocket.  Now compare that to the situation in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to fire and thus cause my body to move across the room.  The decision, "I will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not have physical properties such as force.  If it has no force, then how on earth could it cause any neuron to fire?  Is it magic?  Honestly, how could something without any physical properties have any physical <i>effects</i> at all?
< 
< Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as follows.  You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact that there is a mystery doesn’t mean that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> no interaction.  Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is between two totally different sorts of events."  Now I expect that some of you may want to say this.  But the problem with it is that it does not seem to answer the full power of the objection.
< 
< So let me explain the objection more precisely.  Let’s take as our example my decision to walk across the room.  We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room.  The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical <i>causing</i> a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no <i>physical</i> event which causes the firing.  That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air.  Do you see?  Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven’t explained where the <i>physical</i> energy, for the firing, came from.  It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.
< 
< As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy."  According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant."  Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed.  This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics.  So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.
< 
< Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
< 
< I said before that there are different kinds of dualism.  I am really not going to have time to discuss the other kinds.  But the other kinds do, anyway, accept that mental events and physical events both exist, and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
---
> The other kinds of dualism also accept that mental events and physical events both exist and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
------
DualisticInteractionism|981445435
5c5,41
< This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism--probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  In addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, which this theory shares with all other kinds of DualIsm, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When Johnny touches a hot stove and burns his skin, he feels a pain.  Touching the stove and burning his skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when he feels the pain, he says, "Ouch!"--and his saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  If we put the belief in that interaction together with DualIsm, we have got a very CommonSense theory of mind.
---
> This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism--probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  In addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, which this theory shares with all other kinds of DualIsm, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When Johnny touches a hot stove and burns his skin, he feels a pain.  Touching the stove and burning his skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when he feels the pain, he says, "Ouch!"--and his saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  If we put the belief in that interaction together with DualIsm, we have got a very CommonSense theory of mind.
> 
> Let’s look at some arguments for dualistic interactionism (which, henceforth, we will refer to as "dualism" for short).  How would we go about arguing for this theory?  I mean, aside from pointing out that it’s extremely commonsensical.  That’s got to count for something; perhaps it counts for a lot indeed.  But if we can help it the mere fact that it’s a matter of common sense shouldn’t be our <i>only</i> reason for accepting a theory.  So how would we go about arguing for dualism?  We point out the differences between the mental and the physical.  So let’s do that.  Let’s go over the differences between mental events and physical events.
> 
> First, mental events are not publicly observable.  When I touch the hot stove, you may see me whip back my hand and say "Ouch!" but you are not feeling my pain.  Unless you’re Mr. Spock, or God, you can’t as it were get inside my mind and take a look at what’s going on in there.  And of course it’s not just because my mind is hidden beneath my skull.  If you knew just where to look in my brain, you wouldn’t be able to see thoughts and feelings jiggling around in there.  That’s just not how it works.  So unlike physical events, like fireworks displays, mental events are private, not publicly observable.
> 
> Second, mental events are often said not to be spatially located.  Where is my pain supposed to be?  Maybe you could say in my fingertips, because they hurt.  But is that where the <i>feeling</i> is?  Does it really make sense to say that the <i>feeling</i> is in my aching fingertips?  That sounds a little funny, anyway.  A better example would be an emotion like happiness.  When I say I’m happy, can I locate my happiness in my head, or does it exist all my body, or something?  Doesn’t that sound odd?  It would seem better to say that my happiness isn’t the sort of thing that <i>can</i> be located in a particular place.
> 
> Third, more generally, mental events do not seem to have various physical properties which physical events have.  For one thing, mental events do not involve anything having mass, or physical motion.  We can’t weigh a thought.  We can’t say that a feeling has a velocity of 10 miles an hour.  To say such things is to talk nonsense.  Now you might say: that’s only because mental events are <i>events</i>.  You can’t say that physical events have mass or velocity either.  Point well enough taken; that’s true, no event, per se, has mass or velocity.  But physical events do <i>involve</i> objects which have mass and velocity.  Mental events do not have any components which have mass and velocity.  For example, when I think, "I like ice cream," I have a concept of ice cream; and my concept of ice cream has no mass and velocity.  Nothing involved in my appreciation for ice cream would appear to have any such physical properties.  This is a point to which we will have to return.  But on the face of it, this seems pretty obvious.
> 
> Fourth, mental events have a certain <i>subjective</i> quality to them, which physical events obviously do not.  I mean, for example, what a burned finger feels like, what sky blue looks like, what nice music sounds like, and so on.  I’m going to expand on this fourth point at some length.  Recently, philosophers have been calling the subjective aspects of mental events <i>qualia</i>, and they also call them <i>raw</i> <i>feels</i>.  There is something <i>that</i> <i>it’s</i> <i>like</i> to feel pain, to see a familiar shade of blue, and so on; there are <i>qualia</i> involved in these mental events.  And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.  Just think of what that would involve.  You’d be saying: <i>feeling</i> <i>the</i> <i>top</i> <i>of</i> <i>my</i> <i>hand</i> <i>right</i> <i>now</i>, this "raw feel" I’m experiencing right now, is <i>itself</i> nothing more than a physical event.
> 
> In fact, there is an article by an American, Thomas Nagel, that came out in the late 70’s called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"  In this article Nagel argued roughly as follows.  You are familiar with the fact that bats use a certain kind of sonar, right?  They emit high-pitched shrieks which allow them to fly around in dark caves; they can tell how far away the walls are based on how their shrieks echo around in the cave.  Bat sonar allows bats to perceive distance, shape, size, and so on, in a way similar to, but obviously different from the way vision works for us.  Now Nagel invited us to ask, "So what <i>is</i> it like to be a bat, flying around in the dark using bat sonar?"  Surely bats do have experiences; we just don’t know what they are.  Suppose we were to take apart a bat brain and figure out how the neural apparatus for bat sonar works.  No doubt biologists have actually done so, dissected bat brains and so forth.  But in understanding how the bat brain works, do those biologists learn <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>like</i> <i>to</i> <i>be</i> <i>a</i> <i>bat</i>?  Well of course not.  They’re mucking around in the grey matter of bats.  In order to know what it’s like to be a bat, and to have bat sonar, why, you’d have to be a bat.  So argued Nagel.
> 
> So what’s the point of all this?  The point is that if indeed there are "bat qualia," then there are peculiar mental events of a sort that only bats have, and we cannot learn what they are like even if we have a detailed understanding of physical events going on in the bat brain.  Or to put it even more simply: there is a strange "bat sonar experience" we’ll never have.  We won’t have it even if we learn what physical events in bat brains are associated with bat sonar.  So that’s excellent evidence that mental events cannot be reduced to physical events; mental events must be regarded as quite a different sort of thing from physical events.  Really, you can make the same point without even bringing up weird cases like bat sonar.  Just think of your own unique feelings.  Do you think that a psychologist could, simply by digging around in your brain and doing tests on your grey matter, ever learn what that feeling was like?
> 
> So there are at least four major differences between the mental and the physical, which make it difficult, to say the least, to understand how one might <i>reduce</i> the mental to the physical.  Mental events are not publicly observable; they are not spatially located; they do not involve physical properties such as mass and velocity; and there seems to be an irreducibly subjective aspect to them.  That seems to give us considerable reason to think that the mind and the body are two totally different categories of being.  So there you have one basic, powerful argument for dualism.
> 
> But there is another argument that I’m sure weighs heavily in some of your minds.  Namely, that you have an immortal souls that can survive your bodily death.  Traditional Christianity, like many other religions, teaches that you have a soul which is as different from your body as water is from rock.  Your body will die and then your soul will go to heaven, or hell, or who knows where.  If you believe this then you practically <i>must</i> believe in dualism.  The only way that you can avoid believing in dualism is if you accept phenomenalism, which holds that everything is, ultimately, mental.  But in any event you absolutely cannot hold that the soul is reducible to anything physical.  If events in your soul <i>were</i> reducible to events in your brain, then when your brain stopped functioning, your soul would cease to exist.
> 
> It’s not clear to me that this ought to be looked upon as an <i>argument</i> <i>for</i>  dualism, simply because those who challenge dualism from a physicalist position will not at all be impressed by it.  I mean, suppose you are trying to support dualism against a physicalist, who thinks that everything is, at bottom, physical.  Will it be at all impressive to say, "If I have an immortal soul, then mental events cannot be reduced to physical events"?  Not at all; the physicalist is precisely the sort of person who denies that you have an immortal soul, and who demands proof that in fact you <i>do</i> have an immortal soul.  You may not particularly care that you can’t convince the physicalist; but the point is that you should not do something that looks so much like begging the question.  Because if you argue: "I have an immortal soul; therefore dualism is true," then it sure does look like you’re begging the question.  You should prove that dualism is true, and thus that you have an immaterial, non-physical soul, <i>before</i> you try to prove that your soul is immortal!
> 
> So as far as arguing for dualistic interactionism goes, let’s just stick with the differences between the mental and the physical that I stated before.  Now, those are evidence for the <i>dualism</i> part.  What about the interactionism part, that is, the claim that mental and physical events causally interact?  Here we can just cite observational evidence.  We observe that physical events cause all sorts of mental events, and vice-versa.  Indeed, it’s hard to know how one might argue <i>against</i> the fact that there is such interaction, since it appears to go on all the time.  Anyway then, that’s all I’m going to say in favor of dualistic interactionism.
> 
> This theory has come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially this century.  The basic problem is: If dualism is true, then it is hard to see how mental and physical events can possibly interact causally.  How can something totally immaterial affect something totally material?  That’s the basic problem.  But let me break this basic problem into three parts.
> 
> First, it is not clear <i>where</i> the interaction would take place.  Burning my fingers causes pain, right?  Well, apparently there is some chain of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; <i>and</i> <i>then</i>, I feel pain.  But the pain is not supposed to be spatially located.  So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take place?  If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say, "But I thought pains weren’t located anywhere."  And you, as a dualist, might stick to your guns and say, "That’s right, pains <i>aren’t</i> located anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain <i>is</i> located in the brain."  But then we have a very strange causal relation on our hands.  The cause is located in a particular place but the effect is not located anywhere.  Well, you might say, that might be puzzling but it’s not a devastating criticism.
> 
> So look at a second problem about the interaction.  Namely, <i>how</i> does the interaction take place?  Maybe you think, "Well, that’s a matter for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection between mental and physical events."  But philosophers have something to say about the matter, because the <i>very</i> <i>idea</i> of a <i>mechanism</i>, which explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be very strange, at best.  Why do I say it would be strange?  Compare it to a mechanism that we <i>do</i> understand.  Take a very simple causal relation, such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go into the pocket.  Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain amount of force as its mass accelerates across the pool table, and then that force is transferred to the eight ball, which then heads toward the pocket.  Now compare that to the situation in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to fire and thus cause my body to move across the room.  The decision, "I will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not have physical properties such as force.  If it has no force, then how on earth could it cause any neuron to fire?  Is it magic?  Honestly, how could something without any physical properties have any physical <i>effects</i> at all?
> 
> Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as follows.  You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact that there is a mystery doesn’t mean that <i>there</i> <i>is</i> no interaction.  Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is between two totally different sorts of events."  Now I expect that some of you may want to say this.  But the problem with it is that it does not seem to answer the full power of the objection.
> 
> So let me explain the objection more precisely.  Let’s take as our example my decision to walk across the room.  We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room.  The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical <i>causing</i> a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no <i>physical</i> event which causes the firing.  That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air.  Do you see?  Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven’t explained where the <i>physical</i> energy, for the firing, came from.  It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.
> 
> As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy."  According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant."  Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed.  This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics.  So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.
> 
> Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
------
DualIsm|981445581
3c3
< ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.  The most common variety of dualism is DualisticInteractionism.  The latter is the CommonSense view of the mind--or so it would seem.  But there is a puzzle about how the mind and body interact causally, and this puzzle is more serious than might appear at first.  See DualisticInteractionism for details.
---
> ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.
5c5,9
< The other kinds of dualism also accept that mental events and physical events both exist and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.  For example, according to a theory called <i>parallelism</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said by God; so that when a mental event such as my decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that my body heads across the room.  But there isn’t any cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.
---
> The most common variety of dualism is DualisticInteractionism.  This seems to be the CommonSense view of the mind.  But there is a puzzle about how the mind and body interact causally, and this puzzle is more serious than might appear at first.  See DualisticInteractionism for details.
> 
> The other kinds of dualism also accept that mental events and physical events both exist and that they are totally different kinds of events; but unlike interactionism, they deny that mental and physical events causally interact.
> 
> According to a theory called <i>ParallelIsm</i>, mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said, by God; so that when a mental event such as Sally's decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that Sally's body heads across the room.  But there is no cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.  This is view closely associated with GottfriedLeibniz.
------
ParallelIsm|981445624
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <i>ParallelIsm</i> is the view that mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said, by God; so that when a mental event such as Sally's decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that Sally's body heads across the room.  But there is no cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.  This is view closely associated with GottfriedLeibniz, but no longer taken very seriously by very many people.
------
DualIsm|981445733
11c11
< Then there is another kind of dualism, called <i>epiphenomenalism</i>, according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if I eat a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by my eating the candy bar; but if I decide to get another candy bar, my decision does not cause my body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word "epiphenomenon" means, roughly, "by-product."  That’s why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
---
> A third kind of dualism, called <i>EpiphenomenalIsm</i>, has it that physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''epiphenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
------
EpiphenomenalIsm|981445777
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <i>Epiphenomenalism</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''epiphenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
------
ParallelIsm|981445809
1c1
< <i>ParallelIsm</i> is the view that mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said, by God; so that when a mental event such as Sally's decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that Sally's body heads across the room.  But there is no cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.  This is view closely associated with GottfriedLeibniz, but no longer taken very seriously by very many people.
---
> <i>ParallelIsm</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which mental events and physical events are perfectly coordinated, it is said, by God; so that when a mental event such as Sally's decision to walk across the room occurs, then it just so happens that Sally's body heads across the room.  But there is no cause-effect relation between mind and body; mental and physical events are just perfectly coordinated, in advance, by God.  This is view closely associated with GottfriedLeibniz, but no longer taken very seriously by very many people.
------
DualisticInteractionism|981445918
5c5
< This is <i>one</i> kind of dualism--probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  In addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, which this theory shares with all other kinds of DualIsm, dualistic interactionism includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When Johnny touches a hot stove and burns his skin, he feels a pain.  Touching the stove and burning his skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when he feels the pain, he says, "Ouch!"--and his saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  If we put the belief in that interaction together with DualIsm, we have got a very CommonSense theory of mind.
---
> This is <i>one</i> kind of DualIsm--probably the most popular and well-known, but still only one kind.  Two other kinds include ParallelIsm and EpiphenomenalIsm.  In addition to the claim that the mental cannot be reduced to the physical and vice-versa, a claim common to all kinds of DualIsm, dualistic interactionism also includes the claim that there is a  <i>causal</i> <i>interaction</i> between mental events and physical events.  When Johnny touches a hot stove and burns his skin, he feels a pain.  Touching the stove and burning his skin are physical events; feeling pain is a mental event.   And when he feels the pain, he says, "Ouch!"--and his saying a word is a physical event.  This sort of interaction between the mental and the physical is commonplace, and that it actually happens seems as obvious as anything can be.  If we put the belief in that interaction together with DualIsm, we have got a very CommonSense theory of mind.
41c41
< Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
---
> Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections, and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are impressed by their answers.  It has come to the point where, in fact, there aren’t very many interactionists around, and there haven’t been many for decades.  When I say this, I don’t mean to imply that dualistic interactionism is false.  All I mean to imply is that many philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up with some effective replies to these objections.
------
TheMindBodyProblem|981446029
27c27
< If you are thinking that this is far too many possible positions to consider, just wait -- it gets worse -- because within each category there are further refinements to be made.  So we’re going to have to spend the rest of the day trying to come to grips with the refinements and the basic objections that can be made to these different theories.  But we are going to focus almost all of our energies on just two theories, namely, <i>dualistic</i> <i>interactionism</i>, and <i>type</i> <i>physicalism</i>.
---
> This is already a lot of positions to consider, but it gets worse: within each category there are further refinements to be made.
------
LarrysText|981446104
15c15
< ::PhilosophyOfMind -- MentalEvent -- MentalFunctions -- ConsciousNess -- TheMindBodyProblem -- ReducTion -- MonIsm -- NeutralMonism -- DualIsm -- PhysicalIsm PhilosophyOfPerception -- FreeWillAndDeterminism
---
> ::PhilosophyOfMind -- MentalEvent -- MentalFunctions -- ConsciousNess -- TheMindBodyProblem -- ReducTion -- MonIsm -- NeutralMonism -- DualIsm -- DualisticInteractionism -- PhysicalIsm -- PhilosophyOfPerception -- FreeWillAndDeterminism
------
DualIsm|981446217
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText; wikification has begun on it but further wikification is encouraged> 
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikified; further development is encouraged> 
------
DualIsm|981446249
3c3
< ''DualIsm'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.
---
> ''Dualism'' can be characterized in various ways; on one account, it is simply the view that MentalEvent""s and PhysicalEvent""s are totally different kinds of events.
------
PhilosophyOfMind|981446695
3,4d2
< It is possible to do a lot of philosophy without talking about human beings.  But probably <i>most</i> of philosophy <i>does</i> in some way depend on questions about human nature and the human situation, and the human mind is of course fundamental to human nature.  So, a great deal of the rest of philosophy ultimately rests on questions about the human mind.
< 
------
PhiloSophy|981473842
13c13
< ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes -- NicholasMalebranche -- BaruchSpinoza -- GottfriedLeibniz -- BlaisePascal -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore -- RudolphCarnap -- JeanPaulSartre -- AlbertCamus -- WVOQuinE -- NelsonGoodman
---
> ThePresocratics -- SoCrates -- PlatO -- AristotlE -- EpiCurus -- HellenicPhilosophy -- CiCero -- AugUstine -- AnSelm -- AquInas -- FrancisBacon -- ThomasHobbes -- ReneDescartes -- NicholasMalebranche -- BaruchSpinoza -- GottfriedLeibniz -- BlaisePascal -- JohnLocke -- GeorgeBerkeley -- DavidHume -- ThomasReid -- DugaldStewart -- ImmanuelKant -- JamesMill -- JohnStuartMill -- KarlMarx -- ArthurSchopenhauer -- SorenKierkegaard -- FriedrichNietzsche -- BertrandRussell -- KarlPopper -- GeorgeEMoore -- RudolphCarnap -- JeanPaulSartre -- AlbertCamus -- WVOQuinE -- NelsonGoodman -- JeanJacquesRousseau -- VoltairE (pen name of Francois Marie Arouet) --
------
GreekMythology|981473970
9c9
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy --
------
HelenOfTroy|981474017
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Whose face launched a thousand ships...
------
GreekMythology|981474729
9c9
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy --
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA --
------
AthenA|981474771
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Greek goddess of wisdom, the practical arts, and warfare.
------
ApollO|981475156
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Greek god, twin of ArtemiS. Both are children of ZeuS and LetO
------
GreekMythology|981475193
9c9
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA --
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA -- ArtemiS -- LetO
------
SanIty|981478124
15c15,19
< ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity?
---
> ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity
> ----
> Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other belweathers of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
> 
> Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
------
AustriA|981478286
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide. (This point is widely contended outside of AustriA).
---
> Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
------
AustriA|981478299
9c9
< Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.
---
> <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
------
IdiosyncratiC|981479722
3c3
< Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the sanity of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits.  EinsteiN did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible.
---
> Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the SanIty of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits.  He did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school, though he is widely recognized as a mathematical genius.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible. Some of this data, I obtained from my father, a physicist who knew EinsteiN. -- AyeSpy
11c11
< ...as would be implicit in my remark that idiosyncracy may be fundamental or incidental to the SanitY of an idea...
---
> ...as would be implicit in my remark that idiosyncracy may be fundamental or incidental to the SanIty of an idea... -- AyeSpy
------
AyeSpy|981480710
1,2c1,3
< Ayespy has over 3900 classroom and field hours in investigative and intelligence training - the equivalent of more than a master's degree in his field.  He has 21 years as a private 
< investigator for law firms.
---
> AyeSpy has no college degree, and has not attended an accredited InstituteOfHigherLearning.  He declares that his ramblings should not be regarded as authoritative or mainstream, but rather the IdiosyncratiC, (though hopefully well-considered) views of one looking from the outside in.
> 
> AyeSpy has over 3900 classroom and field hours in investigative and intelligence training - including classes in ethics, human behavior and psychology, methods of managing interpersonal interaction; the equivalent of more than a master's degree in his field.  He has 21 years as a private investigator for law firms.
12c13
< He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.
---
> He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.  He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness.
16,23c17
< AyeSpy
< Investigator
< 
< Job Duties:
< 
< Photos of plaintiff and defendant vehicle damages
< 
< Photos/videography of client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities
---
> AyeSpy as Investigator - Job Duties:
25c19
< Photos or micro-photography of physical evidence and of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
---
> Photos/videography/diagraming of accident scenes, plaintiff and defendant vehicles, client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities.
27c21
< Photography and scale diagraming of scenes, to clarify liability or fact issues
---
> Photos/videography of Photos or micro-photography of physical evidence and of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
117c111
< To see the actual list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
---
> To see the list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
------
NobelPrize/PhysiologyOrMedicine|981482398
1c1,3
< 2000 - ArvidCarlsson, PaulGreengard, EricKandel 
---
> *2000 - ArvidCarlsson, PaulGreengard, EricKandel 
> 
> *1908 - PaulEhrlich
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleTwo|981482490
1c1,176
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and
> House of Representatives. 
> 
> Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states,
> and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. 
> 
> No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the
> United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. 
> 
> Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to
> their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service
> for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within
> three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such
> manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall
> have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse
> three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four,
> Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. 
> 
> When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such
> vacancies. 
> 
> The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 
> 
> Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof
> 
> , for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. 
> 
> Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three
> classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the
> expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year;
> and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make
> temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 
> 
> No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States
> and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. 
> 
> The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 
> 
> The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall
> exercise the office of President of the United States. 
> 
> The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.
> When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the
> concurrence of two thirds of the members present. 
> 
> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
> office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment,
> trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. 
> 
> Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by
> the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing
> Senators. 
> 
> The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall
> by law appoint a different day. 
> 
> Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall
> constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
> attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. 
> 
> Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two
> thirds, expel a member. 
> 
> Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their
> judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of
> those present, be entered on the journal. 
> 
> Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any
> other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 
> 
> Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of
> the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest
> during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or
> debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 
> 
> No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of
> the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no
> person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. 
> 
> Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
> amendments as on other Bills. 
> 
> Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the
> President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it
> shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
> reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House,
> by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the
> votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be
> entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays
> excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress
> by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 
> 
> Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
> question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be
> approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according
> to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 
> 
> Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
> common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> States; 
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States; 
> 
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; 
> 
> To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; 
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; 
> 
> To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; 
> 
> To establish post offices and post roads; 
> 
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries; 
> 
> To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; 
> 
> To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; 
> 
> To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; 
> 
> To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; 
> 
> To provide and maintain a navy; 
> 
> To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
> service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
> militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 
> 
> To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
> particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like
> authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
> magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And 
> 
> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by
> this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. 
> 
> Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
> prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such
> importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. 
> 
> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
> require it. 
> 
> No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. 
> 
> No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 
> 
> No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. 
> 
> No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall
> vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. 
> 
> No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account
> of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. 
> 
> No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without
> the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign
> state. 
> 
> Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills
> of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law
> impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. 
> 
> No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
> necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports,
> shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. 
> 
> No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any
> agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent
> danger as will not admit of delay. 
------
NobelPrize/EconomicSciences|981482989
3d2
< I really like the wrapping version with dots.  The only reason I didn't use it in the first place is simple ignorance.  I didn't know it was possible! We can refactor this page soon. --JimboWales
5,90c4,35
< Form question:  Do we want lists such as these to look like this:
< 
<  2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
<  1999 -- RobertAMundell
<  1998 -- AmartyaSen
<  1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
<  1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
< 
< Or like this:
< 
< 1995 -- RobertELucasJr
< 
< 1994 -- ReinhardSelten, JohnFNashJr, JohnCHarsanyi
< 
< 1993 -- RobertWFogel, DouglasCNorth
< 
< 1992 -- GarySBecker
< 
< In the first case, the list is tauter, but lines do not wrap, so if a comment it added alongside a name it will just run off the side of the page.
< 
< 1991 -- RonaldHCoase
< 
< 1990 -- HarryMMarkowitz, MertonHMiller, WilliamFSharpe
< 
< 1989 -- Trygve Haavelmo
< 
< 1988 -- MauriceAllais
< 
< 1987 -- RobertMSolow
< 
< 1986 -- JamesMBuchananJr
< 
< 1985 -- FrancoModigliani
< 
< 1984 -- RichardStone
< 
< 1983 -- GerardDebreu
< 
< 1982 -- GeorgeJStigler
< 
< 1981 -- JamesTobin
< 
< 1980 -- 
< 
< 1979 -- 
< 
< 1978 -- 
< 
< 1977 -- 
< 
< 1976 -- 
< 
< 1975 -- 
< 
< 1974 -- 
< 
< 1973 -- 
< 
< 1972 -- 
< 
< 1971 -- 
< 
< 1970 -- 
< 
< 1969 -- 
< 
< ----
< Other choices for lists include:
< 
< *2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
< *1999 -- RobertAMundell
< *1998 -- AmartyaSen  (Here is some sample long text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and so forth and longer until it will wrap around on almost anyone's browser.)
< *1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
< *1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
< 
< or even:
< 
< :2000 -- JamesJHeckman, DanielLMcFadden
< :1999 -- RobertAMundell
< :1998 -- AmartyaSen  (Here is some sample long text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and so forth and longer until it will wrap around on almost anyone's browser.)
< :1997 -- RobertCMerton, MyronSScholes
< :1996 -- JamesAMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
< 
< ...Both of which will wrap nicely.
< ---- 
< I'd say we should go for any of the wraping versions. if a text does not wrap it is too much a hassle for the reader. -- WojPob
---
> *2000 -- JamesHeckman, DanielMcFadden
> *1999 -- RobertMundell
> *1998 -- AmartyaSen
> *1997 -- RobertMerton, MyronScholes
> *1996 -- JamesMirrlees, WilliamVickrey
> *1995 -- RobertLucasJr
> *1994 -- ReinhardSelten, JohnNashJr, JohnHarsanyi
> *1993 -- RobertFogel, DouglasNorth
> *1992 -- GaryBecker
> *1991 -- RonaldCoase
> *1990 -- HarryMarkowitz, MertonMiller, WilliamSharpe
> *1989 -- TrygveHaavelmo
> *1988 -- MauriceAllais
> *1987 -- RobertSolow
> *1986 -- JamesBuchananJr
> *1985 -- FrancoModigliani
> *1984 -- RichardStone
> *1983 -- GerardDebreu
> *1982 -- GeorgeStigler
> *1981 -- JamesTobin
> *1980 -- LawrenceKlein
> *1979 -- TheodoreSchultz, ArthurLewis
> *1978 -- HerbertSimon
> *1977 -- BertilOhlin, JamesMeade
> *1976 -- MiltonFriedman
> *1975 -- LeonidKantorovich, TjallingKoopmans
> *1974 -- GunnarMyrdal, FriedrichHayek
> *1973 -- WassilyLeontief
> *1972 -- JohnHicks, KennethArrow
> *1971 -- SimonKuznets
> *1970 -- PaulSamuelson
> *1969 -- RagnarFrisch, JanTinbergen
------
NobelPrize/PhysicS|981483017
4,10c4,7
< 2000 - ZhoresIAlferov, HerbertKroemer, JackSKilby
< 
< 1999 - GerardusTHooft, MartinusJGVeltman
< 
< 1998 - RobertBLaughlin, HorstLStormer, DanielCTsui
< 
< 1997 - StevenChu, ClaudeCohenTannoudji, WilliamDPhillips
---
> *2000 - ZhoresIAlferov, HerbertKroemer, JackSKilby
> *1999 - GerardusTHooft, MartinusJGVeltman
> *1998 - RobertBLaughlin, HorstLStormer, DanielCTsui
> *1997 - StevenChu, ClaudeCohenTannoudji, WilliamDPhillips
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentOne|981483627
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
> 
> ----
> 
> /AmendmentOneTalk
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwo|981483684
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed. 
> ----
> 
> /AmendmentTwoTalk
------
AustriA|981483973
9d8
< <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981484008
70c70,73
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
---
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
> ----
> From AustriA:
> <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
------
PerCapitaIncome|981484775
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The "per capita income" for an area may be defined as the total personal income in an area, divided by the number of people in that area.
> 
> A ranking of the top 10 countries, according to the 1999 CIA World Factbook
> 
> # LuxembourG $32,700
> # UnitedStates $31,500
> # BermudA $30,000
> # SwitzerlanD $26,400
> # SingaporE $26,300
> # HongKong $25,100
> # MonacO $25,000
> # NorwaY $24,700
> # CaymanIslands $24,500
> # BelgiuM $23,400
------
SanIty|981485017
17c17
< Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other belweathers of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
---
> Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
------
SanIty|981486016
19a20,21
> ----
> Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981486119
73c73,75
< <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
---
> <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
> 
> ''Ha ha ha!  You mean that's not an objective fact?!  :-)''
------
PerCapitaIncome|981486174
14c14,18
< # BelgiuM $23,400
---
> # BelgiuM $23,400
> 
> ----
> 
> See also PerCapitaIncomeTalk.
------
PerCapitaIncomeTalk|981486212
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ah, but what is the ranking of ''median'' incomes, which is probably more meaningful to the ordinary person than ''mean'' incomes? -- LarrySanger
------
SanIty|981486287
13,21c13
< This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573719 mental health] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761553774 insanity (topic in the law)]
< 
< ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity
< ----
< Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
< 
< Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
< ----
< Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
---
> See also SanityTalk.
------
SanityTalk|981486309
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573719 mental health] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761553774 insanity (topic in the law)]
> 
> ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
> 
> Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
> ----
> Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981487902
30c30
< 1. No public healthcare ( ever seen ER w/George Clooney).
---
> 1. No public healthcare ( ever seen ER w/ GeorgeClooney).
------
UnitedStates/AmericasPoor|981488264
2a3,19
> ----
> I was going to attempt to refactor this page, but gosh, it
> seems too difficult still.  Perhaps we can reach some consensus
> about what should appear here?
> 
> TimShell would like to make the point that America is so wealthy, that even people we consider poor would be considered middle class by the standards of much of the world.  That's certainly a valid point.
> 
> There are also valid other questions here, too.  What about the availability and quality of health care available to poor people in America as compared to countries with socialized medicine?
> What about crime, which tends to affect the poorest segments of society most?
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
AustriA|981488979
9,16c9,11
< 
< Currently (2001) rightwing fpoe, oevp coalition in the government. People who dislike this government still meet every Thursday at the "BallhausplatZ" in the inner city for the weekly demonstration.
< 
< ---- 
< The leader of the fpoe, the party, which is a member of the coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. Please  do something. 
< 
< 
< Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment -- WojPob
---
> Currently (2001) there is a right-wing coalition in the government made up of the FPOE and the OEVP.
> ----
> See also AustriaAdvocacy
------
AustriaAdvocacy|981488988
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> People who dislike the FPOE/OEVP government still meet every Thursday at the "BallhausplatZ" in the inner city for the weekly demonstration.
> 
> The leader of the fpoe, the party, which is a member of the coalition of the Austrian Government, has quite often expressed his xenophophic views. Mr. Joerg Haider has held a series of meetings with the veterans of the SS-Corps [the prime suspects of the holocaust - the final solution of to eliminate Jews in EuropE]. The student community in AustriA has got a very big problem with the nationalist government, which tries to suppress our freedom of speech [mailto:wojtas@iname.com - Support us here]. The protests will continue. Please  do something. 
> 
> Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment -- WojPob
------
MetaEthics|981489124
3,53c3,5
< A. Naturalism.
< 
< Now here is how I described meta-ethics just a little while ago: <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  That way of putting it is a little misleading, so let me clarify.  Here’s an ethical sentence: "Pleasure is good."  If I tell you, "Meta-ethics studies what sort of meaning ethical sentences have," then you might think to yourself, "I guess he means that meta-ethics studies what I mean by ‘good’ when I say that pleasure is good."
< 
< Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
< 
< The emphasis is on the words <i>what</i> <i>sort</i>.  In other words: meta-ethics asks which of <i>various</i> <i>kinds</i> <i>of</i> <i>meanings</i> ethical sentences might have.  But now your natural question is going to be: "What do you mean ‘various kinds of meaning’ of ethical sentences?  What ‘kinds of meaning’ do you have in mind?  What are my choices?"
< 
< Well, let me explain your choices, using our sentence about Mary as an example.  After presenting all three, I’ll explain each choice in more depth.
< 
< (1) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" can be explained using another sentence that does not use the word "good."  For example: "Mary, on the whole, has made people in the world happier than they would have been without her."  Or: "Mary has a number of habits like telling the truth, discharging her responsibilities regularly, being nice to people, and so on."
< 
< (2) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because, although the sentence does express a proposition, the word "good" is <i>primitive</i>, which means that its meaning cannot be stated in other words at all.
< 
< (3) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because this sentence merely <i>expresses</i> <i>or</i> <i>evokes</i> <i>a</i> <i>certain</i> <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>emotional</i> <i>reaction</i>, or involves a certain kind of <i>command</i> or recommendation.  It’s as though we were saying "Yay for Mary!"  Or: "Look at Mary!  Be like her!"  But in any case, this third option <i>denies</i> that "Mary is a good person" expresses a <i>proposition</i>.  All it does is express an attitude or a feeling.
< 
< Now remember, what I’m trying to do is to explain to you what meta-ethics is.  I said it is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have; but now we can say something much more specific, because now we have some rough idea of three <i>options</i> that we’re talking about when we talk about "sorts of meaning."  Here’s how we could put the central question of meta-ethics; it’s a three-part question.  "(1) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?  (2) Do ethical sentences express propositions?  (3) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be explained <i>entirely</i> in terms of the emotions they express, or are meant to cause in other people, or in some other way that doesn’t involve expressing a proposition?"  The different meta-ethical theories differ just in how they answer each of these questions.
< 
< I’ll admit that this is rather complicated, so I don’t expect you to understand it fully yet.  Let’s go over the different main meta-ethical theories.  I think once we’ve gone over the different theories, you’ll have a better idea of of what these three questions mean.  So let’s dive right into the first main meta-ethical theory.
< 
< The first theory we’ll consider is called <i>naturalism</i>, sometimes also called <i>definism</i>, because it holds that ethical terms can be defined; the meaning of ethical sentences can be given in totally non-ethical terms.  So to question (1), "Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?" the naturalist answers, "Definitely."  Why?  Because ultimately, goodness and right are natural properties; they are ultimately properties of things that can be located in the natural world.  So then here’s a definition of "naturalism":
< 
< <i>Naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they can be reduced to nonethical sentences.
< 
< Notice that this definition has two parts, the part that comes before the "and" and the part that comes after the "and."  Let’s take a closer look at each part.
< 
< First, there’s the notion that ethical sentences <i>express</i> <i>propositions</i>.  Well, what exactly does that mean?  I’ve already told you what propositions are; they are, roughly, what meaningful sentences are supposed to be <i>about</i>.  So if an ethical sentence does express a proposition, then there is indeed something that the sentence is <i>about</i>.  It’s not like the claim, "Mary is a good person," is about <i>nothing</i>.  It’s about Mary, and it’s identifying her goodness.
< 
< To get a better idea of what it means to express a proposition, compare this to something that <i>doesn’t</i> express a proposition.  Say I’m minding a convenience store, and I see a thief pick up a candy bar and run.  I just manage to exclaim, "Hey!"  When I say, "Hey!" I’m not expressing a proposition.  I’m <i>not</i> saying, "That’s a thief there"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief is getting away"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief really annoys me."  I’m not saying anything at all, really.  And that’s the point: it’s not a <i>proposition</i> that I’m expressing.  Rather, it’s an <i>emotional</i> <i>state</i> that I’m expressing.  I am surprised and angered and I express my surprise and anger to the thief by saying "Hey!"
< 
< So what the first part of the definition of "naturalism" says is that ethical sentences <i>do</i> express propositions.  They aren’t just emotional outbursts, as though I were saying, "Hey!" or "Yay for Mary!"  They are actually expressing propositions that can be true or false.  And derivatively, you can say that ethical sentences themselves are either true or false.
< 
< That’s another important way to explain what it means for ethical sentences to express propositions; if they express propositions, they’re either true or false.  So if you’re a naturalist then you think ethical sentences are either true or false.  So for example, it can be true or false that Mary is a good person.  It can be true or false that stealing and lying are always wrong.  On the other hand, if you think the sentence, "Mary is a good person" can’t be either true or false -- if you say that, then you’re not a naturalist.  To be a naturalist, you have to think that ethical sentences are either true or false.
< 
< And notice, if I say that ethical sentences merely express emotions, as though they they were just exclamations like "Hey!" and "Yay for Mary!" then I don’t think ethical sentences are true or false.  Consider this: "It’s true that ‘Hey!’"  Or this: "It’s false that ‘Yay for Mary!’"  Well that doesn’t make any sense.  Mere expressions of emotion, mere outbursts, aren’t true or false.  They can be appropriate or inappropriate.  If Mary happens to be an ax murderess, then it’s totally inappropriate for me to say, "Yay for Mary!"  But it’s not <i>false</i> to say that, because mere emotional expressions aren’t true or false: only sentences that express propositions can be true or false.
< 
< OK, this has been all by way of getting you to understand the <i>first</i> part of the definition of "naturalism," and that part reads, "the view that ethical sentences express propositions."  Let’s give that view a name: call it <i>cognitivism</i>.  So cognitivism will be the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Having explained this view, it’s going to make it easier later on to understand so-called noncognitivism, because noncognitivism specifically denies this view.
< 
< But now what about the second part of the definition of "naturalism"?  The second part says that ethical sentences "can be reduced to nonethical sentences."  Now you’re going to have to remember this notion of reduction from our discussion of the mind-body problem.  I told you that philosophy is interconnected and interdependent -- well, it really is!  Anyway, so what does it mean to say that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences?  It just means that you can state the meaning of ethical sentences in other words, in sentences that don’t include any ethical terms like "good" and "right."  All this talk of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and so forth -- that’s all just <i>shorthand</i> for some complex propositions about what human beings need, or desire, or what gives them pleasure, or what secures their long-term happiness, and so forth.  So this notion that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences really amounts to saying that ethical sentences are a kind of shorthand, a kind of very useful abbreviation, for claims about nonethical facts about human needs, desires, and so forth.
< 
< Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
< 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< B. Non-naturalism.
< 
< And if naturalism really does seem implausible to you, then you may like the second theory, which we can call <i>non</i>-<i>naturalism</i>.  This can be defined as follows:
---
> See:
> * EthicalNaturalism.
> * EthicalNonNaturalism.
------
EthicalNaturalism|981489138
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Now here is how I described meta-ethics just a little while ago: <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  That way of putting it is a little misleading, so let me clarify.  Here’s an ethical sentence: "Pleasure is good."  If I tell you, "Meta-ethics studies what sort of meaning ethical sentences have," then you might think to yourself, "I guess he means that meta-ethics studies what I mean by ‘good’ when I say that pleasure is good."
> 
> Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
> 
> The emphasis is on the words <i>what</i> <i>sort</i>.  In other words: meta-ethics asks which of <i>various</i> <i>kinds</i> <i>of</i> <i>meanings</i> ethical sentences might have.  But now your natural question is going to be: "What do you mean ‘various kinds of meaning’ of ethical sentences?  What ‘kinds of meaning’ do you have in mind?  What are my choices?"
> 
> Well, let me explain your choices, using our sentence about Mary as an example.  After presenting all three, I’ll explain each choice in more depth.
> 
> (1) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" can be explained using another sentence that does not use the word "good."  For example: "Mary, on the whole, has made people in the world happier than they would have been without her."  Or: "Mary has a number of habits like telling the truth, discharging her responsibilities regularly, being nice to people, and so on."
> 
> (2) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because, although the sentence does express a proposition, the word "good" is <i>primitive</i>, which means that its meaning cannot be stated in other words at all.
> 
> (3) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because this sentence merely <i>expresses</i> <i>or</i> <i>evokes</i> <i>a</i> <i>certain</i> <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>emotional</i> <i>reaction</i>, or involves a certain kind of <i>command</i> or recommendation.  It’s as though we were saying "Yay for Mary!"  Or: "Look at Mary!  Be like her!"  But in any case, this third option <i>denies</i> that "Mary is a good person" expresses a <i>proposition</i>.  All it does is express an attitude or a feeling.
> 
> Now remember, what I’m trying to do is to explain to you what meta-ethics is.  I said it is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have; but now we can say something much more specific, because now we have some rough idea of three <i>options</i> that we’re talking about when we talk about "sorts of meaning."  Here’s how we could put the central question of meta-ethics; it’s a three-part question.  "(1) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?  (2) Do ethical sentences express propositions?  (3) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be explained <i>entirely</i> in terms of the emotions they express, or are meant to cause in other people, or in some other way that doesn’t involve expressing a proposition?"  The different meta-ethical theories differ just in how they answer each of these questions.
> 
> I’ll admit that this is rather complicated, so I don’t expect you to understand it fully yet.  Let’s go over the different main meta-ethical theories.  I think once we’ve gone over the different theories, you’ll have a better idea of of what these three questions mean.  So let’s dive right into the first main meta-ethical theory.
> 
> The first theory we’ll consider is called <i>naturalism</i>, sometimes also called <i>definism</i>, because it holds that ethical terms can be defined; the meaning of ethical sentences can be given in totally non-ethical terms.  So to question (1), "Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?" the naturalist answers, "Definitely."  Why?  Because ultimately, goodness and right are natural properties; they are ultimately properties of things that can be located in the natural world.  So then here’s a definition of "naturalism":
> 
> <i>Naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they can be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> Notice that this definition has two parts, the part that comes before the "and" and the part that comes after the "and."  Let’s take a closer look at each part.
> 
> First, there’s the notion that ethical sentences <i>express</i> <i>propositions</i>.  Well, what exactly does that mean?  I’ve already told you what propositions are; they are, roughly, what meaningful sentences are supposed to be <i>about</i>.  So if an ethical sentence does express a proposition, then there is indeed something that the sentence is <i>about</i>.  It’s not like the claim, "Mary is a good person," is about <i>nothing</i>.  It’s about Mary, and it’s identifying her goodness.
> 
> To get a better idea of what it means to express a proposition, compare this to something that <i>doesn’t</i> express a proposition.  Say I’m minding a convenience store, and I see a thief pick up a candy bar and run.  I just manage to exclaim, "Hey!"  When I say, "Hey!" I’m not expressing a proposition.  I’m <i>not</i> saying, "That’s a thief there"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief is getting away"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief really annoys me."  I’m not saying anything at all, really.  And that’s the point: it’s not a <i>proposition</i> that I’m expressing.  Rather, it’s an <i>emotional</i> <i>state</i> that I’m expressing.  I am surprised and angered and I express my surprise and anger to the thief by saying "Hey!"
> 
> So what the first part of the definition of "naturalism" says is that ethical sentences <i>do</i> express propositions.  They aren’t just emotional outbursts, as though I were saying, "Hey!" or "Yay for Mary!"  They are actually expressing propositions that can be true or false.  And derivatively, you can say that ethical sentences themselves are either true or false.
> 
> That’s another important way to explain what it means for ethical sentences to express propositions; if they express propositions, they’re either true or false.  So if you’re a naturalist then you think ethical sentences are either true or false.  So for example, it can be true or false that Mary is a good person.  It can be true or false that stealing and lying are always wrong.  On the other hand, if you think the sentence, "Mary is a good person" can’t be either true or false -- if you say that, then you’re not a naturalist.  To be a naturalist, you have to think that ethical sentences are either true or false.
> 
> And notice, if I say that ethical sentences merely express emotions, as though they they were just exclamations like "Hey!" and "Yay for Mary!" then I don’t think ethical sentences are true or false.  Consider this: "It’s true that ‘Hey!’"  Or this: "It’s false that ‘Yay for Mary!’"  Well that doesn’t make any sense.  Mere expressions of emotion, mere outbursts, aren’t true or false.  They can be appropriate or inappropriate.  If Mary happens to be an ax murderess, then it’s totally inappropriate for me to say, "Yay for Mary!"  But it’s not <i>false</i> to say that, because mere emotional expressions aren’t true or false: only sentences that express propositions can be true or false.
> 
> OK, this has been all by way of getting you to understand the <i>first</i> part of the definition of "naturalism," and that part reads, "the view that ethical sentences express propositions."  Let’s give that view a name: call it <i>cognitivism</i>.  So cognitivism will be the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Having explained this view, it’s going to make it easier later on to understand so-called noncognitivism, because noncognitivism specifically denies this view.
> 
> But now what about the second part of the definition of "naturalism"?  The second part says that ethical sentences "can be reduced to nonethical sentences."  Now you’re going to have to remember this notion of reduction from our discussion of the mind-body problem.  I told you that philosophy is interconnected and interdependent -- well, it really is!  Anyway, so what does it mean to say that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences?  It just means that you can state the meaning of ethical sentences in other words, in sentences that don’t include any ethical terms like "good" and "right."  All this talk of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and so forth -- that’s all just <i>shorthand</i> for some complex propositions about what human beings need, or desire, or what gives them pleasure, or what secures their long-term happiness, and so forth.  So this notion that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences really amounts to saying that ethical sentences are a kind of shorthand, a kind of very useful abbreviation, for claims about nonethical facts about human needs, desires, and so forth.
> 
> Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
------
EthicalNaturalism|981489158
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
> 
------
MetaEthics|981489197
1,2d0
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
< 
4,93c2,3
< * EthicalNaturalism.
< * EthicalNonNaturalism.
< 
< <i>Non</i>-<i>naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they <i>cannot</i> be reduced to nonethical sentences.
< 
< So the way that we’re defining these views, naturalism and non-naturalism are both kinds of <i>cognitivism</i> -- that is, both of them share the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  What they disagree about is whether ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences.  Non-naturalism says they <i>can’t</i>.  As that British philosopher of common sense, G. E. Moore, said, goodness is a <i>simple</i>, <i>undefinable</i>, <i>non</i>-<i>natural</i> property.
< 
< To call it "non-natural" doesn’t mean that goodness is somehow supernatural or ghostly or divine or anything like that.  All that it means to say that goodness is non-natural is to say that it can’t be reduced to natural properties like human needs, wants, pleasures, and so forth.
< 
< Or to say the same thing, goodness can’t be <i>defined</i> in terms of anything else.  So Moore thought that goodness is <i>indefinable</i>.  Now, does that mean that he thought that talk of goodness of nonsense?  Definitely not: talk of goodness is quite meaningful.  It’s just that you can’t formulate what this meaning is in a definition.  You can’t say, for example, "goodness" means "pleasure."  Moore said you couldn’t give any definition like that at all.
< 
< Still, you might wonder, how is it possible that a word could be <i>meaningful</i>, and yet <i>indefinable</i>?  Well, let me give you an example of <i>another</i> word that is definitely meaningful, but you couldn’t give any plausible definition of it: "thing."  I mean "thing" in its <i>broadest</i> sense.  How could you define this?  Something is a thing if, and only if, ... what?  How could you finish this definition?  Or how about the word "whole" as in "whole and part."  Something is a whole if, and only if, it ... what, has parts?  OK, but then define "part" for me, and do that without referring to wholes.  You can define wholes in terms of parts, or parts in terms of wholes, but as far as I can tell, you have to take either "whole" or "part," <i>one</i> of those words, as primitive, undefinable, or basic.  Here’s another example: the word "and" and "not."  These are extremely important words in logic; but all logicians admit that you have to start out with <i>some</i> basic, undefined concepts in logic, and in fact "and" and "not" are often two of their choices for undefined terms.  Then they proceed to define <i>other</i> terms in logic using "and" and "not."  And I’ll bet you can think of all sorts of examples of primitive, undefinable terms from mathematics and geometry -- such as "point," as in "point on a line."  Anyway, you get the idea.
< 
< So Moore’s claim, which is the central claim of the non-naturalist, is that "good" is indefinable.  And if that’s the case, then the meaning of sentences containing word "good" can’t be explained entirely in terms of sentences <i>not</i> containing the word "good."  You can’t substitute talk of pleasure, or needs, or anything like that for talk of good.  Once you are talking about goodness (or badness, for that matter), you’re talking about a subject that is just as fundamental as talk of things, of wholes and parts, of "and" and "not," and of points on lines.  Just as those things are simple and indefinable, so goodness is simple and indefinable.  So said Moore.  That’s the basic contention of non-naturalism.
< 
< OK, so why think that non-naturalism is true?  Why think that "good" can’t be defined?  Are there any arguments for that claim?  There are some, or two anyway, that we can look at.
< 
< The first argument for non-naturalism is really very simple.  In fact, maybe we shouldn’t call it an argument; it’s better to look at it as simply a way of putting certain facts into perspective; call it a "line of thought."  Consider, on the one hand, properties like hardness, roundness, dampness, and so forth.  These are all natural properties; we encounter them in the real world and we can perceive them.  Consider, on the other hand, properties like <i>being</i> <i>good</i> and <i>being</i> <i>right</i>.  We say that a great novel like <i>Moby</i> <i>Dick</i> is a good thing; so goodness is a property of that novel.  And we say that paying back debts, and telling the truth, are generally the right things to do; so rightness is a property of certain human actions, like paying off your debts, and truth-telling.
< 
< But isn’t it straightforwardly obvious that these are two <i>really</i> <i>quite</i> <i>different</i> kinds of properties?  Those natural properties, like hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world.  On the other hand, goodness and rightness -- well, <i>where</i> are they?  Can you <i>see</i> the goodness of a novel?  Can you <i>touch</i> rightness?  Can you use scientific instruments to <i>measure</i> morality?  Of course not.  So it seems simply <i>obvious</i> -- or so goes this line of thinking, which we won’t dignify with the name "argument" -- that goodness and rightness aren’t natural properties.  And if that’s the case, they can’t be defined in terms of any natural properties; if they could be, then they would be, ultimately, natural properties themselves.  Moore actually went so far as to say that it’s a <i>fallacy</i> to think that goodness is a natural property: he called this <i>the</i> <i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>.  But really all that amounts to is calling naturalism a fallacy -- which doesn’t prove anything.  I could just as easily say that non-naturalism is a fallacy, and say that Moore committed the <i>non</i>-<i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>!
< 
< Anyway, I think a lot of people find this line of thinking fairly plausible.  There <i>does</i> seem to be something inherently fallacious about thinking of goodness as a natural property.
< 
< But this raises a rather difficult question.  See if you can think of any answer to it yourself.  Suppose for a moment that Moore is right, and that goodness is an indefinable, non-natural property; you can’t bump into it, or see it, but you do know when novels, and foods, and states of mind, are good.  But if goodness isn’t a natural property, then <i>how</i> do you know this?  You should be able to tell me what sort of question that is -- a question that asks, "How do you know that something is good?"  It’s an <i>epistemological</i> question.  But in particular we’re talking about knowledge of <i>moral</i> facts.  There’s a branch of epistemology, or of ethics, or both, called <i>moral</i> <i>epistemology</i> which studies how we know moral facts, and how moral beliefs are justified.
< 
< If Moore says that goodness is a non-natural property, then how does he know that anything is good?  It’s evidently not by any ordinary, <i>natural</i> process.  Think about that.  If you could know that cake is good by some <i>natural</i> process (say, just by eating it and having a pleasant taste sensation), then you could identify the goodness of the cake as some natural property that that natural process detected.  For example, the cake gives you pleasure; that’s how you know it’s good; so you can say that the cake’s goodness is just the same as, and is reducible to, the fact that it can give you pleasure.  That’s the idea.  That’s how you’d know that the cake is good, <i>if</i> you thought that goodness might be a natural property.  But if you’re Moore, and you think that goodness <i>isn’t</i> a natural property, then <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>anything</i> <i>is</i> <i>good</i>?  How do you distinguish the good things from the bad?
< 
< One answer that has been fairly common among British philosophers, although not so much anymore, is to say that we have a special faculty, a faculty of <i>moral</i> <i>intuition</i>.  And this faculty tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.  The view that there is such a faculty is called <i>moral</i> <i>intuitionism</i>.  So we taste the cake and this faculty kicks into gear and tells us that it is good.  That’s not such a great example, though, because even the non-naturalist might want to allow that, when we say that cake is good, we just mean that we like it.  But what about a good person, or a right action?  If we see a good person, or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, <i>then</i>, the moral intuitionists say, we can simply <i>intuit</i> that the person is good, or that the action is right.
< 
< Now, don’t ask me what "moral intuition" means.  All I know is that it is supposed to be a mental process that is different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgements are its outputs.  So when you judge something to be good, or some action to be right, then you’re using your faculty of moral intuition.  And that faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties.  Perhaps the best ordinary notion we have, that approximates the notion of a faculty of moral intuition, would be <i>conscience</i>.  If I get a pang of conscience after I do something I know is wrong, my faculty of moral intuition has kicked in and is being directed at <i>me</i>.
< 
< We could go on and talk about moral intuitionism for a long time, because there are, believe it or not, lots of different varieties to the theory.  But we can’t afford the time.  I will just say this about it -- that we should see whether or not we can explain how we might come to know moral facts <i>without</i> talking about some mysterious faculty of moral intuition.
< 
< So let’s look at the second argument for non-naturalism.  This is called the <i>open</i> <i>question</i> <i>argument</i>, and was introduced and made famous by Moore.  This argument is actually one of the things that Moore is quite famous for.  Which is unfortunate, because later on in his life, some years after he published the argument, he said that it was no good!
< 
< Even if the argument is no good, it’s instructive to look at it.  If you take a class in ethical theory, you’ll probably study it again in more depth.  But actually, the argument is pretty simple.  It goes like this.
< 
< Suppose I want to give a definition of "good."  So I say that "good" means "pleasure-causing."  In other words, according to my definition, if something is good, that means it causes pleasure; and if it causes pleasure, then it is, by definition, good.  But Moore complained that we could always ask, "But are pleasure-causing things good?"  And the point is that that would always be an <i>open</i> <i>question</i>.  This means that it’s not just a foregone conclusion that, indeed, pleasure causing things <i>are</i> good.  It’s an open question, a perfectly legitimate question that someone who understands the English very well might ask: Is everything that causes pleasure good?
< 
< Moore then went on to say that you could criticize <i>any</i> definition of goodness like that.  To take another example: I could say that "good" means "desirable."  So anything that’s desirable is good, and whatever is good is desirable.  Moore says that we can ask a question here -- what would his question be?  Well, it would be this: "Is everything that is desirable good?"  And Moore would observe that this is an open question.  The answer isn’t <i>obvious</i> to someone who understands the English language.
< 
< So here’s the formula that you can use to generate Moore’s question.  If someone says "good" means X, then you reply by asking: But is X actually good?  And then you observe that this is an open question.  The answer is never <i>obviously</i> "Yes."  And yet we’re all competent speakers of the English language; we all know what "good" means.  So if we <i>did</i> come across the correct definition of "good," then, the implication is, we’d be able to recognize it.  But we can <i>never</i> just automatically recognize any definition of "good" as the definition of "good."  If I tell you that "good" means X, it’s <i>always</i> an open question, as far as ordinary speakers of the language are concerned, whether X is good.  And therefore, Moore concluded, the word "good" can’t be defined.  It’s indefinable.  If it were definable, then a question of the definition in the form of "Is X good" would not be an <i>open</i> question.  But questions of that form are <i>always</i> open questions.  So "good" cannot be defined.
< 
< That’s the open question argument.  Now, you might find at least one part of it puzzling -- a part where you might have wanted to stop me and say, "How’s that again?  Why does Moore say that?"  I mean the following step, from (1) to (2):
< 
< (1) Moore’s question, "Is X good?" is always an open question to any English speaker; that is, no English speaker would be able to recognize "good" means X as <i>obviously</i> the correct definition.
< 
< (2) "Good" cannot be defined.
< 
< What I want to know is: How is (2) supposed to follow from (1)?  Can’t we admit that (1) is correct, and at the same time claim that (2) is false?  I mean, why <i>couldn’t</i> we?  Consider what that would amount to.  It’s the following conjunction of claims: no one can recognize that any definition of "good" is correct, but "good" is still definable.  Honestly why can’t we say both things at the same time?
< 
< Look at it like this.  Moore seems to assume that "good" can be defined <i>only</i> <i>if</i> competent English speakers would recognize the correct definition when they saw it -- and in that case, the question, "Is X good?" would be answered, "Obviously yes, discussion closed."  That’s how Moore viewed it.  But I don’t think that’s correct.  It seems entirely possible to me that "good" might have a definition which ordinary English speakers <i>wouldn’t</i> recognize when they saw it at first.  You’d have to <i>argue</i> that the definition was correct.
< 
< Compare the situation to other attempts at definition in philosophy -- like the case with "knowledge."  We all have a pretty good idea of what the English word "knowledge" means.  But does that mean that if we see the correct definition of "knowledge," we’ll <i>immediately</i> recognize that it’s the correct definition?  Surely not.
< 
< So here’s the point: there are a lot of deep concepts that are studied in philosophy, like goodness and knowledge and consciousness and so on.  We all can recognize <i>instances</i> of these things.  We will all recognize perfectly well that motherhood is good, that we know that 2+2=4, and that we are all conscious right now.  But that doesn’t mean that we will immediately recognize the correct account of the meaning of "good," "know," and "conscious."
< 
< So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
< 
< 
< 
< C. Non-cognitivism.
< 
< We have spent a long time discussing non-naturalism, and it’s time now to look at the third meta-ethical theory, called "non-cognitivism."  We won’t spend as long on this.  Remember that cognitivism is just the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Well then you know what non-cognitivism is:
< 
< <i>Non</i>-<i>cognitivism</i> is the view that ethical sentences <i>do</i> <i>not</i> express propositions; instead they express something <i>else</i>, such as emotions or recommendations.
< 
< So the idea is that when we say that something is "good," or "right," or "moral," then we aren’t actually making a statement that can be true or false; <i>all</i> that we’re doing is expressing a certain kind of emotion we feel, or trying to evoke or cause a certain kind of emotion in others, or we’re implicitly <i>commanding</i> or <i>recommending</i> that people behave in certain ways.  Different kinds of non-cognitivism differ in <i>what</i> ethical sentences are said to do.  <i>Emotivists</i>, for example, say that ethical sentences express and evoke certain kinds of emotion.  <i>Prescriptivists</i>, on the other hand, say that ethical sentences are implicit commands or recommendations.  You aren’t going to need to know the differences between these views really; the point is that it’s not as though ethical sentences are totally meaningless.  It’s just that they don’t have <i>cognitive</i> meaning -- which is to say that they don’t express propositions.  Their meaning is a little like the meaning of outbursts like "Hurray for kindness!" and "Murder -- boo, hiss!"
< 
< Another way to think of non-cognitive meaning is like this.  Suppose I say, "If you steal money from your employer, you’re doing something wrong."  Then the idea is I could simply say, in a tone of shock or revulsion, "Stealing money from your employer!!" and <i>that</i> outburst would have about the same meaning as saying that stealing money is wrong.  Saying that an action is wrong just expresses how you feel about the action.
< 
< Non-cognitivism was fairly widely advocated in the middle of this century.  It isn’t as popular as it once was, but it still has quite a few proponents.  So you might wonder why anyone would advocate this theory.  <i>I</i> certainly am puzzled as to why so many philosophers have advocated it.
< 
< I can think of two reasons, anyway.  The first is basically the first "argument," or as we were calling it the "line of thought," behind non-naturalism.  Again, the basic idea there was that we can’t perceive or bump into goodness or rightness.  Now, Moore concluded from that, that "good" must be indefinable, standing for basic property; perhaps we know it by a faculty of moral intuition.  But the non-cognitivists draw a different conclusion.  They say that goodness and rightness aren’t anything in the world at all.  They aren’t really properties of anything.  When we use words like "good" and "right," all we’re doing is expressing our emotions, or issuing commands.  We aren’t describing any sort of mysterious properties in the world.  So what I’m saying is that non-cognitivism gets its motivation from the view that goodness and rightness, if they were something in the world, would appear to be rather mysterious or strange properties; and so non-cognitivism concludes that they really <i>aren’t</i> in the world at all.
< 
< The second reason or motivation behind non-cognitivism is a perfectly legitimate observation.  Namely, the observation that when we use moral sentences -- when we morally praise or blame people and their actions -- we are, in any case, doing <i>more</i> than <i>merely</i> making factual statements.  Even if we <i>are</i> making statements about moral facts, we are <i>also</i> expressing our attitudes, or trying to shape other peoples’ attitudes.  Just look at an example and you’ll see this right away.  An example like, "Mary is a good person."  You can imagine Mary’s friend saying this, and if we all know Mary, then we’ll know why Mary’s friend says it: for example, Mary never lies, she is a very responsible person, she is always nice, and so forth.  Saying that she’s a good person expresses approval of those good habits that we know Mary practices.  It’s as though Mary is saying, "Mary is good -- go thou and do likewise."  So here’s the point then: ethical sentences, regardless of whether they express propositions or not, do <i>definitely</i> have the function of expressing our attitudes and our recommendations.  It’s just that the non-cognitivist goes one step further than most of us, and says that that is <i>all</i> that ethical sentences.  <i>All</i> they do is express attitudes, or make recommendations.
< 
< Now, I don’t know what you’ll think of non-cognitivism.  I suspect many of you will find it strange, and I think that some number of you might actually like it quite a bit, because it allows you to hold onto a sort of sophisticated moral relativism.  And indeed you’ll find this view underlying some educational theories.  I mean that some theories about teaching kids ethics in the schools seem to assume that non-cognitivism is true; when we talk about "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," all we’re doing is expressing how we feel.  So you will find some modern educationists having schoolchildren "clarifying" their values by asking them how they <i>feel</i> about different situations.  You probably did this when you were in school; you probably know what I’m talking about, and so non-cognitivism probably seems familiar, and even obvious, to some of you.
< 
< I’m just going to make one criticism of non-cognitivism.  We could go on all day explaining objections to it, I think, but one objection is particularly powerful.  Before I explain it, remember how we criticized the definition of "meaningfulness" as "understandability."   The proposal was that a sentence is meaningful if it’s understandable.   Our criticism of that proposal was: that might be true, doesn’t give the <i>meaning</i> of the word "meaningful."  Why?  Because it doesn’t explain <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>meaningful</i> <i>sentences</i>, <i>that</i> <i>makes</i> <i>them</i> <i>meaningful</i>.  It certainly seems that there is something about <i>those</i> <i>sentences</i> that makes them meaningful -- and which, incidentally, makes us able to understand them.
< 
< Now we can make a similar sort of criticism of non-cognitivism.  Non-cognitivism claims that the meaning of ethical sentences consists <i>entirely</i> in how we feel about the person, or thing, or situation described; or what our recommendations are with regard to the item in question.  But this just raises a question: <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>item</i> <i>in</i> <i>question</i> that makes us feel the way we do, or that makes us recommend what we do?  Take the case of the good Mary again.  The question in this case is: What is it <i>about</i> <i>Mary</i> that <i>makes</i> us say that she is a good person -- that makes us express moral approval of her, and that makes us recommend to others that they emulate her?  Surely there’s <i>something</i> about her that makes us say she’s good.  It’s not like she is just some nonentity with no properties at all, and we just arbitrarily say of a nonentity that we approve of it!  No, Mary is a complex human being about which (in our example) we know a lot.  And the question is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>it</i> <i>about</i> <i>her</i>, out of all the things we know (or believe) about her, that makes us say that she’s good?
< 
< It’s not like the answer to that question is any big puzzle or anything.  It’s rather obvious to anyone who knows Mary: she has a number of habits, like telling the truth, taking care of her responsibilities, treating others kindly and fairly, and so forth.  And it’s seeing all of those habits together which make us say that she’s a good person.
< 
< Now I wonder if you can see what’s coming next in this criticism of non-cognitivism.  Just think about it.  If it’s Mary’s habits that make us say that she’s a good person, well then, why don’t we just say that we <i>can</i> translate the ethical sentence, "Mary is a good person," into a sentence about Mary’s habits?  Why not say that "Mary is a good person" means "Mary tells the truth, takes care of her responsibilities faithfully, treats others kindly, and so forth"?  Notice, the latter sentence doesn’t contain any ethical terms.  It just describes her habits.  So the point is that if it’s Mary’s habits that make us call her good, then we can just say that her goodness consists in her having all those habits.  By "Mary’s goodness" we just mean "Mary’s habits X, Y, and Z."  And if Mary has habits like that then she’s good; and if she doesn’t, or if she has other habits like the unfortunate tendency to kill people and eat their livers with fava beans, then she’s bad.
< 
< So to generalize now, we can criticize non-cognitivism by saying that it seems to ignore the perfectly legitimate possibility, that we can reduce ethical sentences to sentences <i>about</i> <i>whatever</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>items</i> <i>that</i> <i>make</i> <i>us</i> <i>state</i> <i>those</i> <i>ethical</i> <i>sentences</i>.  We can reduce a claim about the wrongness of stealing, or about the goodness of banana splits, to claims about what it is <i>about</i> <i>stealing</i> <i>or</i> <i>banana</i> <i>splits</i> that makes us state the ethical sentences in question.
< 
< Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.  But we don’t have time to go into it any further.  We have bigger fish to fry.  
---
> * EthicalNaturalism
> * EthicalNonNaturalism
------
EthicalNonNaturalism|981489218
1c1,87
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <i>Non</i>-<i>naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they <i>cannot</i> be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> So the way that we’re defining these views, naturalism and non-naturalism are both kinds of <i>cognitivism</i> -- that is, both of them share the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  What they disagree about is whether ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences.  Non-naturalism says they <i>can’t</i>.  As that British philosopher of common sense, G. E. Moore, said, goodness is a <i>simple</i>, <i>undefinable</i>, <i>non</i>-<i>natural</i> property.
> 
> To call it "non-natural" doesn’t mean that goodness is somehow supernatural or ghostly or divine or anything like that.  All that it means to say that goodness is non-natural is to say that it can’t be reduced to natural properties like human needs, wants, pleasures, and so forth.
> 
> Or to say the same thing, goodness can’t be <i>defined</i> in terms of anything else.  So Moore thought that goodness is <i>indefinable</i>.  Now, does that mean that he thought that talk of goodness of nonsense?  Definitely not: talk of goodness is quite meaningful.  It’s just that you can’t formulate what this meaning is in a definition.  You can’t say, for example, "goodness" means "pleasure."  Moore said you couldn’t give any definition like that at all.
> 
> Still, you might wonder, how is it possible that a word could be <i>meaningful</i>, and yet <i>indefinable</i>?  Well, let me give you an example of <i>another</i> word that is definitely meaningful, but you couldn’t give any plausible definition of it: "thing."  I mean "thing" in its <i>broadest</i> sense.  How could you define this?  Something is a thing if, and only if, ... what?  How could you finish this definition?  Or how about the word "whole" as in "whole and part."  Something is a whole if, and only if, it ... what, has parts?  OK, but then define "part" for me, and do that without referring to wholes.  You can define wholes in terms of parts, or parts in terms of wholes, but as far as I can tell, you have to take either "whole" or "part," <i>one</i> of those words, as primitive, undefinable, or basic.  Here’s another example: the word "and" and "not."  These are extremely important words in logic; but all logicians admit that you have to start out with <i>some</i> basic, undefined concepts in logic, and in fact "and" and "not" are often two of their choices for undefined terms.  Then they proceed to define <i>other</i> terms in logic using "and" and "not."  And I’ll bet you can think of all sorts of examples of primitive, undefinable terms from mathematics and geometry -- such as "point," as in "point on a line."  Anyway, you get the idea.
> 
> So Moore’s claim, which is the central claim of the non-naturalist, is that "good" is indefinable.  And if that’s the case, then the meaning of sentences containing word "good" can’t be explained entirely in terms of sentences <i>not</i> containing the word "good."  You can’t substitute talk of pleasure, or needs, or anything like that for talk of good.  Once you are talking about goodness (or badness, for that matter), you’re talking about a subject that is just as fundamental as talk of things, of wholes and parts, of "and" and "not," and of points on lines.  Just as those things are simple and indefinable, so goodness is simple and indefinable.  So said Moore.  That’s the basic contention of non-naturalism.
> 
> OK, so why think that non-naturalism is true?  Why think that "good" can’t be defined?  Are there any arguments for that claim?  There are some, or two anyway, that we can look at.
> 
> The first argument for non-naturalism is really very simple.  In fact, maybe we shouldn’t call it an argument; it’s better to look at it as simply a way of putting certain facts into perspective; call it a "line of thought."  Consider, on the one hand, properties like hardness, roundness, dampness, and so forth.  These are all natural properties; we encounter them in the real world and we can perceive them.  Consider, on the other hand, properties like <i>being</i> <i>good</i> and <i>being</i> <i>right</i>.  We say that a great novel like <i>Moby</i> <i>Dick</i> is a good thing; so goodness is a property of that novel.  And we say that paying back debts, and telling the truth, are generally the right things to do; so rightness is a property of certain human actions, like paying off your debts, and truth-telling.
> 
> But isn’t it straightforwardly obvious that these are two <i>really</i> <i>quite</i> <i>different</i> kinds of properties?  Those natural properties, like hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world.  On the other hand, goodness and rightness -- well, <i>where</i> are they?  Can you <i>see</i> the goodness of a novel?  Can you <i>touch</i> rightness?  Can you use scientific instruments to <i>measure</i> morality?  Of course not.  So it seems simply <i>obvious</i> -- or so goes this line of thinking, which we won’t dignify with the name "argument" -- that goodness and rightness aren’t natural properties.  And if that’s the case, they can’t be defined in terms of any natural properties; if they could be, then they would be, ultimately, natural properties themselves.  Moore actually went so far as to say that it’s a <i>fallacy</i> to think that goodness is a natural property: he called this <i>the</i> <i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>.  But really all that amounts to is calling naturalism a fallacy -- which doesn’t prove anything.  I could just as easily say that non-naturalism is a fallacy, and say that Moore committed the <i>non</i>-<i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>!
> 
> Anyway, I think a lot of people find this line of thinking fairly plausible.  There <i>does</i> seem to be something inherently fallacious about thinking of goodness as a natural property.
> 
> But this raises a rather difficult question.  See if you can think of any answer to it yourself.  Suppose for a moment that Moore is right, and that goodness is an indefinable, non-natural property; you can’t bump into it, or see it, but you do know when novels, and foods, and states of mind, are good.  But if goodness isn’t a natural property, then <i>how</i> do you know this?  You should be able to tell me what sort of question that is -- a question that asks, "How do you know that something is good?"  It’s an <i>epistemological</i> question.  But in particular we’re talking about knowledge of <i>moral</i> facts.  There’s a branch of epistemology, or of ethics, or both, called <i>moral</i> <i>epistemology</i> which studies how we know moral facts, and how moral beliefs are justified.
> 
> If Moore says that goodness is a non-natural property, then how does he know that anything is good?  It’s evidently not by any ordinary, <i>natural</i> process.  Think about that.  If you could know that cake is good by some <i>natural</i> process (say, just by eating it and having a pleasant taste sensation), then you could identify the goodness of the cake as some natural property that that natural process detected.  For example, the cake gives you pleasure; that’s how you know it’s good; so you can say that the cake’s goodness is just the same as, and is reducible to, the fact that it can give you pleasure.  That’s the idea.  That’s how you’d know that the cake is good, <i>if</i> you thought that goodness might be a natural property.  But if you’re Moore, and you think that goodness <i>isn’t</i> a natural property, then <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>anything</i> <i>is</i> <i>good</i>?  How do you distinguish the good things from the bad?
> 
> One answer that has been fairly common among British philosophers, although not so much anymore, is to say that we have a special faculty, a faculty of <i>moral</i> <i>intuition</i>.  And this faculty tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.  The view that there is such a faculty is called <i>moral</i> <i>intuitionism</i>.  So we taste the cake and this faculty kicks into gear and tells us that it is good.  That’s not such a great example, though, because even the non-naturalist might want to allow that, when we say that cake is good, we just mean that we like it.  But what about a good person, or a right action?  If we see a good person, or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, <i>then</i>, the moral intuitionists say, we can simply <i>intuit</i> that the person is good, or that the action is right.
> 
> Now, don’t ask me what "moral intuition" means.  All I know is that it is supposed to be a mental process that is different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgements are its outputs.  So when you judge something to be good, or some action to be right, then you’re using your faculty of moral intuition.  And that faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties.  Perhaps the best ordinary notion we have, that approximates the notion of a faculty of moral intuition, would be <i>conscience</i>.  If I get a pang of conscience after I do something I know is wrong, my faculty of moral intuition has kicked in and is being directed at <i>me</i>.
> 
> We could go on and talk about moral intuitionism for a long time, because there are, believe it or not, lots of different varieties to the theory.  But we can’t afford the time.  I will just say this about it -- that we should see whether or not we can explain how we might come to know moral facts <i>without</i> talking about some mysterious faculty of moral intuition.
> 
> So let’s look at the second argument for non-naturalism.  This is called the <i>open</i> <i>question</i> <i>argument</i>, and was introduced and made famous by Moore.  This argument is actually one of the things that Moore is quite famous for.  Which is unfortunate, because later on in his life, some years after he published the argument, he said that it was no good!
> 
> Even if the argument is no good, it’s instructive to look at it.  If you take a class in ethical theory, you’ll probably study it again in more depth.  But actually, the argument is pretty simple.  It goes like this.
> 
> Suppose I want to give a definition of "good."  So I say that "good" means "pleasure-causing."  In other words, according to my definition, if something is good, that means it causes pleasure; and if it causes pleasure, then it is, by definition, good.  But Moore complained that we could always ask, "But are pleasure-causing things good?"  And the point is that that would always be an <i>open</i> <i>question</i>.  This means that it’s not just a foregone conclusion that, indeed, pleasure causing things <i>are</i> good.  It’s an open question, a perfectly legitimate question that someone who understands the English very well might ask: Is everything that causes pleasure good?
> 
> Moore then went on to say that you could criticize <i>any</i> definition of goodness like that.  To take another example: I could say that "good" means "desirable."  So anything that’s desirable is good, and whatever is good is desirable.  Moore says that we can ask a question here -- what would his question be?  Well, it would be this: "Is everything that is desirable good?"  And Moore would observe that this is an open question.  The answer isn’t <i>obvious</i> to someone who understands the English language.
> 
> So here’s the formula that you can use to generate Moore’s question.  If someone says "good" means X, then you reply by asking: But is X actually good?  And then you observe that this is an open question.  The answer is never <i>obviously</i> "Yes."  And yet we’re all competent speakers of the English language; we all know what "good" means.  So if we <i>did</i> come across the correct definition of "good," then, the implication is, we’d be able to recognize it.  But we can <i>never</i> just automatically recognize any definition of "good" as the definition of "good."  If I tell you that "good" means X, it’s <i>always</i> an open question, as far as ordinary speakers of the language are concerned, whether X is good.  And therefore, Moore concluded, the word "good" can’t be defined.  It’s indefinable.  If it were definable, then a question of the definition in the form of "Is X good" would not be an <i>open</i> question.  But questions of that form are <i>always</i> open questions.  So "good" cannot be defined.
> 
> That’s the open question argument.  Now, you might find at least one part of it puzzling -- a part where you might have wanted to stop me and say, "How’s that again?  Why does Moore say that?"  I mean the following step, from (1) to (2):
> 
> (1) Moore’s question, "Is X good?" is always an open question to any English speaker; that is, no English speaker would be able to recognize "good" means X as <i>obviously</i> the correct definition.
> 
> (2) "Good" cannot be defined.
> 
> What I want to know is: How is (2) supposed to follow from (1)?  Can’t we admit that (1) is correct, and at the same time claim that (2) is false?  I mean, why <i>couldn’t</i> we?  Consider what that would amount to.  It’s the following conjunction of claims: no one can recognize that any definition of "good" is correct, but "good" is still definable.  Honestly why can’t we say both things at the same time?
> 
> Look at it like this.  Moore seems to assume that "good" can be defined <i>only</i> <i>if</i> competent English speakers would recognize the correct definition when they saw it -- and in that case, the question, "Is X good?" would be answered, "Obviously yes, discussion closed."  That’s how Moore viewed it.  But I don’t think that’s correct.  It seems entirely possible to me that "good" might have a definition which ordinary English speakers <i>wouldn’t</i> recognize when they saw it at first.  You’d have to <i>argue</i> that the definition was correct.
> 
> Compare the situation to other attempts at definition in philosophy -- like the case with "knowledge."  We all have a pretty good idea of what the English word "knowledge" means.  But does that mean that if we see the correct definition of "knowledge," we’ll <i>immediately</i> recognize that it’s the correct definition?  Surely not.
> 
> So here’s the point: there are a lot of deep concepts that are studied in philosophy, like goodness and knowledge and consciousness and so on.  We all can recognize <i>instances</i> of these things.  We will all recognize perfectly well that motherhood is good, that we know that 2+2=4, and that we are all conscious right now.  But that doesn’t mean that we will immediately recognize the correct account of the meaning of "good," "know," and "conscious."
> 
> So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
> 
> 
> 
> C. Non-cognitivism.
> 
> We have spent a long time discussing non-naturalism, and it’s time now to look at the third meta-ethical theory, called "non-cognitivism."  We won’t spend as long on this.  Remember that cognitivism is just the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Well then you know what non-cognitivism is:
> 
> <i>Non</i>-<i>cognitivism</i> is the view that ethical sentences <i>do</i> <i>not</i> express propositions; instead they express something <i>else</i>, such as emotions or recommendations.
> 
> So the idea is that when we say that something is "good," or "right," or "moral," then we aren’t actually making a statement that can be true or false; <i>all</i> that we’re doing is expressing a certain kind of emotion we feel, or trying to evoke or cause a certain kind of emotion in others, or we’re implicitly <i>commanding</i> or <i>recommending</i> that people behave in certain ways.  Different kinds of non-cognitivism differ in <i>what</i> ethical sentences are said to do.  <i>Emotivists</i>, for example, say that ethical sentences express and evoke certain kinds of emotion.  <i>Prescriptivists</i>, on the other hand, say that ethical sentences are implicit commands or recommendations.  You aren’t going to need to know the differences between these views really; the point is that it’s not as though ethical sentences are totally meaningless.  It’s just that they don’t have <i>cognitive</i> meaning -- which is to say that they don’t express propositions.  Their meaning is a little like the meaning of outbursts like "Hurray for kindness!" and "Murder -- boo, hiss!"
> 
> Another way to think of non-cognitive meaning is like this.  Suppose I say, "If you steal money from your employer, you’re doing something wrong."  Then the idea is I could simply say, in a tone of shock or revulsion, "Stealing money from your employer!!" and <i>that</i> outburst would have about the same meaning as saying that stealing money is wrong.  Saying that an action is wrong just expresses how you feel about the action.
> 
> Non-cognitivism was fairly widely advocated in the middle of this century.  It isn’t as popular as it once was, but it still has quite a few proponents.  So you might wonder why anyone would advocate this theory.  <i>I</i> certainly am puzzled as to why so many philosophers have advocated it.
> 
> I can think of two reasons, anyway.  The first is basically the first "argument," or as we were calling it the "line of thought," behind non-naturalism.  Again, the basic idea there was that we can’t perceive or bump into goodness or rightness.  Now, Moore concluded from that, that "good" must be indefinable, standing for basic property; perhaps we know it by a faculty of moral intuition.  But the non-cognitivists draw a different conclusion.  They say that goodness and rightness aren’t anything in the world at all.  They aren’t really properties of anything.  When we use words like "good" and "right," all we’re doing is expressing our emotions, or issuing commands.  We aren’t describing any sort of mysterious properties in the world.  So what I’m saying is that non-cognitivism gets its motivation from the view that goodness and rightness, if they were something in the world, would appear to be rather mysterious or strange properties; and so non-cognitivism concludes that they really <i>aren’t</i> in the world at all.
> 
> The second reason or motivation behind non-cognitivism is a perfectly legitimate observation.  Namely, the observation that when we use moral sentences -- when we morally praise or blame people and their actions -- we are, in any case, doing <i>more</i> than <i>merely</i> making factual statements.  Even if we <i>are</i> making statements about moral facts, we are <i>also</i> expressing our attitudes, or trying to shape other peoples’ attitudes.  Just look at an example and you’ll see this right away.  An example like, "Mary is a good person."  You can imagine Mary’s friend saying this, and if we all know Mary, then we’ll know why Mary’s friend says it: for example, Mary never lies, she is a very responsible person, she is always nice, and so forth.  Saying that she’s a good person expresses approval of those good habits that we know Mary practices.  It’s as though Mary is saying, "Mary is good -- go thou and do likewise."  So here’s the point then: ethical sentences, regardless of whether they express propositions or not, do <i>definitely</i> have the function of expressing our attitudes and our recommendations.  It’s just that the non-cognitivist goes one step further than most of us, and says that that is <i>all</i> that ethical sentences.  <i>All</i> they do is express attitudes, or make recommendations.
> 
> Now, I don’t know what you’ll think of non-cognitivism.  I suspect many of you will find it strange, and I think that some number of you might actually like it quite a bit, because it allows you to hold onto a sort of sophisticated moral relativism.  And indeed you’ll find this view underlying some educational theories.  I mean that some theories about teaching kids ethics in the schools seem to assume that non-cognitivism is true; when we talk about "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," all we’re doing is expressing how we feel.  So you will find some modern educationists having schoolchildren "clarifying" their values by asking them how they <i>feel</i> about different situations.  You probably did this when you were in school; you probably know what I’m talking about, and so non-cognitivism probably seems familiar, and even obvious, to some of you.
> 
> I’m just going to make one criticism of non-cognitivism.  We could go on all day explaining objections to it, I think, but one objection is particularly powerful.  Before I explain it, remember how we criticized the definition of "meaningfulness" as "understandability."   The proposal was that a sentence is meaningful if it’s understandable.   Our criticism of that proposal was: that might be true, doesn’t give the <i>meaning</i> of the word "meaningful."  Why?  Because it doesn’t explain <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>meaningful</i> <i>sentences</i>, <i>that</i> <i>makes</i> <i>them</i> <i>meaningful</i>.  It certainly seems that there is something about <i>those</i> <i>sentences</i> that makes them meaningful -- and which, incidentally, makes us able to understand them.
> 
> Now we can make a similar sort of criticism of non-cognitivism.  Non-cognitivism claims that the meaning of ethical sentences consists <i>entirely</i> in how we feel about the person, or thing, or situation described; or what our recommendations are with regard to the item in question.  But this just raises a question: <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>item</i> <i>in</i> <i>question</i> that makes us feel the way we do, or that makes us recommend what we do?  Take the case of the good Mary again.  The question in this case is: What is it <i>about</i> <i>Mary</i> that <i>makes</i> us say that she is a good person -- that makes us express moral approval of her, and that makes us recommend to others that they emulate her?  Surely there’s <i>something</i> about her that makes us say she’s good.  It’s not like she is just some nonentity with no properties at all, and we just arbitrarily say of a nonentity that we approve of it!  No, Mary is a complex human being about which (in our example) we know a lot.  And the question is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>it</i> <i>about</i> <i>her</i>, out of all the things we know (or believe) about her, that makes us say that she’s good?
> 
> It’s not like the answer to that question is any big puzzle or anything.  It’s rather obvious to anyone who knows Mary: she has a number of habits, like telling the truth, taking care of her responsibilities, treating others kindly and fairly, and so forth.  And it’s seeing all of those habits together which make us say that she’s a good person.
> 
> Now I wonder if you can see what’s coming next in this criticism of non-cognitivism.  Just think about it.  If it’s Mary’s habits that make us say that she’s a good person, well then, why don’t we just say that we <i>can</i> translate the ethical sentence, "Mary is a good person," into a sentence about Mary’s habits?  Why not say that "Mary is a good person" means "Mary tells the truth, takes care of her responsibilities faithfully, treats others kindly, and so forth"?  Notice, the latter sentence doesn’t contain any ethical terms.  It just describes her habits.  So the point is that if it’s Mary’s habits that make us call her good, then we can just say that her goodness consists in her having all those habits.  By "Mary’s goodness" we just mean "Mary’s habits X, Y, and Z."  And if Mary has habits like that then she’s good; and if she doesn’t, or if she has other habits like the unfortunate tendency to kill people and eat their livers with fava beans, then she’s bad.
> 
> So to generalize now, we can criticize non-cognitivism by saying that it seems to ignore the perfectly legitimate possibility, that we can reduce ethical sentences to sentences <i>about</i> <i>whatever</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>items</i> <i>that</i> <i>make</i> <i>us</i> <i>state</i> <i>those</i> <i>ethical</i> <i>sentences</i>.  We can reduce a claim about the wrongness of stealing, or about the goodness of banana splits, to claims about what it is <i>about</i> <i>stealing</i> <i>or</i> <i>banana</i> <i>splits</i> that makes us state the ethical sentences in question.
> 
> Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.
------
EthicalNonNaturalism|981489293
55,87c55
< So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
< 
< 
< 
< C. Non-cognitivism.
< 
< We have spent a long time discussing non-naturalism, and it’s time now to look at the third meta-ethical theory, called "non-cognitivism."  We won’t spend as long on this.  Remember that cognitivism is just the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Well then you know what non-cognitivism is:
< 
< <i>Non</i>-<i>cognitivism</i> is the view that ethical sentences <i>do</i> <i>not</i> express propositions; instead they express something <i>else</i>, such as emotions or recommendations.
< 
< So the idea is that when we say that something is "good," or "right," or "moral," then we aren’t actually making a statement that can be true or false; <i>all</i> that we’re doing is expressing a certain kind of emotion we feel, or trying to evoke or cause a certain kind of emotion in others, or we’re implicitly <i>commanding</i> or <i>recommending</i> that people behave in certain ways.  Different kinds of non-cognitivism differ in <i>what</i> ethical sentences are said to do.  <i>Emotivists</i>, for example, say that ethical sentences express and evoke certain kinds of emotion.  <i>Prescriptivists</i>, on the other hand, say that ethical sentences are implicit commands or recommendations.  You aren’t going to need to know the differences between these views really; the point is that it’s not as though ethical sentences are totally meaningless.  It’s just that they don’t have <i>cognitive</i> meaning -- which is to say that they don’t express propositions.  Their meaning is a little like the meaning of outbursts like "Hurray for kindness!" and "Murder -- boo, hiss!"
< 
< Another way to think of non-cognitive meaning is like this.  Suppose I say, "If you steal money from your employer, you’re doing something wrong."  Then the idea is I could simply say, in a tone of shock or revulsion, "Stealing money from your employer!!" and <i>that</i> outburst would have about the same meaning as saying that stealing money is wrong.  Saying that an action is wrong just expresses how you feel about the action.
< 
< Non-cognitivism was fairly widely advocated in the middle of this century.  It isn’t as popular as it once was, but it still has quite a few proponents.  So you might wonder why anyone would advocate this theory.  <i>I</i> certainly am puzzled as to why so many philosophers have advocated it.
< 
< I can think of two reasons, anyway.  The first is basically the first "argument," or as we were calling it the "line of thought," behind non-naturalism.  Again, the basic idea there was that we can’t perceive or bump into goodness or rightness.  Now, Moore concluded from that, that "good" must be indefinable, standing for basic property; perhaps we know it by a faculty of moral intuition.  But the non-cognitivists draw a different conclusion.  They say that goodness and rightness aren’t anything in the world at all.  They aren’t really properties of anything.  When we use words like "good" and "right," all we’re doing is expressing our emotions, or issuing commands.  We aren’t describing any sort of mysterious properties in the world.  So what I’m saying is that non-cognitivism gets its motivation from the view that goodness and rightness, if they were something in the world, would appear to be rather mysterious or strange properties; and so non-cognitivism concludes that they really <i>aren’t</i> in the world at all.
< 
< The second reason or motivation behind non-cognitivism is a perfectly legitimate observation.  Namely, the observation that when we use moral sentences -- when we morally praise or blame people and their actions -- we are, in any case, doing <i>more</i> than <i>merely</i> making factual statements.  Even if we <i>are</i> making statements about moral facts, we are <i>also</i> expressing our attitudes, or trying to shape other peoples’ attitudes.  Just look at an example and you’ll see this right away.  An example like, "Mary is a good person."  You can imagine Mary’s friend saying this, and if we all know Mary, then we’ll know why Mary’s friend says it: for example, Mary never lies, she is a very responsible person, she is always nice, and so forth.  Saying that she’s a good person expresses approval of those good habits that we know Mary practices.  It’s as though Mary is saying, "Mary is good -- go thou and do likewise."  So here’s the point then: ethical sentences, regardless of whether they express propositions or not, do <i>definitely</i> have the function of expressing our attitudes and our recommendations.  It’s just that the non-cognitivist goes one step further than most of us, and says that that is <i>all</i> that ethical sentences.  <i>All</i> they do is express attitudes, or make recommendations.
< 
< Now, I don’t know what you’ll think of non-cognitivism.  I suspect many of you will find it strange, and I think that some number of you might actually like it quite a bit, because it allows you to hold onto a sort of sophisticated moral relativism.  And indeed you’ll find this view underlying some educational theories.  I mean that some theories about teaching kids ethics in the schools seem to assume that non-cognitivism is true; when we talk about "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," all we’re doing is expressing how we feel.  So you will find some modern educationists having schoolchildren "clarifying" their values by asking them how they <i>feel</i> about different situations.  You probably did this when you were in school; you probably know what I’m talking about, and so non-cognitivism probably seems familiar, and even obvious, to some of you.
< 
< I’m just going to make one criticism of non-cognitivism.  We could go on all day explaining objections to it, I think, but one objection is particularly powerful.  Before I explain it, remember how we criticized the definition of "meaningfulness" as "understandability."   The proposal was that a sentence is meaningful if it’s understandable.   Our criticism of that proposal was: that might be true, doesn’t give the <i>meaning</i> of the word "meaningful."  Why?  Because it doesn’t explain <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>meaningful</i> <i>sentences</i>, <i>that</i> <i>makes</i> <i>them</i> <i>meaningful</i>.  It certainly seems that there is something about <i>those</i> <i>sentences</i> that makes them meaningful -- and which, incidentally, makes us able to understand them.
< 
< Now we can make a similar sort of criticism of non-cognitivism.  Non-cognitivism claims that the meaning of ethical sentences consists <i>entirely</i> in how we feel about the person, or thing, or situation described; or what our recommendations are with regard to the item in question.  But this just raises a question: <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>item</i> <i>in</i> <i>question</i> that makes us feel the way we do, or that makes us recommend what we do?  Take the case of the good Mary again.  The question in this case is: What is it <i>about</i> <i>Mary</i> that <i>makes</i> us say that she is a good person -- that makes us express moral approval of her, and that makes us recommend to others that they emulate her?  Surely there’s <i>something</i> about her that makes us say she’s good.  It’s not like she is just some nonentity with no properties at all, and we just arbitrarily say of a nonentity that we approve of it!  No, Mary is a complex human being about which (in our example) we know a lot.  And the question is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>it</i> <i>about</i> <i>her</i>, out of all the things we know (or believe) about her, that makes us say that she’s good?
< 
< It’s not like the answer to that question is any big puzzle or anything.  It’s rather obvious to anyone who knows Mary: she has a number of habits, like telling the truth, taking care of her responsibilities, treating others kindly and fairly, and so forth.  And it’s seeing all of those habits together which make us say that she’s a good person.
< 
< Now I wonder if you can see what’s coming next in this criticism of non-cognitivism.  Just think about it.  If it’s Mary’s habits that make us say that she’s a good person, well then, why don’t we just say that we <i>can</i> translate the ethical sentence, "Mary is a good person," into a sentence about Mary’s habits?  Why not say that "Mary is a good person" means "Mary tells the truth, takes care of her responsibilities faithfully, treats others kindly, and so forth"?  Notice, the latter sentence doesn’t contain any ethical terms.  It just describes her habits.  So the point is that if it’s Mary’s habits that make us call her good, then we can just say that her goodness consists in her having all those habits.  By "Mary’s goodness" we just mean "Mary’s habits X, Y, and Z."  And if Mary has habits like that then she’s good; and if she doesn’t, or if she has other habits like the unfortunate tendency to kill people and eat their livers with fava beans, then she’s bad.
< 
< So to generalize now, we can criticize non-cognitivism by saying that it seems to ignore the perfectly legitimate possibility, that we can reduce ethical sentences to sentences <i>about</i> <i>whatever</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>items</i> <i>that</i> <i>make</i> <i>us</i> <i>state</i> <i>those</i> <i>ethical</i> <i>sentences</i>.  We can reduce a claim about the wrongness of stealing, or about the goodness of banana splits, to claims about what it is <i>about</i> <i>stealing</i> <i>or</i> <i>banana</i> <i>splits</i> that makes us state the ethical sentences in question.
< 
< Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.
---
> So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
------
MetaEthics|981489332
2,3c2,4
< * EthicalNaturalism
< * EthicalNonNaturalism
---
> * /Naturalism
> * /NonNaturalism
> * /NonCognitivism
------
MetaEthics/NonCognitivism|981489344
1c1,27
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We have spent a long time discussing non-naturalism, and it’s time now to look at the third meta-ethical theory, called "non-cognitivism."  We won’t spend as long on this.  Remember that cognitivism is just the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Well then you know what non-cognitivism is:
> 
> <i>Non</i>-<i>cognitivism</i> is the view that ethical sentences <i>do</i> <i>not</i> express propositions; instead they express something <i>else</i>, such as emotions or recommendations.
> 
> So the idea is that when we say that something is "good," or "right," or "moral," then we aren’t actually making a statement that can be true or false; <i>all</i> that we’re doing is expressing a certain kind of emotion we feel, or trying to evoke or cause a certain kind of emotion in others, or we’re implicitly <i>commanding</i> or <i>recommending</i> that people behave in certain ways.  Different kinds of non-cognitivism differ in <i>what</i> ethical sentences are said to do.  <i>Emotivists</i>, for example, say that ethical sentences express and evoke certain kinds of emotion.  <i>Prescriptivists</i>, on the other hand, say that ethical sentences are implicit commands or recommendations.  You aren’t going to need to know the differences between these views really; the point is that it’s not as though ethical sentences are totally meaningless.  It’s just that they don’t have <i>cognitive</i> meaning -- which is to say that they don’t express propositions.  Their meaning is a little like the meaning of outbursts like "Hurray for kindness!" and "Murder -- boo, hiss!"
> 
> Another way to think of non-cognitive meaning is like this.  Suppose I say, "If you steal money from your employer, you’re doing something wrong."  Then the idea is I could simply say, in a tone of shock or revulsion, "Stealing money from your employer!!" and <i>that</i> outburst would have about the same meaning as saying that stealing money is wrong.  Saying that an action is wrong just expresses how you feel about the action.
> 
> Non-cognitivism was fairly widely advocated in the middle of this century.  It isn’t as popular as it once was, but it still has quite a few proponents.  So you might wonder why anyone would advocate this theory.  <i>I</i> certainly am puzzled as to why so many philosophers have advocated it.
> 
> I can think of two reasons, anyway.  The first is basically the first "argument," or as we were calling it the "line of thought," behind non-naturalism.  Again, the basic idea there was that we can’t perceive or bump into goodness or rightness.  Now, Moore concluded from that, that "good" must be indefinable, standing for basic property; perhaps we know it by a faculty of moral intuition.  But the non-cognitivists draw a different conclusion.  They say that goodness and rightness aren’t anything in the world at all.  They aren’t really properties of anything.  When we use words like "good" and "right," all we’re doing is expressing our emotions, or issuing commands.  We aren’t describing any sort of mysterious properties in the world.  So what I’m saying is that non-cognitivism gets its motivation from the view that goodness and rightness, if they were something in the world, would appear to be rather mysterious or strange properties; and so non-cognitivism concludes that they really <i>aren’t</i> in the world at all.
> 
> The second reason or motivation behind non-cognitivism is a perfectly legitimate observation.  Namely, the observation that when we use moral sentences -- when we morally praise or blame people and their actions -- we are, in any case, doing <i>more</i> than <i>merely</i> making factual statements.  Even if we <i>are</i> making statements about moral facts, we are <i>also</i> expressing our attitudes, or trying to shape other peoples’ attitudes.  Just look at an example and you’ll see this right away.  An example like, "Mary is a good person."  You can imagine Mary’s friend saying this, and if we all know Mary, then we’ll know why Mary’s friend says it: for example, Mary never lies, she is a very responsible person, she is always nice, and so forth.  Saying that she’s a good person expresses approval of those good habits that we know Mary practices.  It’s as though Mary is saying, "Mary is good -- go thou and do likewise."  So here’s the point then: ethical sentences, regardless of whether they express propositions or not, do <i>definitely</i> have the function of expressing our attitudes and our recommendations.  It’s just that the non-cognitivist goes one step further than most of us, and says that that is <i>all</i> that ethical sentences.  <i>All</i> they do is express attitudes, or make recommendations.
> 
> Now, I don’t know what you’ll think of non-cognitivism.  I suspect many of you will find it strange, and I think that some number of you might actually like it quite a bit, because it allows you to hold onto a sort of sophisticated moral relativism.  And indeed you’ll find this view underlying some educational theories.  I mean that some theories about teaching kids ethics in the schools seem to assume that non-cognitivism is true; when we talk about "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," all we’re doing is expressing how we feel.  So you will find some modern educationists having schoolchildren "clarifying" their values by asking them how they <i>feel</i> about different situations.  You probably did this when you were in school; you probably know what I’m talking about, and so non-cognitivism probably seems familiar, and even obvious, to some of you.
> 
> I’m just going to make one criticism of non-cognitivism.  We could go on all day explaining objections to it, I think, but one objection is particularly powerful.  Before I explain it, remember how we criticized the definition of "meaningfulness" as "understandability."   The proposal was that a sentence is meaningful if it’s understandable.   Our criticism of that proposal was: that might be true, doesn’t give the <i>meaning</i> of the word "meaningful."  Why?  Because it doesn’t explain <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>meaningful</i> <i>sentences</i>, <i>that</i> <i>makes</i> <i>them</i> <i>meaningful</i>.  It certainly seems that there is something about <i>those</i> <i>sentences</i> that makes them meaningful -- and which, incidentally, makes us able to understand them.
> 
> Now we can make a similar sort of criticism of non-cognitivism.  Non-cognitivism claims that the meaning of ethical sentences consists <i>entirely</i> in how we feel about the person, or thing, or situation described; or what our recommendations are with regard to the item in question.  But this just raises a question: <i>what</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>item</i> <i>in</i> <i>question</i> that makes us feel the way we do, or that makes us recommend what we do?  Take the case of the good Mary again.  The question in this case is: What is it <i>about</i> <i>Mary</i> that <i>makes</i> us say that she is a good person -- that makes us express moral approval of her, and that makes us recommend to others that they emulate her?  Surely there’s <i>something</i> about her that makes us say she’s good.  It’s not like she is just some nonentity with no properties at all, and we just arbitrarily say of a nonentity that we approve of it!  No, Mary is a complex human being about which (in our example) we know a lot.  And the question is: <i>What</i> <i>is</i> <i>it</i> <i>about</i> <i>her</i>, out of all the things we know (or believe) about her, that makes us say that she’s good?
> 
> It’s not like the answer to that question is any big puzzle or anything.  It’s rather obvious to anyone who knows Mary: she has a number of habits, like telling the truth, taking care of her responsibilities, treating others kindly and fairly, and so forth.  And it’s seeing all of those habits together which make us say that she’s a good person.
> 
> Now I wonder if you can see what’s coming next in this criticism of non-cognitivism.  Just think about it.  If it’s Mary’s habits that make us say that she’s a good person, well then, why don’t we just say that we <i>can</i> translate the ethical sentence, "Mary is a good person," into a sentence about Mary’s habits?  Why not say that "Mary is a good person" means "Mary tells the truth, takes care of her responsibilities faithfully, treats others kindly, and so forth"?  Notice, the latter sentence doesn’t contain any ethical terms.  It just describes her habits.  So the point is that if it’s Mary’s habits that make us call her good, then we can just say that her goodness consists in her having all those habits.  By "Mary’s goodness" we just mean "Mary’s habits X, Y, and Z."  And if Mary has habits like that then she’s good; and if she doesn’t, or if she has other habits like the unfortunate tendency to kill people and eat their livers with fava beans, then she’s bad.
> 
> So to generalize now, we can criticize non-cognitivism by saying that it seems to ignore the perfectly legitimate possibility, that we can reduce ethical sentences to sentences <i>about</i> <i>whatever</i> <i>it</i> <i>is</i> <i>about</i> <i>the</i> <i>items</i> <i>that</i> <i>make</i> <i>us</i> <i>state</i> <i>those</i> <i>ethical</i> <i>sentences</i>.  We can reduce a claim about the wrongness of stealing, or about the goodness of banana splits, to claims about what it is <i>about</i> <i>stealing</i> <i>or</i> <i>banana</i> <i>splits</i> that makes us state the ethical sentences in question.
> 
> Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.
------
EthicalNaturalism|981489378
1,41c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
< 
< Now here is how I described meta-ethics just a little while ago: <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  That way of putting it is a little misleading, so let me clarify.  Here’s an ethical sentence: "Pleasure is good."  If I tell you, "Meta-ethics studies what sort of meaning ethical sentences have," then you might think to yourself, "I guess he means that meta-ethics studies what I mean by ‘good’ when I say that pleasure is good."
< 
< Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
< 
< The emphasis is on the words <i>what</i> <i>sort</i>.  In other words: meta-ethics asks which of <i>various</i> <i>kinds</i> <i>of</i> <i>meanings</i> ethical sentences might have.  But now your natural question is going to be: "What do you mean ‘various kinds of meaning’ of ethical sentences?  What ‘kinds of meaning’ do you have in mind?  What are my choices?"
< 
< Well, let me explain your choices, using our sentence about Mary as an example.  After presenting all three, I’ll explain each choice in more depth.
< 
< (1) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" can be explained using another sentence that does not use the word "good."  For example: "Mary, on the whole, has made people in the world happier than they would have been without her."  Or: "Mary has a number of habits like telling the truth, discharging her responsibilities regularly, being nice to people, and so on."
< 
< (2) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because, although the sentence does express a proposition, the word "good" is <i>primitive</i>, which means that its meaning cannot be stated in other words at all.
< 
< (3) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because this sentence merely <i>expresses</i> <i>or</i> <i>evokes</i> <i>a</i> <i>certain</i> <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>emotional</i> <i>reaction</i>, or involves a certain kind of <i>command</i> or recommendation.  It’s as though we were saying "Yay for Mary!"  Or: "Look at Mary!  Be like her!"  But in any case, this third option <i>denies</i> that "Mary is a good person" expresses a <i>proposition</i>.  All it does is express an attitude or a feeling.
< 
< Now remember, what I’m trying to do is to explain to you what meta-ethics is.  I said it is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have; but now we can say something much more specific, because now we have some rough idea of three <i>options</i> that we’re talking about when we talk about "sorts of meaning."  Here’s how we could put the central question of meta-ethics; it’s a three-part question.  "(1) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?  (2) Do ethical sentences express propositions?  (3) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be explained <i>entirely</i> in terms of the emotions they express, or are meant to cause in other people, or in some other way that doesn’t involve expressing a proposition?"  The different meta-ethical theories differ just in how they answer each of these questions.
< 
< I’ll admit that this is rather complicated, so I don’t expect you to understand it fully yet.  Let’s go over the different main meta-ethical theories.  I think once we’ve gone over the different theories, you’ll have a better idea of of what these three questions mean.  So let’s dive right into the first main meta-ethical theory.
< 
< The first theory we’ll consider is called <i>naturalism</i>, sometimes also called <i>definism</i>, because it holds that ethical terms can be defined; the meaning of ethical sentences can be given in totally non-ethical terms.  So to question (1), "Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?" the naturalist answers, "Definitely."  Why?  Because ultimately, goodness and right are natural properties; they are ultimately properties of things that can be located in the natural world.  So then here’s a definition of "naturalism":
< 
< <i>Naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they can be reduced to nonethical sentences.
< 
< Notice that this definition has two parts, the part that comes before the "and" and the part that comes after the "and."  Let’s take a closer look at each part.
< 
< First, there’s the notion that ethical sentences <i>express</i> <i>propositions</i>.  Well, what exactly does that mean?  I’ve already told you what propositions are; they are, roughly, what meaningful sentences are supposed to be <i>about</i>.  So if an ethical sentence does express a proposition, then there is indeed something that the sentence is <i>about</i>.  It’s not like the claim, "Mary is a good person," is about <i>nothing</i>.  It’s about Mary, and it’s identifying her goodness.
< 
< To get a better idea of what it means to express a proposition, compare this to something that <i>doesn’t</i> express a proposition.  Say I’m minding a convenience store, and I see a thief pick up a candy bar and run.  I just manage to exclaim, "Hey!"  When I say, "Hey!" I’m not expressing a proposition.  I’m <i>not</i> saying, "That’s a thief there"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief is getting away"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief really annoys me."  I’m not saying anything at all, really.  And that’s the point: it’s not a <i>proposition</i> that I’m expressing.  Rather, it’s an <i>emotional</i> <i>state</i> that I’m expressing.  I am surprised and angered and I express my surprise and anger to the thief by saying "Hey!"
< 
< So what the first part of the definition of "naturalism" says is that ethical sentences <i>do</i> express propositions.  They aren’t just emotional outbursts, as though I were saying, "Hey!" or "Yay for Mary!"  They are actually expressing propositions that can be true or false.  And derivatively, you can say that ethical sentences themselves are either true or false.
< 
< That’s another important way to explain what it means for ethical sentences to express propositions; if they express propositions, they’re either true or false.  So if you’re a naturalist then you think ethical sentences are either true or false.  So for example, it can be true or false that Mary is a good person.  It can be true or false that stealing and lying are always wrong.  On the other hand, if you think the sentence, "Mary is a good person" can’t be either true or false -- if you say that, then you’re not a naturalist.  To be a naturalist, you have to think that ethical sentences are either true or false.
< 
< And notice, if I say that ethical sentences merely express emotions, as though they they were just exclamations like "Hey!" and "Yay for Mary!" then I don’t think ethical sentences are true or false.  Consider this: "It’s true that ‘Hey!’"  Or this: "It’s false that ‘Yay for Mary!’"  Well that doesn’t make any sense.  Mere expressions of emotion, mere outbursts, aren’t true or false.  They can be appropriate or inappropriate.  If Mary happens to be an ax murderess, then it’s totally inappropriate for me to say, "Yay for Mary!"  But it’s not <i>false</i> to say that, because mere emotional expressions aren’t true or false: only sentences that express propositions can be true or false.
< 
< OK, this has been all by way of getting you to understand the <i>first</i> part of the definition of "naturalism," and that part reads, "the view that ethical sentences express propositions."  Let’s give that view a name: call it <i>cognitivism</i>.  So cognitivism will be the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Having explained this view, it’s going to make it easier later on to understand so-called noncognitivism, because noncognitivism specifically denies this view.
< 
< But now what about the second part of the definition of "naturalism"?  The second part says that ethical sentences "can be reduced to nonethical sentences."  Now you’re going to have to remember this notion of reduction from our discussion of the mind-body problem.  I told you that philosophy is interconnected and interdependent -- well, it really is!  Anyway, so what does it mean to say that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences?  It just means that you can state the meaning of ethical sentences in other words, in sentences that don’t include any ethical terms like "good" and "right."  All this talk of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and so forth -- that’s all just <i>shorthand</i> for some complex propositions about what human beings need, or desire, or what gives them pleasure, or what secures their long-term happiness, and so forth.  So this notion that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences really amounts to saying that ethical sentences are a kind of shorthand, a kind of very useful abbreviation, for claims about nonethical facts about human needs, desires, and so forth.
< 
< Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
---
> 
------
MetaEthics/Naturalism|981489390
1c1,41
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
> 
> Now here is how I described meta-ethics just a little while ago: <i>meta</i>-<i>ethics</i> is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have.  That way of putting it is a little misleading, so let me clarify.  Here’s an ethical sentence: "Pleasure is good."  If I tell you, "Meta-ethics studies what sort of meaning ethical sentences have," then you might think to yourself, "I guess he means that meta-ethics studies what I mean by ‘good’ when I say that pleasure is good."
> 
> Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
> 
> The emphasis is on the words <i>what</i> <i>sort</i>.  In other words: meta-ethics asks which of <i>various</i> <i>kinds</i> <i>of</i> <i>meanings</i> ethical sentences might have.  But now your natural question is going to be: "What do you mean ‘various kinds of meaning’ of ethical sentences?  What ‘kinds of meaning’ do you have in mind?  What are my choices?"
> 
> Well, let me explain your choices, using our sentence about Mary as an example.  After presenting all three, I’ll explain each choice in more depth.
> 
> (1) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" can be explained using another sentence that does not use the word "good."  For example: "Mary, on the whole, has made people in the world happier than they would have been without her."  Or: "Mary has a number of habits like telling the truth, discharging her responsibilities regularly, being nice to people, and so on."
> 
> (2) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because, although the sentence does express a proposition, the word "good" is <i>primitive</i>, which means that its meaning cannot be stated in other words at all.
> 
> (3) The meaning of "Mary is a good person" <i>cannot</i> be explained using another sentence, because this sentence merely <i>expresses</i> <i>or</i> <i>evokes</i> <i>a</i> <i>certain</i> <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>emotional</i> <i>reaction</i>, or involves a certain kind of <i>command</i> or recommendation.  It’s as though we were saying "Yay for Mary!"  Or: "Look at Mary!  Be like her!"  But in any case, this third option <i>denies</i> that "Mary is a good person" expresses a <i>proposition</i>.  All it does is express an attitude or a feeling.
> 
> Now remember, what I’m trying to do is to explain to you what meta-ethics is.  I said it is the study of <i>what</i> <i>sort</i> <i>of</i> <i>meaning</i> ethical sentences have; but now we can say something much more specific, because now we have some rough idea of three <i>options</i> that we’re talking about when we talk about "sorts of meaning."  Here’s how we could put the central question of meta-ethics; it’s a three-part question.  "(1) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?  (2) Do ethical sentences express propositions?  (3) Can the meaning of ethical sentences be explained <i>entirely</i> in terms of the emotions they express, or are meant to cause in other people, or in some other way that doesn’t involve expressing a proposition?"  The different meta-ethical theories differ just in how they answer each of these questions.
> 
> I’ll admit that this is rather complicated, so I don’t expect you to understand it fully yet.  Let’s go over the different main meta-ethical theories.  I think once we’ve gone over the different theories, you’ll have a better idea of of what these three questions mean.  So let’s dive right into the first main meta-ethical theory.
> 
> The first theory we’ll consider is called <i>naturalism</i>, sometimes also called <i>definism</i>, because it holds that ethical terms can be defined; the meaning of ethical sentences can be given in totally non-ethical terms.  So to question (1), "Can the meaning of ethical sentences be restated in other words that do not use normative concepts like ‘good’ and ‘right’?" the naturalist answers, "Definitely."  Why?  Because ultimately, goodness and right are natural properties; they are ultimately properties of things that can be located in the natural world.  So then here’s a definition of "naturalism":
> 
> <i>Naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they can be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> Notice that this definition has two parts, the part that comes before the "and" and the part that comes after the "and."  Let’s take a closer look at each part.
> 
> First, there’s the notion that ethical sentences <i>express</i> <i>propositions</i>.  Well, what exactly does that mean?  I’ve already told you what propositions are; they are, roughly, what meaningful sentences are supposed to be <i>about</i>.  So if an ethical sentence does express a proposition, then there is indeed something that the sentence is <i>about</i>.  It’s not like the claim, "Mary is a good person," is about <i>nothing</i>.  It’s about Mary, and it’s identifying her goodness.
> 
> To get a better idea of what it means to express a proposition, compare this to something that <i>doesn’t</i> express a proposition.  Say I’m minding a convenience store, and I see a thief pick up a candy bar and run.  I just manage to exclaim, "Hey!"  When I say, "Hey!" I’m not expressing a proposition.  I’m <i>not</i> saying, "That’s a thief there"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief is getting away"; I’m <i>not</i> saying, "that thief really annoys me."  I’m not saying anything at all, really.  And that’s the point: it’s not a <i>proposition</i> that I’m expressing.  Rather, it’s an <i>emotional</i> <i>state</i> that I’m expressing.  I am surprised and angered and I express my surprise and anger to the thief by saying "Hey!"
> 
> So what the first part of the definition of "naturalism" says is that ethical sentences <i>do</i> express propositions.  They aren’t just emotional outbursts, as though I were saying, "Hey!" or "Yay for Mary!"  They are actually expressing propositions that can be true or false.  And derivatively, you can say that ethical sentences themselves are either true or false.
> 
> That’s another important way to explain what it means for ethical sentences to express propositions; if they express propositions, they’re either true or false.  So if you’re a naturalist then you think ethical sentences are either true or false.  So for example, it can be true or false that Mary is a good person.  It can be true or false that stealing and lying are always wrong.  On the other hand, if you think the sentence, "Mary is a good person" can’t be either true or false -- if you say that, then you’re not a naturalist.  To be a naturalist, you have to think that ethical sentences are either true or false.
> 
> And notice, if I say that ethical sentences merely express emotions, as though they they were just exclamations like "Hey!" and "Yay for Mary!" then I don’t think ethical sentences are true or false.  Consider this: "It’s true that ‘Hey!’"  Or this: "It’s false that ‘Yay for Mary!’"  Well that doesn’t make any sense.  Mere expressions of emotion, mere outbursts, aren’t true or false.  They can be appropriate or inappropriate.  If Mary happens to be an ax murderess, then it’s totally inappropriate for me to say, "Yay for Mary!"  But it’s not <i>false</i> to say that, because mere emotional expressions aren’t true or false: only sentences that express propositions can be true or false.
> 
> OK, this has been all by way of getting you to understand the <i>first</i> part of the definition of "naturalism," and that part reads, "the view that ethical sentences express propositions."  Let’s give that view a name: call it <i>cognitivism</i>.  So cognitivism will be the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  Having explained this view, it’s going to make it easier later on to understand so-called noncognitivism, because noncognitivism specifically denies this view.
> 
> But now what about the second part of the definition of "naturalism"?  The second part says that ethical sentences "can be reduced to nonethical sentences."  Now you’re going to have to remember this notion of reduction from our discussion of the mind-body problem.  I told you that philosophy is interconnected and interdependent -- well, it really is!  Anyway, so what does it mean to say that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences?  It just means that you can state the meaning of ethical sentences in other words, in sentences that don’t include any ethical terms like "good" and "right."  All this talk of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and so forth -- that’s all just <i>shorthand</i> for some complex propositions about what human beings need, or desire, or what gives them pleasure, or what secures their long-term happiness, and so forth.  So this notion that ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences really amounts to saying that ethical sentences are a kind of shorthand, a kind of very useful abbreviation, for claims about nonethical facts about human needs, desires, and so forth.
> 
> Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
------
EthicalNonNaturalism|981489422
1,55c1
< <i>Non</i>-<i>naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they <i>cannot</i> be reduced to nonethical sentences.
< 
< So the way that we’re defining these views, naturalism and non-naturalism are both kinds of <i>cognitivism</i> -- that is, both of them share the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  What they disagree about is whether ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences.  Non-naturalism says they <i>can’t</i>.  As that British philosopher of common sense, G. E. Moore, said, goodness is a <i>simple</i>, <i>undefinable</i>, <i>non</i>-<i>natural</i> property.
< 
< To call it "non-natural" doesn’t mean that goodness is somehow supernatural or ghostly or divine or anything like that.  All that it means to say that goodness is non-natural is to say that it can’t be reduced to natural properties like human needs, wants, pleasures, and so forth.
< 
< Or to say the same thing, goodness can’t be <i>defined</i> in terms of anything else.  So Moore thought that goodness is <i>indefinable</i>.  Now, does that mean that he thought that talk of goodness of nonsense?  Definitely not: talk of goodness is quite meaningful.  It’s just that you can’t formulate what this meaning is in a definition.  You can’t say, for example, "goodness" means "pleasure."  Moore said you couldn’t give any definition like that at all.
< 
< Still, you might wonder, how is it possible that a word could be <i>meaningful</i>, and yet <i>indefinable</i>?  Well, let me give you an example of <i>another</i> word that is definitely meaningful, but you couldn’t give any plausible definition of it: "thing."  I mean "thing" in its <i>broadest</i> sense.  How could you define this?  Something is a thing if, and only if, ... what?  How could you finish this definition?  Or how about the word "whole" as in "whole and part."  Something is a whole if, and only if, it ... what, has parts?  OK, but then define "part" for me, and do that without referring to wholes.  You can define wholes in terms of parts, or parts in terms of wholes, but as far as I can tell, you have to take either "whole" or "part," <i>one</i> of those words, as primitive, undefinable, or basic.  Here’s another example: the word "and" and "not."  These are extremely important words in logic; but all logicians admit that you have to start out with <i>some</i> basic, undefined concepts in logic, and in fact "and" and "not" are often two of their choices for undefined terms.  Then they proceed to define <i>other</i> terms in logic using "and" and "not."  And I’ll bet you can think of all sorts of examples of primitive, undefinable terms from mathematics and geometry -- such as "point," as in "point on a line."  Anyway, you get the idea.
< 
< So Moore’s claim, which is the central claim of the non-naturalist, is that "good" is indefinable.  And if that’s the case, then the meaning of sentences containing word "good" can’t be explained entirely in terms of sentences <i>not</i> containing the word "good."  You can’t substitute talk of pleasure, or needs, or anything like that for talk of good.  Once you are talking about goodness (or badness, for that matter), you’re talking about a subject that is just as fundamental as talk of things, of wholes and parts, of "and" and "not," and of points on lines.  Just as those things are simple and indefinable, so goodness is simple and indefinable.  So said Moore.  That’s the basic contention of non-naturalism.
< 
< OK, so why think that non-naturalism is true?  Why think that "good" can’t be defined?  Are there any arguments for that claim?  There are some, or two anyway, that we can look at.
< 
< The first argument for non-naturalism is really very simple.  In fact, maybe we shouldn’t call it an argument; it’s better to look at it as simply a way of putting certain facts into perspective; call it a "line of thought."  Consider, on the one hand, properties like hardness, roundness, dampness, and so forth.  These are all natural properties; we encounter them in the real world and we can perceive them.  Consider, on the other hand, properties like <i>being</i> <i>good</i> and <i>being</i> <i>right</i>.  We say that a great novel like <i>Moby</i> <i>Dick</i> is a good thing; so goodness is a property of that novel.  And we say that paying back debts, and telling the truth, are generally the right things to do; so rightness is a property of certain human actions, like paying off your debts, and truth-telling.
< 
< But isn’t it straightforwardly obvious that these are two <i>really</i> <i>quite</i> <i>different</i> kinds of properties?  Those natural properties, like hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world.  On the other hand, goodness and rightness -- well, <i>where</i> are they?  Can you <i>see</i> the goodness of a novel?  Can you <i>touch</i> rightness?  Can you use scientific instruments to <i>measure</i> morality?  Of course not.  So it seems simply <i>obvious</i> -- or so goes this line of thinking, which we won’t dignify with the name "argument" -- that goodness and rightness aren’t natural properties.  And if that’s the case, they can’t be defined in terms of any natural properties; if they could be, then they would be, ultimately, natural properties themselves.  Moore actually went so far as to say that it’s a <i>fallacy</i> to think that goodness is a natural property: he called this <i>the</i> <i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>.  But really all that amounts to is calling naturalism a fallacy -- which doesn’t prove anything.  I could just as easily say that non-naturalism is a fallacy, and say that Moore committed the <i>non</i>-<i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>!
< 
< Anyway, I think a lot of people find this line of thinking fairly plausible.  There <i>does</i> seem to be something inherently fallacious about thinking of goodness as a natural property.
< 
< But this raises a rather difficult question.  See if you can think of any answer to it yourself.  Suppose for a moment that Moore is right, and that goodness is an indefinable, non-natural property; you can’t bump into it, or see it, but you do know when novels, and foods, and states of mind, are good.  But if goodness isn’t a natural property, then <i>how</i> do you know this?  You should be able to tell me what sort of question that is -- a question that asks, "How do you know that something is good?"  It’s an <i>epistemological</i> question.  But in particular we’re talking about knowledge of <i>moral</i> facts.  There’s a branch of epistemology, or of ethics, or both, called <i>moral</i> <i>epistemology</i> which studies how we know moral facts, and how moral beliefs are justified.
< 
< If Moore says that goodness is a non-natural property, then how does he know that anything is good?  It’s evidently not by any ordinary, <i>natural</i> process.  Think about that.  If you could know that cake is good by some <i>natural</i> process (say, just by eating it and having a pleasant taste sensation), then you could identify the goodness of the cake as some natural property that that natural process detected.  For example, the cake gives you pleasure; that’s how you know it’s good; so you can say that the cake’s goodness is just the same as, and is reducible to, the fact that it can give you pleasure.  That’s the idea.  That’s how you’d know that the cake is good, <i>if</i> you thought that goodness might be a natural property.  But if you’re Moore, and you think that goodness <i>isn’t</i> a natural property, then <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>anything</i> <i>is</i> <i>good</i>?  How do you distinguish the good things from the bad?
< 
< One answer that has been fairly common among British philosophers, although not so much anymore, is to say that we have a special faculty, a faculty of <i>moral</i> <i>intuition</i>.  And this faculty tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.  The view that there is such a faculty is called <i>moral</i> <i>intuitionism</i>.  So we taste the cake and this faculty kicks into gear and tells us that it is good.  That’s not such a great example, though, because even the non-naturalist might want to allow that, when we say that cake is good, we just mean that we like it.  But what about a good person, or a right action?  If we see a good person, or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, <i>then</i>, the moral intuitionists say, we can simply <i>intuit</i> that the person is good, or that the action is right.
< 
< Now, don’t ask me what "moral intuition" means.  All I know is that it is supposed to be a mental process that is different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgements are its outputs.  So when you judge something to be good, or some action to be right, then you’re using your faculty of moral intuition.  And that faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties.  Perhaps the best ordinary notion we have, that approximates the notion of a faculty of moral intuition, would be <i>conscience</i>.  If I get a pang of conscience after I do something I know is wrong, my faculty of moral intuition has kicked in and is being directed at <i>me</i>.
< 
< We could go on and talk about moral intuitionism for a long time, because there are, believe it or not, lots of different varieties to the theory.  But we can’t afford the time.  I will just say this about it -- that we should see whether or not we can explain how we might come to know moral facts <i>without</i> talking about some mysterious faculty of moral intuition.
< 
< So let’s look at the second argument for non-naturalism.  This is called the <i>open</i> <i>question</i> <i>argument</i>, and was introduced and made famous by Moore.  This argument is actually one of the things that Moore is quite famous for.  Which is unfortunate, because later on in his life, some years after he published the argument, he said that it was no good!
< 
< Even if the argument is no good, it’s instructive to look at it.  If you take a class in ethical theory, you’ll probably study it again in more depth.  But actually, the argument is pretty simple.  It goes like this.
< 
< Suppose I want to give a definition of "good."  So I say that "good" means "pleasure-causing."  In other words, according to my definition, if something is good, that means it causes pleasure; and if it causes pleasure, then it is, by definition, good.  But Moore complained that we could always ask, "But are pleasure-causing things good?"  And the point is that that would always be an <i>open</i> <i>question</i>.  This means that it’s not just a foregone conclusion that, indeed, pleasure causing things <i>are</i> good.  It’s an open question, a perfectly legitimate question that someone who understands the English very well might ask: Is everything that causes pleasure good?
< 
< Moore then went on to say that you could criticize <i>any</i> definition of goodness like that.  To take another example: I could say that "good" means "desirable."  So anything that’s desirable is good, and whatever is good is desirable.  Moore says that we can ask a question here -- what would his question be?  Well, it would be this: "Is everything that is desirable good?"  And Moore would observe that this is an open question.  The answer isn’t <i>obvious</i> to someone who understands the English language.
< 
< So here’s the formula that you can use to generate Moore’s question.  If someone says "good" means X, then you reply by asking: But is X actually good?  And then you observe that this is an open question.  The answer is never <i>obviously</i> "Yes."  And yet we’re all competent speakers of the English language; we all know what "good" means.  So if we <i>did</i> come across the correct definition of "good," then, the implication is, we’d be able to recognize it.  But we can <i>never</i> just automatically recognize any definition of "good" as the definition of "good."  If I tell you that "good" means X, it’s <i>always</i> an open question, as far as ordinary speakers of the language are concerned, whether X is good.  And therefore, Moore concluded, the word "good" can’t be defined.  It’s indefinable.  If it were definable, then a question of the definition in the form of "Is X good" would not be an <i>open</i> question.  But questions of that form are <i>always</i> open questions.  So "good" cannot be defined.
< 
< That’s the open question argument.  Now, you might find at least one part of it puzzling -- a part where you might have wanted to stop me and say, "How’s that again?  Why does Moore say that?"  I mean the following step, from (1) to (2):
< 
< (1) Moore’s question, "Is X good?" is always an open question to any English speaker; that is, no English speaker would be able to recognize "good" means X as <i>obviously</i> the correct definition.
< 
< (2) "Good" cannot be defined.
< 
< What I want to know is: How is (2) supposed to follow from (1)?  Can’t we admit that (1) is correct, and at the same time claim that (2) is false?  I mean, why <i>couldn’t</i> we?  Consider what that would amount to.  It’s the following conjunction of claims: no one can recognize that any definition of "good" is correct, but "good" is still definable.  Honestly why can’t we say both things at the same time?
< 
< Look at it like this.  Moore seems to assume that "good" can be defined <i>only</i> <i>if</i> competent English speakers would recognize the correct definition when they saw it -- and in that case, the question, "Is X good?" would be answered, "Obviously yes, discussion closed."  That’s how Moore viewed it.  But I don’t think that’s correct.  It seems entirely possible to me that "good" might have a definition which ordinary English speakers <i>wouldn’t</i> recognize when they saw it at first.  You’d have to <i>argue</i> that the definition was correct.
< 
< Compare the situation to other attempts at definition in philosophy -- like the case with "knowledge."  We all have a pretty good idea of what the English word "knowledge" means.  But does that mean that if we see the correct definition of "knowledge," we’ll <i>immediately</i> recognize that it’s the correct definition?  Surely not.
< 
< So here’s the point: there are a lot of deep concepts that are studied in philosophy, like goodness and knowledge and consciousness and so on.  We all can recognize <i>instances</i> of these things.  We will all recognize perfectly well that motherhood is good, that we know that 2+2=4, and that we are all conscious right now.  But that doesn’t mean that we will immediately recognize the correct account of the meaning of "good," "know," and "conscious."
< 
< So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
---
> 
------
MetaEthics/NonNaturalism|981489438
1c1,57
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
> 
> <i>Non</i>-<i>naturalism</i> is the view that ethical sentences express propositions, and that they <i>cannot</i> be reduced to nonethical sentences.
> 
> So the way that we’re defining these views, naturalism and non-naturalism are both kinds of <i>cognitivism</i> -- that is, both of them share the view that ethical sentences express propositions.  What they disagree about is whether ethical sentences can be reduced to nonethical sentences.  Non-naturalism says they <i>can’t</i>.  As that British philosopher of common sense, G. E. Moore, said, goodness is a <i>simple</i>, <i>undefinable</i>, <i>non</i>-<i>natural</i> property.
> 
> To call it "non-natural" doesn’t mean that goodness is somehow supernatural or ghostly or divine or anything like that.  All that it means to say that goodness is non-natural is to say that it can’t be reduced to natural properties like human needs, wants, pleasures, and so forth.
> 
> Or to say the same thing, goodness can’t be <i>defined</i> in terms of anything else.  So Moore thought that goodness is <i>indefinable</i>.  Now, does that mean that he thought that talk of goodness of nonsense?  Definitely not: talk of goodness is quite meaningful.  It’s just that you can’t formulate what this meaning is in a definition.  You can’t say, for example, "goodness" means "pleasure."  Moore said you couldn’t give any definition like that at all.
> 
> Still, you might wonder, how is it possible that a word could be <i>meaningful</i>, and yet <i>indefinable</i>?  Well, let me give you an example of <i>another</i> word that is definitely meaningful, but you couldn’t give any plausible definition of it: "thing."  I mean "thing" in its <i>broadest</i> sense.  How could you define this?  Something is a thing if, and only if, ... what?  How could you finish this definition?  Or how about the word "whole" as in "whole and part."  Something is a whole if, and only if, it ... what, has parts?  OK, but then define "part" for me, and do that without referring to wholes.  You can define wholes in terms of parts, or parts in terms of wholes, but as far as I can tell, you have to take either "whole" or "part," <i>one</i> of those words, as primitive, undefinable, or basic.  Here’s another example: the word "and" and "not."  These are extremely important words in logic; but all logicians admit that you have to start out with <i>some</i> basic, undefined concepts in logic, and in fact "and" and "not" are often two of their choices for undefined terms.  Then they proceed to define <i>other</i> terms in logic using "and" and "not."  And I’ll bet you can think of all sorts of examples of primitive, undefinable terms from mathematics and geometry -- such as "point," as in "point on a line."  Anyway, you get the idea.
> 
> So Moore’s claim, which is the central claim of the non-naturalist, is that "good" is indefinable.  And if that’s the case, then the meaning of sentences containing word "good" can’t be explained entirely in terms of sentences <i>not</i> containing the word "good."  You can’t substitute talk of pleasure, or needs, or anything like that for talk of good.  Once you are talking about goodness (or badness, for that matter), you’re talking about a subject that is just as fundamental as talk of things, of wholes and parts, of "and" and "not," and of points on lines.  Just as those things are simple and indefinable, so goodness is simple and indefinable.  So said Moore.  That’s the basic contention of non-naturalism.
> 
> OK, so why think that non-naturalism is true?  Why think that "good" can’t be defined?  Are there any arguments for that claim?  There are some, or two anyway, that we can look at.
> 
> The first argument for non-naturalism is really very simple.  In fact, maybe we shouldn’t call it an argument; it’s better to look at it as simply a way of putting certain facts into perspective; call it a "line of thought."  Consider, on the one hand, properties like hardness, roundness, dampness, and so forth.  These are all natural properties; we encounter them in the real world and we can perceive them.  Consider, on the other hand, properties like <i>being</i> <i>good</i> and <i>being</i> <i>right</i>.  We say that a great novel like <i>Moby</i> <i>Dick</i> is a good thing; so goodness is a property of that novel.  And we say that paying back debts, and telling the truth, are generally the right things to do; so rightness is a property of certain human actions, like paying off your debts, and truth-telling.
> 
> But isn’t it straightforwardly obvious that these are two <i>really</i> <i>quite</i> <i>different</i> kinds of properties?  Those natural properties, like hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world.  On the other hand, goodness and rightness -- well, <i>where</i> are they?  Can you <i>see</i> the goodness of a novel?  Can you <i>touch</i> rightness?  Can you use scientific instruments to <i>measure</i> morality?  Of course not.  So it seems simply <i>obvious</i> -- or so goes this line of thinking, which we won’t dignify with the name "argument" -- that goodness and rightness aren’t natural properties.  And if that’s the case, they can’t be defined in terms of any natural properties; if they could be, then they would be, ultimately, natural properties themselves.  Moore actually went so far as to say that it’s a <i>fallacy</i> to think that goodness is a natural property: he called this <i>the</i> <i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>.  But really all that amounts to is calling naturalism a fallacy -- which doesn’t prove anything.  I could just as easily say that non-naturalism is a fallacy, and say that Moore committed the <i>non</i>-<i>naturalistic</i> <i>fallacy</i>!
> 
> Anyway, I think a lot of people find this line of thinking fairly plausible.  There <i>does</i> seem to be something inherently fallacious about thinking of goodness as a natural property.
> 
> But this raises a rather difficult question.  See if you can think of any answer to it yourself.  Suppose for a moment that Moore is right, and that goodness is an indefinable, non-natural property; you can’t bump into it, or see it, but you do know when novels, and foods, and states of mind, are good.  But if goodness isn’t a natural property, then <i>how</i> do you know this?  You should be able to tell me what sort of question that is -- a question that asks, "How do you know that something is good?"  It’s an <i>epistemological</i> question.  But in particular we’re talking about knowledge of <i>moral</i> facts.  There’s a branch of epistemology, or of ethics, or both, called <i>moral</i> <i>epistemology</i> which studies how we know moral facts, and how moral beliefs are justified.
> 
> If Moore says that goodness is a non-natural property, then how does he know that anything is good?  It’s evidently not by any ordinary, <i>natural</i> process.  Think about that.  If you could know that cake is good by some <i>natural</i> process (say, just by eating it and having a pleasant taste sensation), then you could identify the goodness of the cake as some natural property that that natural process detected.  For example, the cake gives you pleasure; that’s how you know it’s good; so you can say that the cake’s goodness is just the same as, and is reducible to, the fact that it can give you pleasure.  That’s the idea.  That’s how you’d know that the cake is good, <i>if</i> you thought that goodness might be a natural property.  But if you’re Moore, and you think that goodness <i>isn’t</i> a natural property, then <i>how</i> <i>do</i> <i>you</i> <i>know</i> <i>that</i> <i>anything</i> <i>is</i> <i>good</i>?  How do you distinguish the good things from the bad?
> 
> One answer that has been fairly common among British philosophers, although not so much anymore, is to say that we have a special faculty, a faculty of <i>moral</i> <i>intuition</i>.  And this faculty tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.  The view that there is such a faculty is called <i>moral</i> <i>intuitionism</i>.  So we taste the cake and this faculty kicks into gear and tells us that it is good.  That’s not such a great example, though, because even the non-naturalist might want to allow that, when we say that cake is good, we just mean that we like it.  But what about a good person, or a right action?  If we see a good person, or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, <i>then</i>, the moral intuitionists say, we can simply <i>intuit</i> that the person is good, or that the action is right.
> 
> Now, don’t ask me what "moral intuition" means.  All I know is that it is supposed to be a mental process that is different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgements are its outputs.  So when you judge something to be good, or some action to be right, then you’re using your faculty of moral intuition.  And that faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties.  Perhaps the best ordinary notion we have, that approximates the notion of a faculty of moral intuition, would be <i>conscience</i>.  If I get a pang of conscience after I do something I know is wrong, my faculty of moral intuition has kicked in and is being directed at <i>me</i>.
> 
> We could go on and talk about moral intuitionism for a long time, because there are, believe it or not, lots of different varieties to the theory.  But we can’t afford the time.  I will just say this about it -- that we should see whether or not we can explain how we might come to know moral facts <i>without</i> talking about some mysterious faculty of moral intuition.
> 
> So let’s look at the second argument for non-naturalism.  This is called the <i>open</i> <i>question</i> <i>argument</i>, and was introduced and made famous by Moore.  This argument is actually one of the things that Moore is quite famous for.  Which is unfortunate, because later on in his life, some years after he published the argument, he said that it was no good!
> 
> Even if the argument is no good, it’s instructive to look at it.  If you take a class in ethical theory, you’ll probably study it again in more depth.  But actually, the argument is pretty simple.  It goes like this.
> 
> Suppose I want to give a definition of "good."  So I say that "good" means "pleasure-causing."  In other words, according to my definition, if something is good, that means it causes pleasure; and if it causes pleasure, then it is, by definition, good.  But Moore complained that we could always ask, "But are pleasure-causing things good?"  And the point is that that would always be an <i>open</i> <i>question</i>.  This means that it’s not just a foregone conclusion that, indeed, pleasure causing things <i>are</i> good.  It’s an open question, a perfectly legitimate question that someone who understands the English very well might ask: Is everything that causes pleasure good?
> 
> Moore then went on to say that you could criticize <i>any</i> definition of goodness like that.  To take another example: I could say that "good" means "desirable."  So anything that’s desirable is good, and whatever is good is desirable.  Moore says that we can ask a question here -- what would his question be?  Well, it would be this: "Is everything that is desirable good?"  And Moore would observe that this is an open question.  The answer isn’t <i>obvious</i> to someone who understands the English language.
> 
> So here’s the formula that you can use to generate Moore’s question.  If someone says "good" means X, then you reply by asking: But is X actually good?  And then you observe that this is an open question.  The answer is never <i>obviously</i> "Yes."  And yet we’re all competent speakers of the English language; we all know what "good" means.  So if we <i>did</i> come across the correct definition of "good," then, the implication is, we’d be able to recognize it.  But we can <i>never</i> just automatically recognize any definition of "good" as the definition of "good."  If I tell you that "good" means X, it’s <i>always</i> an open question, as far as ordinary speakers of the language are concerned, whether X is good.  And therefore, Moore concluded, the word "good" can’t be defined.  It’s indefinable.  If it were definable, then a question of the definition in the form of "Is X good" would not be an <i>open</i> question.  But questions of that form are <i>always</i> open questions.  So "good" cannot be defined.
> 
> That’s the open question argument.  Now, you might find at least one part of it puzzling -- a part where you might have wanted to stop me and say, "How’s that again?  Why does Moore say that?"  I mean the following step, from (1) to (2):
> 
> (1) Moore’s question, "Is X good?" is always an open question to any English speaker; that is, no English speaker would be able to recognize "good" means X as <i>obviously</i> the correct definition.
> 
> (2) "Good" cannot be defined.
> 
> What I want to know is: How is (2) supposed to follow from (1)?  Can’t we admit that (1) is correct, and at the same time claim that (2) is false?  I mean, why <i>couldn’t</i> we?  Consider what that would amount to.  It’s the following conjunction of claims: no one can recognize that any definition of "good" is correct, but "good" is still definable.  Honestly why can’t we say both things at the same time?
> 
> Look at it like this.  Moore seems to assume that "good" can be defined <i>only</i> <i>if</i> competent English speakers would recognize the correct definition when they saw it -- and in that case, the question, "Is X good?" would be answered, "Obviously yes, discussion closed."  That’s how Moore viewed it.  But I don’t think that’s correct.  It seems entirely possible to me that "good" might have a definition which ordinary English speakers <i>wouldn’t</i> recognize when they saw it at first.  You’d have to <i>argue</i> that the definition was correct.
> 
> Compare the situation to other attempts at definition in philosophy -- like the case with "knowledge."  We all have a pretty good idea of what the English word "knowledge" means.  But does that mean that if we see the correct definition of "knowledge," we’ll <i>immediately</i> recognize that it’s the correct definition?  Surely not.
> 
> So here’s the point: there are a lot of deep concepts that are studied in philosophy, like goodness and knowledge and consciousness and so on.  We all can recognize <i>instances</i> of these things.  We will all recognize perfectly well that motherhood is good, that we know that 2+2=4, and that we are all conscious right now.  But that doesn’t mean that we will immediately recognize the correct account of the meaning of "good," "know," and "conscious."
> 
> So back to the open question argument.  Moore says that for any definition of goodness, where we say "good" means X, you can always ask "Is X actually good?" and that will be an open question.  But my reply -- which is not just my reply but a fairly common reply to Moore -- is to say that that proves nothing.  <i>Even</i> <i>if</i> it’s an open question to ask, "Is X actually good?" it doesn’t follow <i>from</i> <i>that</i> that X is not the definition of "good."  It might be, for all we know.  We won’t necessarily recognize a truly enlightening theory of goodness when we see it.  That’s a perhaps unfortunate fact, but I think it’s true.
------
MetaEthics/NonCognitivism|981489512
0a1,2
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged> 
> 
27c29
< Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.
---
> Now as I said, there’s a lot more we could say about non-cognitivism.  For example, how do we distinguish <i>moral</i> feelings from <i>other</i> sorts of feelings.
------
LarrysText|981489559
21c21
< ::EthIcs -- MetaEthics -- TheoryOfValue -- TheoryOfConduct
---
> ::EthIcs -- MetaEthics/Naturalism MetaEthics/NonNaturalism MetaEthics/NonCognitivism  -- TheoryOfValue -- TheoryOfConduct
------
AaA|981490060
1,35c1
< AfghanistaN
<      
< AlbaniA 
<      
< AlgeriA
<      
< AmericanSamoa 
<      
< AndorrA
<      
< AngolA 
<      
< AnguillA 
<      
< AntarcticA 
<      
< AntiguaAndBarbuda 
<      
< ArcticOcean 
<      
< ArgentinA
<      
< ArmeniA 
<      
< ArubA
< 
< AshmoreAndCartierIslands 
<      
< AtlanticOcean 
<      
< AustraliA
<      
< AustriA 
<      
< AzerbaijaN
---
> The use of this page is now discouraged.
------
RecentChanges|981490219
1a2,3
> 
> Did you know that this is a wiki page?  Regular authors could leave notes for everyone here. --JimboWales
------
SportS|981490515
27c27
< * Tennis
---
> * TenniS
------
TenniS|981490550
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> FemaleTennisProfessionals
> MaleTennisProfessionals
------
FemaleTennisProfessionals|981490883
1c1,22
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Some of the best female tennis professionals.  This is the
> top 20 from the WTA, as of January 29, 2001.  It could perhaps be updated to the most recent ranking in the future, or else converted into a broader list of famous tennis pros.
> 
> #MartinaHingis
> #LindsayDavenport
> #VenusWilliams
> #MonicaSeles
> #SerenaWilliams
> #ConchitaMartinez
> #JenniferCapriati
> #MaryPierce
> #AnnaKournikova
> #AmandaCoetzer
> #NathalieTauziat
> #ElenaDementieva
> #ArantxaSanchez
> #ChandaRubin
> #SandrineTestud
> #KimClijsters
> #AnkeHuber
> #AmyFrazier
> #AmelieMauresmo
------
MaleTennisProfessionals|981491269
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Some of the best male tennis professionals. This is the top 20 from the ATP, as of February 5, 2001. It could perhaps be updated to the most recent ranking in the future, or else converted into a broader list of famous tennis pros.     
> 
> #AndreAgassi
> #ArnaudClement
> #SebastianGrosjean
> #PatrickRafter
> #EvgueniKafelnikov
> #GregRusedski
> #RogerFederer
> #LleytonHewitt
> #MagnusNorman
> #MarceloRios
> #MichalTabara
> #MartinTodd
> #CarlosMoya
> #FernandoVicente
> #BohdanUlihrach
> #TimHenman
> #TommyHaas
> #RainerSchuettler
> #JuanIgnacioChela
------
MaleTennisProfessionals|981491321
6a7
> #DominikHrbaty
21c22
< #JuanIgnacioChela
---
> #JuanIgnacioChela
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981491555
75a76,77
> 
> ''Ever been to AustriA?? Then you'll know what I mean;-)''
------
AndreAgassi|981492601
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Andre Agassi is a famous professional tennis player.  He was born April 29, 1970, and by the year 2000 he had won over $19 million in prize money and achieved a number 1 ranking on the ATP tour.
> 
> Agassi married actress BrookeShields in 1997, and divorced in 1999.
> 
> What were Agassi's earliest major tennis victories?  Did he play tennis as a child?  Where was he born?  Where did he grow up?
> Where did he go to school?
> 
> If you know the answers to these questions, then you can edit this page and add them now!  Just hit 'edit this page' below.
------
TenniS|981492918
0a1
> If you are a tennis fan, you can help the Wikipedia free encyclopedia by writing a short biography for your favorite tennis professional.
2,3c3,4
< FemaleTennisProfessionals
< MaleTennisProfessionals
---
>  FemaleTennisProfessionals
>  MaleTennisProfessionals
------
AcademyAwards|981493431
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Academy Awards are the most prominent film award in the UnitedStates.  The Awards are granted by the AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences, a professional honorary organization with over 6000 members currently.
> 
> Academy Awards are nicknamed "Oscars", which is also the nickname of the statuette.  Awards are given in many categories, including /BestPicture, /BestDirectory,/ BestActor, and /BestActress. 
> 
> A list of awards (incomplete, please add more!):
> 
> */BestPicture
> */BestActor (in a leading role) */BestActress (in a leading role)
> */BestSupportingActor           */BestSupportingActress
> */BestDirector
------
AcademyAwards/BestPicture|981493691
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This page should also list nominees for each year, instead of just listing the winners...
> 
> *2001
> *2000 AmericanBeauty
> *1999 ShakespeareInLove
> *1998 TitaniC
> *1997 TheEnglishPatient
> *1996 BravehearT
> *1995 ForrestGump
> *1994 SchindlersList
> *1993 UnforgiveN
> *1992 SilenceOfTheLambs
> *1991 DancesWithWolves
> *1990 DrivingMissDaisy
> 
> 
> etc.
------
SanityTalk|981494344
9c9,11
< Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
---
> Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Of course it is.  I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things.  As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want.  Anything I write is going to be from my point of view.  Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works.  All valid views are not necessarily mainstream.  All mainstream views are not necessarily valid.  I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both.  You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.  
------
TitaniC|981494394
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Quite possibly the worst film to ever receive an award of any kind.
> 
> I know, I know, that's a very bad writeup.  I'm just having fun
> and trying to get some attention.  We can erase this when we get a good writeup.  :-)  --JimboWales
> 
> --
------
SanityTalk|981494834
0a1,3
> You people are driving me crazy!  *wink*  Just kidding.  I couldn't resist.  Keep talking... --JimboWales
> ----
> 
------
RulesToConsider|981495604
1c1
< Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)
---
> Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)
------
RulesToConsider|981495746
6a7,14
> '''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.
> 
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
> 
> ''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''
> 
> ----
> 
------
IgnoreAllRulesDebate|981495819
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I think that those people who hate rules should ignore them, and let other people, who do care about rules, try, ''just try,'' to enforce 'em. -- LarrySanger
------
AustriA|981496007
5c5
< Language Spoken: GermaN and a large number of dialects
---
> Language Spoken: GermaN and a large number of dialects.  See AustriaLanguage.
11c11
< See also AustriaAdvocacy
---
> See also AustriaAdvocacy
------
RulesToConsider|981496073
9c9
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob
------
AustriaLanguage|981496108
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I know nothing about Austrian dialects.  Could someone please write a little about this?  I'm very curious.  I lived in Bayern for sechs Monaten and was exposed a bit to Bayerisch (sp?).  What Austrian dialects are there, and are they all or mostly comprehensible dialects of German? -- LarrySanger  (delete this info-request when you answer it please...)
------
AyeSpy|981496468
111a112,113
> ----
> Bruce, I think you underestimate the value of SeriousScholarship.
------
SeriousScholarship|981496533
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See SeriousScholarshipTalk.
------
SeriousScholarshipTalk|981496877
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Thesis: serious scholarship produces something of value which those who have not engaged in it in some cases cannot properly appreciate.  Their failure to appreciate it is what makes so many CrankS.
> 
> Why should we ''care'' about idiosyncratic views of someone from the outside looking in?  Usually, no matter how intelligent and wide-ranging one's experience, if one has not done ''serious study'' of the subject, one is bound to sound like a crank, and you will simply annoy and turn away serious students of the subject and those who value serious scholarship.  And by "serious scholarship" that I do ''not'' mean university study--university study is only one, certainly not infallible, way to engage in serious study.
> 
> What, then, does serious study of a subject require?  It requires, first, acknowledging that you don't know very much about the subject.  Second, it requires reading many books and (for academic and most professional disciplines) journal articles, until one is familiar with the leading theories, concepts, jargon, people, and historical trends that are recognized by experts in the field.
> 
> Serious study of a subject does ''not''--emphatically ''not''--require that one buy into any particular current theories.
------
SeriousScholarshipTalk|981496893
7c7,9
< Serious study of a subject does ''not''--emphatically ''not''--require that one buy into any particular current theories.
---
> Serious study of a subject does ''not''--emphatically ''not''--require that one buy into any particular current theories.
> 
> -- LarrySanger
------
AyeSpy|981496938
113c113
< Bruce, I think you underestimate the value of SeriousScholarship.
---
> Bruce, I think you underestimate the value of SeriousScholarship. -- LarrySanger
------
CrankS|981497067
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A ''crank'' is someone who pretends, whether knowing it is pretense or not (usually not), to have knowledge of some subject and writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about it.  A source of amusement and/or annoyance to actual ExpertS.
------
AustriaLanguage|981497069
1c1,12
< I know nothing about Austrian dialects.  Could someone please write a little about this?  I'm very curious.  I lived in Bayern for sechs Monaten and was exposed a bit to Bayerisch (sp?).  What Austrian dialects are there, and are they all or mostly comprehensible dialects of German? -- LarrySanger  (delete this info-request when you answer it please...)
---
> AustriA has nearly an infinite number of dialects. The main ones are:
> 
> 1. Wienerisch - spoken in ViennA. Most Austrians detest it because they think that the Viennese people are annoying. It is the most comprehensible one for the German speakers.
> 
> 2. Tirolerisch - spoken in the state of Tirol. Very hard to understand.
> 
> 3. Vorarlbergerisch - spoken in the state of Vorarlberg. IMPOSSIBLE to understand - sounds like the Schwitzerdeutsch that is spoken by the Swiss.
> 
> Each of the three dialects has many variations. Other ones (Kärnterisch, Burgenländerisch, etc.) are easier to understand and harder to distinguish. Please note that the whole of AustriA has less inhabitants than NYC. Most Austrians can easily switch from "normal" German to their home dialect (especially noticeable when students living in ViennA are phoning home to their parents), but a few do have problems in writing proper German.
> 
> ----
> ''The author of this article is a foreign student living in AustriA.''
------
AustriaLanguage|981497143
12c12
< ''The author of this article is a foreign student living in AustriA.''
---
> ''The author of this article (WojPob) is a foreign student living in AustriA.''
------
ExpertS|981497236
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> It is not at all easy to say what an ''expert'' is.  This is actually studied in EpistemOlogy under the general heading ''ExpertKnowledge''.  On one account, put very roughly, an expert is a person who is (or, perhaps, is widely recognized to be) a reliable (see ReliabilIsm) source of KnowledgeByTestimony for other people.
------
HelenOfTroy|981497288
1c1,11
< Whose face launched a thousand ships...
---
> In GreekMythology, the most beatiful woman to ever walk the world, whose face launched a thousand ships and started the TrojanWar.  On account of the last she is known as Helen of Troy, even though she was actually from Sparta.
> 
> As the story goes, Zeus cohabited with Leda in the form of a swan on the same night as her husband, king Tyndareus.  To the former she gave birth to Helen and Pollux, and to the latter, Clytemnestra and Pollux.  In some versions she laid eggs from which the children hatched.
> 
> Helen's unsurpassed beauty attracted a lot of attention, and she had suitors from all over Greece.  In fact, these are essentially the same as the Greek champions at Troy - with the notable exceptions of AgaMemnon and AchillEus - for fearing they would come to blows Tyndareus required each to take an oath to protect her marriage.  With that done, she was married to Menelaus, and on the deaths of her brothers (the DioScuri) they succeeded to the Spartan throne.
> 
> In TheIliad, Helen is described as god-like, and this refers not just to her looks but also to her disregard for other people.  So it came to pass that when Paris arrived at Sparta and was received kindly by Menelaus as a guest, she fell in love with him - he had been promised her hand by Aphrodite - and willingly escaped to him with Troy, abandoning her husband and nine-year-old daughter Hermione.
> 
> Menelaus was furious, and begged his brother Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, to raise an army.  Her suitors were reminded of their oaths, and other champions too were invited to join the expedition.  Thus began the TrojanWar, celebrated in legend, that lasts ten years and leads to the distruction of Troy.  Homer presents Helen as intensely remorseful, finally aware of the consequences of her actions and the suffering she has wrought but too late to avert it.
> 
> Afterwards Helen returns with Menelaus to Sparta.  Despite all the damage she has caused and the curse on the house of Atreus, the two seem to live happily ever after.  According to most versions, their only child was Hermione, who marries Agamemnon's son Orestes.  
------
IgnoreAllRulesDebate|981497487
1c1,3
< I think that those people who hate rules should ignore them, and let other people, who do care about rules, try, ''just try,'' to enforce 'em. -- LarrySanger
---
> I think that those people who hate rules should ignore them, and let other people, who do care about rules, try, ''just try,'' to enforce 'em. -- LarrySanger
> 
> I say this'll work fine so long as people exhibit common courtesy and don't decide wikipedia is a medium for proselytism. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
SanIty|981498034
7c7
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may observe the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, take the next deductive step, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.
---
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may observe the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive step, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.
9c9,23
< More than mere accuracy has been introduced to the picture, however, as conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  
---
> More than mere accuracy has been introduced to the picture, however, as conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  In WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
> 
> One can hardly miss the input of culture or of culture(s) if one attempts to determine what the modern western medical community uses as a measure of sanity.  In medical circles, the most general definition is by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  This definition will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as we will see directly.
> 
> The "bible" of mental diagnosis is psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning “schizophrenia,” DSM-II states, “Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it.” DSM-III says “there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept ‘mental disorder’.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about.” DSM-IV states that the term “mental disorder” continues to appear in the volume “because we have not found an appropriate substitute.”  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
> 
>      In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, “We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
> 
> And this may not be altogether in error.  If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
> 
> In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in any number of juristictions in an effort to punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
> 
> Various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been sent up as trial balloons by defendants, with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
> 
> Thus far, medical and legal efforts to define sanity have been addressed.  The last category your author will look at will be sanity as defined in a political context.
13c27
< See also SanityTalk.
---
> See also SanityTalk.
------
SanIty|981498508
3c3
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, '''proper functioning''', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading us to the conclusion that if one is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
---
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading one to the conclusion that if one's mind is properly functioning, that is, he is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
5c5
< Who shall determine, however, what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas?  To what degree must errancy intrude into the picture before one is determined no longer sane, but InSane?  
---
> How shall it be determined, however, what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas?  To what degree must errancy intrude into the picture before one is determined no longer sane, but InSane?  
7c7,9
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may observe the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive step, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.
---
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.  
> 
> The most prominent aspect of accurate mental function which has been used as an indicator of sanity over the centuries appears to have been mental function as it relates to two areas: interpersonal relations, and bodily safety of self and others.
------
HelenOfTroy|981498707
3c3
< As the story goes, Zeus cohabited with Leda in the form of a swan on the same night as her husband, king Tyndareus.  To the former she gave birth to Helen and Pollux, and to the latter, Clytemnestra and Pollux.  In some versions she laid eggs from which the children hatched.
---
> As the story goes, ZeuS cohabited with Leda in the form of a swan on the same night as her husband, king Tyndareus.  To the former she gave birth to Helen and Pollux, and to the latter, Clytemnestra and Pollux.  In some versions she laid eggs from which the children hatched.
11c11
< Afterwards Helen returns with Menelaus to Sparta.  Despite all the damage she has caused and the curse on the house of Atreus, the two seem to live happily ever after.  According to most versions, their only child was Hermione, who marries Agamemnon's son Orestes.  
---
> Afterwards Helen returns with Menelaus to Sparta.  Despite all the damage she has caused and the curse on the house of Atreus, the two seem to live happily ever after.  According to most versions, their only child was Hermione, who marries Agamemnon's son Orestes.  
------
SeriousScholarshipTalk|981499052
9c9,13
< -- LarrySanger
---
> -- LarrySanger
> 
> Of course SeriousScholarship is important.  But equally important is to avoid AcademicElitism.
> 
> --JimboWales
------
AcademicElitism|981499265
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One danger for academics is academic elitism, which is (roughly) the view that only someone who has engaged in SeriousScholarship has anything worthwhile to say on any given topic, while all others are CrankS.  It is possible to value SeriousScholarship without being an academic elitist, of course.
> 
> In fields that have no non-academic counterpart, AcademicElitism is common because it actually is the case that there aren't very many people with anything worthwhile to say on the topic, other than the academics.  But in more practical fields (math, computer science, business), it is more common to find that innovations appear much more readily from outside the hallowed walls of academia, and therefore harder to delude oneself into thinking non-academics are all or mostly CrankS.
------
ExpertS|981499337
1c1,3
< It is not at all easy to say what an ''expert'' is.  This is actually studied in EpistemOlogy under the general heading ''ExpertKnowledge''.  On one account, put very roughly, an expert is a person who is (or, perhaps, is widely recognized to be) a reliable (see ReliabilIsm) source of KnowledgeByTestimony for other people.
---
> It is not at all easy to say what an ''expert'' is.  This is actually studied in EpistemOlogy under the general heading ''ExpertKnowledge''.  On one account, put very roughly, an expert is a person who is (or, perhaps, is widely recognized to be) a reliable (see ReliabilIsm) source of KnowledgeByTestimony for other people.
> 
> Can be contrasted with CrankS, who think they know what they are talking about, but don't.  And with AcademicElitism, a syndrome of those who think that ONLY they know what they are talking about, and no one else does.
------
CrankS|981499492
1c1
< A ''crank'' is someone who pretends, whether knowing it is pretense or not (usually not), to have knowledge of some subject and writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about it.  A source of amusement and/or annoyance to actual ExpertS.
---
> A ''crank'' is someone who pretends, whether knowing it is pretense or not (usually not), to have knowledge of some subject and writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about it--but who does not have it.  A source of amusement and/or annoyance to actual ExpertS.
------
CrankS|981499538
1c1
< A ''crank'' is someone who pretends, whether knowing it is pretense or not (usually not), to have knowledge of some subject and writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about it--but who does not have it.  A source of amusement and/or annoyance to actual ExpertS.
---
> A ''crank'' is someone who pretends, whether knowing it is pretense or not (usually not), to have knowledge of some subject and writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about it--but who does not have knowledge of the subject.  A source of amusement and/or annoyance to actual ExpertS.
------
SeriousScholarshipTalk|981499727
3c3
< Why should we ''care'' about idiosyncratic views of someone from the outside looking in?  Usually, no matter how intelligent and wide-ranging one's experience, if one has not done ''serious study'' of the subject, one is bound to sound like a crank, and you will simply annoy and turn away serious students of the subject and those who value serious scholarship.  And by "serious scholarship" that I do ''not'' mean university study--university study is only one, certainly not infallible, way to engage in serious study.
---
> Why should we ''care'' about idiosyncratic views of someone from the outside looking in?  Usually, no matter how intelligent and wide-ranging one's experience, if one has not done ''serious study'' of the subject, one is bound to sound like a crank, and one will simply annoy and turn away serious students of the subject and those who value serious scholarship.  And by "serious scholarship" that I do ''not'' mean university study--university study is only one, certainly not infallible, way to engage in serious study.
13c13,15
< --JimboWales
---
> --JimboWales
> 
> I agree with that.  LS
------
IgnoreAllRulesDebate|981500476
3a4,12
> 
> ----
> It is interesting to think about the dynamics of social interaction within a wiki.  Everyone's impact on the medium is, in a sense, exactly equal to their participation in the medium.
> 
> As an example, let's take a view which is just obviously wrong to all of us (although someone else might not agree), let's say the view that the earth is really flat.  If flat-earthers descend on the site in hoards, then they will eventually win <I>unless</I> pre-flat-earth regulars band together to continually refactor the pages.  It isn't necessarily about numbers, but also about how dedicated the numbers are.
> 
> On Usenet, the same people argue endlessly for years on end.  I know of some newsgroups that I used to be addicted to, where I know that if I went back today, some of the same people would be there arguing the same things they were arguing 10 years ago.
> 
> The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy.  A statement, for example, of the Scientology issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such.  It would probably be left alone.  :-) --JimboWales
------
TitaniC|981500542
0a1,7
> 
> Titanic is a ship that sank: TitanicShip
> 
> ----
> 
> And Titanic is a movie (that also sank): TitanicMovie
> 
5,6d11
< 
< --
------
RulesToConsider|981500734
9c9,11
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales
> 
> ''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --JimboWales
------
RecentChanges|981501096
3c3,5
< Did you know that this is a wiki page?  Regular authors could leave notes for everyone here. --JimboWales
---
> Did you know that this is a wiki page?  Regular authors could leave notes for everyone here. --JimboWales
> 
> Ok, I'll try that.  This page is broken: when all the pages were moved from /wiki.cgi?* to /wiki/*, it wasn't properly updated, so now clicking on an author's name doesn't work.  Who is the appropriate person to fix this?
------
EsperantoLanguage|981501643
18c18
< There was also another language, Ido, based on Esperanto that enjoyed a brief popularity in the early 1900s.
---
> There was also another language, Ido, based on Esperanto that enjoyed a brief popularity in the early 1900s.  If you speak Esperanto, you might be interested in the Esperanto wiki JerryMuelver hosts at http://unumondo.com.
------
AardvarK|981503342
29c29
< This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  
---
> This is from a *very* old source, and reflects the thinking of the turn of the last century.  Not entirely true, since aardvarks eat termites, not ants.
------
AyeSpy|981504802
113a114,123
> ----
> ''Au Contraire, mon ami''.  I esteem it highly.  Why do you think I added the warning to readers that I have no degree and no college education?  I don'y want anyone to place undue reliance on my musings.  I only wish I'd had the opportunity to pursue it in my youth.  I am frustrated when I lack time and resources to pursue any given line of enquiry to its absolute conclusion, either academically or in life.  I have been repeatedly encouraged by professionals to pursue a professional degree, even at this late stage in my life.  Economic realities have prevented it, however.  My family would starve.  One of my great points of pride as a parent has been paving the way for my kids, the eldest of whom enrolls in her post-grad program in the fall, the youngest of whom is already positioned to out-earn me in the field of IT.  
> 
> On the other hand, it has been my experience that SeriousScholars, highly valuing (and justly so) the effort with which they exhausted themselves to come by knowledge hard-won, tend to jealously guard the status which the successful completion of their studies confers.  As such, they tend to be reluctant to acknowledge that the observations of those "uneducated" persons around them, sans-degree, might have validity - exceeding even, at times, the validity of those by the expert. 
> 
> I have thought up, composed, and written pleadings which, filed with the court and considered ''in camera'' without oral argument, defeated the motions or counter-motions of experienced lawyers.  I have averted courtroom defeats by catching factual or legal errors in pleadings before they were filed.  I have brought to the attention of engineers errors in their observations, assumptions or calculations which invalidated their conclusions.  I have brought medical technical data to the attention of medical examiners, with the result that they corrected an erroneous finding on cause of death.  I have found results in patient medical testing, and material in medical texts, which proved malpractice.  Did you know that a "right bundle branch block" finding on an ECG is a differential for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (instead of, say, gastritis) and that failure to immediately start a prophylactic course of of anticoagulants could kill the patient?  I know of at least two emergency docs who either overlooked or forgot that fact, in spite of 7 years of SeriousScholarship.
> 
> I deal on a daily basis with experts of all kinds, their contributions to legal cases, and am regularly confronted with the fact that their pursuit of SeriousScholaship gives them an ability which I will never possess to a) analyze, interpret and form accurate conclusions from technical data and b) testify to same in court.  Hell, I can't even testify to my own investigative results, because I work for the firm.  So, I hire, brief, and manage experts of every stripe.  I could not live without them.  But some of those experts whom the firm winds up using on a regular basis have developed a habit of having me vet their reports before finalizing them.  They value that little extra insurance against being caught with their pants down.  In 21 years of very active trial practice, this 11-lawyer firm is undefeated at trial.  That record is unmatched in this state.  (They'll get us sooner or later, I'm sure.  But not yet.)
> 
> So, from the viewpoint of a total generalist, I tend to correlate data from diverse fields, test various hypotheses, and come up with what I, in my vanity and arrogance, sometimes think of as insights that others might find interesting.  This is not to say that the professionals in these fields are not better informed that I.  Within the confines of their field, they doubtless are.  I hope that my occasional irreverance for convention does not leave readers with the feeling that I do not respect SeriousScholarship.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
------
AyeSpy|981504911
115c115
< ''Au Contraire, mon ami''.  I esteem it highly.  Why do you think I added the warning to readers that I have no degree and no college education?  I don'y want anyone to place undue reliance on my musings.  I only wish I'd had the opportunity to pursue it in my youth.  I am frustrated when I lack time and resources to pursue any given line of enquiry to its absolute conclusion, either academically or in life.  I have been repeatedly encouraged by professionals to pursue a professional degree, even at this late stage in my life.  Economic realities have prevented it, however.  My family would starve.  One of my great points of pride as a parent has been paving the way for my kids, the eldest of whom enrolls in her post-grad program in the fall, the youngest of whom is already positioned to out-earn me in the field of IT.  
---
> ''Au Contraire, mon ami''.  I esteem it highly.  Why do you think I added the warning to readers that I have no degree and no college education?  I don't want anyone to place undue reliance on my musings.  I only wish I'd had the opportunity to pursue it in my youth.  I am frustrated when I lack time and resources to pursue any given line of enquiry to its absolute conclusion, either academically or in life.  I have been repeatedly encouraged by professionals to pursue a professional degree, even at this late stage in my life.  Economic realities have prevented it, however.  My family would starve.  One of my great points of pride as a parent has been paving the way for my kids, the eldest of whom enrolls in her post-grad program in the fall, the youngest of whom is already positioned to out-earn me in the field of IT.  
------
AyeSpy|981504948
123a124,125
> ----
> I stand corrected! -- LarrySanger
------
SanIty|981505080
17c17
<      In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, “We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
---
> In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, “We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
------
SanIty|981505878
15c15
< The "bible" of mental diagnosis is psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning “schizophrenia,” DSM-II states, “Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it.” DSM-III says “there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept ‘mental disorder’.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about.” DSM-IV states that the term “mental disorder” continues to appear in the volume “because we have not found an appropriate substitute.”  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
---
> The "bible" of mental diagnosis is psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
17c17
< In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, “We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
---
> In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
------
AyeSpy|981506188
121c121
< I deal on a daily basis with experts of all kinds, their contributions to legal cases, and am regularly confronted with the fact that their pursuit of SeriousScholaship gives them an ability which I will never possess to a) analyze, interpret and form accurate conclusions from technical data and b) testify to same in court.  Hell, I can't even testify to my own investigative results, because I work for the firm.  So, I hire, brief, and manage experts of every stripe.  I could not live without them.  But some of those experts whom the firm winds up using on a regular basis have developed a habit of having me vet their reports before finalizing them.  They value that little extra insurance against being caught with their pants down.  In 21 years of very active trial practice, this 11-lawyer firm is undefeated at trial.  That record is unmatched in this state.  (They'll get us sooner or later, I'm sure.  But not yet.)
---
> I deal on a daily basis with experts of all kinds, their contributions to legal cases, and am regularly confronted with the fact that their pursuit of SeriousScholarship gives them an ability which I will never possess to a) analyze, interpret and form accurate conclusions from technical data and b) testify to same in court.  Hell, I can't even testify to my own investigative results, because I work for the firm.  So, I hire, brief, and manage experts of every stripe.  I could not live without them.  But some of those experts whom the firm winds up using on a regular basis have developed a habit of having me vet their reports before finalizing them.  They value that little extra insurance against being caught with their pants down.  In 21 years of very active trial practice, this 11-lawyer firm is undefeated at trial.  That record is unmatched in this state.  (They'll get us sooner or later, I'm sure.  But not yet.)
125c125
< I stand corrected! -- LarrySanger
---
> I stand corrected! -- LarrySanger
------
RulesToConsider|981506918
9c9
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy
19c19
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy (fervently)
27c27
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy
37a38,41
> ----
> '''Give the author a chance:'''  I propose that we add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text, when we disagree with an author but to delete or re-write portions of his material would substnatially alter its meaning.  Then the author may make changes in his own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a _____Talk page.  When one encounters obvious vandalism of another's work, he should feel free to Delete PatentNonsense.
> 
> Supporters of this rule include AyeSpy
------
RulesToConsider|981507041
41a42,43
> 
> ''See GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate''
------
DeletePatentNonsenseDebate|981507102
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I agree that one should delete patent nonsense.  One should also give the author a chance to fix his material.
------
AyeSpy|981507177
11,12d10
< His last IQ test came in at 154. (as though anyone cares)
< 
------
AyeSpy|981507396
121c121
< So, from the viewpoint of a total generalist, I tend to correlate data from diverse fields, test various hypotheses, and come up with what I, in my vanity and arrogance, sometimes think of as insights that others might find interesting.  This is not to say that the professionals in these fields are not better informed that I.  Within the confines of their field, they doubtless are.  I hope that my occasional irreverance for convention does not leave readers with the feeling that I do not respect SeriousScholarship.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
---
> So, from the viewpoint of a total generalist, I tend to correlate data from diverse fields, test various hypotheses, and come up with what I, in my vanity and arrogance, sometimes think of as insights that others might find interesting.  This is not to say that the professionals in these fields are not better informed than I.  Within the confines of their field, they doubtless are.  I hope that my occasional irreverance for convention does not leave readers with the feeling that I do not respect SeriousScholarship.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
------
IgnoreAllRulesDebate|981508520
12c12
< The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy.  A statement, for example, of the Scientology issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such.  It would probably be left alone.  :-) --JimboWales
---
> The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy.  A statement, for example, of the ScientologY issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such.  It would probably be left alone.  :-) --JimboWales
------
TaoTehChing|981508859
47c47
< I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed.  I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching.  It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it.
---
> I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed.  I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching.  It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it. -- AyeSpy
------
TaoTehChing|981508884
3c3
< Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200 BC) reveal that the Tao Te Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
---
> Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200 BC) reveal that the Tao Teh Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
------
RecentChanges|981509277
5c5
< Ok, I'll try that.  This page is broken: when all the pages were moved from /wiki.cgi?* to /wiki/*, it wasn't properly updated, so now clicking on an author's name doesn't work.  Who is the appropriate person to fix this?
---
> See WikiPediaFaq for frequently-asked questions.
------
AstroNomy|981509457
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
> In its origins it consisted on the observation and cataloging of the sky and its changes. Soon the changes in the positions of the Sun and the stars where correlated with the seasons, and Astronomy took on greater importance, beeing practiced mostly by priests, and shrouded in mysticism. Most (if not all) ancient civilizations measured the length of the year, with varying degrees of precision. They also noticed the difference between stars, that always keep the same relative positions, and planets, that move between stars.
> Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
> 
> Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his Law of Gravity, the "laws" of Kepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
> 
> (to be continued)
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
------
WikiPediaBugs|981509546
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Report any bugs or unexpected behavior here:
> ----
> 
> The RecentChanges page is broken: when all the pages were moved from /wiki.cgi?* to /wiki/*, it wasn't properly updated, so now clicking on an author's name doesn't work.  Who is the appropriate person to fix this?  
> 
> :The person who broke it, of course. :-)
> 
> :I didn't break the code, but I think I see the problem.  The script name is (mainly) used in two routines: ScriptLink and ScriptLinkTitle (used for author links so that you'll get the nifty pop-up with the ID and hostname).  It looks like only the first of these was modified for the new /-style links.  The fix should be simple--just modify ScriptLinkTitle the same way.  --CliffordAdams
------
CountriesC|981509919
1c1,2
< CanadA
---
> CanadA
> ChileCountry
------
CountriesC|981509955
2c2,3
< ChileCountry
---
> 
> ChileCountry
------
AstroNomy|981510008
3,4c3,4
< Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
---
> Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the MiddleAges was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
------
AstroNomy|981510078
3,4c3,4
< Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the MiddleAges was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
---
> Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiteR and the SunSpots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
------
AstroNomy|981510209
1c1
< AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
---
> AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the NaturalSciences.
3,4c3,4
< Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiteR and the SunSpots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
---
> Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the SuN and the MooN. The one most remembered through the MiddleAges was the GeocentricModel, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
6c6
< Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his Law of Gravity, the "laws" of Kepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
---
> Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawofGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
------
HistoryOfEurope|981510845
8c8
< influential culture.  The Celts posed a formidable, if disorganized, competitor to the RomanEmpire, that had
---
> influential culture.  The Celts posed a formidable, if disorganized, competition to the RomanEmpire, that had
11c11
< At the end of the BronzeAge the older GreeK kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having vastly differing types of government and cultures, including what are more or less unprescendented developments in various governmental forms, PhiloSophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
---
> At the end of the BronzeAge the older GreeK kingdoms collapsed and a brilliant new civilization grew up in their place.  The HellenicCivilization took the form of a collection of CityStates, many having vastly differing types of government and cultures, including what are more or less unprecendent developments in various governmental forms, PhiloSophy, ScienCe, PoLitics, SportS, TheaTer and MuSic.
21c21
< The twentieth century saw the massively overdone world wars, which ended the pre-eminent position of EuropE.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of the UnitedStates and SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
---
> The twentieth century saw the massively overdone WorldWars, which ended the pre-eminent position of EuropE.  Thereafter it was a zone of contention between the world-powers of the UnitedStates and SovietUnion, which have only just finished.
------
AstroNomy|981510915
1c1
< AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the NaturalSciences.
---
> AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
3,4c3,4
< Greeks philosophers thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the SuN and the MooN. The one most remembered through the MiddleAges was the GeocentricModel, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
---
> GreeK PhilosopherS thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
6c6
< Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawofGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
---
> Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his Law of Gravity, the "laws" of Kepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
------
AtlasShrugged/Looters|981512284
1c1
< A group of characters that are the bad guys in AtlasShrugged.  They consist of men and women who cannot produce value themselves, who parasite off of those who can create value, and who seek to destroy those same people despite the fact that they are dependent upon them.
---
> A group of characters that are the bad guys in AtlasShrugged, sometimes refered to in the book as /JamesTaggart and his friends.  They consist of men and women who cannot produce value themselves, who parasite off of those who can create value, and who seek to destroy those same people despite the fact that they are dependent upon them.
------
CountriesC|981513272
3c3
< ChileCountry
---
> ChiLe
------
SeriousScholarshipTalk|981513436
15c15,22
< I agree with that.  LS
---
> I agree with that.  LS ----
> 
> And what about a discipline like Pure Mathematics? To begin with people with a serious interest in Mathematics DO NOT READ Mathematics books.
> 
> And then there is Language study - Again this is hardly a question of READING books.
> 
> I don't find this description of scholarship very comprehensive...I believe that each discipline has its own requirements for scholarship and expertise. RoseParks
> 
------
HomePage|981514004
3c3
< BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
---
> BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes --  LinguisticS
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN148|981514108
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> 
> /DagnyTaggart meets with /HankRearden at his steel mill to tell him that, because of the /AntiDogEatDogRule she will need her rails in nine months instead of twelve.  She asks Rearden if he can deliver the order in time, and he tells her he will.  Dagny acknowledges that Rearden now holds /TaggartTranscontinental in his power - if he fails to deliver, the railroad might collapse.  But, Rearden needs this project to succeed as well because it will prove the value  of /ReardenMetal, creating new markets for him.  They stand together in silence, watching as the first load of /ReardenMetal is loaded onto the trains, both knowing what this new invention represents.  The two talk about business as if one business' success creates opportunities for another, which is in sharp contrast to the talk about "destructive competition" that was used to justify the /AntiDogEatDogRule earlier in this chapter.
> 
> There is an apparent plot hole in this section.  Dagny needs rails because the /PhoenixDurango has been ordered to suspend operations in /Colorado in nine months.  If she doesn't get the new rail laid, Colorado will be without transportation and its economy will collapse.  However, when the Phoenix-Durango suspends operations, it is not going to roll up its tracks and take them away.  Dagny could easily run her trains on /DanConway's track.  She could buy them outright or lease them.  Conway in /SectioN146 expressed sympathy for Dagny - he does not hold a grudge and wishes her success - so there is no reason to assume he would refuse her this.  In fact, because Conway in this chapter is being used to illustrate he /SanctionOfTheVictim, he could not refuse such a request.  From a business point of view, it would provide him a way to still make money in Colorado despite not being allowed to operate there; and with the option of using this line, /TaggartTranscontinental would not be dependent on Rearden.  There is no explanation for why this obvious solution to the problem is not even considered.
> 
> * Setting
> /HankRearden's office at /ReardenSteel.
> 
> * Characters
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /DanConway
>  /EllisWyatt
>  /JamesTaggart
>  /HankRearden
>  /Looters - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981514563
14a15
>  /SectioN148
------
AtlasShrugged/DanConway|981514584
5c5,6
<  /SectioN146
---
>  /SectioN146
>  /SectioN148 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|981514604
8a9
>  - /SectioN148
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|981514620
9a10
>  /SectioN148 - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/Colorado|981514660
8a9
>  - /SectioN148
------
AtlasShrugged/AntiDogEatDogRule|981514739
1a2,6
> 
> The Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule is dicussed in:
>   /SectioN145
>   /SectioN146
>   /SectioN148
------
AtlasShrugged/ReardenMetal|981514771
10a11
>  /SectioN148
------
AtlasShrugged/RioNorteLine|981514785
11a12
>  /SectioN148
------
LinguisticS|981514842
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> LinguisticS is the study of LanguagE with a capital "L." LinguisticS views LanguagE as a means of communication and studies how particular languages accomplish this. 
> 
> DescriptiveLinguistics is divided into a number of fields.
> * PhonologY and PhonemeS
> * MorphologY and MorphemeS
> * SyntaX
> 
> LinguisticS is also studied with other disciplines, thus:
> * HistoricalLinguistics
> * ComparativeLinguistics
> * SocioLinguistics
> * PsychoLinguistics
> * ChildsAquisitionOfLanguage
> *...
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN148|981514854
5c5
< There is an apparent plot hole in this section.  Dagny needs rails because the /PhoenixDurango has been ordered to suspend operations in /Colorado in nine months.  If she doesn't get the new rail laid, Colorado will be without transportation and its economy will collapse.  However, when the Phoenix-Durango suspends operations, it is not going to roll up its tracks and take them away.  Dagny could easily run her trains on /DanConway's track.  She could buy them outright or lease them.  Conway in /SectioN146 expressed sympathy for Dagny - he does not hold a grudge and wishes her success - so there is no reason to assume he would refuse her this.  In fact, because Conway in this chapter is being used to illustrate he /SanctionOfTheVictim, he could not refuse such a request.  From a business point of view, it would provide him a way to still make money in Colorado despite not being allowed to operate there; and with the option of using this line, /TaggartTranscontinental would not be dependent on Rearden.  There is no explanation for why this obvious solution to the problem is not even considered.
---
> There is an apparent plot hole in this section.  Dagny needs rails because the /PhoenixDurango has been ordered to suspend operations in /Colorado in nine months.  If she doesn't get the new rail laid, Colorado will be without transportation and its economy will collapse.  However, when the Phoenix-Durango suspends operations, it is not going to roll up its tracks and take them away.  Dagny could easily run her trains on /DanConway's track.  She could buy them outright or lease them.  Conway in /SectioN146 expressed sympathy for Dagny - he does not hold a grudge and wishes her success - so there is no reason to assume he would refuse her this.  In fact, because Conway in this chapter is being used to illustrate the /SanctionOfTheVictim, he could not refuse such a request.  From a business point of view, it would provide him a way to still make money in Colorado despite not being allowed to operate there; and with the option of using this line, /TaggartTranscontinental would not be dependent on Rearden.  There is no explanation for why this obvious solution to the problem is not even considered.
------
WikiPediaFaq|981516486
83c83,85
< '''Q. Is there a wiki <i>spell check</i> of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''
---
> '''Q. Is there a wiki <i>spell check</i> of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''----
> 
> '''Q.''' It appears that starting today, if you go to RecentChanges and click on the name to the right of a page, that is, a contributor who has identified him/herself as making the change, you get invalid wiki.api. Why?
------
WikiPediaFaq|981516635
85c85
< '''Q.''' It appears that starting today, if you go to RecentChanges and click on the name to the right of a page, that is, a contributor who has identified him/herself as making the change, you get invalid wiki.api. Why?
---
> '''Q.''' It appears that starting today, if you go to RecentChanges and click on the name to the right of a page, that is, a contributor who has identified him/herself as making the change, you get '''Invalid Page wiki.cgi'''. Why?
------
WikiPediaFaq|981518562
83c83,86
< '''Q. Is there a wiki <i>spell check</i> of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''----
---
> '''Q. Is there a wiki <i>spell check</i> of sorts? For things as; InTernet, InterNet, InterneT. Several pages could inadvertently be created on the same subject.'''
> 
> '''A.'''  You can use the search feature to find similar pages.  (The search is not case-sensitive, so a search for "internet" would find any of the pages above.)
> ----
85a89,90
> 
> ''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.
------
CapitalisM|981518630
1c1
< A system based on the absence of political intervention in the economy, which rests on the assumption that politics and economics are distinct from one another.  Often capitalism is part of a wider, LibertariaN social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society.
---
> A system based on the absence of political intervention in the economy, which rests on the assumption that politics and economics are distinct from one another.  Recently capitalism has often occured of a wider, LibertariaN social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society.
------
WikiPediaFaq|981518632
90c90
< ''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.
---
> '''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.
------
LanguagE|981519053
31a32
> * LinguisticS
------
CategorySchemes|981519118
16c16
< :AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- LinguisticsAndLanguages (see LanguagE) -- SociOlogy -- PoLitics -- EconOmics -- HiStory -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- GeoGraphy (see CountriesOfTheWorld and UnitedStates) -- AnomalousPhenomena
---
> :AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- LinguisticS & LanguagE""s -- SociOlogy -- PoLitics -- EconOmics -- HiStory -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- GeoGraphy (see CountriesOfTheWorld and UnitedStates) -- AnomalousPhenomena
50c50
< :Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
---
> :Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
------
HomePage|981519326
3c3
< BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes --  LinguisticS
---
> BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- --  LinguisticS & LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
------
GeekSpeak|981521579
20c20
< '''WYSIWYG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
---
> '''WySiWyG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
------
WySiWyG|981521638
1c1,28
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''WYSIWYG'''
> 
> '''acronyms (in order of increasing obscurity):'''
> WYSIWYG - What You See Is What You Get (basic)
> WYSIAYG - What You See Is All You Get (used by hackers and computer programers)
> WYSIAWYG - What You See Is Almost What You Get (most text editing programs)
> WYSIMOLWYG - What You See Is More Or Less What You Get (another way of stating WYSIAWYG)
> 
> '''meaning:'''
> · a description of an user interface that allows the user to view the end result while the document or graphic character is being created
> · allows the user to concentrate entirely in how the content should appear, although having the trade-off of not have the results being easily fine-tuned\
> · also used to describe specifically a web-page creation program in which the user creates the webpage visually, while the program writes the HTML (hypertext markup language) for it
> · most programs, even Microsoft Office, are not WYSIWYG since printing and page formatting are still hidden from view
> · users expect WYSIWYG
> 
> 
> '''historical notes:'''
> · was originally a cataphrase on an old TV program called Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, (1968-1973)
> · first applied to computers in the 1980's
> · EMACS was one of the first WYSIWYG editors, replacing the program TeX which uses mark-up commands for formating
> 
> 
> '''TMI:'''
> 
> http://www.atpm.com/4.12/page7.shtml
> http://www.ideography.co.uk/library/seybold/WYSIWYG.html
> 
> 
------
WySiWyG|981521696
3a4
> 
4a6
> 
5a8
> 
6a10
> 
8a13
> 
9a15
> 
11c17,19
< · allows the user to concentrate entirely in how the content should appear, although having the trade-off of not have the results being easily fine-tuned\
---
> 
> · allows the user to concentrate entirely in how the content should appear, although having the trade-off of not have the results being easily fine-tuned
> 
12a21
> 
13a23
> 
16a27
> 
17a29
> 
18a31
> 
19a33
> 
25a40
> 
------
GeekSpeak|981528046
3,9d2
<                        
< '''Interface'''- parts of the computer that we work with; two different subsystems transmitting one piece of information to another;give and take of information
< 
< '''Widget'''- objects that make up interfaces, i.e. mouse, menus, textbox, buttons; basic tools and objects.
< 
< '''Hypertext'''- gives the reader control instead of the author; allows user to jump around from source to source; linkages between texts.
< 
12c5
< '''Gesture recognition'''- interpreting body movements into text, as a command (recognizing handwriting, signlanguage, etc)
---
> '''ENIAC'''- the '''E'''lectronic '''N'''umerical '''I'''ntegrator '''A'''nd '''C'''omputer.  Arguably, the first all electronic digital computer started in 1943 and finished in 1946.  Some claim that Goliath really was the first, but ENIAC has the best press agent ;^)
14c7
< '''Nano technology'''- cellular, microscopic, level of technology
---
> '''Gesture recognition'''- interpreting body movements into text, as a command (recognizing handwriting, signlanguage, etc)
18c11,13
< '''ENIAC'''- the '''E'''lectronic '''N'''umerical '''I'''ntegrator '''A'''nd '''C'''omputer.  Arguably, the first all electronic digital computer started in 1943 and finished in 1946.  Some claim that Goliath really was the first, but ENIAC has the best press agent ;^)
---
> '''Hypertext'''- gives the reader control instead of the author; allows user to jump around from source to source; linkages between texts.
>                        
> '''Interface'''- parts of the computer that we work with; two different subsystems transmitting one piece of information to another;give and take of information
20c15
< '''WySiWyG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
---
> '''Nano technology'''- cellular, microscopic, level of technology
22a18,21
> 
> '''Widget'''- objects that make up interfaces, i.e. mouse, menus, textbox, buttons; basic tools and objects.
> 
> '''WySiWyG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
------
CountriesC|981533082
1c1
< CanadA
---
> * CanadA
3c3,5
< ChiLe
---
> * ChiLe
> 
> * ChinA
------
CountriesC|981533103
3c3
< * ChiLe
---
> * ChilE
5c5
< * ChinA
---
> * ChinA
------
CountriesC|981533149
5a6,8
> 
> * Columbia
> 
------
CountriesC|981533156
7,8c7
< * Columbia
< 
---
> * ColumbiA
------
HelenOfTroy|981537229
7c7
< In TheIliad, Helen is described as god-like, and this refers not just to her looks but also to her disregard for other people.  So it came to pass that when Paris arrived at Sparta and was received kindly by Menelaus as a guest, she fell in love with him - he had been promised her hand by Aphrodite - and willingly escaped to him with Troy, abandoning her husband and nine-year-old daughter Hermione.
---
> In TheIliad, Helen is described as god-like, and this refers not just to her looks but also to her disregard for other people.  So it came to pass that when Paris arrived at Sparta and was received kindly by Menelaus as a guest, she fell in love with him - he had been promised her hand by Aphrodite - and willingly escaped with him to Troy, abandoning her husband and nine-year-old daughter Hermione.
------
GeekSpeak|981557444
8a9,14
> '''FaceMail''' - a method of communication involving a face-to-face discussion. Becoming extinct.
> 
> '''FiFo'''- First in, first out. This is a way of processing queues.
> 
> '''GiGo'''-Garbage in gargage out. An explanation when one defends a mistake, saying "The computer made an error."
> 
14a21,22
> '''LiFo'''- Last in first out. This is one way of processing stacks.
> 
18a27,30
> '''TreeWare''' - paper version of something. As in, Bill Gates is reading the TreeWare version of the New York Times.
> 
> '''WetWare''' - a human being.
> 
21c33
< '''WySiWyG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
---
> '''WySiWyG'''- '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et (but not very often!) Most is WYSIAWYG. It was presented on Monday, Jan.22.
------
GeekSpeak|981557546
13c13
< '''GiGo'''-Garbage in gargage out. An explanation when one defends a mistake, saying "The computer made an error."
---
> '''GiGo'''- Garbage in gargage out. A reply to the explanation "The computer made an error."
------
EngineerIng|981558634
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "ElectricalEngineering"
------
ElectricalEngineering|981558680
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "TestThreePhasePumps"
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981560160
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Electricians may not often encounter three phase induction motors used in domestic watering systems. 
> 
> Procedures to follow to field test these motors and their controls are listed:
> 
> Topics including "TestingThreePhaseSupply", "TestingMotorCoilResistance", and "TestingEarthFaultResistance" are covered, as well as "TestingDirectOnLineStarters".
> 
> "DescribingCentrifugalPumpInstallations"  and "DescribingSubmersiblePumpInstallations" are covered along with "RecommendationsForTroubleFreePumpInstallation".
> 
> This page written by "WhyRossum".
> 
> This page last requested by "TerrySmith".
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981560293
11c11
< This page last requested by "TerrySmith".
---
> This page last requested by "TerrySmith".
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981560427
9d8
< This page written by "WhyRossum".
------
TestingThreePhaseSupply|981561832
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A three phase electrical supply consists of three active conductors and an earth.
> 
> A three phase induction motor cannot function correctly if its electrical supply is not within certain parameters.
> 
> Typical parameters are 415 volts between phases, 240 volts from any phase to earth, voltage within 12% of 415/240 volts, and each phase within 5% of each other.
> 
> In a typical three phase induction motor circuit, an appropriate place to test is at the line side of the direct-on-line motor starter.
> 
> 
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981568061
1,76c1,54
< We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace.  So, here it is!
< 
< [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the
< encyclopedia some lively color.  But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia
< of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page.  ;-) -- BryceHarrington ]
< ----
< From PolanD:
< 
< :From an Englishman's diary:
< * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
< * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
< * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
< * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
< ----
< From PatentNonsense:
< 
< Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
< 
< A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
< 
< Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
< 
< A. Go figure!
< 
< ''[Of all the text to end up being hauled into this detention centre... :)]''
< ----
< 
< order arising out of chaos...
< 
< ----
< 
< From WhatIsaWiki:
< 
< This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
< 
< Blah...
< ----
< Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
< 
< It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
< ----
< Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
< 
< Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
< ----
< Wow, This is kinda wierd
< 
<     -- Drachs
< ----
< Investigation of the Wiki concept...
< ----
< From IdiosyncratiC:
< 
< My dad knew him.
< ----
< From HareKrishna:
< 
< (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
< ----
< Oh Wiki, you're so fine!...
< ----
< From EnglishLanguage:
< 
< A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
< 
< And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
< ----
< From SnowBoarding:
< 
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
< ----
< From AustriA:
< <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
< 
< ''Ha ha ha!  You mean that's not an objective fact?!  :-)''
< 
---
> We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace.  So, here it is!
> [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the
> encyclopedia some lively color.  But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia
> of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page.  ;-) -- BryceHarrington ]
> ----
> From PolanD:
> :From an Englishman's diary:
> * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
> * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
> * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
> * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
> ----
> From PatentNonsense:
> Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
> A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
> Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
> A. Go figure!
> ''[Of all the text to end up being hauled into this detention centre... :)]''
> ----
> order arising out of chaos...
> ----
> From WhatIsaWiki:
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
> Blah...
> ----
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
> ----
> Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
> Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
> ----
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
>     -- Drachs
> ----
> Investigation of the Wiki concept...
> ----
> From IdiosyncratiC:
> My dad knew him.
> ----
> From HareKrishna:
> (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
> ----
> Oh Wiki, you're so fine!...
> ----
> From EnglishLanguage:
> A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
> ----says who? Can't languages evolve? I don't see you spelling like Shakespeare...
> From SnowBoarding:
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
> ----
> From AustriA:
> <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
> ''Ha ha ha!  You mean that's not an objective fact?!  :-)''
------
AstroNomy|981568765
1,13c1,7
< AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
< In its origins it consisted on the observation and cataloging of the sky and its changes. Soon the changes in the positions of the Sun and the stars where correlated with the seasons, and Astronomy took on greater importance, beeing practiced mostly by priests, and shrouded in mysticism. Most (if not all) ancient civilizations measured the length of the year, with varying degrees of precision. They also noticed the difference between stars, that always keep the same relative positions, and planets, that move between stars.
< GreeK PhilosopherS thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by Tycho Brahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the telescope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of Jupiter and the Sunspots, but he is most famous by his problems with the Church (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
< 
< Newton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his Law of Gravity, the "laws" of Kepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
< 
< (to be continued)
< 
< 
< 
<  
< 
---
> AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
> In its origins it consisted on the observation and cataloging of the sky and its changes. Soon the changes in the positions of the Sun and the stars where correlated with the seasons, and Astronomy took on greater importance, beeing practiced mostly by priests, and shrouded in mysticism. Most (if not all) ancient civilizations measured the length of the year, with varying degrees of precision. They also noticed the difference between stars, that always keep the same relative positions, and planets, that move between stars.
> GreeK PhilosopherS thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the TeleScope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiTer and the SunSpots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
> IsaacNewton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawOfGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
> (to be continued)
>  
------
TeleScope|981569104
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Instrument composed of at least two LenS es or two MirroR s that increases the observed angular size of objects, as well as their BrightNess.
> Used mainly on AstroNomy since GalileoGalilei.
> The current generation of telescopes beeing constructed have a PrimaryMirror of between 6 and 8 meters of diameter (for GroundBasedTelescopes).
------
ErnestHemingway|981571217
1c1
< Grace Under Pressure
---
> Ernest Miller Hemingway (American author)
3c3,12
< Death and Violence in Ernest Hemingway's Life and Work
---
> born July 21, 1899, Oak Park (Illinois); died July 2, 1961, Ketchum (Idaho)
> 
> Awards:
> Silver Medal of Military Valor (medaglia d'argento) in the First World War
> 
> Pullitzer Price 1953
> 
> Nobel Price for Literature 1954
> 
> The following text was originally a research paper for school describing Hemingway's Life and work, as exemplified by the novels "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "A Farewell to Arms". If you are looking for information on Hemingway only, you might want to skip the sections on Frederic Henry and Robert Jordan, for a quick read, you can start at /YoungandInnocent
5a15,19
>  
> 
> Grace Under Pressure
> 
> Death and Violence in Ernest Hemingway's Life and Work
62c76,81
< This is very impressive work and quite an enormous contribution to WikiPedia.  First, Andreas, you do realize, I hope, that by posting it on WikiPedia, you have released this work according to the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense?  Second, is there anything in particular that you would like people to do to this work to render it more encyclopedia-like?  (For some similar instructions-to-the-public, see LarrysText.) -- LarrySanger
---
> This is very impressive work and quite an enormous contribution to WikiPedia.  First, Andreas, you do realize, I hope, that by posting it on WikiPedia, you have released this work according to the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense?  
> Second, is there anything in particular that you would like people to do to this work to render it more encyclopedia-like?  (For some similar instructions-to-the-public, see LarrysText.) -- LarrySanger
> 
> ----
> 
> Yes and yes. There is obviously a need to restructure the whole text, biographic information should be separated from information on the two particular books, and a trivia section should be included. I will make some of those changes myself, but help is really welcome. -- Sonic
------
SanIty|981571341
1c1
< "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient.
---
> "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you are authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
13c13
< One can hardly miss the input of culture or of culture(s) if one attempts to determine what the modern western medical community uses as a measure of sanity.  In medical circles, the most general definition is by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  This definition will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as we will see directly.
---
> One can hardly miss the input of culture or of culture(s) if one attempts to determine what the modern western medical community uses as a measure of sanity.  In medical/psychiatric context, the most general definition is by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause becomes a medical problem rather than a psychological or psychiatric one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and classification.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as the reader will see directly.
19c19
< And this may not be altogether in error.  If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
---
> And defining sane behavior must always be done, at least in part, in the context of the subject's culture.  If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
21c21
< In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in any number of juristictions in an effort to punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
---
> In recent times, more recognition has been given to the concept of sanity as a subjective manifestation, evidenced by mental quietude, peace of mind, and resiliancy - an ability to survive the vicissitudes of life without such mental discomfort that one's ability to function is impaired.
23c23
< Various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been sent up as trial balloons by defendants, with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
---
> In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in any number of juristictions internationally in an effort to punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
25c25
< Thus far, medical and legal efforts to define sanity have been addressed.  The last category your author will look at will be sanity as defined in a political context.
---
> Various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been sent up as trial balloons by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
27c27,35
< (to be completed as time permits) -- AyeSpy
---
> Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state.  The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive.  The argument supporting such definitions of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this:  "The state functions for the good of the people.  Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies.  Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state.  Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement."  As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that the deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid.  Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression.  Thus sanity by political definition may be restored.
> 
> Political definitions of sanity have not been confined to openly authoritarian governments.  In otherwise putatively democratice countries which have a history of democratic elections and peaceful transfer of power, state-sanctioned and state-funded mental treatement has been imposed upon political dissidents and upon members of racial and ethnic minorities whose activities and efforts to achieve equal treatment and equal rights to those enjoyed by favored elements of these societies have been felt to be a threat to civil order or state security.
> 
> Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them.   As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear.  These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds.  Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them.  The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane.
> 
> A common thread runs through all of the foregoing.  Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by ''proper functioning'' is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society.  To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane.  One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority.  Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.
> 
> There is lively debate as to whether sanity is achievable, maintainable and restorable with or without physical interventions in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and than mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind in independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
------
WikiPediaBugs|981571586
8a9,11
> 
> :I broke it.  Now I will go fix it.  The purpose of the change is that many search spiders refuse to index past the '?', and I am hoping that changing the urls to look like /wiki/* will help them
> index us. --JimboWales
------
WikiPediaBugs|981571601
10,11c10
< :I broke it.  Now I will go fix it.  The purpose of the change is that many search spiders refuse to index past the '?', and I am hoping that changing the urls to look like /wiki/* will help them
< index us. --JimboWales
---
> :I broke it.  Now I will go fix it.  The purpose of the change is that many search spiders refuse to index past the '?', and I am hoping that changing the urls to look like /wiki/* will help them index us. --JimboWales
------
RecentChanges|981572343
0a1,2
> Did you know you can make any term a WikiName by placing it within square brackets - no need to UgLiFy otherwise non-intercapped words. -- JoeKoberg
> 
5c7,8
< See WikiPediaFaq for frequently-asked questions.
---
> 
> See WikiPediaFaq for frequently-asked questions.
------
JoeKoberg|981572390
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Joe Koberg, KB5RMQ
> http://www.OpenSoftwareServices.com
> [this] is a test
> joe@rootnode.com
------
RecentChanges|981572467
1d0
< Did you know you can make any term a WikiName by placing it within square brackets - no need to UgLiFy otherwise non-intercapped words. -- JoeKoberg
------
HiStory|981572935
1,11c1,11
< * HistoryOfLevant
< * HistoryOfEgypt
< * HistoryOfIndia
< * HistoryOfChina
< * HistoryOfMesoamerica
< * HistoryOfAndes
< * HistoryOfMediterranean
< * HistoryOfByzantium
< * HistoryOfIslam
< * HistoryOfEurope
< * HistoryOfUnitedStates
---
> * HistoryOfLevant
> * HistoryOfEgypt
> * HistoryOfIndia
> * HistoryOfChina
> * HistoryOfMesoamerica
> 
> * HistoryOfMediterranean
> * HistoryOfByzantium
> * HistoryOfIslam
> * HistoryOfEurope
> * HistoryOfUnitedStates
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573186
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The AxiomOfChoice was formulated about a century ago by ErnstZermelo, and was quite contraversial at the time.  It states the following:
> 
>      Let X be a collection of non-empty sets.  Then we can '''choose''' a member from each set in that collection.  Stated more formally, there exists a function f such that for each set S in X, f(S) is an element of S.
> 
> Hmmm - seems obvious doesn't it?  I mean if you've got a bunch of boxes lying around each with at least one item in each of them, the axiom simply states that you can choose one item out of each box.  Where's the controversy?
> 
> Well, the controversy was over what it meant to '''choose''' something from these sets.  As an example, let us look at some sample sets.
> 
>      1. Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
>           Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A, choose a...), since the number of sets is finite.
>           (Here the AxiomOfChoice is not needed, you can simply use the rules of formal logic.)
>      2. Let X be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... }.
>           Then f can be the function that '''chooses''' the smallest element in each set.
>      3. Let X be the collection of all sub-intervals of (0,1) with a length greater than 0.
>           Then f can be the function that '''chooses''' the midpoint of each interval.
>      4. Let X be the collection of '''all''' subsets of the reals.
>           Now we have a problem.  There is no obvious definition of f that will guarantee you success.
> 
> And therein lies the crux of the AxiomOfChoice.  All it states is that there is some function f that can '''choose''' an element out of each set in the collection.  It gives you no indication about how the function would be defined, it simply mandates its existance.
> 
> There are no contradictions if you choose not to accept the AxiomOfChoice, however, most mathematicians (who aren't set theorists or logicians) accept either it, or a weakened variant of it, because it makes their jobs '''easier'''.  There are many variants of the AxiomOfChoice (for example the AxiomOfCountableChoice, which permits a sequence of choices).
> 
> One of the reasons that some mathematicians don't particularly like the AxiomOfChoice is the fact that it implies the existance of some bizarre counter-intuitive objects.  An example of this is the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition which amounts to saying that it is possible to "carve-up" the closed unit sphere into finitely many pieces, and using only rotation and translation, reform the pieces into 2 spheres each with the same volume as the original.  Note that the "proof" given in the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition is an existance proof only, it does not tell you how to carve up the unit sphere to make this happen, it simply tells you that it can be done.
> 
> One of the most interesting aspects of the AxiomOfChoice is the sheer number of places that it pops up.  It has quite far reaching impact, and shows up in many different branches of mathematics (often implicitly, as opposed to explicitly).  There are also a remarkable number of concepts that are equivalent to the Axiom of Choice, among them the WellOrderingPrinciple and ZornsLemma.
> 
> Jerry Bona once said: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well Ordering Principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?".  In truth, all three of these are mathematically equivalent, but the statement was amusing because it underscored the fact that most mathematicians find the AxiomOfChoice to be intuitive, the WellOrderingPrinciple to be counterintuitive, and ZornsLemma to be too complex to form any intuitive feeling about.
> 
> There are many people still doing work on the AxiomOfChoice and its consequences.  If you are interested in more, look up [Paul Howard http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~phoward/]
> 
> --RaviDesai
------
WolfgangMozart|981573207
1,8c1,4
< Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
< 
< He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
< 
< Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote cadenzas to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
< 
< Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
< 
---
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
> He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
> Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote CadenZa s to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
> Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573280
29c29
< There are many people still doing work on the AxiomOfChoice and its consequences.  If you are interested in more, look up [Paul Howard http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~phoward/]
---
> There are many people still doing work on the AxiomOfChoice and its consequences.  If you are interested in more, look up [http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~phoward/ PaulHoward]
31c31
< --RaviDesai
---
> --RaviDesai
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573340
3c3
<      Let X be a collection of non-empty sets.  Then we can '''choose''' a member from each set in that collection.  Stated more formally, there exists a function f such that for each set S in X, f(S) is an element of S.
---
> Let X be a collection of non-empty sets.  Then we can '''choose''' a member from each set in that collection.  Stated more formally, there exists a function f such that for each set S in X, f(S) is an element of S.
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573403
3c3
< Let X be a collection of non-empty sets.  Then we can '''choose''' a member from each set in that collection.  Stated more formally, there exists a function f such that for each set S in X, f(S) is an element of S.
---
> Let X be a collection of non-empty sets.  Then we can ''choose'' a member from each set in that collection.  Stated more formally, there exists a function f such that for each set S in X, f(S) is an element of S.
7c7
< Well, the controversy was over what it meant to '''choose''' something from these sets.  As an example, let us look at some sample sets.
---
> Well, the controversy was over what it meant to ''choose'' something from these sets.  As an example, let us look at some sample sets.
13c13
<           Then f can be the function that '''chooses''' the smallest element in each set.
---
>           Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the smallest element in each set.
15,16c15,16
<           Then f can be the function that '''chooses''' the midpoint of each interval.
<      4. Let X be the collection of '''all''' subsets of the reals.
---
>           Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the midpoint of each interval.
>      4. Let X be the collection of ''all'' subsets of the reals.
21c21
< There are no contradictions if you choose not to accept the AxiomOfChoice, however, most mathematicians (who aren't set theorists or logicians) accept either it, or a weakened variant of it, because it makes their jobs '''easier'''.  There are many variants of the AxiomOfChoice (for example the AxiomOfCountableChoice, which permits a sequence of choices).
---
> There are no contradictions if you choose not to accept the AxiomOfChoice, however, most mathematicians (who aren't set theorists or logicians) accept either it, or a weakened variant of it, because it makes their jobs ''easier''.  There are many variants of the AxiomOfChoice (for example the AxiomOfCountableChoice, which permits a sequence of choices).
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573423
19c19
< And therein lies the crux of the AxiomOfChoice.  All it states is that there is some function f that can '''choose''' an element out of each set in the collection.  It gives you no indication about how the function would be defined, it simply mandates its existance.
---
> And therein lies the crux of the AxiomOfChoice.  All it states is that there is some function f that can ''choose'' an element out of each set in the collection.  It gives you no indication about how the function would be defined, it simply mandates its existance.
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573474
29c29
< There are many people still doing work on the AxiomOfChoice and its consequences.  If you are interested in more, look up [http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~phoward/ PaulHoward]
---
> There are many people still doing work on the AxiomOfChoice and its consequences.  If you are interested in more, look up [http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~phoward/ Paul Howard at EMU]
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573908
9,17c9,17
<      1. Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
<           Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A, choose a...), since the number of sets is finite.
<           (Here the AxiomOfChoice is not needed, you can simply use the rules of formal logic.)
<      2. Let X be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... }.
<           Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the smallest element in each set.
<      3. Let X be the collection of all sub-intervals of (0,1) with a length greater than 0.
<           Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the midpoint of each interval.
<      4. Let X be the collection of ''all'' subsets of the reals.
<           Now we have a problem.  There is no obvious definition of f that will guarantee you success.
---
> # Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
> : Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A, choose a...), since the number of sets is finite.
> : (Here the AxiomOfChoice is not needed, you can simply use the rules of formal logic.)
> # Let X be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... }.
> : Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the smallest element in each set.
> # Let X be the collection of all sub-intervals of (0,1) with a length greater than 0.
> : Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the midpoint of each interval.
> # Let X be the collection of ''all'' subsets of the reals.
> : Now we have a problem.  There is no obvious definition of f that will guarantee you success.
------
AxiomOfChoice|981573975
9,17c9,17
< # Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
< : Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A, choose a...), since the number of sets is finite.
< : (Here the AxiomOfChoice is not needed, you can simply use the rules of formal logic.)
< # Let X be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... }.
< : Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the smallest element in each set.
< # Let X be the collection of all sub-intervals of (0,1) with a length greater than 0.
< : Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the midpoint of each interval.
< # Let X be the collection of ''all'' subsets of the reals.
< : Now we have a problem.  There is no obvious definition of f that will guarantee you success.
---
> :1. Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
> :: Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A, choose a...), since the number of sets is finite.
> :: (Here the AxiomOfChoice is not needed, you can simply use the rules of formal logic.)
> :2. Let X be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... }.
> :: Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the smallest element in each set.
> :3. Let X be the collection of all sub-intervals of (0,1) with a length greater than 0.
> :: Then f can be the function that ''chooses'' the midpoint of each interval.
> :4. Let X be the collection of ''all'' subsets of the reals.
> :: Now we have a problem.  There is no obvious definition of f that will guarantee you success.
------
WikiPediaBugs|981573985
10a11,15
> ----
> 
> O.k., it is still broken.  The way it is broken now is that I'm using a mod_rewrite passthrough to make the URLs look the way I want them (which is semi-important), but this causes the script to think that cobrand.bomis.com (the name of the machine where wikipedia lives) is the ip doing all the editing.
> 
> Therefore, I should not use mod_rewrite passthrough to do what I want.  So I have to think about the right way to do it.
------
WikiPediaBugs|981574000
15c15,16
< Therefore, I should not use mod_rewrite passthrough to do what I want.  So I have to think about the right way to do it.
---
> Therefore, I should not use mod_rewrite passthrough to do what I want.  So I have to think about the right way to do it.
> --JimboWales
------
JoeKoberg|981574125
4c4,9
< joe@rootnode.com
---
> joe@rootnode.com
> ----
> 
> Hi, Joe.  I've been studying for my technician class exam.  Actually, I could easily pass that one today, so I thought I'd go ahead and study for the general.  But I still have to learn morse. :-(
> 
> Anyhow, I've been thinking that there's probably quite a bit of already-free material available about ham radio.
------
JoeKoberg|981574137
9c9
< Anyhow, I've been thinking that there's probably quite a bit of already-free material available about ham radio.
---
> Anyhow, I've been thinking that there's probably quite a bit of already-free material available about ham radio. --JimboWales
------
BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition|981574597
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is the famous "doubling the ball" paradox, whereby using the AxiomOfChoice it is possible to take the unit sphere, cut it up into finitely many pieces and using only rotation and translation, and reform the pieces into two balls that are identical to the original.
> 
> At least this is the way it is commonly understood.  In fact, however, I believe the paradox is even stronger than that.  It states:
> 
> Any two bounded subsets (of 3-space) with non-empty interior, are equi-decomposable by translations and rotations. This can be illustrated by saying that a marble can be cut up into finitely many pieces and reassembled into a planet. Note that in the decomposition, the pieces are not measurable, and so they will not have "reasonable" boundries.
> 
> This is yet another example of a DecompositionParadox, one of the first of which was discovered by Hausdorff who noticed that it is possible to "chop up" the unit interval into countably many pieces which (by translation only) can be reassembled into the interval of length 2.
> 
> What these paradoxes point out is that the notions of measure and volume are often more complicated than we intuitively expect.
------
BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition|981574772
9a10,11
> 
> --RaviDesai
------
BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition|981575439
5c5
< Any two bounded subsets (of 3-space) with non-empty interior, are equi-decomposable by translations and rotations. This can be illustrated by saying that a marble can be cut up into finitely many pieces and reassembled into a planet. Note that in the decomposition, the pieces are not measurable, and so they will not have "reasonable" boundries.
---
> :Any two bounded subsets (of 3-space) with non-empty interior, are equi-decomposable by translations and rotations. This can be illustrated by saying that a marble can be cut up into finitely many pieces and reassembled into a planet. Note that in the decomposition, the pieces are not measurable, and so they will not have "reasonable" boundries.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleThree|981576498
1c1,26
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Section 1. The judicial power of the UnitedStates, shall be vested in one SupremeCourt, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
> may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
> behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
> continuance in office. 
> 
> Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,
> and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
> consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to
> controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different
> states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
> thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. 
> 
> In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court
> shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as
> to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. 
> 
> The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
> shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by
> law have directed. 
> 
> Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving
> them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on
> confession in open court. 
> 
> The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or
> forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleFour|981576560
1c1,25
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
> And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the
> effect thereof. 
> 
> Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 
> 
> A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on
> demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of
> the crime. 
> 
> No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
> regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
> labor may be due. 
> 
> Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the
> jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of
> the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. 
> 
> The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
> belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States,
> or of any particular state. 
> 
> Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of
> them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against
> domestic violence. 
------
ErnestHemingway/ThingsTurnSour|981578471
7c7
< It is worth noting that this attacks on his pride and talent were accompanied by the already mentioned injuries (The Time in Between) which kept him almost constantly in bad shape.
---
> It is worth noting that this attacks on his pride and talent were accompanied by the already mentioned injuries (/TheTimeinBetween) which kept him almost constantly in bad shape.
------
SanIty|981579165
35c35
< There is lively debate as to whether sanity is achievable, maintainable and restorable with or without physical interventions in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and than mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind in independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
---
> There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and than mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
------
AxiomOfChoice|981579446
1c1
< The AxiomOfChoice was formulated about a century ago by ErnstZermelo, and was quite contraversial at the time.  It states the following:
---
> The AxiomOfChoice was formulated about a century ago by ErnstZermelo, and was quite controversial at the time.  It states the following:
19c19
< And therein lies the crux of the AxiomOfChoice.  All it states is that there is some function f that can ''choose'' an element out of each set in the collection.  It gives you no indication about how the function would be defined, it simply mandates its existance.
---
> And therein lies the crux of the AxiomOfChoice.  All it states is that there is some function f that can ''choose'' an element out of each set in the collection.  It gives you no indication about how the function would be defined, it simply mandates its existence.
23c23
< One of the reasons that some mathematicians don't particularly like the AxiomOfChoice is the fact that it implies the existance of some bizarre counter-intuitive objects.  An example of this is the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition which amounts to saying that it is possible to "carve-up" the closed unit sphere into finitely many pieces, and using only rotation and translation, reform the pieces into 2 spheres each with the same volume as the original.  Note that the "proof" given in the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition is an existance proof only, it does not tell you how to carve up the unit sphere to make this happen, it simply tells you that it can be done.
---
> One of the reasons that some mathematicians don't particularly like the AxiomOfChoice is the fact that it implies the existence of some bizarre counter-intuitive objects.  An example of this is the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition which amounts to saying that it is possible to "carve-up" the closed unit sphere into finitely many pieces, and using only rotation and translation, reform the pieces into 2 spheres each with the same volume as the original.  Note that the "proof" given in the BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition is an existence proof only, it does not tell you how to carve up the unit sphere to make this happen, it simply tells you that it can be done.
------
DwGriffith|981579636
1c1
< David Wark Griffith has been called the father of film grammar.  Scholars no longer dispute that few of any of Griffith's "innovations" actually began with him, but still he is given credit for cannonizing a set of codes that have become the universal back-bone to the film language.  In the broadest terms, Griffith's contributions can be categorized as MiseEnScene and editing (FilmEditing.)
---
> David Wark Griffith (American director)
3c3,19
< Griffith has been a highly controversial figure.  While highly popular at the time of its release, his film BirthofaNation (1915) was also considered responsible for the resurgence of the KluKluxKlan in the United States.
---
> born: January 22, 1875, Crestwood, Kentucky
> 
> died: July 23, 1948, Hollywood, California
> 
> Important works:
> 
> The Birth of a Nation (1915)
> 
> Intolerance (1916)
> 
> Broken Blossoms (1919)
> 
> America (1924)
> 
> David Wark Griffith has been called the father of film grammar. Scholars no longer dispute that few of any of Griffith's "innovations" actually began with him, but still he is given credit for canonizing a set of codes that have become the universal back-bone to the film language.  In the broadest terms, Griffith's contributions can be categorized as MiseEnScene and editing (FilmEditing.). That being said, he still used many elements attributed to the "primitive style" of movie-making that predated cassical Hollywood's continuity system. These techniques include frontal staging, exaggerated gestures, hardly any camera movement and no Point-of-View Shots.
> 
> Griffith has been a highly controversial figure.  While highly popular at the time of its release, his film /BirthofaNation (1915) was also considered responsible for the resurgence of the KluKluxKlan in the United States.
7c23,24
< Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1908 and 1912 (the years he directed for the Mutual Film Company), Griffith produced an astounding 500 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he launched his own company and set to work to produce BirthofaNation.
---
> Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1907 and 1913 (the years he directed for the American Biograph Company), Griffith produced an astounding 500 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he became a co-founder of Triangle (1915), which produced /BirthofaNation, and later, as a reaction to the criticism Birth of a Nation received, his most ambitious project, /IntolerancE . The film was a flop, and Triangle went bancrupt in 1917, so he went to Artcraft, then to First National (1919-20). At the same time he founded United Artists, together with Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.
> 
------
AyeSpy|981579654
117c117
< I have thought up, composed, and written pleadings which, filed with the court and considered ''in camera'' without oral argument, defeated the motions or counter-motions of experienced lawyers.  I have averted courtroom defeats by catching factual or legal errors in pleadings before they were filed.  I have brought to the attention of engineers errors in their observations, assumptions or calculations which invalidated their conclusions.  I have brought medical technical data to the attention of medical examiners, with the result that they corrected an erroneous finding on cause of death.  I have found results in patient medical testing, and material in medical texts, which proved malpractice.  Did you know that a "right bundle branch block" finding on an ECG is a differential for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (instead of, say, gastritis) and that failure to immediately start a prophylactic course of of anticoagulants could kill the patient?  I know of at least two emergency docs who either overlooked or forgot that fact, in spite of 7 years of SeriousScholarship.
---
> I have thought up, composed, and written pleadings which, filed with the court and considered ''in camera'' without oral argument, defeated the motions or counter-motions of experienced lawyers.  I have averted courtroom defeats by catching factual or legal errors in pleadings before they were filed.  I have brought to the attention of engineers errors in their observations, assumptions or calculations which invalidated their conclusions.  I have brought medical technical data to the attention of medical examiners, with the result that they corrected an erroneous finding on cause of death.  I have found results in patient medical testing, and material in medical texts, which proved malpractice.  Did you know that a "right bundle branch block" finding on an ECG is a differential for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (instead of, say, gastritis) and that failure to immediately start a prophylactic course of of anticoagulants could kill the patient?  I know of at least two emergency docs who either overlooked or forgot that fact, in spite of 10 years of SeriousScholarship.
------
FilmCriticism|981579759
12a13
> *  BelaBalazs
------
FilmHistory|981580005
10c10,17
< Arguably, the most important figure in the history of film aesthetics would be DwGriffith.
---
> ----
> 
> Some people you should know during the beginnings of Hollywood (1912-1925)
> 
> *  DwGriffith
> *  MaryPickford
> *  CharlieChaplin
> *  DouglasFairbanks
------
MaryPickford|981580733
1c1,31
< Describe the new page here.
---
> birth name: Gladys Smith
> 
> born: Toronto, Canada
> 
> Mary Pickford was early Hollywood's biggest female star, and the first female actor to receive more than a million dollars a year. The first male actor who made a million dollar deal was CharlieChaplin.
> 
> prior to 1909: studied theatre actress in New York
> 
> 1909: discovered by DwGriffith at Biograph, worked for $5 a week
> 
> 1910: I.M.P., $175 a week
> 
> 1911: Majestic Film Corp.
> 
> 1912: back to Biograph
> 
> 1913: Belasco as theatre actress
> 
> 1913: Famous Players, $20,000 a year
> 
> 1915: worked for various companies, $1000 to $2000 a week
> 
> 1916: founded The Mary Pickford Corporation as a part of Paramount, she gets about $10,000 a week. She became the first actress who was the producer of her own films
> 
> 1918: First National. She gets $675,000 for three films plus 50% of all profits, plus a signing bonus of $50,000 and complete control over her films, ranging from script to the final cut.
> 
> 1919: Founded United Artists together with CharlieChaplin , DwGriffith and her husband DouglasFairbanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
CharlieChaplin|981581026
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The most famous actor in early Hollywood cinema. He was the first actor who did a one million dollar deal.
> 
> 1914: Keystone, worked for $150 a week
> 
> 1914-15: Essanay, $1250 a week, plus $10,000 signing bonus
> 
> 1916-17: Mutual, $10,000 a week, plus $150,000 signing bonus
> 
> 1917: First National, million dollar deal 
------
CharlieChaplin|981581085
9c9,11
< 1917: First National, million dollar deal 
---
> 1917: First National, million dollar deal
> 
> 1919: Founded United Artists with MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks and DwGriffith 
------
MaryPickford|981581122
5c5
< Mary Pickford was early Hollywood's biggest female star, and the first female actor to receive more than a million dollars a year. The first male actor who made a million dollar deal was CharlieChaplin.
---
> Mary Pickford, also known as "Little Mary" was early Hollywood's biggest female star, and the first female actor to receive more than a million dollars a year. The first male actor who made a million dollar deal was CharlieChaplin.
------
DwGriffith|981581329
23c23
< Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1907 and 1913 (the years he directed for the American Biograph Company), Griffith produced an astounding 500 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he became a co-founder of Triangle (1915), which produced /BirthofaNation, and later, as a reaction to the criticism Birth of a Nation received, his most ambitious project, /IntolerancE . The film was a flop, and Triangle went bancrupt in 1917, so he went to Artcraft, then to First National (1919-20). At the same time he founded United Artists, together with Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.
---
> Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1907 and 1913 (the years he directed for the American Biograph Company), Griffith produced an astounding 450 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he became a co-founder of Triangle (1915), which produced /BirthofaNation, and later, as a reaction to the criticism Birth of a Nation received, his most ambitious project, /IntolerancE . The film was a flop, and Triangle went bancrupt in 1917, so he went to Artcraft (part of Paramount), then to First National (1919-20). At the same time he founded United Artists, together with Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.
------
BanachTarskiParadoxicalDecomposition|981582025
5c5
< :Any two bounded subsets (of 3-space) with non-empty interior, are equi-decomposable by translations and rotations. This can be illustrated by saying that a marble can be cut up into finitely many pieces and reassembled into a planet. Note that in the decomposition, the pieces are not measurable, and so they will not have "reasonable" boundries.
---
> :Any two bounded subsets (of 3-space) with non-empty interior, are equi-decomposable by translations and rotations. This can be illustrated by saying that a marble can be cut up into finitely many pieces and reassembled into a planet. Note that in the decomposition, the pieces are not measurable, and so they will not have "reasonable" boundaries.
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|981582770
15c15
< Richard Feynman is a NobelPrizeWinner in PhysICs (quantum electrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
---
> Richard Feynman is a NobelPrize winner in PhysICs (QuantumElectrodynamics, 1950s?). He found this formula funny because it links all the main constants a human being is exposed to in this world. Zero and unity arise kinda naturally: one is how one starts to count, and zero comes later... when one does not want to :). pi is a constant related to our world being Euclidean (otherwise, the ratio of the length of a circumference to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences). The e constant is related to the speed of change, or growth, or whatever like that, as the solution to the simplest growth equation dy/dx=y is y=e^x. Finally, i is the concept introduced mathematically to have a nice property that all polynomials of degree n have exactly n roots in the complex plane. So, quite a lot of rather deep concepts are interrelated within this formula. Of course, there is a number of other ways to arrive to any of those numbers... which only underlines their fundamentality :).
19c19
< TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of Euler’s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
---
> TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld is an example of EuleR s Theorem from Complex Analysis.
22c22
< Euler’s Theorem states that:
---
> EuleR s Theorem states that:
36c36
< The proof of Euler’s Theorem involves the definition of "e," by a Taylor’s Series Expansion of  e^z, where z is a complex number, DeMoivre’s Formula, and the Taylor’s Series Expansion of the sine and cosine functions.
---
> The proof of Euler's Theorem involves the definition of "e," by a TaylorsSeriesExpansion of  e^z, where z is a complex number, DeMoivresFormula, and the Taylor's Series Expansion of the sine and cosine functions.
------
EuleR|981582854
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See LeonhardEuler
------
LeonhardEuler|981583306
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Swiss Mathematician (1707-1783)
> 
> Euler made large bounds in modern analytic geometry and trigonometry. He made decisive and formative contributions to
> GeoMetry, CalcuLus and NumberTheory. In number theory he did much work in correspondence with Goldbach. He integrated
> Leibniz's DifferentialCalculus and IsaacNewton's method of fluxions into mathematical analysis. In number theory he stated the
> PrimeNumberTheorem and the LawOfBiquadraticReciprocity. 
> 
> Copied and wikified from
> 
> http://www.math.wayne.edu/~zhihui/Euler.html
> 
> See there for more details.
------
AstroNomy|981583874
1,7c1,11
< AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
< In its origins it consisted on the observation and cataloging of the sky and its changes. Soon the changes in the positions of the Sun and the stars where correlated with the seasons, and Astronomy took on greater importance, beeing practiced mostly by priests, and shrouded in mysticism. Most (if not all) ancient civilizations measured the length of the year, with varying degrees of precision. They also noticed the difference between stars, that always keep the same relative positions, and planets, that move between stars.
< GreeK PhilosopherS thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets the Sun and the Moon. The one most remembered through the Middle Ages was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
< Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do). Galilei was apparently the first one to use the TeleScope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiTer and the SunSpots, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
< IsaacNewton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawOfGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
< (to be continued)
<  
---
> AstroNomy is probably the oldest of the NaturalSciences.
> In its origins it consisted on the observation and cataloging of the sky and its changes. Soon the changes in the positions of the Sun and the stars where correlated with the seasons, and Astronomy took on greater importance, beeing practiced mostly by priests, and shrouded in mysticism. Most (if not all) ancient civilizations measured the length of the year, with varying degrees of precision. They also noticed the difference between StaR""s, that always keep the same relative positions, and PlaneT""s, that move between stars.
> GreeK PhilosopheR""s thought of several models to explain the movements of stars, planets, the SuN and the MooN. The one most remembered through the MiddleAges was the geocentric model, in which the earth occupied the center of the Universe, with the Sun, Moon and planets each occupying its own concentric sphere. Stars used the outermost one.
> CopernicuS proposed a heliocentric system, in which the Sun was in the center. The model had some flaws, and did not predict the positions of the planets better that the old Ptolemaic system (the version of the geocentric model that was most accepted), but had its supporters. Two of the most famous JohannesKepler and GalileoGalilei. 
> 
> Kepler, using precise eyeball observations made by TychoBrahe, discovered the three laws of planetary movement that carry his name (though he published then mixed with some other not-so-correct ideas, and did't give them the importance that we do).
> 
>  Galilei was apparently the first one to use the TeleScope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiTer and the SunSpot""s, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
> 
> IsaacNewton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawOfGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
> 
------
AstroNomy|981583983
8c8
<  Galilei was apparently the first one to use the TeleScope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiTer and the SunSpot""s, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
---
> Galilei was apparently the first one to use the TeleScope to observe the sky, discovering the moons of JupiTer and the SunSpot""s, but he is most famous by his problems with the CatholicChurch (the story usually known is just a cartoon a the real thing). Galileo's greatest contribution to science was not in astronomy, but in dynamics, where he studied the motion of objects.
------
PlaneT|981584407
1c1,26
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A body of considerable mass that doesn't produce light on its own
> and orbits a StaR. Until recently, only nine were known (all of
> them in the SolarSystem). As of the begining of 2001, about 40 
> are known.
> 
> The planets of the Solar System (in increasing distance from the SuN) are
> 
> MercurY
> 
> VenuS
> 
> MarS
> 
> EartH
> 
> JupiteR
> 
> SaturN
> 
> UranuS
> 
> NeptunE
> 
> PlutO
> 
> 
------
AstroNomer|981584486
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Astronomy Grad Student that is losing his time writing wikipedia
> articles instead of working in his Dissertation
------
WolfgangMozart|981584568
1,5c1,5
< Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
< He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
< Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote CadenZa s to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
< Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
< As brilliant as he was, Mozart did not have an easy life.  Many times, he did not receive the promised payment for his work.  Gradually, his health became very poor.  He lived just a little over half of Beethoven's life span, yet was amazingly prolific from early childhood until his death in 1791.
---
> WolfgangAmadeusMozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
> He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
> Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote CadenZa s to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
> Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
> As brilliant as he was, Mozart did not have an easy life.  Many times, he did not receive the promised payment for his work.  Gradually, his health became very poor.  He lived just a little over half of Beethoven's life span, yet was amazingly prolific from early childhood until his death in 1791.
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981584616
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> WolfgangAmadeusMozart?, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began
> composing at the age of six. His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A.
> Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is
> considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern
> audiences. His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written
> tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music. He became a Mason during his adulthood, and
> fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death. Happily for W.A., he was successful. "The Magic Flute" is said
> to contain Masonic themes or meanings. The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling
> piece. Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or
> pianoforte. Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's
> style of composition. Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote
> CadenZa? s to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466. Mozart often composed only
> sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them. He was also known to write an entire work on the day of
> its first performance! Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his
> "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style. As brilliant as he was, Mozart did not have an easy life. Many times,
> he did not receive the promised payment for his work. Gradually, his health became very poor. He lived just a little over half of
> Beethoven's life span, yet was amazingly prolific from early childhood until his death in 1791. 
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981584641
1c1
< WolfgangAmadeusMozart?, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began
---
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began
------
WolfgangMozart|981584803
1,5c1,4
< WolfgangAmadeusMozart, born January 27, 1756, was a child prodigy from a musical family, who began composing at the age of six.  His father was Leopold Mozart, also a composer, and some of the piano pieces W.A. Mozart wrote, especially the duets and pieces for two pianos, were written for he and his sister to play together. He is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and is one of the most popular composers among modern audiences.  His music currently enjoys the reputation of being able to make you "smarter" or able to perform better in written tests for a short duration (about 15 minutes) following listening to the music.
< He became a Mason during his adulthood, and fervently worked to convert his father before L. Mozart's death.  Happily for W.A., he was successful.  "The Magic Flute" is said to contain Masonic themes or meanings.  The coloratura aria from that work, "Queen of the Night," is an intensely thrilling piece.  Mozart showed in many of his works that he could write as beautifully for the human voice as for the violin or pianoforte.
< Mozart is considered the bridge to the Romantic period. His later symphonies pushed the envelope of his period's style of composition.  Beethoven, one of the best known Romantic composers, was greatly influenced by Mozart, and wrote CadenZa s to some of Mozart's works that lacked them, most notably for Concerto No. 20, K. 466.  Mozart often composed only sketches for his own parts, so great was his ability to remember them.  He was also known to write an entire work on the day of its first performance!
< Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky greatly loved and admired Mozart, and expressed his admiration by writing his "Mozartiana," a piece he intended to be in the Mozart style.
< As brilliant as he was, Mozart did not have an easy life.  Many times, he did not receive the promised payment for his work.  Gradually, his health became very poor.  He lived just a little over half of Beethoven's life span, yet was amazingly prolific from early childhood until his death in 1791.
---
> See WolfgangAmadeusMozart
> 
> (His original name was Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, but he chose to
> translate his middle name to italian, Italy beeing very influetial musically at that time.)
------
MuSic|981584866
13c13
< JohannSebastianBach -- WolfgangMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- PiotrTchaikovsky
---
> JohannSebastianBach -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- Gustav Mahler -- PiotrTchaikovsky
------
CapitalisM|981585152
7c7,9
< Capitalist economic theory was first formalized by AdamSmith in 1776, in an attempt to refute MercantilisM.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman.
---
> Capitalist economic theory was first formalized by AdamSmith in 1776, in an attempt to refute MercantilisM. In his work, Smith
> first presented his idea of MarkeT, that is central to EconomicTheory.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman.
> 
------
CountriesC|981585237
7c7
< * ColumbiA
---
> * ColombiA
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981585844
3a4,11
> 
> 
> 
> After writing the original FundationTrilogy, Asimov abandoned the
> story, and didn't come back until the 80's, where a considerable
> monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). 
> In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a
> future history of humanity.
------
WikiWatcher|981585996
1c1,4
< An intelligent person who surfs the "WikiPedia" and finds valuable information. 
---
> An intelligent person who surfs the "WikiPedia" and finds valuable information. 
> 
> (for the time beeing, the previous definition would be best applied to MiracleDoer)...
> 
------
TimShell|981586744
4a5,8
> ----
> Tim - in your capitalism article, "Recently capitalism has often occured of a wider, LibertariaN? social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society."
> 
> Could you take a look at this and revise to reflect what you were thinking, if you don't mind?  I would copyedit it for clarity's sake, but I cannot for the life of me quite figure out what you intended... -- AyeSpy 
------
WikiWatcher|981586854
3d2
< (for the time beeing, the previous definition would be best applied to MiracleDoer)...
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|981586966
1,55c1,58
< We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace.  So, here it is!
< [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the
< encyclopedia some lively color.  But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia
< of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page.  ;-) -- BryceHarrington ]
< ----
< From PolanD:
< :From an Englishman's diary:
< * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
< * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
< * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
< * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
< ----
< From PatentNonsense:
< Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
< A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
< Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
< A. Go figure!
< ''[Of all the text to end up being hauled into this detention centre... :)]''
< ----
< order arising out of chaos...
< ----
< From WhatIsaWiki:
< This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
< Blah...
< ----
< Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
< It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
< ----
< Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
< Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
< ----
< Wow, This is kinda wierd
<     -- Drachs
< ----
< Investigation of the Wiki concept...
< ----
< From IdiosyncratiC:
< My dad knew him.
< ----
< From HareKrishna:
< (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
< ----
< Oh Wiki, you're so fine!...
< ----
< From EnglishLanguage:
< A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
< And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
< ----says who? Can't languages evolve? I don't see you spelling like Shakespeare...
< From SnowBoarding:
< This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
< ----
< From AustriA:
< <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
< ''Ha ha ha!  You mean that's not an objective fact?!  :-)''
< ''Ever been to AustriA?? Then you'll know what I mean;-)''
---
> We need a page where bad jokes and other deleted nonsense can rest in peace.  So, here it is!
> [I'm half tempted to suggest keeping the jokes inline with the pages, as they must sorta give the
> encyclopedia some lively color.  But I do know it'd just get carried away and turn into an encyclopedia
> of silliness, so look forward to frequent updates of this page.  ;-) -- BryceHarrington ]
> ----
> From PolanD:
> :From an Englishman's diary:
> * Monday: I went drinking with the PoleS
> * Tuesday: I think I'm going to die
> * Wednesday: I went drinking with the PoleS again
> * Thursday: Why the hell didn't I die on Tuesday...
> ----
> From PatentNonsense:
> Q. SO, you are really looking for Chaos on a webpage, right?
> A. Er...no, we'd like to avoid it.
> Q. K, how is that going to happen without a policeman?
> A. Go figure!
> ''[Of all the text to end up being hauled into this detention centre... :)]''
> ----
> order arising out of chaos...
> ----
> From WhatIsaWiki:
> This is crazy!  A tremendous Fear and Loathing of wikis is present...
> Blah...
> ----
> Er, what's crazy?  To whom are these Kierkegaardian sentiments present?
> It was a dark and stormy night and the captain said "tell us a story" ...
> ----
> Hmmm - it's REALLY possible to edit ALL of EVERY page?  Seems a recipe for diaster to me!  One destructive moron and the whole Wiki becomes mush.
> Maybe I'm just cynical.  :-)
> ----
> Wow, This is kinda wierd
>     -- Drachs
> ----
> Investigation of the Wiki concept...
> ----
> From IdiosyncratiC:
> My dad knew him.
> ----
> From HareKrishna:
> (For more on little-known religions' positions on sex, see BokoNonism.)
> ----
> Oh Wiki, you're so fine!...
> ----
> From EnglishLanguage:
> A quick guide for those living in the UnitedStates - Colour is spelt with a 'u', Aluminium has 5 syllables, and Encyclopaedia does indeed have an 'a' in it. In addition, Sulphur is not spelt with a 'f', foetus has an 'o', and 'organisation' is indeed spelt with an 's', as are many other words you spell with a 'z' (which is incidentally a 'zed', not a 'zee'), and it's "spelt," not "spelled."
> And if you can't use apostrophes correctly, *learn*. It's not hard. Plurals don't need them, normal possessives do, contractions do, 'its' as a posessive doesn't. Thank you.
> ----says who? Can't languages evolve? I don't see you spelling like Shakespeare...
> From SnowBoarding:
> This snowboarding page is dedicated to all the hot snowbunnies!! (ha,ha)  
> ----
> From AustriA:
> <b>Austrians are known as the best lovers worldwide.</b>
> ''Ha ha ha!  You mean that's not an objective fact?!  :-)''
> ''Ever been to AustriA?? Then you'll know what I mean;-)''
> ----
> From WikiWatcher:
> (for the time beeing, the previous definition would be best applied to MiracleDoer)...
------
MuSic|981587140
1c1
< We're ''desperate'' for good music articles (it seems).  The following music-related topics have been created:
---
> The following music-related topics have been created:
9c9
< We don't yet have articles about:
---
> Here are some more ideas:
------
SanityTalk|981587371
14c14,24
< Of course it is.  I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things.  As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want.  Anything I write is going to be from my point of view.  Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works.  All valid views are not necessarily mainstream.  All mainstream views are not necessarily valid.  I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both.  You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.  
---
> Of course it is.  I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things.  As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want.  Anything I write is going to be from my point of view.  Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works.  All valid views are not necessarily mainstream.  All mainstream views are not necessarily valid.  I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both.  You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.
> ----
> I'll have a look.
> 
> Not everything I write is from my point of view, Bruce.  Do you find that paradoxical?
> 
> Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it.  Sure.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are.
> 
> By the way, regardless of whether you sign the article and regard it as yours, in my opinion it belongs to the wiki, and I will make bold to change it whenever I wanna.  :-)  Without asking you.
> 
> -- LarrySanger
------
SanityTalk|981587395
20c20
< Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it.  Sure.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are.
---
> Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it.  Sure.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are--at least.
24c24
< -- LarrySanger
---
> -- LarrySanger
------
MetaEthics/Naturalism|981587728
5c5
< Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
---
> Well, that’s really not quite right.  That question, about what "good" means, would be better regarded as a topic under the theory of value.  That’s really just my opinion; other philosophers, like Hospers in our reading, would say that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely a topic in meta-ethics, not the theory of value.  They would say that the theory of value investigates <i>which</i> <i>sorts</i> <i>of</i> <i>things</i> <i>are</i> <i>good</i>, once the meaning of "good" is explained.  But as far as <i>I’m</i> concerned, we may as well consider these two questions, about what "good" means and about which things, in general, <i>are</i> good, as being at bottom the same.  And they are both questions answered in the theory of value.  But in that case, if meta-ethics isn’t in the business of defining "good," then how is it concerned with the meaning of ethical sentences at all?  How are we to understand this claim that meta-ethics is the study of what sort of meaning ethical sentences have?
41c41
< Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
---
> Now, when we discuss the theory of value, I’m going to give you some theories of what "good" means.  So I’ll be giving you a few examples of how you could reduce talk of goodness to talk about other things -- like pleasure, or happiness.  So really you could look at the theory of value as a way of thinking naturalism through; the theory of value can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce goodness to nonethical properties; and for that matter, the theory of conduct, as we’ll see, can be regarded as an attempt to figure out how to reduce moral obligations and permissions to nonethical properties as well.  So if you are wondering how on earth we could ever reduce ethical sentences to nonethical sentences, just wait, because we’ll be looking at some examples of such reductions.
------
LeonhardEuler|981588078
12c12,14
< See there for more details.
---
> See there for more details.
> ----
> Umm...did you get permission?  Is that page public domain?
------
SanityTalk|981588133
24a25,27
> ----
> Fair enough.  After all, I agree to the WikiPedia license when I dump it here.  I think I at least mentioned most mainstream views in passing.  I still don't like my last paragraph or so, so expect that to change.  I have a well-formed concept but the words elude me at the moment.  Blame it on a right-brain moment.  As to your or anyone's revisions of "my" article, If I cannot get it to retain the sense of what I meant, I can always remove my name from it.  For the nonce, I leave it appended so folks know upon whom to blame the drivel presented. ;^)
> -- AyeSpy
------
SanIty|981588303
35c35
< There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and than mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
---
> There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
------
LeonhardEuler|981588332
14c14,16
< Umm...did you get permission?  Is that page public domain?
---
> Umm...did you get permission?  Is that page public domain?
> ----
> It doesn't have a copyright claim, but i'm not sure what is assumed by default. I'll email the author, and if i don't get a satisfactory answer, i'll delete the entry (or somebody else will probably will).
------
SanIty|981588442
1c1
< "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you are authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
---
> "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
3c3
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading one to the conclusion that if one's mind is properly functioning, that is, he is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
---
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading one to the conclusion that if one's mind is properly functioning, that is, if he is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
------
LeonhardEuler|981588506
3,16d2
< Euler made large bounds in modern analytic geometry and trigonometry. He made decisive and formative contributions to
< GeoMetry, CalcuLus and NumberTheory. In number theory he did much work in correspondence with Goldbach. He integrated
< Leibniz's DifferentialCalculus and IsaacNewton's method of fluxions into mathematical analysis. In number theory he stated the
< PrimeNumberTheorem and the LawOfBiquadraticReciprocity. 
< 
< Copied and wikified from
< 
< http://www.math.wayne.edu/~zhihui/Euler.html
< 
< See there for more details.
< ----
< Umm...did you get permission?  Is that page public domain?
< ----
< It doesn't have a copyright claim, but i'm not sure what is assumed by default. I'll email the author, and if i don't get a satisfactory answer, i'll delete the entry (or somebody else will probably will).
------
TimShell|981588676
8c8
< Could you take a look at this and revise to reflect what you were thinking, if you don't mind?  I would copyedit it for clarity's sake, but I cannot for the life of me quite figure out what you intended... -- AyeSpy 
---
> Could you take a look at this and revise to reflect what you were thinking, if you don't mind?  I would copyedit it for clarity's sake, but I cannot for the life of me quite figure out what you intended... -- AyeSpy
9a10
> Actually, the "recently" was my bit.  It occured to me that capitalism is old and fairly mainstream in some countries, whereas libertarianism is new and controversial.  So the often seemed misleading.  Sorry if I broke it. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
IntelliGence|981589071
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> IntelliGence:  1)  The power to reason.  2)  Self-awareness accompanied by a capacity for abstract reasoning.  3)  Intellectual prowess.  5)  Knowledge.  4)  Data, especially of a secure or secret nature, about the plans and activities of an adversary. 5) In the field of automation, the quality of being directed by a computing circuit or device. -- AyeSpy
> 
> (from Latin ''intellegere'' to gather within)
> 
> (Does anyone have more definitions?)
------
AstroNomer|981589146
0a1,5
> Scientist whose are of research is AstroNomy.
> 
> ----
> 
> Refering to authors of WikiPedia:
------
TimShell|981589189
10a11,12
> 
> OK - I edited it to say what I think you meant.  Tell me if I got it right. -- AyeSpy
------
AstroNomer|981589193
1c1
< Scientist whose are of research is AstroNomy.
---
> ScientIst whose area of ReSearch is AstroNomy.
------
CapitalisM|981589310
1c1
< A system based on the absence of political intervention in the economy, which rests on the assumption that politics and economics are distinct from one another.  Recently capitalism has often occured of a wider, LibertariaN social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society.
---
> A system based on the absence of political intervention in the economy, which rests on the assumption that politics and economics are distinct from one another.  Recently, capitalism has often been discussed in the context of a wider, LibertariaN social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention in most aspects of society.
------
TaoTehChing|981590071
26a27
> TaoTehChingTalk
------
TaoTehChingTalk|981590178
1c1,34
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TaoTehChingTalk
> 
> COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (moved here from the body of the text -- AyeSpy) COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: 
> 
>   Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
>   in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
>   century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
>   describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
>   Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
>   personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
>   inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)
> 
> Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed. I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching. It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it. -- AyeSpy 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
TaoTehChing|981590247
20,52d19
< ----
< COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. 
< ----
< 
< I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger
< 
< ----
< TaoTehChingTalk
< (moved here from the body of the text -- AyeSpy) COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical
< statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote:
< 
<   Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
<   in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
<   century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
<   describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
<   Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
<   personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
<   inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)
< 
< Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses
< doubt about the authenticity of the available information.
< Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion
< that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one
< man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views
< as accepted fact.
< 
< ----
< 
< I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed.  I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching.  It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it. -- AyeSpy
< 
< 
< 
< 
------
TaoTehChing|981590329
19a20,21
> ----
> See also TaoTehChingTalk
------
DeletePatentNonsenseDebate|981590453
1c1
< I agree that one should delete patent nonsense.  One should also give the author a chance to fix his material.
---
> I agree that one should delete patent nonsense.  One should also give the author a chance to fix his material. -- AyeSpy
------
SeriousScholars|981591238
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Those who pursue SeriousScholarship
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981592011
0a1,2
> (Would anyone object to moving this page to MozarT?  That's easier to type, and its not like he is going to be confused with some other MozarT).
> 
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981592137
2a3,4
> (I think it would be better to create MozarT, and add a link here)
> 
------
MozarT|981592162
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> See WolfgangAmadeusMozart
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981592243
3c3
< (I think it would be better to create MozarT, and add a link here)
---
> (I think it would be better to create MozarT, and add a link here. The long name keeps consistency with other names used.)
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981592402
4a5,6
> (Incidentally, you can add this phrase "#REDIREDT WolfgangAmadeusMozart" to a page and it will automatically forward you.)
> 
------
TrigonometricFunctions|981594636
82c82
< Another mnemonic is commonly used in the UK is OHMS. This is memorable because it might mean "On Her Majesty's Service", which is stamped on the front of Tax demands, or "Opposite over Adjacent Means Sine".
---
> Another mnemonic is commonly used in the UK is OHMS. This is memorable because it might mean "On Her Majesty's Service", which is stamped on the front of Tax demands, or "Opposite over Hypotenuse Means Sine".
------
WikiPediaBugs|981595196
1,16c1
< Report any bugs or unexpected behavior here:
< ----
< 
< The RecentChanges page is broken: when all the pages were moved from /wiki.cgi?* to /wiki/*, it wasn't properly updated, so now clicking on an author's name doesn't work.  Who is the appropriate person to fix this?  
< 
< :The person who broke it, of course. :-)
< 
< :I didn't break the code, but I think I see the problem.  The script name is (mainly) used in two routines: ScriptLink and ScriptLinkTitle (used for author links so that you'll get the nifty pop-up with the ID and hostname).  It looks like only the first of these was modified for the new /-style links.  The fix should be simple--just modify ScriptLinkTitle the same way.  --CliffordAdams
< 
< :I broke it.  Now I will go fix it.  The purpose of the change is that many search spiders refuse to index past the '?', and I am hoping that changing the urls to look like /wiki/* will help them index us. --JimboWales
< ----
< 
< O.k., it is still broken.  The way it is broken now is that I'm using a mod_rewrite passthrough to make the URLs look the way I want them (which is semi-important), but this causes the script to think that cobrand.bomis.com (the name of the machine where wikipedia lives) is the ip doing all the editing.
< 
< Therefore, I should not use mod_rewrite passthrough to do what I want.  So I have to think about the right way to do it.
< --JimboWales
---
> Report any bugs or unexpected behavior here.
------
MozarT|981598671
1c1
< See WolfgangAmadeusMozart
---
> #REDIRECT WolfgangAmadeusMozart
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981599476
1,5d0
< (Would anyone object to moving this page to MozarT?  That's easier to type, and its not like he is going to be confused with some other MozarT).
< 
< (I think it would be better to create MozarT, and add a link here. The long name keeps consistency with other names used.)
< 
< (Incidentally, you can add this phrase "#REDIREDT WolfgangAmadeusMozart" to a page and it will automatically forward you.)
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozart|981599697
1d0
< 
18a18,19
> ----
> See also WolfgangAmadeusMozartTalk.
------
WolfgangAmadeusMozartTalk|981599708
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> (Would anyone object to moving this page to MozarT? That's easier to type, and its not like he is going to be confused with some other MozarT).
> 
> (I think it would be better to create MozarT, and add a link here. The long name keeps consistency with other names used.)
> 
> (Incidentally, you can add this phrase "#REDIREDT WolfgangAmadeusMozart" to a page and it will automatically forward you.) 
------
CapitalisM|981601252
8c8
< first presented his idea of MarkeT, that is central to EconomicTheory.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman.
---
> first presented his idea of MarkeT, that is central to EconomicTheory.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman. 
9a10,12
> ---- 
> 
> CaptitalisM is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article, written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob
------
CapitalisM|981601334
10a11
>  See CapitalismTalk
12c13
< CaptitalisM is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article, written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob
---
> CaptitalisM is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article, written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob
------
CapitalismTalk|981601368
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
> written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
> economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
> different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob 
------
CapitalisM|981601397
11d10
<  See CapitalismTalk
13c12
< CaptitalisM is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article, written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob
---
> 
------
CapitalisM|981601432
11,12c11
< 
< 
---
> See CapitalismTalk
------
CapitalismTalk|981601492
1c1
< CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
---
> CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. his is a very biased, right-wing article,
4c4
< different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob 
---
> different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
------
CapitalismTalk|981601512
1c1
< CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. his is a very biased, right-wing article,
---
> CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981602175
7,11d6
< After writing the original FundationTrilogy, Asimov abandoned the
< story, and didn't come back until the 80's, where a considerable
< monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). 
< In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a
< future history of humanity.
------
IsaacAsimov|981602199
15c15,18
< * ThreeLawsOfRobotics
---
> * ThreeLawsOfRobotics
> 
> 
> * /Talk
------
IsaacAsimov/Talk|981602220
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> After writing the original FundationTrilogy, Asimov abandoned the story, and didn't come back until the 80's, where a considerable monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a future history of humanity.
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge|981602295
3c3
< The Mayor of Terminus fears that the mysterious Second Foundation, which is thought to be extinct, will bid for power once the new Galactic Empire is established. Councilman Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Terminus are sent on a mission to discover its location. 
---
> The Mayor of Terminus fears that the mysterious Second Foundation, which is thought to be extinct, will bid for power once the new Galactic Empire is established. Councilman Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Terminus are sent on a mission to discover its location . 
------
IsaacAsimov/Talk|981602328
1c1
< After writing the original FundationTrilogy, Asimov abandoned the story, and didn't come back until the 80's, where a considerable monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a future history of humanity.
---
> After writing the original FoundationTrilogy, Asimov abandoned the story, and didn't come back until the 80's, where a considerable monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a future history of humanity.
------
HomePage|981606982
3c3
< BusinessAndEconomics -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- HiStory -- --  LinguisticS & LanguagE -- ReLigion -- UnitedStates -- PoLitics -- MuSic -- SportS -- PhiloSophy -- ScienCe -- TechnologY --ArtsandEntertainment -- DanCe -- LiteraryArt -- ReCreation -- ArchitecturE -- QuoteS -- HumanComputerInteraction -- CategorySchemes
---
> PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- HumanComputerInteraction -- BusinessAnEconomics -- PoLitics -- ReLigion -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- HiStory -- LinguisticS --  LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- DanCe -- ArtsandEntertainment -- ReCreation -- SportS -- QuoteS
------
HomePage|981607002
3c3
< PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- HumanComputerInteraction -- BusinessAnEconomics -- PoLitics -- ReLigion -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- HiStory -- LinguisticS --  LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- DanCe -- ArtsandEntertainment -- ReCreation -- SportS -- QuoteS
---
> PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- HumanComputerInteraction -- BusinessAndEconomics -- PoLitics -- ReLigion -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- HiStory -- LinguisticS --  LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- DanCe -- ArtsandEntertainment -- ReCreation -- SportS -- QuoteS
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981608023
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The political spectrum is a classification scheme that is used to compare different political philosophies based on where they lie on the spectrum.  A spectrum is defined by its axis (or axes, as some spectrums have more than one).  Usually there is one issue that is deemed essential, and which is thought to subsume all others; placement on the spectrum is determined by one's position on that issue.
> 
> Because there are many possible political spectrums, one should not talk about _the_ political spectrum as if there were only one.  At the very least, one should first establish context by defining the axis upon which different positions will be measured.  Unfortunately, this is seldom done.
> 
> In a modern Islamic country, the political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government.  Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other.
> 
> In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM versus SocialisM (called liberalism in the UnitedStates).  There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis.  Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes.
> 
> This right-left spectrum is so common that many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it.  However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.
> 
> Such an alternative, and an example of a two-axes spectrum, has been popularized by the [http://www.self-gov.org/ Advocates for Self-Government].  One axis measures your views on "personal self-government", which pertains to the government's role in the home, church, and between consenting adults in private, while the other axis measures "economic self-government", which pertains to the government's role in economic activities.  With two axes, there are four different extremes: Libertarian, which favors personal freedom and economic freedom; Left Liberal, which favors personal freedom but opposes economic freedom; Right Conservative, which favors economic freedom but opposes personal freedom; and Authoritarian, which opposes both personal freedom and economic freedom.  There is, of course, plenty of room in the center for people who hold moderate views along either axis.
> 
> Another alternative currently popular among certain environmentalists uses a single axis to measure the good of the earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth.  On this axis, many mainstream politicians normally considered left-wing (such as BillClinton) are considered no different from those normally considered right-wing, because of their allegedly pro-business policies.
> 
> In 1998, political author VirginiaPostrel, in her book TheFutureAndItsEnemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures ones view of the future.  On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it.  On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control.
> 
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981608055
1c1
< The political spectrum is a classification scheme that is used to compare different political philosophies based on where they lie on the spectrum.  A spectrum is defined by its axis (or axes, as some spectrums have more than one).  Usually there is one issue that is deemed essential, and which is thought to subsume all others; placement on the spectrum is determined by one's position on that issue.
---
> A political spectrum is a classification scheme that is used to compare different political philosophies based on where they lie on the spectrum.  A spectrum is defined by its axis (or axes, as some spectrums have more than one).  Usually there is one issue that is deemed essential, and which is thought to subsume all others; placement on the spectrum is determined by one's position on that issue.
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981608887
7c7
< In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM versus SocialisM (called liberalism in the UnitedStates).  There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis.  Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes.
---
> In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM ("the right") versus SocialisM ("the left", called liberalism in the UnitedStates).  There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis.  Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes.
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981609181
15a16,19
> ----
> Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points.  There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer.  In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses.  So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial.
> 
> The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory.  Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism.  In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
CapitalismTalk|981609474
4a5,7
> ----
> 
> When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981610095
19a20,21
> ----
> Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'.  Which is the horizontal axis?
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981610315
22a23,24
> Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism.  As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions.  Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions.  As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government.  So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes.
> 
------
IntelliGence|981612496
5c5,9
< (Does anyone have more definitions?)
---
> (Does anyone have more definitions?)--
> 
> The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
> 
> I like this definition because it encompasses the idea of "learning how to learn."
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981612568
22a23,24
> Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)
> 
24a27,29
> Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians).  It's in this sense that I was using the term.  Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond.  A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.
> 
> Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981612604
23c23
< Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)
---
> ''Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)''
27c27
< Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians).  It's in this sense that I was using the term.  Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond.  A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.
---
> ''Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians).  It's in this sense that I was using the term.  Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond.  A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.''
29c29
< Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''
------
RequestedArticles|981612792
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers
---
> FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers  --LinearAlgebra
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981614460
24a25,32
> ****
> But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart.  The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative.
> 
> The diagram can be represented like this:
>    ++
>  +-  -+
>    --
> ****
29c37
< ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''
---
> ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''
------
PoliticalSpectrum|981616766
31a32,33
> 
> ''Oh...I see what they're doing.  In that case the corners of the graph are grossly mislabeled - a completely totalitarian government is authoritarian whether or not they allow a free market.  But all in all, it's the square is suggested, only tilted in a non-standard way.  Usually left-right is portrayed as an economic spectrum.  I'm very sorry for the confusion.  I still say the source is biased, though.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
------
CapitalismTalk|981617745
6d5
< 
7a7,8
> ----
> WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
------
TestingThreePhaseSupply|981623366
9c9
< 
---
> "SketchOfDirectOnLineMotorStarter"
------
SketchOfDirectOnLineMotorStarter|981623637
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
>        A  B  C        
>        O  O  O
>         /  /  /
>        /  /  /
>        O  O  O
>        
------
TestingThreePhaseSupply|981623938
7a8,19
>  
> Figure 1
>   
>        A  B  C        Earth
>        O  O  O
>         /  /  /
>        /  /  /
>        O  O  O
> 
> 
> 
> Tests should be made between A and B, A and C, B and C, A and Earth, B and Earth, and C and Earth.
9d20
< "SketchOfDirectOnLineMotorStarter"
------
IsaacAsimov/TrantoR|981631829
1c1
< The planet TrantoR was the capital of the /FirstGalacticEmpire. Its land surface of 200 million sq. km. was -- with exception of the Imperial Palace area -- entirely domed. It consisted of an enourmous MegalopoliS that stretched deep underground and was a home to 40,000,000,000 (40 bil.) inhabitants.
---
> The planet /TrantoR was the capital of the /FirstGalacticEmpire. Its land surface of 200 million sq. km. was -- with exception of the Imperial Palace area -- entirely domed. It consisted of an enourmous MegalopoliS that stretched deep underground and was a home to 40,000,000,000 (40 bil.) inhabitants.
------
LanguagE|981631941
19a20
> * AustriaLanguage
------
GermanLanguage|981633055
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Language spoken in GermanY, AustriA, and part of SwitzerlanD.  Belongs to the west group of GermanicLanguages.
>  There are a variety of spoken dialects:
>  HighGerman
>   MiddleGerman
>   UpperGerman
>    AustroBavarian - see AustriaLanguage
>    SwissGerman
>    HighFranconian
>  LowGerman
------
LanguagE|981633188
4a5,6
> * ArabicLanguage
> * ChineseLanguage
10,12d11
< * RussianLanguage
< * SpanishLanguage
< * ItalianLanguage
13a13,14
> * HebrewLanguage
> * ItalianLanguage
15d15
< * ChineseLanguage
17,18d16
< * ArabicLanguage
< * HebrewLanguage
20c18,19
< * AustriaLanguage
---
> * RussianLanguage
> * SpanishLanguage
------
GermanLanguage|981633341
1,2c1
< Language spoken in GermanY, AustriA, and part of SwitzerlanD.  Belongs to the west group of GermanicLanguages.
<  There are a variety of spoken dialects:
---
> Language spoken in GermanY, AustriA, and part of SwitzerlanD.  Belongs to the west group of GermanicLanguages.  There are a variety of spoken dialects:
9c8
<  LowGerman
---
>  LowGerman
------
WhyRossum|981639109
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Ross Mitton is an electrical technician specialising in watering systems in Western Australia. He was born and raised in the hills of Perth in a rather feral fashion.
> 
> In typical hillsfolk fashion, he was given the nickname of Possum.
> 
> In his late teens he was dragged into shoes and natty dress to become a barman. His employer insisted that he lose the nickname. A clever workmate combined the two names to Rossum.
> 
> "rossum@iinet.net.au"
------
WhyRossum|981639233
7c7
< "rossum@iinet.net.au"
---
> "mailto://rossum@iinet.net.au"
------
WhyRossum|981647521
3c3
< In typical hillsfolk fashion, he was given the nickname of Possum.
---
> In the typical hillsfolk way, he was given the nickname of Possum.
------
WhyRossum|981650361
7a8,9
> 
> ''The question is: WhyNotRossum?''
------
WhyNotRossum|981650370
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> And indeed, why not?
------
SummarizeDiscussion|981651442
1c1,3
< After a discussion on a page has died down for several weeks, you (if you can be smart and respectful at the same time) might replace the discussion with a summary of arguments, as though you were (!) writing an encyclopedia article stating the arguments from an unbiased point of view. If anyone believes his argument has been misrepresented, he can always go back and look at the "Recent Changes" and see the old version.
---
> After a discussion on a page has died down for several weeks, you (if you can be smart and respectful at the same time) might replace the discussion with a summary of arguments, as though you were (!) writing an encyclopedia article stating the arguments from an unbiased point of view. If anyone believes his argument has been misrepresented, he can always go back and look at the "Recent Changes" and see the old version.
> 
> Summarizing and otherwise cleaning up a discussion, and integrating results of it in with the article commented on, is called ''refactoring.''  See also RefactoringPolicy.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981652102
2a3,12
> ''' February 8, 2001'''
> 
> We're up to 900 pages as of this morning!
> 
> There are whispers that the newest version of the software that runs WikiPedia will soon arrive.  This means no longer will we have to indicate links LikeThis.
> 
> Bomis.com has put up a link to Wikipedia, Nupedia.com has taken theirs down (from the main page) but put up a new one in [http://www.nupedia.com/newsystem/member.phtml the member area] which supplements the one already on [http://www.nupedia.com/about.shtml the about page].
> 
> Now, some non-news: a lot of partisan wrangling has been going on, as opposed to actually writing encyclopedia articles...Larry, who has been dwelling far too much on rules and the WikiPediaProcess generally, now resolves to spend his wiki time just writing and improving articles...
> 
55a66,67
> 
> ''On January 15, 2001, Wikipedia.com "went public."  An earlier version existed briefly on Nupedia.com from Jan. 10-15.''
------
WhyRossum|981656701
9a10,11
> ----
> Welcome, Rossum! -- LarrySanger
------
FootBall|981666066
7,13d6
< That which one buys a large screen television for... 
< ----
< Not to start a religious war or anything, but the definition above is for what we Americans call SocceR.  FootBall is what they play in the SuperBowl. :-) --JimboWales
< ----
< I suggest AmericanFootball and EuropeanFootball as topics.  :-) -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Do non-Americans refer to Soccer as Soccer as well as FootBall?
15,19c8
< If so, we could change this page to simply be a pointer to AmericanFootball, SocceR, and AustralianFootball.
< I think AustralianFootball is the same thing as RugBy, but
< I'm not an expert!
< ----
< I have never heard of a SportS called EuropeanFootball. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what Americans call Soccer.
---
> ''see'' /Talk
21,43d9
< Do the following investigation yourself:
< * British site: http://www.football.co.uk/
< * French site: http://www.football.fr/
< * Italian site: http://www.football.it/
< * South africa: http://www.safa.org.za/misstat.html
< * Mexico: http://www.terceradivision.com.mx/
< * Argentina: http://www.afa.org.ar/home.htm
< * Brasil: http://www.brasilfutebol.com/select_language.sps
< * India: http://www.indianfootball.8m.com/
< 
< A quick Internet-investigation leads me to believe that UnitedStates, CanadA, AustraliA and NewZealand use the word Soccer and the rest of the world uses the word FootBall.
< 
< -- LinusTolke
< ----
< Americans, when for whatever reason we speak about soccer as "football," in order to avoid confusion with the sport we call "football," call soccer "European football."  Even [http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ital/t/inte/ Yahoo! UK] is determined to annoy you by calling it this.
< ----
< Yahoo! UK - just as any other decent sports site - calls it European FootBall in order to distinguish between FootBall played in Europe and FootBall played on other continents, eg. South America. I would like to remind my fellow Americans that FootBall, by definition is played using one's feet, and not by holding on to it with your hands and running around like a headless chicken.
< 
< <em>Whoever wrote this deserves a round of applause, it made
< me laugh out load</em>--JimboWales
< 
< ----
< And then enters the [http://www.bomis.com/rings/xfl XFL] or [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?XfL XfL]
------
FootBall/Talk|981666114
1c1,37
< Describe the new page here.
---
> That which one buys a large screen television for... 
> ----
> Not to start a religious war or anything, but the definition above is for what we Americans call SocceR.  FootBall is what they play in the SuperBowl. :-) --JimboWales
> ----
> I suggest AmericanFootball and EuropeanFootball as topics.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Do non-Americans refer to Soccer as Soccer as well as FootBall?
> 
> If so, we could change this page to simply be a pointer to AmericanFootball, SocceR, and AustralianFootball.
> I think AustralianFootball is the same thing as RugBy, but
> I'm not an expert!
> ----
> I have never heard of a SportS called EuropeanFootball. I believe that Soccer is an North American term that has spread also to Australia. I think EuropE, South America and AfricA uses the term FootBall for what Americans call Soccer.
> 
> Do the following investigation yourself:
> * British site: http://www.football.co.uk/
> * French site: http://www.football.fr/
> * Italian site: http://www.football.it/
> * South africa: http://www.safa.org.za/misstat.html
> * Mexico: http://www.terceradivision.com.mx/
> * Argentina: http://www.afa.org.ar/home.htm
> * Brasil: http://www.brasilfutebol.com/select_language.sps
> * India: http://www.indianfootball.8m.com/
> 
> A quick Internet-investigation leads me to believe that UnitedStates, CanadA, AustraliA and NewZealand use the word Soccer and the rest of the world uses the word FootBall.
> 
> -- LinusTolke
> ----
> Americans, when for whatever reason we speak about soccer as "football," in order to avoid confusion with the sport we call "football," call soccer "European football."  Even [http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ital/t/inte/ Yahoo! UK] is determined to annoy you by calling it this.
> ----
> Yahoo! UK - just as any other decent sports site - calls it European FootBall in order to distinguish between FootBall played in Europe and FootBall played on other continents, eg. South America. I would like to remind my fellow Americans that FootBall, by definition is played using one's feet, and not by holding on to it with your hands and running around like a headless chicken.
> 
> <em>Whoever wrote this deserves a round of applause, it made
> me laugh out load</em>--JimboWales
> 
> ----
> And then enters the [http://www.bomis.com/rings/xfl XFL] or [http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?XfL XfL]
------
FootBall|981666315
1c1
< Two teams of eleven players each fight to get a spherical ball into the other teams goal.
---
> Two teams of eleven players each fight to get a spherical ball into the other team's goal.
5a6,7
> 
> A match lasts 90 minutes (two halves - 45 minutes each) plus 2-5 minutes of injury time.
------
FootBall|981668731
0a1,10
> 
> Two teams play agains each other to score with a ball in the
> opponent's area.
> 
> The agreements end here.
> 
> ----
> If you are outside the United States, football means:
> 
> 
7a18
> 
9a21,29
> However, if you are in the United States, football is something different:
> 
> Two teams fight for control of an oval ball, which they have to
> carry in the arms and/or pass to another player on the same team,
> until the ball is stopped or the player carrying the ball get to the end of the field.
> 
> (Please someone that knows more about this that me, complete/correct it)
> 
> ----
------
FootBall|981668775
1d0
< 
5c4
< The agreements end here.
---
> The agreement ends here.
------
FootBall|981668846
15a16
> In the United States, the previous definition correspond to SocceR.
------
SocceR|981669004
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The name that the SporT called FootBall in the rest of the world
> has in the UnitedStates
------
HomePage|981669924
0a1,10
> 
> A concept that came to life with the WorldWideWeb, a HomePage is 
> the starting point, or root, of a group of pages belonging to the
> same perso, group, bussiness or any other organization. The HomePage usually includes basic information on the theme of the 
> whole site, and links to other related pages.
> 
> An example of this is the WikiPedia Homepage, that follows.
> 
> ----
> 
------
FootBall|981670923
7c7
< If you are outside the United States, football means:
---
> If you are outside the United States, FootBall means:
16c16
< In the United States, the previous definition correspond to SocceR.
---
> In the United States, the previous definition corresponds to SocceR.
21c21
< However, if you are in the United States, football is something different:
---
> However, if you are in the UnitedStates, FootBall is something different:
------
HomePage|981672019
1d0
< 
4,5c3,4
< same perso, group, bussiness or any other organization. The HomePage usually includes basic information on the theme of the 
< whole site, and links to other related pages.
---
> same person, group, bussiness or any other organization. The HomePage usually includes basic information on the theme of the 
> whole WebSite, and links to other related pages.
------
CapitalisM|981673247
3c3
< A capitalist economy has many features, including businesses operating on the profit motive, large scale trade, and prices that fluctuate in response to changes in supply and demand.  Some people consider any economy that prominently exhibits such features to be a capitalist economy, regardless of the degree of political intervention.  Typically when people define capitalism in this way they are denying or not recognizing the distinction between politics and economics.
---
> A capitalist economy has many features, including both for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations, large scale trade, and prices that fluctuate in response to changes in supply and demand.  Some people consider any economy that prominently exhibits such features to be a capitalist economy, regardless of the degree of political intervention.  Typically when people define capitalism in this way they are denying or not recognizing the distinction between politics and economics.
------
CapitalisM|981673457
8c8
< first presented his idea of MarkeT, that is central to EconomicTheory.  Other prominent capitalist theorists include DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, and MiltonFriedman. 
---
> first presented his idea of MarkeT, that is central to EconomicTheory.  Other theorists who have written about capitalism include Karl Marx, DavidRicardo, LudwigvonMises, FreidrichHayek, JohnMaynardKeynes, PaulSamuelson, and MiltonFriedman. 
------
CapitalismTalk|981673807
8c8,13
< WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
---
> WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> In an attempt to make the article appear to be less one-sided, I added some anti-capitalist theorists to the list of theorists.
> I think that the article is mostly good as it stands right now because it doesn't advocate for or against capitalism, but merely defines the term in a way that a broad spectrum of people can agree is accurate.  I say ''broad spectrum'' because I don't think that ''everyone'' will agree.
> 
> Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
------
WikiPediaBugs|981674065
1c1,10
< Report any bugs or unexpected behavior here.
---
> When people are not logged in as a particular person, their domain name shows up as being cobrand.bomis.com, rather than their real ip number.
> 
> This is a side-effect of my change to the
> www.wikipedia.com/wiki/* style of URL.  I made this change
> because it is more search-spider-friendly.  Technically, all that I did was add a line to the apache config for mod_rewrite, and then I change the script to print different links.
> 
> I think what I should do is add a function for slash-links instead question-links, and then some functions of the site
> could be ''not'' routed through mod_rewrite proxying.
> 
> If any of this makes sense, particularly to CliffordAdams, comments would be welcome.  (Even if I'm not making sense, comments are welcome!)
------
FootBall|981674435
26a27,28
> Here at Wikipedia, in the interests of peace among all the peoples of the Earth, we shall call this sport AmericanFootball
> 
------
AmericanFootball|981674606
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I sport in which two teams fight for control of an oval ball, which they have to carry in the arms and/or pass to another player on the same team, until the ball is stopped or the player carrying the ball get to the end of the field. 
> 
> American football is played at several levels in the United
> States.
> 
> Football is played by teams from colleges and universities.  This is popularly known as CollegeFootball.
> 
> Football is also played by teams of professional players.  The most prominent league is of course the NationalFootballLeague.
> There is a new league, known as the XfL.  You may read and write about individual teams on their respective pages.
------
NationalFootballLeague|981674787
3c3,37
< The NfL is the largest and most popular AmericanFootball league in the world.  It consists of 31 teams who represent most major American cities except LosAngeles.
---
> The NfL is the largest and most popular AmericanFootball league in the world.  It consists of 31 teams who represent most major American cities except LosAngeles.
> 
> :ArizonaCardinals
> :AtlantaFalcons
> :BaltimoreRavens
> :BuffaloBills
> :CarolinaPanthers
> :ChicagoBears
> :CincinnatiBengals
>     Cleveland Browns
>     Dallas Cowboys
>     Denver Broncos
>     Detroit Lions
>     Green Bay Packers
>     Houston Oilers
>     Houston Texans
>     Indianapolis Colts
>     Jacksonville Jaguars
>     Kansas City Chiefs
>     Miami Dolphins
>     Minnesota Vikings
>     New England Patriots
>     New Orleans Saints
>     New York Giants
>     New York Jets
>     Oakland Raiders
>     Philadelphia Eagles
>     Pittsburgh Steelers
>     San Diego Chargers
>     San Francisco 49ers
>     Seattle Seahawks
>     St. Louis Rams
>     Tampa Bay Buccaneers
>     Tennessee Titans
>     Washington Redskins
------
NationalFootballLeague|981674907
12,37c12,36
<     Cleveland Browns
<     Dallas Cowboys
<     Denver Broncos
<     Detroit Lions
<     Green Bay Packers
<     Houston Oilers
<     Houston Texans
<     Indianapolis Colts
<     Jacksonville Jaguars
<     Kansas City Chiefs
<     Miami Dolphins
<     Minnesota Vikings
<     New England Patriots
<     New Orleans Saints
<     New York Giants
<     New York Jets
<     Oakland Raiders
<     Philadelphia Eagles
<     Pittsburgh Steelers
<     San Diego Chargers
<     San Francisco 49ers
<     Seattle Seahawks
<     St. Louis Rams
<     Tampa Bay Buccaneers
<     Tennessee Titans
<     Washington Redskins
---
> :ClevelandBrowns
> :DenverBroncos
> :DetroitLions
> :GreenBayPackers
> :HoustonOilers
> :HoustonTexans
> :IndianapolisColts
> :JacksonvilleJaguars
> :KansasCityChiefs
> :MiamiDolphins
> :MinnesotaVikings
> :NewEnglandPatriots
> :NewOrleansSaints
> :NewYorkGiants
> :NewYorkJets
> :OaklandRaiders
> :PhiladelphiaEagles
> :PittsburghSteelers
> :SanDiegoChargers
> :SanFrancisco49ers
> :SeattleSeahawks
> :StLouisRams
> :TampaBayBuccaneers
> :TennesseeTitans
> :WashingtonRedskins
------
NationalFootballLeague|981674958
4a5,6
> At the end of each season, the winners of playoff games meet in the SuperBowl.
> 
------
NationalFootballLeague|981675040
4a5,6
> The league has a new competitor in the form of a new league known as the XfL.  Only time will tell if the new competitor will survive, but other attempts have failed in the past.
> 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleFive|981675135
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
> application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either
> case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
> several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the
> Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
> manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be
> deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleSix|981675162
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
> States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 
> 
> This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall
> be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
> thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
> officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
> religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 
------
JapaN|981675266
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We need a full writeup here (do you want to do it?), but in the meantime, here are links to some things of interest.
> 
> :JapaneseLanguage
> :JapanConstitution
------
FootBall/Talk|981675427
37a38,41
> ----
> I've got it!  I've got it!  The American non-soccer sport can be FootbalL while the European (etc.) sport that Americans call "soccer" can be called FootBall!
> 
> Oops, we're going to be switching to a way of indicating links not LikeThis.  Back to the drawing board.  Maybe we should just stick with the old link system just so we can implement this solution to the "football" problem. -- LarrySanger
------
JapanConstitution|981675451
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The current Japanese constitution was adopted at the end of WorldWarTwo.
> 
> Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website].  If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
> 
> PreFace
> ChapterOne
> ChapterTwo
> ChapterThree
> ChapterFour
> ChapterFive
> ChapterSix
> ChapterSeven
> ChapterEight
> ChapterNine
> ChapterTen
> ChapterEleven
------
JapanConstitution|981675477
5,16c5,16
< PreFace
< ChapterOne
< ChapterTwo
< ChapterThree
< ChapterFour
< ChapterFive
< ChapterSix
< ChapterSeven
< ChapterEight
< ChapterNine
< ChapterTen
< ChapterEleven
---
> :PreFace
> :ChapterOne
> :ChapterTwo
> :ChapterThree
> :ChapterFour
> :ChapterFive
> :ChapterSix
> :ChapterSeven
> :ChapterEight
> :ChapterNine
> :ChapterTen
> :ChapterEleven
------
PreFace|981675530
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for
> ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and
> resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign
> power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for
> which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are
> enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all
> constitutions, laws ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith. We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply
> conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting
> in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society
> striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the
> earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. We believe that no nation is
> responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all
> nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people,
> pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources. 
------
JapanConstitution|981675561
5,16c5,16
< :PreFace
< :ChapterOne
< :ChapterTwo
< :ChapterThree
< :ChapterFour
< :ChapterFive
< :ChapterSix
< :ChapterSeven
< :ChapterEight
< :ChapterNine
< :ChapterTen
< :ChapterEleven
---
> :/PreFace
> :/ChapterOne
> :/ChapterTwo
> :/ChapterThree
> :/ChapterFour
> :/ChapterFive
> :/ChapterSix
> :/ChapterSeven
> :/ChapterEight
> :/ChapterNine
> :/ChapterTen
> :/ChapterEleven
------
JapanConstitution/PreFace|981675590
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for
> ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and
> resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign
> power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for
> which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are
> enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all
> constitutions, laws ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith. We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply
> conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting
> in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society
> striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the
> earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. We believe that no nation is
> responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all
> nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people,
> pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources. 
------
PreFace|981675658
1,14c1
< We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for
< ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and
< resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign
< power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for
< which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are
< enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all
< constitutions, laws ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith. We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply
< conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting
< in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society
< striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the
< earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. We believe that no nation is
< responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all
< nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people,
< pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources. 
---
> The Preface of a book is a section at the front containing some introductory remarks.  Similar in purpose to the AfterWord.
------
JapanConstitution/PreFace|981675689
1c1
< We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for
---
> We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the NationalDiet, determined that we shall secure for
------
WikiPediaFaq|981675847
90c90,94
< '''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.
---
> '''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.----
> 
> '''Q.''' I am asking this again, because I do not feel I recieved an adequate answer, last time. To write pages on Math, the authors need to be able to include a large number of math symbols, graphs, etc. This is not a question of linking to someone else's images. These are items we need to be able to use freely and in our own original way. It would require, at present, uploading the content to one's own websites, assuming we have them ,and linking to this. For example, to discuss differentiation and integration in Calculus, one needs to have: an Integral sign, a summmation sign, a symbolism for limits, etc.
> Somehow, writing, the limit of sin(x)/x as x goes to infinity, just doesn't cut it.
> Already we are all missing the small epsilon for "belongs to," the symbol for "is a subset of," and many more in the Abstract Algebra entries. I think this will impede the addition of much material in the Math area.
------
AmericaN|981676289
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In the UnitedStates and other countries, belonging or relative to the United States of America. In many of the rest of the countries of the continent, belonging or relative to AmericA,
> (NorthAmerica, CentralAmerica and SouthAmerica)
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|981676366
18c18
< The world is divided into seven contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, OceaniA, NorthAmericA, SouthAmericA, and AntarcticA (though the last has no countries).
---
> The world is divided into six contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, OceaniA, AmericA, and AntarcticA (though the last has no countries).
------
AmericA|981676463
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Continent located between the PacificOcean and the AtlanticOcean.
> 
> It was connected to AsiA long ago...
------
WikiPediaFaq|981676979
94a95,96
> 
> '''A.''' This is a difficult problem.  Part of the problem is that html web pages don't do math symbols very well at all.  So almost any solution will be a crutch.  Within the next couple of years, browsers should be able to render MathML.  This will be a time of much joy.  Between now and then, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is a really hard problem.
------
CapitalisM|981677082
2a3,4
> An integral element of capitalist theory is the private ownership of property, and privately made decisions regarding  employment, sales, purchases, savings and investments.  This private ownership and these privately made decisions are said to constitute a FreeMarket, and the forces of the FreeMarket are driven by the aforesaid factors.  Historically, capitalist economies have been characterized by the potential for rapid accumulation of personal and corporate wealth, high national productivity, and potentially highly unequal distribution of wealth, resulting in extreme differences between the very wealthy and the very poor among private citizens.
> 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterOne|981677089
1c1,43
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Article 1:
> 
> The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom
> resides sovereign power. 
> 
> Article 2:
> 
> The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House Law passed by the Diet. 
> 
> Article 3:
> 
> The advice and approval of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor. 
> 
> Article 4:
> 
> The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers
> related to government. 2) The Emperor may delegate the performance of his acts in matters of state as may be provided for by law. 
> 
> Article 5:
> 
> When, in accordance with the Imperial House Law, a Regency is established, the Regent shall perform his acts in matters of state in
> the Emperor's name. In this case, paragraph one of the preceding Article will be applicable. 
> 
> Article 6:
> 
> The Emperor shall appoint the Prime Minister as designated by the Diet. 2) The Emperor shall appoint the Chief Judge of the
> Supreme Court as designated by the Cabinet. 
> 
> Article 7:
> 
> The Emperor shall, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, perform the following acts in matters of state on behalf of the
> people: (1) Promulgation of amendments of the constitution, laws, cabinet orders and treaties. (2) Convocation of the Diet. (3)
> Dissolution of the House of Representatives. (4) Proclamation of general election of members of the Diet. (5) Attestation of the
> appointment and dismissal of Ministers of State and other officials as provided for by law, and of full powers and credentials of
> Ambassadors and Ministers. (6) Attestation of general and special amnesty, commutation of punishment, reprieve, and restoration
> of rights. (7) Awarding of honors. (8) Attestation of instruments of ratification and other diplomatic documents as provided for by
> law. (9) Receiving foreign ambassadors and ministers. (10) Performance of ceremonial functions. 
> 
> Article 8:
> 
> No property can be given to, or received by, the Imperial House, nor can any gifts be made therefrom, without the authorization of the
> Diet. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterTwo|981677327
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR 
> 
> Article 9:
> 
> Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right
> of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the
> preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the
> state will not be recognized. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterOne|981677388
0a1
> CHAPTER I: THE EMPORER
43c44
< Diet. 
---
> Diet. 
------
JapanConstitution|981677704
3c3,5
< Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website].  If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
---
> Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website], or at
> [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/japanese-Constitution.html/
> the Japanese site]   If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterTwo|981677830
8c8
< state will not be recognized. 
---
> state will not be recognized. 
------
JapanConstitution|981677856
3,5c3,4
< Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website], or at
< [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/japanese-Constitution.html/
< the Japanese site]   If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
---
> Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website].
> If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
------
CapitalismTalk|981677950
13c13,15
< Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
---
> Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
> ----
> As private ownership and private economic decision-making are the bedrock of capitalism, and not expressly mentioned in the article, I plugged that in.  Hope no one minds.
------
JapanConstitution|981678085
3c3
< Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website].
---
> Until I finish cutting and pasting the entire constitution here, you may read it in English at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html this website] or in Japanese (Nihongo) at [http://home.ntt.com/japan/constitution/japanese-Constitution.html this website].
------
JapanConstitution|981678162
4c4,6
< If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) --JimboWales
---
> If you feel like helping me, by all means dig in. :-) 
> 
> --JimboWales
17a20,21
> 
> Are there any amendments?
------
CapitalismTalk|981679017
13c13
< Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
---
> Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term? --JimboWales
15a16,18
> ----
> 
> Not at all.  Indeed, in terms of a definition by essentials, this is probably much better than a definition based on 'intervention'.
------
XfL|981679647
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A new (in 2001) professional football league created by the company that runs the WorldWrestlingFederation.
> 
> The teams are:
> :BirminghamThunderbolts
> :ChicagoEnforcers
> :NYNJHitmen
> :OrlandoRage
> :SanFranciscoDemons
> :MemphisManiax
> :LasVegasOutlaws
> :LosAngelesXtreme
------
XfL|981679667
6c6
< :NYNJHitmen
---
> :NyNjHitmen
11c11
< :LosAngelesXtreme
---
> :LosAngelesXtreme
------
IsaacAsimov/FoundationAndEarth|981679763
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Councilman Golan Trevize and Prof. Janov Pelorat of Terminus, a historian, set out on a journey to find humanity's ancestral planet - EartH.
------
HomePage|981680220
1,9d0
< A concept that came to life with the WorldWideWeb, a HomePage is 
< the starting point, or root, of a group of pages belonging to the
< same person, group, bussiness or any other organization. The HomePage usually includes basic information on the theme of the 
< whole WebSite, and links to other related pages.
< 
< An example of this is the WikiPedia Homepage, that follows.
< 
< ----
< 
34a26,27
> 
> If you are interested in the general concept of HomePage, look here: HomePageDefinition.
------
HomePageDefinition|981680339
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A concept that came to life with the WorldWideWeb, a "Home Page" is the starting point, or root, of a group of pages belonging to the same person, group, business or any other organization. The Home Page usually includes basic information on the theme of the whole WebSite, and links to other related pages. An example of this is the WikiPedia HomePage.
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|981680558
11,12d10
< Now, some non-news: a lot of partisan wrangling has been going on, as opposed to actually writing encyclopedia articles...Larry, who has been dwelling far too much on rules and the WikiPediaProcess generally, now resolves to spend his wiki time just writing and improving articles...
< 
------
WolF|981680785
1c1
< WolF:
---
> Articled deleted -- terrible, terrible copyright violation!
3,117c3
< The wolf is the quintessential wild animal. Considered brave, even fearless, by admirers; held up as a model of family efficiency and loyalty; feared by those who misunderstand his needs; loved by ecologists; and hated by cattlemen and sheepmen, this wild canid is imbedded deeply in man's cultural and natural history through fairy tales, folklore, and an ill-advised battle against natural predators. People are willing to believe that this creature is related to northern breeds of dogs, but not to their beloved Poodles, Beagles, or Labrador Retrievers. 
< 
< *NOTE from TimShell - This is a good wolf article but the opening paragraph is really unobjective.  "quintessential wild animal", "ill-advised battle against natural predators", and "People are willing to believe that this creature is related to northern breeds of dogs, but not to their beloved Poodles" are all phrases that will be widely contested.
< 
< Scientific research conducted over the past century has determined that dogs developed from several subspecies of wolves scattered throughout the world. Thousands of years ago, wolves probably became camp followers, taking advantage of the scraps around the fires and caves of prehistoric man. Perhaps man brought wolf cubs into the family to raise, and eventually began to take advantage of the wolf's ability to hunt and to guard the campsite. Down the millennia, through preference for wolves of certain physical and behavioral characteristics and through genetic mutation, Canis lupus changed shape, size, and color to become the wolf subspecies now known as Canis lupus familiaris. 
< 
< Although most wolves have basically grey coats, hence the common name, the coats usually have a lot of base yellow interspersed between the salt-and-pepper frey and black hair. Wolves anywhere can have coats that grade from almost pure white to yellows, reds, even jet black, although all of the arctic wolves are usually all white. 
< 
< Most of the adult wolves weigh in the vicinity of 75 to 125 pounds (34 to 56 kilograms). Males are usually larger than females by as much as twenty-five percent. There are authenticated records of male wolves weighing as much as 175 pounds (79 kilograms). 
< 
< As large as wolves are, they usually appear to be much larger because of their long hair. In the winter coat, the hair on their back and sides averages 2 to 2.5 inches (5 to 6.3 centimeters) in length. Starting at the base of the neck, the wolf has a teardrop-shaped mane of hair that elongates into just a crest down the spine toward the tail. Over the shoulder, the mane is about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) wide. The hairs in the mane are 4 to 5 inches (10 to 12.7 centimeters) long and are attached to erectorpilli muscles, which allow the hairs to stand on end, making the wolf appear even larger. 
< 
< Extensive studies of the North American wolf species show between 50 to 70 inches (1.3 to 1.8 metres) in total nose-tip-to-tail-tip length. Of that length, one quarter is tail length. 
< 
< Wolves Stand between 27 to 31 inches (68 to 78 centimeters) high at the shoulder. Compared to dogs of the same size, wolves' chests are much narrower. Their legs are also longer in proportion to their body weight than are most dogs. Because of its narrower chest, the wolf's left and right foot tracks closer together than the dogs. 
< 
< Humans are plantigrade, walking upon our entire flat foot, sole to heel. All members of the canine family, and the feline family too, are digitigrade, walking upon just their toe tips. Unless a wolf is lying down, the heel of each foot does not come in contact with the ground. The front feet of a wolf are exceptionally large. This is of great advantage to the wolf when it runs upon snow, as it allows greater weight distribution and more support to prevent the animal from sinking in as deeply when the snow is soft. 
< 
< The wolf is very comfortable in the water, and does not hesitate to wade through icy streams or swim across short stretches of lake. In summer, wolves often bathe in streams to keep cool, and they will readily follow prey into water. They have been known to wash mud from their coats in rivers and streams. They depend on their thick coats in winter, so it is not surprising that they spend part of their leisure time in grooming behavior. It is also likely that the grooming of other pack members helps reinforce the social bonds that tie the pack together. Two wolves will lick each others' coats, nibbling gently with their teeth to remove foreign matter. Reciprocal grooming is especially common during courtship. Injured wolves are intensely groomed by other pack members, providing both physical and mental comfort. 
< 
< Wolves mature physically at a later age than dogs; females have their first estrus (heat) at two years of age or older, and they cycle only once each year, usually in late winter. Males mature at age three or later.
< 
< Wolves in the wild live in family packs, mostly consisting of three to a dozen members, usually related. Each pack has an alpha or top male and an equivalent female, and each top wolf keeps order among the pack members of its gender. Generally, only the top male and female mate, but occasionally the alpha male stands aside and allows the beta (second place) male to breed the alpha female. 
< 
< Only one litter is born to the pack each year, and all the adult wolves assist in raising the cubs. One wolf remains at the den site with the cubs while the others go off to hunt. When the successful hunters return to the den, they regurgitate partially-digested food for the cubs. As the cubs grow and leave the den, the adults take turns cub-sitting, playing with the youngsters and keeping them out of harm's way. 
< 
< Wolves love to play, shouldering one another, bumping bodies together, flopping tails over each other's backs, and leaping up placing forepaws around other' necks. Play especially in pups, develops strength and hunting skills, and aids in establishing pack communication and hierarchy. The intention to play is often signaled by the gesture well known to dog owners of dropping the front quarters into a crouch position, with smiling face and wagging tail. Adult wolves stage mock fights, play chase, and leap on each other. The ambushing of unwary pack members is a favorite game. 
< 
< Unity in the pack is maintained by complex use of facial expressions and body language that establish relationships between individual wolves that benefit the pack. Alpha wolves may place their head or paw on the shoulders of subordinates or grasp the inferior's muzzle in his jaws in play, just a reminder that he is boss. Or he may stare at boisterous subordinates in a C. lupus version of "Knock it off!" 
< 
< Position of the ears, tail, and lips are important in wolf communication. A relaxed but alert wolf or a dominant-aggressive wolf carries his ears up; a submissive or fearful wolf pins them back against the skull. An aggressive wolf carries his tail straight behind, a submissive one tucks his tail between his legs. A wolf ready to fight curls his lips back fully, bares his teeth, stares intently, and raises his hackles. He may growl or not. 
< 
< Submissive wolves avoid eye contact with dominant members of the pack and may turn away from their betters. Many inferior wolves grovel to their superiors, mimicking the cub behavior of soliciting food by licking at the muzzle of the dominant animal. Sometimes, they lie on the ground and expose their bellies to the alpha wolf, and they may urinate to further state their acknowledgement that the alpha is truly the top wolf. Some of you may have noticed this same behavior in your dog. 
< 
< With the cubs, however, all bets are off. All adults accept the attentions, including the sharp teeth, of the cubs. The youngsters are allowed to practice adult behaviors with forbearance, although a particularly painful nip might be followed by a big paw pinning a hapless cub to the ground. Mother may grab a cub by the scruff of the neck and shake him for wandering off, or she may cuff several cubs that refuse to stop roughhousing, but these are manifestations of tough love, designed to keep the cubs safe and teach them manners. 
< 
< The purpose of this social order is to increase hunting prowess and ensure the survival of the pack and therefore the species. Wolves cooperate when they hunt. In some cases, a couple of wolves will watch over the potential prey animal while the rest of the pack relaxes and plays. Then, when the hunt resumes, some wolves may leave the pack and circle ahead of the moose or elk, ready to ambush it. Sometimes wolves encircle a prey animal floundering in deep snow and simply wait for it to tire and collapse. 
< 
< There is a tendency to judge their behavior as cruel or as gentle and loving, but wolves are simply animals that are equipped to survive in a harsh environment. Ascribing human emotions or characteristics to their behavior is inappropriate. To search for vestiges of that behavior in their descendants and attempt to comprehend it can enhance understanding of wolves and of the dogs that share man's home and hearth. 
< 
< Today wolves are endangered species wherever they live, except perhaps in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic and subarctic, where they appear to flourish in the midst of the herds of hundreds of thousands of caribou. Attempts are being made to reintroduce wolves to their former territory to serve as natural predators for deer, elk, and other hoofed animals with burgeoning populations. 
< 
< The Wolf has developed the capacity to survive in the most inhospitable of climates. The wolves in the high arctic endure several winter months of perpetual darkness. Even in Febuary when sun returns to the north, temperatures of -40°C and bitter winds are common. Other wolves are at home in the desert and the dampness of a humid Gulf Coast swamp. 
< 
< Three canids -- dogs, wolves, and coyotes -- seem to crossbreed rather freely. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat popular for these crossbreds and their offspring to be kept as pets. 
< 
< Since the wolf - Canis lupus - is an endangered species, it is illegal to capture a wild wolf for any purpose. However, some folks established colonies of wolves before this status was granted, and they have used these animals to produce wolf hybrids. Most hybrids are crossbred on large breeds of dogs, especially German Shepherd, Chow, Akita, and Alaskan Malamute, and they often combine the worst characteristics of the wolf and the dog breed. 
< 
< The wolf is basically a shy animal, instilled with a fierce need to fit into a pack hierarchy and depending on nuances in body language and facial expression and on hunting skill to survive. A stare is considered a direct challenge and can bring an attack if the animal cannot flee. Wolf jaws are much stronger than those of a dog and are often used to exert dominance. 
< 
< According to Barry Lopez in Of Wolves and Men, the jaws of a wolf have a "crushing pressure of perhaps 1,500 (lbs/square inch) compared to 740 (lbs/square inch) for a German Shepard." The dentition of the wolf consists of twenty-two teeth: twelve incisors, four canines, sixteen pre molars, and ten carnassials and molars. The canines of the wolf are easily 1-inch (2.54 centimeters) long, strong, sharp, and slightly curved. These are the teeth used for grasping prey. The wolf does not chew its food, using its carnassials to scissor off a piece of meat that can then be swallowed in a manageable chunk. 
< 
< The breeds of dog frequently used to produce the hybrid tend to be dominant, fairly independent, and even aloof. They are difficult to train for inexperienced owners and can be aggressive to other dogs and dangerous to cats and other small mammals. This combination of wolf temperament and breed characters can be dangerous in inexperienced hands. 
< 
< Although the lure to own an exotic pet is strong, families who would like a wolf-like animal that is good with children should opt for a well-tempered German Shepherd, a Keeshond, or a Samoyed. More experienced dog owners might consider a Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute, Chow, or Akita. Only those folks who have previously trained a tough northern breed of dog should even consider a hybrid. 
< 
< A wolf hybrid should never be left alone with small children, for children stare, scream, and move quickly. Stares are challenges, and the baby will lose every time. Screams, cries, and quick movements are prey characteristics, and the hybrid may consider the child fair game.
< 
< A hybrid must always know who is top dog, and this alpha status must be earned and maintained with firmness, not punishment. 
< 
< Obedience training is a must. 
< 
< There's no way to predict whether a hybrid will display wolf behavior or dog behavior or something in between. Therefore, hybrid owners should read as much about wolves as possible so they can recognize and deal with the various manifestations of body language, facial expressions and dominant or submissive behaviors they may encounter. A hybrid should always be spayed or neutered to prevent breeding. 
< 
< The responsibility of placing hybrid pups in appropriate homes is far greater than the responsibility of placing any other pup. 
< 
< A hybrid is not a guard dog. Since there are far more subordinate wolves than alpha wolves, and since most wolves don't bark much, a hybrid with wolf behavior is likely to flee rather than guard.
< 
< Female hybrids are less likely to get along with female dogs or hybrids, and male hybrids are unlikely to get along with male dogs or hybrids. 
< 
< The caveats regarding wolf-dog hybrids carries over to coydogs, the coyote-dog hybrids that are becoming more common as coyotes spread throughout the country. Since coyotes are solitary animals not attuned to pack living, the problems encountered with these hybrids may be even greater than those of wolf-dogs. 
< 
< There's no doubt that a hybrid wolf or coyote can be a fine companion for those who understand their wild core. But the thrill of living with such a magnificent creature must be tempered by the knowledge that the animal will forever be unpredictable, that mistakes in training may never be forgiven, and that alpha status must always be reinforced. The average pet-owning family is much better off with "just" a dog. 
< 
< Ask anyone about wolf vocalizations and the howl invariably springs to mind. Even though wolves bark, woof, whine, whimper, yelp, growl, snarl and moan a lot more often than they howl, it is howling that defines the wolf, and fascinates us. So why do wolves howl? 
< 
< The center of a wolf's universe is its pack, and howling is the glue that keeps the pack together. Some have speculated that howling strengthens the social bonds between packmates; the pack that howls together, stays together. That may be so, but chorus howls can also end with nasty quarrels between packmates. Some members, usually the lowest-ranking, may actually be "punished" for joining in the chorus. Whether howling together actually strengthens social bonds, or just reaffirms them, is unknown. 
< 
< We do know, however, that howling keeps packmates together, physically. Because wolves range over vast areas to find food, they are often separated from one another. Of all their calls, howling is the only one that works over great distances. Its low pitch and long duration are well suited for transmission in forest and across tundra, and unique features of each individual's howl allow wolves to identify each other. Howling is a long distance contact and reunion call; separate a wolf from its pack, and very soon it will begin howling, and howling, and howling... 
< 
< When a wolf howls, not only can its packmates hear it, but so can any other wolf within range. These other wolves may be members of hostile adjacent packs that are competitors for territory and prey. Howl too close to these strangers, and they may seek you out, chase you, even kill you. In northern Minnesota, where wolves are protected from humans, the primary cause of death for adult wolves is being killed by wolves from other packs. So howling has its costs (running into the opposition) as well as its benefits (getting back with the pack). Consequently, wolves are careful about where and when they howl, and to whom they howl. 
< 
< For example, a wolf that is separated from its pack may return to an abandoned summer rendezvous site and howl for hours, even in response to a stranger nearby. It was accustomed to howling at that site and probably feels relatively confident and secure there. But that same wolf, away from the old home site, will be much more reserved, and if a stranger howls nearby, it may silently and quickly retreat. Younger wolves, however, act differently. 
< 
< Pups, especially those under four months of age, love to howl and will usually reply to any howling they hear, even that of total strangers. This is understandable, since pups haven't yet learned how to identify their older packmates. 
< 
< Indiscriminate howling is usually not a dangerous proposition for young pups, since they tend to be stuck at a rendezvous site that is relatively far from the neighbors, who likely have pups of their own to raise. More importantly, replying to an adult that howls often leads to a meal, since packmates returning with food frequently howl as they near the home site. But as summer gives way to fall, the benefits of indiscriminate howling decrease. 
< 
< Once pups start to travel with the pack, they begin to enter less secure surroundings. Their neighbors are also traveling more. Distant howls may belong to strangers, so the risks of howling increase. Besides, by now they have had ample time to learn the voices of their own packmates and are able to discriminate friend from foe. By six months of age, pups have become as selective as adult wolves about where, when and to whom they howl. 
< 
< There is one member of the pack who will tend to howl more boldly: the alpha male. The alpha male is the dominant male of the pack, and father of the pups. He is most likely to howl to, and even approach, a stranger -- often with confrontation on his mind. One sign of this aggressiveness can be heard in his voice; his howls become lower-pitched and coarser in tone as he approaches a stranger. Lowering the pitch of a vocalization is a nearly universal sign of increasing aggressiveness in mammals, and in wolves it can sound quite impressive. 
< 
< This behavior points to the second main purpose of howling: helping to maintain spacing between rival packs. When one pack howls, others nearby may reply. Very quickly, all the wolves know each other's location. By advertising their presence, packs can keep their neighbors at bay and avoid accidentally running into them. 
< 
< But the use of howling in spacing is fraught with difficulties. If one pack howls, all its neighbors (within range, of course) now know its location. What if they choose to keep quiet, sneak up, and attack the howlers? Deliberate attacks by one pack on another have been seen, so there are costs to advertising your location. These risks have to be balanced with benefits. An example of this trade-off is sometimes seen during winter, when packs are traveling nomadically within (or even outside) their territories. A pack sitting on a fresh prey kill is very likely to stake its claim and howl, particularly if a stranger howls nearby. As time passes and the kill is consumed, the wolves become less invested in the site and are less likely to reply. Eventually, they may respond to a stranger's howling by silently moving away. 
< 
< When two packs do meet, their relative size usually decides the outcome. Thus small packs are often quite reluctant to howl and draw attention to themselves, whereas large packs howl readily. But packs can fib to one another about their size. 
< 
< When animals compete, they often engage in behaviors designed to exaggerate their size. Wolves stand tall, raise their hackles, ears and tails, and produce low, menacing howls, all to convince their opponent that a retreat from this "big, bad wolf" is the best option. Thus most confrontations involve a lot of bluff and very little bloodshed. Similarly, packs that are able to exaggerate their numbers are more likely to keep their neighbors at bay. The structure of a pack or chorus howl is well suited to this kind of deception. 
< 
< Rather than using howls with a single pure tone, wolves howling in a chorus use wavering or modulated howls. The rapid changes in pitch make it difficult to follow one individual's howls if several others are howling simultaneously. In addition, as the sound travels through the environment, trees, ridges, rock cliffs and valleys reflect and scatter it. As a result, competing packs hear a very complex mix of both direct sound and echoes. If the howls are modulated rapidly enough, two wolves may sound like four or more. Indeed, during the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant reported hearing what he took to be a pack of "not more than 20 wolves" while traveling. A short time later he reached the pair of wolves that had been making all the noise! This phenomenon, called the Beau Geste Effect, may introduce enough uncertainty to make size estimates not only unreliable, but potentially lethal, if a pack underestimates the size of its rival and approaches. 
< 
< So wolves howl to find their companions and keep their neighbors at bay. Popular imagination has long held that they also howl at the moon, but there is no evidence that this is so. Wolves may be more active on moonlit nights, when they can see better, or we may hear them more often on such nights, because we feel more comfortable tramping about in the light of a full moon, but a wolf howling at the moon would be wasting its breath. 
< 
< Scent plays a very important role in the life of the wolf, by smell alone wolves can locate prey, other pack members or enemies. It can tell them if other wolves were in the territory, if they were male or female, and how recently they visited. The wolf has several specialized glands, one around the anus and another on its back about 3 inches (7.6 centimetres) in the front of the base of its tail. The scent from these glands is as individualistic as are our fingerprints and is used by that particular wolf as its personal calling card. These Glands are used to mark boundaries and also to mark trails. These "Scent Stations" are often 100 yards (91 metres) apart. 
< 
< The sense of smell in the wolf is highly developed, as would be expected in an animal possessing numerous scent glands. The distance at which any scent can be detected is governed by atmospheric conditions but, even under the most favorable conditions, 1.75 miles denotes a particularly keen sense of smell. The wolves usually travel until they encounter the scent of some prey species ahead of them. They then move directly toward their prey in an effort to capture it. 
< 
< Next to smell, the sense of hearing is the most acute of the wolf sense. Wolves can hear as far as six miles away in the forest and ten miles in the open. Wolves can hear well up to a frequency of 25 khz. Some researchers believe that the actual maximum frequency detected by wolves is actually much higher, perhaps up to 80 khz (the upper auditory limits for humans is 20 khz), also according to some naturalists wolves' hearing is greater than that of the dog. 
< 
< Wolves also have keen eye sight and are quick to detect the slightest movement of anything in front of them. Being major predators, their eyes are on the front of their heads, and they have probably a little less than 180-degree vision, unlike their prey species, which can see over 300 degrees of a circle. 
< 
< Investigation of taste is made difficult by the fact that the influence of smell often plays a major role in the way a food "tastes." It is known that canines possess taste receptors for the four taste categories: salty, bitter, sweet, and acidic. Felines on the other hand, do not respond to sweetness. The sweetness receptivity would be adaptive use to wolves, as sweet berries and other fruits do play a minor role in their diet. 
< 
< In the wild wolves can live up to 13 years or more, in a protected wolf park or a controlled area of land, a wolf can live to be up to 16 years old. But most wolves usually live to be to around 8 years of age. The record wolf lifespan is about 20 years of age. life in the wild is difficult for the wolf, with human population taking up more and more wolf habitat and with those who would kill the wolf, a long lifespan is unlikely. In a controlled enviroment they can live longer because they are safe from the outside dangers of traps, snares, enemies and poisons. 
---
> The original article may be found [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wolves/howl.html here].
118a5
> I discovered the violation on a hunch -- the article was too good!  It was easy to find it on the web -- I simply searched for an unlikely combination of words at Google, and found the exact same text on the Nova site.
119a7
> Quite separately, I'd like to say that any organization receiving government funding of any kind ought to be required to release their work into the public domain, but that's a different story.
120a9
> Maybe we should talk about this as a potential problem: CopyrightTalk.
------
CopyrightTalk|981680945
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> It is very important that everyone working on Wikipedia respect copyrights.  Since this is a wide-open project with no editorial oversight, this sort of thing will certainly happen again.
> 
> In our role as a provider of internet services, we have a fairly strong defense under the DigitalMilleniumCopyrightAct, and a fairly strong responsibility.  We can't be held financially liable for other people's actions, so long as we follow a reasonable take-down policy.
> 
> Nonetheless, I can tell you that my charitable instincts and love of knowledge will hit the wall if someone sues me.  :-(
> --JimboWales
> 
> 
------
CopyrightTalk|981681321
1d0
< 
8a8
> Notice that I have added some more words at the bottom of the page.  I think that the problem will mostly go away with this.
9a10
> There is no way to be 100% safe.  But, hey, risk is a part of life. --JimboWales
------
CopyrightTalk|981681353
8c8
< Notice that I have added some more words at the bottom of the page.  I think that the problem will mostly go away with this.
---
> Notice that I have added some more words at the bottom of the page when you go to submit.  I think that the problem will mostly go away with this.  People just need to understand that we don't want them to cut-and-paste from copyrighted sources!
------
AlchemY|981681845
15c15
< identifying the changing characteristics that defined alchemy.  For sake
---
> identifying the changing characteristics that defined alchemy.  For the sake
20c20
< Asked the common man of the street what the alchemists were, and one
---
> Ask the common man on the street what the alchemists were, and one
25c25
< for a single sentence definition it is not too incorrect.
---
> for a single sentence definition it is not altogether incorrect.
37c37
< Historians of a more occultists bent look at the alchemists as true
---
> Historians of a more occultist bent look at the alchemists as true
39,40c39,40
< gold.  beyond this, occultists saw th e alchemists as religious mystics
< who tried to discover the secret to purifying man's soul through
---
> gold.  beyond this, occultists see the alchemists as religious mystics
> who tried to discover the secret of purifying man's soul through
44c44
< Another view looks at the alchemists in a more philosophical way,
---
> Another view looks at the alchemists in a more philosophical way;
70c70
< intentionally wrote cryptically, it seams to have been a hallmark of
---
> intentionally wrote cryptically.  It seems to have been a hallmark of
77c77
< the cryptical phrasings of their works.  It is almost a tradition among
---
> the cryptic phrasings of their works.  It is almost a tradition among
101c101
< alchemical texts is, sadly, completely lost to modern scholars.
---
> alchemical texts is, sadly, completely lost to modern scholars.  It is possible that it perished with the library at Alexandria, along with so much written material of the time.
128,129c128,129
< conviction that earthly matter is evil and by learning about the nature
< of matter will lead to salvation.  By the end of the Roman Empire these
---
> conviction that earthly matter is evil and that learning about the nature
> of spiritual matter would lead to salvation.  By the end of the Roman Empire these
134c134
< moving on, Augustian views of science should be illustrated, as they had
---
> moving on, Augustinian views of science should be illustrated, as they had
146c146
< made available to the West they were not shunned.  Still Augustinian
---
> made available to the West they were not shunned.  Still, Augustinian
166,167c166,167
< According to Aristotle, each element had a sphere which it belonged to
< and would return to if left undisturbed.  (Lindsay, p. 16)  Alchemists
---
> According to Aristotle, each element had a sphere to which it belonged
> and to which it would return if left undisturbed.  (Lindsay, p. 16)  Alchemists
184,185c184,185
< and two were exterior.  For example, lead was cold and dry and got was
< hot and moist.  Thus, Jabir, theorized, by rearranging the qualities of
---
> and two were exterior.  For example, lead was cold and dry and gold was
> hot and moist.  Thus, Jabir theorized, by rearranging the qualities of
197c197
< the extent and effects have not been researched to any worthwhile
---
> the extent and effects of this fact have not been researched to any worthwhile
223,224c223,224
< philosophical explosion to occur.  Saint Abelard followed in Anselm's
< work, laying the foundation Aristotelian thought before the first works
---
> philosophical explosion to occur.  Saint Abelard followed Anselm's
> work, laying the foundation for acceptance of Aristotelian thought before the first works
227c227
< outside of man's conscience.  Abelard also systematized the analysis of
---
> outside of man's consciousness.  Abelard also systematized the analysis of
255,256c255,256
< Bacon.  His work did as much for alchemy as Robert Boyle
< did for chemistry and Galileo did for astronomy and
---
> Bacon.  His work did as much for alchemy as Robert Boyle's
> did for chemistry and Galileo's did for astronomy and
286c286
< few people outside the secular schools had the education
---
> few people outside the parochial schools had the education
306c306
< gold) as well as purify the soul.  They believed in the
---
> gold) as well as purifying the soul.  They believed in the
313c313
< universe operated.  Their entire philosophy was based 
---
> universe operated.  Their entire philosophy revolved
322c322
< between faith and reason.  According to his view, widely
---
> between faith and reason.  His view, widely
324,325c324,325
< alone, He could not be limited by human reason.  Of
< course, this view was not incorrect, but it virtually
---
> alone; He could not be limited by human reason.  Of
> course this view was not incorrect if one accepted the postulate of a limitless God versus limited human reasoning capability, but it virtually
340c340
< which he is reputed to have found; he spends a great deal 
---
> which he is reputed to have found; his work spends a great deal 
353c353
< lead to a wide interpretation of the art and, while many
---
> lead to wide variations in interpretation of the art and, while many
355c355
< alchemists who interpreted the purification of the soul to
---
> alchemists interpreted the purification of the soul to
366,367c366,367
< influences were negligible, but like Flamel, he produced
< writings which were referred back to by alchemists of
---
> influence was negligible, but like Flamel, he produced
> writings which were referred to by alchemists of
378,381c378,381
< Alchemy continued in this way through the opening
< scenes of the Renaissance.  Alchemist/con-artists
< abounded, who would use popular beliefs and slight of hand
< to convince a noteworthy person such as a professor or a
---
> Alchemy continued in this way through the dawning
> of the Renaissance.  Alchemist/con-artists
> abounded, who would use popular beliefs and sleight of hand
> to convince a noteworthy person such as a professor or
393c393
< dogma was the last "ism" to be latched onto alchemy before
---
> dogma was the last "ism" to be grafted onto alchemy before
397c397
< so much Aristotelean theory that his rejection of it was
---
> so much Aristotelean theory that his rejection of Aristotle was
401c401
< and deprecated those who did.  (Williams p.239-45)
---
> and scorned those who did.  (Williams p.239-45)
408,410c408,410
< microcosm and Nature the macrocosm.  He took and approach 
< different than those before him, using this analogy not in
< the soul-purification manner but in the manner that humans
---
> microcosm and Nature the macrocosm.  He took an approach 
> different from those before him, using this analogy not in
> the manner of soul-purification  but in the manner that humans
412,414c412,414
< and in the manner that certain illnesses of the body had
< chemical remedies that could cure the sicknesses.  (Debus &
< Multhauf, p.6-12)  His views were summarized by himself:
---
> and that certain illnesses of the body had
> chemical remedies that could cure them.  (Debus &
> Multhauf, p.6-12)  He summarized his own views:
426c426
< medicine and chemistry.  Alchemists had disposed of most 
---
> medicine and chemistry.  By Boyle's time, alchemists had disposed of most 
430c430
< this.  he assumed nothing in his experiments and compiled
---
> this.  He assumed nothing in his experiments and compiled
441,444c441,444
< thrown to the waste bucket, unneeded and forgotten.  it is
< hard to believe that alchemy, after having such a rich and
< colorful two thousand years of history could be so easily 
< and so totally ostracized by scientists and common
---
> thrown to the waste bucket, unneeded and forgotten.  It is
> sobering to observe that alchemy, after having such a rich and
> colorful two thousand years of history - during which it enjoyed the preeminent position among scientific studies - could be so easily 
> and totally ostracized by scientists and common
------
AmericA|981682552
1c1
< Continent located between the PacificOcean and the AtlanticOcean.
---
> ''America'' has two primary meanings:
3c3,7
< It was connected to AsiA long ago...
---
> (1) TheAmericas: the two continents located between the PacificOcean and the AtlanticOcean.  See NorthAmerica, CentralAmerica (often referred to as such, but strictly speaking a part of NorthAmerica), and SouthAmerica.
> 
> (2) The United States of America.  See UnitedStates.
> 
> In the UnitedStates and other countries, ''America'' usually refers to the UnitedStates (as in the song "America the Beautiful") rather than to TheAmericas.  In many of the rest of the countries of TheAmericas, ''America'' often refers to TheAmericas.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleSeven|981682880
1c1,71
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
> 
> done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, 
> 
> GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia 
> 
> [Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.] 
> 
> Delaware 
> :Geo: Read
> :Gunning Bedford jun
> :John Dickinson 
> :Richard Bassett 
> :Jaco: Broom 
> 
> Maryland 
> :James MCHenry
> :Dan of ST ThoS. Jenifer 
> :DanL Carroll.
> 
> Virginia 
> :John Blair--
> :James Madison Jr.
> 
> North Carolina 
> :WM Blount
> :RichD. Dobbs Spaight.
> :Hu Williamson 
> 
> South Carolina 
> :J. Rutledge
> :Charles 1ACotesworth Pinckney
> :Charles Pinckney
> :Pierce Butler.
> 
> Georgia 
> :William Few
> :Abr Baldwin
> 
> New Hampshire 
> :John Langdon
> :Nicholas Gilman
> 
> Massachusetts 
> :Nathaniel Gorham
> :Rufus King 
> 
> Connecticut
> :WM. SamL. Johnson
> :Roger Sherman
> 
> New York 
> :Alexander Hamilton 
> 
> New Jersey 
> :Wil: Livingston
> :David Brearley.
> :WM. Paterson. 
> :Jona: Dayton 
> 
> Pennsylvania 
> :B Franklin
> :Thomas Mifflin
> :RobT Morris
> :Geo. Clymer
> :ThoS. FitzSimons 
> :Jared Ingersoll 
> :James Wilson. 
> :Gouv Morris
> 
> Attest William Jackson Secretary 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleSeven|981682922
18,19c18,19
< :Dan of ST ThoS. Jenifer 
< :DanL Carroll.
---
> :Dan of ST Tho""S. Jenifer 
> :Dan""L Carroll.
27c27
< :RichD. Dobbs Spaight.
---
> :Rich""D. Dobbs Spaight.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleSeven|981682958
18c18
< :Dan of ST Tho""S. Jenifer 
---
> :Dan of ST <nowiki>ThoS</nowiki>. Jenifer 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/ArticleSeven|981683050
19c19
< :Dan""L Carroll.
---
> :<nowiki>DanL</nowiki> Carroll.
27c27
< :Rich""D. Dobbs Spaight.
---
> :<nowiki>RichD</nowiki>. Dobbs Spaight.
49c49
< :WM. SamL. Johnson
---
> :WM. <nowiki>SamL</nowiki>. Johnson
64c64
< :RobT Morris
---
> :<nowiki>RobT</nowiki> Morris
66c66
< :ThoS. FitzSimons 
---
> :<nowiki>ThoS</nowiki>. <nowiki>FitzSimons</nowiki> 
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentThree|981683154
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentFour|981683170
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentFive|981683183
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentSix|981683198
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentSeven|981683209
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentEight|981683222
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentNine|981683238
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTen|981683273
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentEleven|981683342
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwelve|981683372
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.<3> --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwelve|981683406
1c1
< The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.<3> --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
---
> The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentThirteen|981683441
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentFourteen|981683555
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
> 
> '''Section 3.'''
> 
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
> 
> '''Section 4.'''
> 
> The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
> 
> '''Section 5.'''
> 
> The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentFifteen|981683586
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentSixteen|981683607
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentSeventeen|981683636
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> 
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: ''Provided,'' That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentEighteen|981683671
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> '''Section 3.'''
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentNineteen|981683690
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
> 
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwenty|981683757
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
> 
> '''Section 3.'''
> 
> If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
> 
> '''Section 4.'''
> 
> The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
> 
> '''Section 5.'''
> 
> Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
> 
> '''Section 6.'''
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentyone|981683794
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> '''Section 3.'''
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentytwo|981683828
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentythree|981683885
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
> 
> :A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentyfour|981683907
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentyfive|981683950
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
> 
> '''Section 3.'''
> 
> Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
> 
> '''Section 4.'''
> 
> Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
> 
> Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department<6> or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentyfive|981683963
17c17
< Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department<6> or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
---
> Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentysix|981683988
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Section 1.'''
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
> 
> '''Section 2.'''
> 
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
------
UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwentyseven|981684004
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
------
CopyrightTalk|981684563
10a11,12
> ----
> Hmmmm - The only place I found that article exactly like that in its full length was on Ginger's site, in connection with her Wolf Cam.  The first two paragraphs also appear in the same form in The Dog Owner's Guide, though the rest of that article is quite different.  The author's name (Norma Bennett Woolf - can you believe that?) and copyright information appear at that site, including ways in which they will permit their material to be used.  I donno if Ginger got permission or not.  I did not find it on Nova (Jimbo's link) at all, tho there's alotta junk about wolves there.  Ginger - did you simply contribute the article from your own page and forget that part of it was copyrighted?  AyeSpy
------
WikipediaL|981684678
1c1
< Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page (where you can also find a Wikipedia-L archive):
---
> Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page (where you can also find [http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ a Wikipedia-L archive]):
------
FilmHistory|981688243
17a18,19
> *  GloriaSwanson
> *  ThedaBara
------
SanIty|981694453
1c1
< "SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
---
> "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
3c3
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  One could reasonably argue, then, that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Let us examine this further.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  The mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, leading one to the conclusion that if one's mind is properly functioning, that is, if he is clear and accurate in his awareness and reasoning, he might be regarded as "sane."
---
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning.  One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual.
5c5
< How shall it be determined, however, what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas?  To what degree must errancy intrude into the picture before one is determined no longer sane, but InSane?  
---
> It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  
9c9
< The most prominent aspect of accurate mental function which has been used as an indicator of sanity over the centuries appears to have been mental function as it relates to two areas: interpersonal relations, and bodily safety of self and others.
---
> The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others.  More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.
11c11
< More than mere accuracy has been introduced to the picture, however, as conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  In WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
---
> Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of schizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
13c13,15
< One can hardly miss the input of culture or of culture(s) if one attempts to determine what the modern western medical community uses as a measure of sanity.  In medical/psychiatric context, the most general definition is by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause becomes a medical problem rather than a psychological or psychiatric one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and classification.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as the reader will see directly.
---
> The input of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
> 
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  It can be x-rayed por biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
31c33
< Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them.   As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear.  These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds.  Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them.  The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane.
---
> Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them.   As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear.  These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds.  Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them.  The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane.  The very concept of sanity, as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence.  This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique.  One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness.  One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down.  One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity.  These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief.  Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
33c35
< A common thread runs through all of the foregoing.  Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by ''proper functioning'' is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society.  To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane.  One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority.  Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.
---
> A common thread runs through the foregoing.  Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by ''proper functioning'' is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society.  To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane.  One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority.  Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.
------
SanIty|981695328
13c13
< The input of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
---
> The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
15c15
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  It can be x-rayed por biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
---
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
17c17
< The "bible" of mental diagnosis is psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
---
> The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
19c19
< In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity and insanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
---
> In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
------
IndianapolisColts|981700252
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Based in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Colts are members of the AmericanFootballConference.  
> 
> The Colts colors are blue and white.  They play in the RcaDome.
> 
> Following a move from Miami, Florida, the Colts began play in 1946 in Baltimore, Maryland.  The BaltimoreColts were one of the most dominating teams in NfL history.  Having fallen on hard times, and wanting a new stadium, RobertIrsay moved the team to Indianapolis in 1984.
> 
> Since 1984, the Colts have had mixed success at best.  
> 
> Some famous BaltimoreColts include:  JohnnyUnitas, LennyMoore, RaymondBerry, BertJones, LydellMitchell, GinoMarchetti,  and ArtDonovan  
> Some famous Colts in the Indianapolis era include:  EricDickerson, MarshallFaulk, PeytonManning, MarvinHarrison, and EdgerrinJames
------
HomePage|981700829
23a24,25
> * CooLNesSZ
> 
27c29
< If you are interested in the general concept of HomePage, look here: HomePageDefinition.
---
> If you are interested in the general concept of HomePage, look here: HomePageDefinition.
------
HomePage|981703251
18c18
< We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.
---
> We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.  Practice editing pages in our SandBox.
24d23
< * CooLNesSZ
------
NamingConventions|981703431
66a67,72
> ----
> Don't it go to show that these wikinames just won't work in the long run?  It's fun - and easy - to add new pages, but what if I want to look up a subject? Will I find America under AmeRica or AmericA (both look equally silly, if you ask me)? And why should I have to memorize a gazilion CapitalizationRules in order to find what I want?
> 
> Nah, in my opinion we should be using a method that will allow us to create a link regardless of, but not excluding, the capitalization - much like they do on Everything2, where you create a link by enclosing it in square brackets [LikeThis].  And once this is established we should clean up this wiki for all the obscure and ugly capitalizations we can see today.
> 
> My advice is that we implement and enforce this before too long, otherwise it will be a tremendous task to correct the pages and to look up things on WikiPedia. --KlausSeistrup
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterThree|981705404
1c1,125
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER III: RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PEOPLE
> 
> Article 10:
> 
> The conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law. 
> 
> Article 11:
> 
> The people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolate rights. 
> 
> Article 12:
> 
> The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare. 
> 
> Article 13:
> 
> All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs. 
> 
> Article 14:
> 
> All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin. 2) Peers and peerage shall not be recognized. 3) No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it. 
> 
> Article 15:
> 
> The people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them. 2) All public officials are servants of the whole community and not of any group thereof. 3) Universal adult suffrage is guaranteed with regard to the election of public officials. 4) In all elections, secrecy of the ballot shall not be violated. A voter shall not be answerable, publicly or privately, for the choice he has made. 
> 
> Article 16:
> 
> Every person shall have the right of peaceful petition for the redress of damage, for the removal of public officials, for the enactment, repeal or amendment of laws, ordinances or regulations and for other matters; nor shall any person be in any way discriminated against for sponsoring such a petition. 
> 
> Article 17:
> 
> Every person may sue for redress as provided by law from the State or a public entity, in case he has suffered damage through illegal act of any public official. 
> 
> Article 18:
> 
> No person shall be held in bondage of any kind. Involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, is prohibited. 
> 
> Article 19:
> 
> Freedom of thought and conscience shall not be violated. 
> 
> Article 20:
> 
> Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. 2) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious acts, celebration, rite or practice. 3) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity. 
> 
> Article 21:
> 
> Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. 2) No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated. 
> 
> Article 22:
> 
> Every person shall have freedom to choose and change his residence and to choose his occupation to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare. 2) Freedom of all persons to move to a foreign country and to divest themselves of their nationality shall be inviolate. 
> 
> Article 23:
> 
> Academic freedom is guaranteed. 
> 
> Article 24:
> 
> Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. 2) With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes. 
> 
> Article 25:
> 
> All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living. 2) In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health. 
> 
> Article 26:
> 
> All people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided for by law. 2) All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided for by law. Such compulsory education shall be free. 
> 
> Article 27:
> 
> All people shall have the right and the obligation to work. 2) Standards for wages, hours, rest and other working conditions shall be fixed by law. 3) Children shall not be exploited. 
> 
> Article 28:
> 
> The right of workers to organize and to bargain and act collectively is guaranteed. 
> 
> Article 29:
> 
> The right to own or to hold property is inviolable. 2) Property rights shall be defined by law, in conformity with the public welfare. 3) Private property may be taken for public use upon just compensation therefor. 
> 
> Article 30:
> 
> The people shall be liable to taxation as provided for by law. 
> 
> Article 31:
> 
> No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law. 
> 
> Article 32:
> 
> No person shall be denied the right of access to the courts. 
> 
> Article 33:
> 
> No person shall be apprehended except upon warrant issued by a competent judicial officer which specifies the offense with which the person is charged, unless he is apprehended, the offense being committed. 
> 
> Article 34:
> 
> No person shall be arrested or detained without being at once informed of the charges against him or without the immediate privilege of counsel; nor shall he be detained without adequate cause; and upon demand of any person such cause must be immediately shown in open court in his presence and the presence of his counsel. 
> 
> Article 35:
> 
> The right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired except upon warrant issued for adequate cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized, or except as provided by Article 33. 2) Each search or seizure shall be made upon separate warrant issued by a competent judicial officer. 
> 
> Article 36:
> 
> The infliction of torture by any public officer and cruel punishments are absolutely forbidden. 
> 
> Article 37:
> 
> In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. 2) He shall be permitted full opportunity to examine all witnesses, and he shall have the right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf at public expense. 3) At all times the accused shall have the assistance of competent counsel who shall, if the accused is unable to secure the same by his own efforts, be assigned to his use by the State. 
> 
> Article 38:
> 
> No person shall be compelled to testify against himself. 2) Confession made under compulsion, torture or threat, or after prolonged arrest or detention shall not be admitted in evidence. 3) No person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession. 
> 
> Article 39:
> 
> No person shall be held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed, or of which he had been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy. 
> 
> Article 40:
> 
> Any person may, in case he is acquitted after he has been arrested or detained, sue the State for redress as provided for by law. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterFour|981705538
1c1,97
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER IV: THE DIET
> 
> Article 41:
> 
> The Diet shall be the highest organ of the state power, and shall be the sole law-making organ of the State. 
> 
> Article 42:
> 
> The Diet shall consist of two Houses, namely the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors. 
> 
> Article 43:
> 
> Both Houses shall consist of elected members, representative of all the people. 2) The number of the members of each House shall be fixed by law. 
> 
> Article 44:
> 
> The qualifications of members of both Houses and their electors shall be fixed by law. However, there shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, sex, social status, family origin, education, property or income. 
> 
> Article 45:
> 
> The term of office of members of the House of Representatives shall be four years. However, the term shall be terminated before the full term is up in case the House of Representatives is dissolved. 
> 
> Article 46:
> 
> The term of office of members of the House of Councillors shall be six years, and election for half the members shall take place every three years.
> 
> Article 47:
> 
> Electoral districts, method of voting and other matters pertaining to the method of election of members of both Houses shall be fixed by law. 
> 
> Article 48:
> 
> No person shall be permitted to be a member of both Houses simultaneously. 
> 
> Article 49:
> 
> Members of both Houses shall receive appropriate annual payment from the national treasury in accordance with law. 
> 
> Article 50:
> 
> Except in cases as provided for by law, members of both Houses shall be exempt from apprehension while the Diet is in session, and any members apprehended before the opening of the session shall be freed during the term of the session upon demand of the House. 
> 
> Article 51:
> 
> Members of both Houses shall not be held liable outside the House for speeches, debates or votes cast inside the House. 
> 
> Article 52:
> 
> An ordinary session of the Diet shall be convoked once per year. 
> 
> Article 53:
> 
> The Cabinet may determine to convoke extraordinary sessions of the Diet. When a quarter or more of the total members of either House makes the demand, the Cabinet must determine on such convocation. 
> 
> Article 54:
> 
> When the House of Representatives is dissolved, there must be a general election of members of the House of Representatives within forty(40) days from the date of dissolution, and the Diet must be convoked within thirty(30) days from the date of the election. 2) When the House of Representatives is dissolved, the House of Councillors is closed at the same time. However, the Cabinet may, in time of national emergency, convoke the House of Councillors in emergency session. 3) Measures taken at such session as mentioned in the proviso of the preceding paragraph shall be provisional and shall become null and void unless agreed to by the House of Representatives within a period of ten(10) days after the opening of the next session of the Diet. 
> 
> Article 55:
> 
> Each House shall judge disputes related to qualifications of its members. However, in order to deny a seat to any member, it is necessary to pass a resolution by a majority of two-thirds or more of the members present. 
> 
> Article 56:
> 
> Business cannot be transacted in either House unless one-third or more of total membership is present. 2) All matters shall be decided, in each House, by a majority of those present, except as elsewhere provided for in the Constitution, and in case of a tie, the presiding officer shall decide the issue. 
> 
> Article 57:
> 
> Deliberation in each House shall be public. However, a secret meeting may be held where a majority of two-thirds or more of those members present passes a resolution therefor. 2) Each House shall keep a record of proceedings. This record shall be published and given general circulation, excepting such parts of proceedings of secret session as may be deemed to require secrecy. 3) Upon demand of one-fifth or more of the members present, votes of the members on any matter shall be recorded in the minutes. 
> 
> Article 58:
> 
> Each House shall select its own president and other officials. 2) Each House shall establish its rules pertaining to meetings, proceedings and internal discipline, and may punish members for disorderly conduct. However, in order to expel a member, a majority of two-thirds or more of those members present must pass a resolution thereon. 
> 
> Article 59:
> 
> A bill becomes a law on passage by both Houses, except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. 2) A bill, which is passed by the House of Representatives, and upon which the House of Councillors makes a decision different from that of the House of Representatives, becomes a law when passed a second time by the House of Representatives by a majority of two-thirds or more of the members present. 3) The provision of the preceding paragraph does not preclude the House of Representatives from calling for the meeting of a joint committee of both Houses, provided for by law. 4) Failure by the House of Councillors to take final action within sixty(60) days after receipt of a bill passed by the House of Representatives, time in recess excepted, may be determined by the House of Representatives to constitute a rejection of the said bill by the House of Councillors. 
> 
> Article 60:
> 
> The budget must first be submitted to the House of Representatives. 2) Upon consideration of the budget, when the House of Councillors makes a decision different from that of the House of Representatives, and when no agreement can be reached even through a joint committee of both Houses, provided for by law, or in the case of failure by the House of Councillors to take final action within thirty(30) days, the period of recess excluded, after the receipt of the budget passed by the House of Representatives, the decision of the House of Representatives shall be the decision of the Diet. 
> 
> Article 61:
> 
> The second paragraph of the preceding Article applies also the the Diet approval required for the conclusion of treaties. 
> 
> Article 62:
> 
> Each House may conduct investigations in relation to government, and may demand the presence and testimony of witnesses, and the production of records. 
> 
> Article 63:
> 
> The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State may, at any time, appear in either House for the purpose of speaking on bills, regardless of whether they are members of the House or not. They must appear when their presence is required in order to give answers or explanations. 
> 
> Article 64:
> 
> The Diet shall set up an impeachment court from among the members of both Houses for the purposes of trying those judges against whom removal proceedings have been instituted. 2) Matters relating to impeachment shall be provided for by law. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterFive|981705599
1c1,45
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER V: THE CABINET
> 
> Article 65:
> 
> Executive power shall be vested in the Cabinet. 
> 
> Article 66:
> 
> The Cabinet shall consist of the Prime Minister, who shall be its head, and other Ministers of State, as provided for by law. 2) The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State must be civilians. 3) The Cabinet shall, in the exercise of executive power, be collectively responsible to the Diet. 
> 
> Article 67:
> 
> The Prime Minister shall be designated from among the members of the Diet by a resolution of the Diet. This designation shall precede all other business. 2) If the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors disagree and if no agreement can be reached even through a joint committee of both Houses, provided for by law, or the House of Councillors fails to make designation within ten(10) days, exclusive of the period of recess, after the House of Representatives has made designation, the decision of the House of Representatives shall be the decision of the Diet. 
> 
> Article 68:
> 
> The Prime Minister shall appoint the Ministers of State. However, a majority of their number must be chosen from among the members of the Diet. 2) The Prime Minister may remove the Ministers of State as he chooses. 
> 
> Article 69:
> 
> If the House of Representatives passes a non-confidence resolution, or rejects a confidence resolution, the Cabinet shall resign en masse, unless the House of Representatives is dissolved within ten(10) days. 
> 
> Article 70:
> 
> When there is a vacancy in the post of Prime Minister, or upon the first convocation of the Diet after a general election of members of the House of Representatives, the Cabinet shall resign en masse. 
> 
> Article 71:
> 
> In the cases mentioned in the two preceding Articles, the Cabinet shall continue its functions until the time when a new Prime Minister is appointed. 
> 
> Article 72:
> 
> The Prime Minister, representing the Cabinet, submits bills, reports on general national affairs and foreign relations to the Diet and exercises control and supervision over various administrative branches. 
> 
> Article 73:
> 
> The Cabinet shall, in addition to other general administrative functions, perform the following functions: (1) Administer the law faithfully; conduct affairs of state. (2) Manage foreign affairs. (3) Conclude treaties. However, it shall obtain prior or, depending on circumstances sudsequent approval of the Diet. (4) Administer the civil service, in accordance with standards established by law. (5) Prepare the budget, and present it to the cabinet orders in order to execute the provisions of this Constitution and of the law. However, it cannot include penal provisions in such cabinet orders unless authorized by such law. (7) Decide on general amnesty, special amnesty, commutation of punishment, reprieve, and restoration of rights. 
> 
> Article 74:
> 
> All laws and cabinet orders shall be signed by the competent Minister of State and countersigned by the Prime Minister. 
> 
> Article 75:
> 
> The Ministers of State shall not, during their tenure of office, be subject to legal action without the consent of the Prime Minister. However, the right to take that action is not impaired hereby. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterSix|981705654
1c1,30
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER VI: JUDICIARY
> 
> Article 76:
> 
> The whole judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law. 2) No extraordinary tribunal shall be established, nor shall any organ or agency of the Executive be given final judicial power. 3) All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this 
> Constitution and the laws. 
> 
> Article 77:
> 
> The Supreme Court is vested with the rule-making power under which it determines the rules of procedure and of practice, and of matters relating to attorneys, the internal discipline of the courts and the administration of judicial affairs. 2) Public procurators shall be subject to the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court may delegate the power to make rules for inferior courts to such courts. 
> 
> Article 78:
> 
> Judges shall not be removed except by public impeachment unless judicially declared mentally or physically incompetent to perform official duties. No disciplinary action against judges shall be administered by any executive organ or agency. 
> 
> Article 79:
> 
> The Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Judge and such number of judges as may be determined by law; all such judges excepting the Chief Judge shall be appointed by the Cabinet. 2) The appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court shall be reviewed by the people at the first general election of members of the House of Representatives following their appointment, and shall be reviewed again at the first general election of members of the House of Representatives after a lapse of ten(10) years, and in the same manner thereafter. 
> 
> Article 80:
> 
> The judges of the inferior courts shall be appointed by the Cabinet from a list of persons nominated by the Supreme Court. All such judges shall hold office for a term of ten(10) years with privilege of reappointment, provided that they shall be retired upon the attainment of the age as fixed by law. 2) The judges of the inferior courts shall receive, at regular stated intervals, adequate compensation which shall not be decreased during their terms of office. 
> 
> Article 81:
> 
> The Supreme Court is the court of last resort with power to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or official act. 
> 
> Article 82:
> 
> Trials shall be conducted and judgement declared publicly. 2) Where a court unanimously determines publicity to be dangerous to public order or morals, a trial may be conducted privately, but trials of political offenses, offenses involving the press or cases wherein the rights of people as guaranteed in CHAPTER III of this Constitution are in question shall always be conducted publicly. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterSeven|981705695
1c1,37
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER VII: FINANCE
> 
> Article 83:
> 
> The power to administer national finances shall be exercised as the Diet shall determine. 
> 
> Article 84:
> 
> No new taxes shall be imposed or existing ones modified except by law or under such conditions as law may prescribe. 
> 
> Article 85:
> 
> No money shall be expended, nor shall the State obligate itself, except as authorized by the Diet. 
> 
> Article 86:
> 
> The Cabinet shall prepare and submit to the Diet for its consideration and decision a budget for each fiscal year. 
> 
> Article 87:
> 
> In order to provide for unforeseen deficiencies in the budget, a reserve fund may be authorized by the Diet to be expended upon the responsibility of the Cabinet must get subsequent approval of the Diet for all payments from the reserve fund. 
> 
> Article 88:
> 
> All property of the Imperial Household shall belong to the State. All expenses of the Imperial Household shall be appropriated by the Diet in the budget. 
> 
> Article 89:
> 
> No public money or other property shall be expended or appropriated for the use, benefit or maintenance of any religious institution or association, or for any charitable, educational or benevolent enterprises not under the control of public authority. 
> 
> Article 90:
> 
> Final accounts of the expenditures and revenues of the State shall be audited annually by a Board of Audit and submitted by the Diet, together with the statement of audit, during the fiscal year immediately following the period covered. 2) The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be determined by law. 
> 
> Article 91:
> 
> At regular intervals and at least annually the Diet and the people on the state of national finances. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterEight|981705738
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER VIII: LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
> 
> Article 92:
> 
> Regulations concerning organization and operations of local public entities shall be fixed by law in accordance with the principle of local autonomy. 
> 
> Article 93:
> 
> The local public entities shall establish assemblies as their deliberative organs, in accordance with law. 2) The chief executive officers of all local public entities, the members of their assemblies, and such other local officials as may be determined by law shall be elected by direct popular vote within their several communities. 
> 
> Article 94:
> 
> Local public entities shall have the right to manage their property, affairs and administration and to enact their own regulations within law. 
> 
> Article 95:
> 
> A special law, applicable only to one local public entity, cannot be enacted by the Diet without the consent of the majority of the voters of the local public entity concerned, obtained in accordance with law. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterNine|981705777
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER IX: AMENDMENTS
> 
> Article 96:
> 
> Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the Diet shall specify. 2) Amendments when so ratified shall immediately be promulgated by the Emperor in the name of the people, as an integral part of this Constitution. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterTen|981705810
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER X: SUPREME LAW
> 
> Article 97:
> 
> The fundamental human rights by this Constitution guaranteed to the people of Japan are fruits of the age-old struggle of man to be free; they have survived the many exacting tests for durability and are conferred upon this and future generations in trust, to be held for all time inviolate. 
> 
> Article 98:
> 
> This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity. 2) The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed. 
> 
> Article 99:
> 
> The Emperor or the Regent as well as Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials have the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution. 
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterEleven|981705877
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> CHAPTER XI: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
> 
> Article 100:
> 
> This Constitution shall be enforced as from the day when the period of six months will have elapsed counting from the day of its promulgation. 2) The enactment of laws necessary for the enforcement of this Constitution, the election of members of the House of Councillors and the procedure for the convocation of the Diet and other preparatory procedures necessary for the enforcement of this Constitution may be executed before the day prescribed in the preceding paragraph. 
> 
> Article 101:
> 
> If the House of Councillors is not constituted before the effective date of this Constitution, the House of Representatives shall function as the Diet until such time as the House of Councillors shall be constituted. 
> 
> Article 102:
> 
> The term of office for half the members of the House of Councillors serving in the first term under this Constitution shall be three years. Members falling under this category shall be determined in accordance with law. 
> 
> Article 103:
> 
> The Ministers of State, members of the House of Representatives, and judges in office on the effective date of this Constitution, and all other public officials who occupy positions corresponding to such positions as are recognized by this Constitution shall not forfeit their positions automatically on account of the enforcement of this Constitution unless otherwise specified by law. When, however, successors are elected or appointed under the provisions of this Constitution, they shall forfeit their positions as a matter of course. 
------
JapanConstitution|981706193
9,21c9,20
< :/ChapterOne
< :/ChapterTwo
< :/ChapterThree
< :/ChapterFour
< :/ChapterFive
< :/ChapterSix
< :/ChapterSeven
< :/ChapterEight
< :/ChapterNine
< :/ChapterTen
< :/ChapterEleven
< 
< Are there any amendments?
---
> :/ChapterOne - The Emperor
> :/ChapterTwo - Renunciation of War
> :/ChapterThree - Rights and Duties of the People
> :/ChapterFour - The Diet
> :/ChapterFive - The Cabinet
> :/ChapterSix - Judiciary
> :/ChapterSeven - Finance
> :/ChapterEight - Local Self-government
> :/ChapterNine - Amendments
> :/ChapterTen - Supreme Law
> :/ChapterEleven - Supplementary Provisions
> :A little bit of stuff at the end...sigs, etc
------
RaviDesai|981725689
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Contributer to both Nupedia and Wikipedia.  I love math and computer science - can you say Geek?  I live in the beautiful state of MichigaN, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else - ice, snow and all.  I'm a bit of bookworm - I read and write (surprise!) ScienceFiction and FantasY, as well as AutoBiographies of interesting individuals.
> 
> In real life I am a programmer - mostly in Java and C++, but I've seen it all (everything from Snobol to LISP to Pascal to Fortran).  I have a bachelor's degree in ComputerScience and a Masters degree in MathematicS that I got more or less because I thought it would be fun.  I got interested in SetTheory and NumberTheory there and have been blessed to work with some incredibly good people in that field.
> 
> I used to work in the Automotive industry, but now I work in the Telecom industry (in MichigaN?!!!?) and develop software that is used by ISPs to provision ATM switches, routers, and various other equipment and man is it a lot of fun!
> 
> I am also a ChristiaN, and belong to the FreeMethodist church - which is similar to the MethodisT church, but more EvangelicaL.  If that means nothing to you, don't worry, it means nothing to me either.  I tend to think along the lines of CSLewis in MereChristianity and see our likenesses more than our differences.
> 
> Finally, I am a family man (hey, I'm in the midwest, remember?) and have a beautiful wife of 12 years and 3 kids (all boys, all 7yrs and younger).  The most I can hope for is that I give them the same hunger for knowledge and love of God that was given to me in my youth.
> 
------
RaviDesai|981726074
1c1
< Contributer to both Nupedia and Wikipedia.  I love math and computer science - can you say Geek?  I live in the beautiful state of MichigaN, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else - ice, snow and all.  I'm a bit of bookworm - I read and write (surprise!) ScienceFiction and FantasY, as well as AutoBiographies of interesting individuals.
---
> Contributer to both Nupedia and Wikipedia.  I love math and computer science - can you say Geek?  I live in the beautiful state of MichigaN, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else - ice, snow and all.  I'm a bit of bookworm - I read and write (surprise!) ScienceFiction and FantasY, as well as AutoBiographies of interesting individuals.  I also love MythologY (Greek, Hindu, and Icelandic).
------
ProgramMing|981726682
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Programming is the act of instructing a machine to perform some work.  
> 
> <some history...>
> The first computer programmer is widely recoginzed to be AdaLovelace, daughter of Anabella and LordByron (the poet).  Anabella gave her love of mathematics to Ada, who after meeting CharlesBabbage helped him work on his DifferenceEngine and other machines, documenting his designs and developing programs for them.  Even though Babbage never completed construction of any of his machines, the work that he and Ada did on them earned her the title of the world's first computer programmer.
> 
------
NamingConventions|981734084
72c72,84
< My advice is that we implement and enforce this before too long, otherwise it will be a tremendous task to correct the pages and to look up things on WikiPedia. --KlausSeistrup
---
> My advice is that we implement and enforce this before too long, otherwise it will be a tremendous task to correct the pages and to look up things on WikiPedia. --KlausSeistrup
> 
> :The code for "free" links like <tt><nowiki>[[Democracy]]</nowiki></tt> is currently being tested on a [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/um9test.pl?FreeLinks test wiki].  (Feel free to try it out on that site.)  This new linking feature should be available "soon".  I used double-brackets for links so that people can continue to use brackets in their ordinary editorial sense [like this] without creating links.
> 
> :Conversion to the new form of links should be semi-automatic--I'm planning on building a script that will list all links and a suggested new name (like "DemocracY=[[Democracy]]".  After editing this list for special cases the list will be used to automatically rename the pages and all links (within the wiki) to those pages.  --CliffordAdams
> ----
> '''Links with spaces:'''
> 
> The new free-linking code ''can'' allow links with spaces and limited punctuation, like [[John F. Kennedy]].  While I think that the current wiki names (squishing words together with capitals) are often useful to writers, they can make pages difficult to read and explain to users new to wikis.
> 
> Should links with spaces be allowed or even encouraged on WikiPedia?  Should the existing pages be converted to this form?  (Should this page become [[Naming Conventions]] for instance?)
> 
> In the end, the preferred link style may become a site policy decision.  Before that happens I hope to have some discussion of the issues.  The biggest issue I see is whether the WikiPedia should try to follow the wiki-culture from other sites, or whether it should develop its own cultural norms (which may diverge from existing wikis).  --CliffordAdams
------
SanIty|981735562
15c15
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
---
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another.  Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
------
SanIty|981736868
11c11
< Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of schizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
---
> Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
------
SanIty|981737561
25c25
< In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in any number of juristictions internationally in an effort to punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
---
> In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in widely scattered juristictions internationally in an effort to establish standards which will punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
27c27
< Various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been sent up as trial balloons by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
---
> Defenses based on various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been offered by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
------
NamingConventions|981743236
84a85,92
> 
> ----
> 
> I'm personally for links with spaces. Maybe it's not very "wiki" 
> (I didn't know what a wiki was till I came here through nupedia),
> but it's certainly more "encyclopedic" --AstroNomer
> 
> ----
------
SanityTalk|981745817
27a28,81
> ----
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> I don't know how to improve this article, because I don't know enough about the topic of mental disorders in general.  I do have some comments nonetheless--so, contrary to my own stated policy, I'll indent my comments and let you fix the article, if you can and want to.  I am going to be blunt, because I think you will benefit from bluntness in this case.  Here we go:
> 
> "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
> 
> :Who has defined it this way?  You're using passive voice.  I don't believe you.  :-)  I don't think anyone has defined "sanity" this way, other than you; and I don't care how you define it, to be blunt, I care how psychologists and psychiatrists and people who have really studied this stuff.  And who are the "users" you're talking about?  This first paragraph doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.  It sounds like you're bullshiting to me, frankly.  Are you?
> 
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind.
> 
> :Etymologies are notoriously bad for giving a ''scientific analysis'' of a natural phenomenon.  While the etymology is interesting and should be left in the article, it shouldn't be made the basis of a thesis; it should merely be mentioned in passing.
> 
> Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning.  One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual.
> 
> :Frankly, although I personally strongly agree with all of this, it seems to me less than enlightening--platitudinous.  If you don't ''know'' much about a subject, I'd say your task amounts to either (1) heavy research, or (2) producing a melange of platitudes, bullshittery, and simple falsehoods.  Hmmm...
> 
> It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  
> 
> :There are many things that "clear and accurate awareness and reasoning" ''could'' mean, and I wonder which of them you do mean.  For example, those studying logic and critical reasoning believe they're studying the standards of good reasoning and clear thinking.  So, by your lights, does sanity amount to being logical, and insanity illogical?  Well, that might be part of it, but that's certainly not all of it.  I'd say it's a definition by inessentials, but then, what do I know?
> 
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.
> 
> :There are?  Really?  Who says, you?  Why should you care, if you just declare it without proving it or giving any evidence?  "Have been declared to be"?  Who declared them thus?  You?  And are they using your concept of intelligence?  Frankly, due to unanswered questions like this, I just don't know how to assess the above sentence except in a dismissive fashion.
> 
> One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.  
> 
> :You seem to have line of thought as follows: AyeSpy has a (rather vague) definition of sanity that amounts to "clear thinking and accurate reasoning"; ''some''one has declared that the only (or best?  who knows?) sort of clear thinking is "objectively" measured by intelligence tests (since intelligence is what intelligence tests measure, presumably, but you're not too clear on that, it seems); but, by AyeSpy's definition of sanity, this unknown theorist's view of what clear thinking is implies that "intelligence" isn't a good analysis "sanity."
> 
> :How many problems can you identify in the above reasoning?
> 
> The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others.  More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.
> 
> :Which have been used as indicators of sanity, ''by whom''?  And what does "personal mental composure" mean?
> 
> Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
> 
> :This is perhaps the first interesting thing you've said; but you might try citing a source or two, because it is far from original.
> 
> The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
> 
> :Why don't you quote a psychiatric source, and make an effort to ''explain'' what "the" definition is?  And oh, there's only one definition in currency?  I wouldn't have expected that, but then, what do I know?
> 
> :I've got to get a move on so I am not going to be able to comment in depth on the rest of this.
> 
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another.  Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
> 
> The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
> 
> In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
> 
> :The above has dropped into a journalistic sort of mode, and it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity.  Let me cut to the chase, then.  Bruce, I couldn't care less what your views about insanity are.  If I read an article about sanity and insanity, I want to know, ''in detail'', what ''the received'' views are.  This can include minority views, but they are the minority views of (who else?) ''psychiatrists.''  If there isn't a psychiatrist who hasn't promulgated your view, that's probably because your view is not very plausible.  I can say this without knowing anything about your view.  I can even say it knowing what I do know so far about your view, ''and'' agreeing (I guess?) with your general drift.  But that '''doesn't matter'''!  It's ''far'' more important to learn first from the experts, and try to convey that very clearly, and then, ''only'' then, make an attempt at building on or controverting that.
> 
> :Anyway, I think you should rename your article BruceOnSanity.  That is an accurate title.  It isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. -- LarrySanger
------
CountriesOfTheWorld|981747216
18c18
< The world is divided into six contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, OceaniA, AmericA, and AntarcticA (though the last has no countries).
---
> The world is usually considered divided into seven contintents: EuropE, AsiA, AfricA, OceaniA, NorthAmerica, SouthAmerica and AntarcticA (though the last has no countries).
------
LiteraryArt|981747329
1c1
< LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA (see also TheaTre) -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction
------
LiteraryArt|981747353
1c1
< LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA (see also TheaTre) -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction
---
> LiteraTure -- PoetrY -- DramA (see also TheaTer) -- TheNovel -- ScienceFiction
------
LiteraryArt|981747432
1a2,3
> 
> See also LiteraryArtTalk
------
LiteraryArtTalk|981747537
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ScienceFiction as a separate LiteraryArt form?
> That doesn't sound right to me....
> If it's good, it fits in literature, if not, it doesn't even fit in art...
> 
------
LiteraryArtTalk|981747629
4a5,6
> Also, Literature separated from TheNovel? I'm not sure who made that list knows what is he/she talking about...I don't correct it
> because i don't feel competent enough.
------
WolF|981747970
5c5
< I discovered the violation on a hunch -- the article was too good!  It was easy to find it on the web -- I simply searched for an unlikely combination of words at Google, and found the exact same text on the Nova site.
---
> I discovered the violation on a hunch -- the article was too good!  It was easy to find it on the web -- I simply searched for an unlikely combination of words at Google, and found the exact same text on the Nova site. --JimboWales
9c9
< Maybe we should talk about this as a potential problem: CopyrightTalk.
---
> Maybe we should talk about this as a potential problem: CopyrightTalk.
------
WikiPediaFaq|981751337
65c65
< A. Sure, the powers-that-be simply have to make it happen.
---
> A. Sure, the PowersthatBe simply have to make it happen.
96c96
< '''A.''' This is a difficult problem.  Part of the problem is that html web pages don't do math symbols very well at all.  So almost any solution will be a crutch.  Within the next couple of years, browsers should be able to render MathML.  This will be a time of much joy.  Between now and then, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is a really hard problem.
---
> '''A.''' This is a difficult problem.  Part of the problem is that html web pages don't do math symbols very well at all.  So almost any solution will be a crutch.  Within the next couple of years, browsers should be able to render MathML.  This will be a time of much joy.  Between now and then, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is a really hard problem.
------
PowersthatBe|981751451
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Okay PowersthatBe, Make the HitCounter happen. (Please)
------
PowersthatBe|981752028
1a2,7
> 
> ----
> 
> What for? I'd hate to know that only me, LarrySanger, JimWales and AyeSpy are reading what i wrote....
> 
> ----
------
PowersthatBe|981752060
5c5
< What for? I'd hate to know that only me, LarrySanger, JimWales and AyeSpy are reading what i wrote....
---
> What for? I'd hate to know that only me, LarrySanger, JimboWales and AyeSpy are reading what i wrote....
7c7
< ----
---
> ----
------
CopyrightTalk|981752726
12a13,15
> ----
> Actually I put it together from a few different sites. I was unaware of any copyright problems I was causing. I had never been to the pbs site Jimbo found the article at. I will be more careful in the future you can be sure. It is not my intention to cause problems for anyone and I feel badly about this.
> WcGing
------
SanityTalk|981753043
81c81,91
< :Anyway, I think you should rename your article BruceOnSanity.  That is an accurate title.  It isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. -- LarrySanger
---
> :Anyway, I think you should rename your article BruceOnSanity.  That is an accurate title.  It isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> I'll get back to you on this, Larry. I am inclined to rename the article something like "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity," as I am loathe to dig about for every single publication I used in support of my statements, so as to make it the definitive encyclopedia article on "Sanity."  Suffice it to say that my introductory definition, minus the part in quotes, is synthesized and paraphrased from three ordinary dictionaries.  The part in quotes is a tacit matter of defacto political practice, and I will move it to another part of the article.  The "platitudinous" paragraph is to mention the next logical step to the reader, rather than to take it unseen, no matter how obvious it might otherwise seem.
> 
> ''..."it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity."'' You seem to be under the impression (broadly held, BTW) that psychiatry or medicine or some consensus authority actually defines sanity.  Here is the real kicker - there '''IS NO''' "received view" on the definition of "sanity" from doctors or psychiatrists.  One must read tons of books by them (done, thank you), each individual author defining it differently if he defines it at all (they prefer to go on at length about abnormalities, and the obvious fact that an absence of them is the preferred condition), and then try to find points of general agreement between them.  The "medical" definition I used is paraphrased from the only medical dictionary I could find which did not define it as merely "Soundness or health of mind. Normal mentality."  Question is, what the heck do you mean, "Normal?"  The word "normal" is not a (forgive me) normative word, unless its characteristics are either obvious by definition, or can be demonstrated (like the normal function of a liver, heart, gut, brain, what-have-you).  Well, I finally found "Normal" as being "without mental disorder."  What's a mental disorder?  See DSM-IV.  You read DSM-IV, and it says "we can't agree and don't really know what a mental disorder is, or if it should be called a disorder at all - but here is the long list of things we do agree ought not to be a part of human mentality." 
> 
> Note that I did not say in the article that there was only one medical definition.  I said there was a "most general" one - one than can be found in medical literature which does not conflict with other definitions found in medical literature.  The only thing they agree on is "normal."  Quoting Taber's, (F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, 1974):  "normal - 3. In psychology, free from mental disorder, or of average development or intelligence."
> 
> Who defines sanity in terms of interpersonal relations and safety of self and others?  Heck - EVERYONE!  But I should prabably make clear that I'm talking about a "street" definition, not an authoritative one.  Examples:  Why should he be committed?  He's a danger to himself or others.  Is he sane enough to fly a commercial jet?  No - he takes unreasonable risks.  Is she sane?  No - she does not relate normally with others.  She talks to herself, babbles incoherently, flails her arms for no reason, whatever.  Is he sane enough to assist in his own defense?  No - he keeps calling his lawyer "Jesus" and accusing him of working for the CIA.
> 
> now I gotta run - but I will see if the article cannot be tuned up some.  I should probably introduce my thesis more clearly, "Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity, and here's why.  And, by the way, could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?"
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981753367
1c1,39
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient. 
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual. 
> 
> It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas. Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane. 
> 
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity. One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
> 
> The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others. More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well. 
> 
> Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria. In some contexts, societal norms loom large. For example, in WesternCivilization?, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting. Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia? - a serious mental disorder. In many regions of the ThirdWorld?, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience. One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man. 
> 
> The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder." The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
> 
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth?, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison. In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems. A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health. One may examine, for example, a liver. Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science. It can be x-rayed or biopsied. Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured. Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for. In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed. The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured. While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity. Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another. Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice. 
> 
> The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified. For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute." Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences. As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses. In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM. 
> 
> In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity. Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science. 
> 
> And defining sane behavior must always be done, at least in part, in the context of the subject's culture. If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
> 
> In recent times, more recognition has been given to the concept of sanity as a subjective manifestation, evidenced by mental quietude, peace of mind, and resiliancy - an ability to survive the vicissitudes of life without such mental discomfort that one's ability to function is impaired. 
> 
> In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity. Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong." This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in widely scattered juristictions internationally in an effort to establish standards which will punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law. 
> 
> Defenses based on various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been offered by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all. Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice. 
> 
> Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state. The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive. The argument supporting such definitions of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this: "The state functions for the good of the people. Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies. Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state. Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement." As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that the deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid. Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression. Thus sanity by political definition may be restored. 
> 
> Political definitions of sanity have not been confined to openly authoritarian governments. In otherwise putatively democratice countries which have a history of democratic elections and peaceful transfer of power, state-sanctioned and state-funded mental treatement has been imposed upon political dissidents and upon members of racial and ethnic minorities whose activities and efforts to achieve equal treatment and equal rights to those enjoyed by favored elements of these societies have been felt to be a threat to civil order or state security. 
> 
> Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of sanity, as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity. 
> 
> A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority. Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met. 
> 
> There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy 
> 
> ----
> See also SanityTalk. 
------
SanIty|981753468
1,39c1,2
< "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
< 
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning.  One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual.
< 
< It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  
< 
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.  
< 
< The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others.  More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.
< 
< Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
< 
< The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
< 
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another.  Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
< 
< The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
< 
< In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
< 
< And defining sane behavior must always be done, at least in part, in the context of the subject's culture.  If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
< 
< In recent times, more recognition has been given to the concept of sanity as a subjective manifestation, evidenced by mental quietude, peace of mind, and resiliancy - an ability to survive the vicissitudes of life without such mental discomfort that one's ability to function is impaired.
< 
< In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity.  Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong."  This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in widely scattered juristictions internationally in an effort to establish standards which will punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law.
< 
< Defenses based on various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been offered by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all.  Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice.
< 
< Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state.  The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive.  The argument supporting such definitions of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this:  "The state functions for the good of the people.  Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies.  Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state.  Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement."  As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that the deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid.  Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression.  Thus sanity by political definition may be restored.
< 
< Political definitions of sanity have not been confined to openly authoritarian governments.  In otherwise putatively democratice countries which have a history of democratic elections and peaceful transfer of power, state-sanctioned and state-funded mental treatement has been imposed upon political dissidents and upon members of racial and ethnic minorities whose activities and efforts to achieve equal treatment and equal rights to those enjoyed by favored elements of these societies have been felt to be a threat to civil order or state security.
< 
< Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them.   As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear.  These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds.  Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them.  The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane.  The very concept of sanity, as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence.  This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique.  One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness.  One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down.  One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity.  These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief.  Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
< 
< A common thread runs through the foregoing.  Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by ''proper functioning'' is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society.  To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane.  One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority.  Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.
< 
< There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction.  The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school.  The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain.  The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain,  and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body.  Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools.  How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy
< ----
< See also SanityTalk.
---
> SanIty:  the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, ----
> See also SanityTalk and TheProblemOfDefiningSanity
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981753603
0a1,2
> Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Your author hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and posese the question:  could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
> 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981754459
1c1
< Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Your author hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and posese the question:  could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
---
> Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Your author hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and poses the question:  could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
3,4c3,5
< "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient. 
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual. 
---
> "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
>  
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions.  Sanity is also defined as being mentally "normal."  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, your author posists that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual. 
8c9
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity. One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
---
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
10c11
< The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others. More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well. 
---
> The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used by ordinary people as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others. These criteria are frequently examined by courts in commitment proceedings, determination of fitness to stand trial, hearings on competency and other such undertakings.  More recently, especially in medically related fields, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.  One sees diagnoses based on subjective mood, and drugs advertised to improve outlook.   
12c13
< Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria. In some contexts, societal norms loom large. For example, in WesternCivilization?, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting. Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia? - a serious mental disorder. In many regions of the ThirdWorld?, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience. One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man. 
---
> Criteria other than accuracy of function have been also employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria. In some contexts, societal norms loom large. For example, in WesternCivilization?, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting. Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia? - a serious mental disorder. In many regions of the ThirdWorld?, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience. One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man. 
14c15
< The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder." The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
---
> The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is that a person's mentality is "normal."  A search of the meaning of "normal" leads us to a definition by exclusion - that is, absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder. The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." Conversely, when one displayes an apparent symptom or limitation for which no physiological cause is indicated, doctors refer to the problem as "functional."  That is, it is not related to a physical problem, but rather a mental one.  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981756982
5c5
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions.  Sanity is also defined as being mentally "normal."  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, your author posists that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual. 
---
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions.  Sanity is also defined as being mentally "normal."  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, your author posits that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual. 
------
AstroNomy|981758787
10c10,14
< IsaacNewton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same forces that cause motion on earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawOfGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis.
---
> IsaacNewton was the first one to marry physics with astronomy, discovering that the same force that causes objects to fall on
> earth, causes the motion of planets and the moon. Using his LawOfGravity, the LawsOfKepler are explained, and the heliocentric system gains a sound physical basis. Newton also
> found out that the white light from the sun can be decomposed 
> into its component colors, this fact is crucial for most of
> the 20th century research.
11a16,31
> At the end of the 19th century it was discovered that, when
> decomposing the light from the sun, multitude of SpectralLines
> were observed (regions where there was less or no light).
> Experiments with hot gases showed that the same lines could be 
> observed in the spectra of gases, specific lines corresponding
> to unique elements. It was proved that the ElementS found on the
> sun were also found on earth. 
> 
> During the 20th century SpectroMetry (the study of these lines)
> advanced.
>  
> Most of our current knowledge was gained during the 20th century.
> With the help of the use of PhotoGraphy, fainter objects were 
> observed. Our sun was found to be part of a Galaxy made by more
> than 10^10 stars, and the existence of other galaxies like our 
> own, at large distances at receiding from our own, was confirmed.
------
AstroNomy|981759013
25a26,27
> 
> (to be continued)
31c33
< own, at large distances at receiding from our own, was confirmed.
---
> own, at large distances at receiding from our own, was confirmed.
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981759067
3c3
< "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
---
> "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, and other definitions, some of which have been developed from time to time in the interest of policital expediency (of which, more later).
31c31
< Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state. The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive. The argument supporting such definitions of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this: "The state functions for the good of the people. Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies. Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state. Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement." As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that the deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid. Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression. Thus sanity by political definition may be restored. 
---
> Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state. The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive. The working definition for sanity in such cases, usually implicit rather than explicit, would seem to be, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think."  The argument supporting such a definition of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this: "The state functions for the good of the people. Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies. Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state. Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement." As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that a deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid. Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression. Thus sanity by political definition may be restored. 
35c35
< Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of sanity, as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity. 
---
> Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of "sanity," as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
37c37
< A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case by the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields would not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function was in the substantial minority, and proper function was in the majority. Add to this the element that the proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met. 
---
> "Doctor, I'm depressed," is a complaint of relatively recent origin.  In pre-Freudian times, an individual may have been "sad," "morose," "maudlin," or "pessimistic," even afflicted with "dispair" to the point of suicide.  This would not have been viewed as a mental disorder, nor occasion for a diagnosis or treatment.  It would have been perceived that the person needed cheering up, or that he was responding appropriately to some event or condition of his life which cried out for remedy, or that he was constitutionally incapable of being cheerful - much after the manner that one might be short, or bald.  Modernly, the radio, television and popular periodicals carry messages from doctors and drug companies that being too sad may be a sign or clinical depression, and that one ought to seek treatment or drugs.  Hence, "Doctor, I'm depressed."  Whether the older or more modern view is more appropriate is the subject of ongoing debate between professionals in the field.
39c39,43
< There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biolgical damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy 
---
> A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case against the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of life and his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on self and others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields does not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function is incidental, minor or infrequent, and proper function is predominant. Add to this the element that proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.  This is still a very long definition, but it seems to satisfy the requirements of almost every context.
> 
> The words "unnecessary friction or harm" probably cannot be omitted, but they are the weakest point of the proposed definition.  What is seen as necessary by one may be seen as wholly unnecessary and undesirable by another.  The case of the political dissident is such an example.  He sees his friction with the society around him as entirely necessary, for it is his position that the society must be altered for the good of all.  That same society, in preserving its continued existence, views such a position as deviant and dangerous, and is likely to exert pressure to eliminate it.
> 
> There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biological damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. At this writing, this school of thought enjoys majority support in the West.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Traditional Eastern philosophical and religious thought tend more in this direction.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981759789
9c9,11
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
---
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but by and large, one sees testing for such criteria used more frequently in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. 
> 
> An instance of a broadly accepted test in English speaking areas of the world which is thought to address issues of mental and emotional health would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  This test has no right or wrong answers, and the evaluee is advised of this fact.  He answers dozens of questions about how he feels and thinks regarding certain issues, and the way in which his answers relate to each other and pre-determined baseline critera determines whether the person adminstering of evaluating the test finds his attitudes more or less healthy in given areas.  Labels such as "normal" or "abnormal" with regard to test results are avoided.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, and how "accuracy" is defined, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
------
SanityTalk|981760036
91a92,93
> ----
> OK, Larry - I think I have addressed the majority (though not all) of your concerns.  I will revisit this after I have thought of other things for a while.  I wonder - does anyone else have concerns or comment?  The more I work on this article, the more I think I would like it to be a good and thoughtful one, though not an authoritative or definitive one.
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981760882
11c11
< An instance of a broadly accepted test in English speaking areas of the world which is thought to address issues of mental and emotional health would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  This test has no right or wrong answers, and the evaluee is advised of this fact.  He answers dozens of questions about how he feels and thinks regarding certain issues, and the way in which his answers relate to each other and pre-determined baseline critera determines whether the person adminstering of evaluating the test finds his attitudes more or less healthy in given areas.  Labels such as "normal" or "abnormal" with regard to test results are avoided.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, and how "accuracy" is defined, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
---
> An instance of a broadly accepted test in English speaking areas of the world which is thought to address issues of mental and emotional health would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  This test has no right or wrong answers, and the evaluee is advised of this fact.  He answers dozens of questions about how he feels and thinks regarding certain issues, and the way in which his answers relate to each other and pre-determined baseline critera determines whether the person adminstering or evaluating the test finds his attitudes more or less healthy in given areas.  If his environmental factors include the recent loss of a loved one and various of his answers reveal a depressed mood, the evaluator may declare this "appropriate."  Labels such as "normal" or "abnormal" with regard to test results are avoided.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, and how "accuracy" is defined, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981761272
17c17
< The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is that a person's mentality is "normal."  A search of the meaning of "normal" leads us to a definition by exclusion - that is, absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder. The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." Conversely, when one displayes an apparent symptom or limitation for which no physiological cause is indicated, doctors refer to the problem as "functional."  That is, it is not related to a physical problem, but rather a mental one.  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
---
> The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is that a person's mentality is "normal."  A search of the meaning of "normal" leads us to a definition by exclusion - that is, absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder. The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." Conversely, when one displays an apparent symptom or limitation for which no physiological cause is indicated, doctors refer to the problem as "functional."  That is, it is not related to a physical problem, but rather a mental one.  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981761818
37c37
< Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity on purely objective grounds. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of "sanity," as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
---
> Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity grounds observed by others rather than experienced by self. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of "sanity," as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
39c39
< "Doctor, I'm depressed," is a complaint of relatively recent origin.  In pre-Freudian times, an individual may have been "sad," "morose," "maudlin," or "pessimistic," even afflicted with "dispair" to the point of suicide.  This would not have been viewed as a mental disorder, nor occasion for a diagnosis or treatment.  It would have been perceived that the person needed cheering up, or that he was responding appropriately to some event or condition of his life which cried out for remedy, or that he was constitutionally incapable of being cheerful - much after the manner that one might be short, or bald.  Modernly, the radio, television and popular periodicals carry messages from doctors and drug companies that being too sad may be a sign or clinical depression, and that one ought to seek treatment or drugs.  Hence, "Doctor, I'm depressed."  Whether the older or more modern view is more appropriate is the subject of ongoing debate between professionals in the field.
---
> "Doctor, I'm depressed," is a complaint of relatively recent origin.  In pre-Freudian times, an individual may have been "sad," "morose," "maudlin," or "pessimistic," even afflicted with "despair" to the point of suicide.  This would not have been viewed as a mental disorder, nor occasion for a diagnosis or treatment.  It would have been perceived that the person needed cheering up, or that he was responding appropriately to some event or condition of his life which cried out for remedy, or that he was constitutionally incapable of being cheerful - much after the manner that one might be short, or bald.  Modernly, radio, television and popular periodicals carry messages from doctors and drug companies that being too sad may be a sign of clinical depression, and that one ought to seek treatment or drugs.  Hence, "Doctor, I'm depressed."  Whether the older or more modern view is more appropriate is the subject of ongoing debate between professionals in the field.
41c41
< A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case against the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of life and his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on self and others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields does not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function is incidental, minor or infrequent, and proper function is predominant. Add to this the element that proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.  This is still a very long definition, but it seems to satisfy the requirements of almost every context.
---
> A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case against the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of life and his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on self and others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields does not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function is incidental, minor or infrequent, and proper function is predominant. Add to this the element that proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, (as in that the person can experience and express emotions without being victimized by them) and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.  This is still a very long definition, but it seems to satisfy the requirements of almost every context.
------
AyeSpy|981762859
123a124,127
> 
> ----
> 
> May I ask why so interested in the subject of (in)sanity? -- AstroNomer
------
CopyrightTalk|981763496
15a16,22
> ----
> 
> No need to feel bad.  I'm all about the future, not the past.  :-)  Some of the paragraphs were exactly from the Nova site.
> 
> I encourage you, WcGing, to write a shorter article based on the knowledge you got from those articles...
> 
> We don't have to be particularly original, we just have to try to be correct, and most importantly of all, we can't give anyone an excuse to try to shut us down.  So we have to put everything in our own words.
------
MartinaHingis|981764648
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Martina Hingis is a professional tennis player.  Born September 30th, 1980 in Kosice, Slovakia, Hingis now lives in Saddlebrook, FloridA, in the UnitedStates.
> 
> Like many professional tennis players, Hingis started playing at a very young age.  By 5 years of age, she started entering tournaments.  In 1996, Hingis made history by becoming the youngest person in history to win at Wimbledon -- in the Ladies Doubles event.  At the date of this writing, Februrary 2001,
> Hingis is the number one ranked women's player in the world.
> 
> Hingis is reported to be a nice person, and speaks 4 languages: Czech, Swiss-German, EnglisH, and some FrencH.
> 
------
MartinaHingis|981764821
3c3
< Like many professional tennis players, Hingis started playing at a very young age.  By 5 years of age, she started entering tournaments.  In 1996, Hingis made history by becoming the youngest person in history to win at Wimbledon -- in the Ladies Doubles event.  At the date of this writing, Februrary 2001,
---
> Like many professional tennis players, Hingis started playing at a very young age.  By 5 years of age, she started entering tournaments.  In 1996, Hingis made history by becoming the youngest person in history to win at WimbledoN -- in the Ladies Doubles event.  At the date of this writing, Februrary 2001,
6c6
< Hingis is reported to be a nice person, and speaks 4 languages: Czech, Swiss-German, EnglisH, and some FrencH.
---
> Hingis is reported to be a nice person, and speaks 4 languages: CzechLanguage, GermanLanguage (in particular SwissGerman), EnglishLanguage, and some FrenchLanguage.
------
DwGriffith|981767621
23,24c23
< Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1907 and 1913 (the years he directed for the American Biograph Company), Griffith produced an astounding 450 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he became a co-founder of Triangle (1915), which produced /BirthofaNation, and later, as a reaction to the criticism Birth of a Nation received, his most ambitious project, /IntolerancE . The film was a flop, and Triangle went bancrupt in 1917, so he went to Artcraft (part of Paramount), then to First National (1919-20). At the same time he founded United Artists, together with Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.
< 
---
> Griffith began his career as a hopeful playwright, but failed.  He soon found his way as an actor.  Finding his way into the motion picture business he soon began to direct a huge body of work.  Between 1907 and 1913 (the years he directed for the American Biograph Company), Griffith produced an astounding 450 short films.  Such output allowed him to experiment with CrossCutting, camera movement, close-ups, and other methods of spatial and temporal manipulation.  Convinced that longer films (then called "Features") could be financially viable, he became a co-founder of Triangle (1915), which produced /BirthofaNation, and later, as a reaction to the criticism Birth of a Nation received, his most ambitious project, /IntolerancE . The film was a flop, and Triangle went bancrupt in 1917, so he went to Artcraft (part of Paramount), then to First National (1919-20). At the same time he founded United Artists, together with CharlieChaplin, MaryPickford and DouglasFairbanks.
------
FilmHistory|981767698
19a20
> +  ThomasHarperInce
------
FilmHistory|981767716
20c20
< +  ThomasHarperInce
---
> *  ThomasHarperInce
------
AyeSpy|981767748
127c127,166
< May I ask why so interested in the subject of (in)sanity? -- AstroNomer
---
> May I ask why so interested in the subject of (in)sanity? -- AstroNomer
> ----
> 
> Sure!  (you may regret having asked this one) as above, (AyeSpy)"...has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion. He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness."  This interest was born when I was 8 or before, when I made up my mind to become the best teacher ever.  That dream faded somewhere along the way, but the fascination with learning never did.
> 
> A corollary to this interest was an absorbing interest in optimum mental function, especially, later, as it might relate to (of all things) spiritual awareness.  How do you get a guy operating at his mental best, optimumly able to learn and grow?  My early readings shed little light on this, as I found psychiatric and psychological treatises (which I originally assumed would be authoritative on the subject) to be almost silent on the subject, being preoccupied with mental morbidity.  "We can tell you what's wrong, but we won't say what it would look like if it were right."  Over the years, I collected a long list of definitions of sanity, some here:
> 
> Constantly evaluating one’s own behavior, and one’s own intentions, and the behavior of others, and the intentions of others, towards survival for all.
> 
> Concordance between the perceived/recorded and the actual.
> 
> Mental function which tends away from the body and toward the intent of God.
> 
> Mental function in harmony with natural physical instinct.
> 
> Living in the “now.”
> 
> The mental state resulting from the removal or resolution of conflicts caused by the discord between intellect and instinct.
> 
> Pure rationality, including the rejection of superstition such as religion.
> 
> The state of mind originally bestowed by God, broken by man, and capable of restoration through penance and faith.
> 
> The acknowledgment that there can be no complete joinder between the subjective and objective universes.
> 
> Mental self-possession and self-control, such that external influences are incapable of irreparably upsetting the balance.
> 
> Harmony with the Universal Mind.
> 
> The full realization and voluntary acceptance of one’s actual circumstances, and the accurate estimation of one’s power or lack of power to change them.
> 
> The acceptance of the world as it is, rather than as one would wish it to be, by dealing in rational assumptions, arguments and conclusions based in observable fact.
> 
> Total self-knowledge and self-acceptance
> 
> Positive behavior resulting from nurturing example and ideal biochemical balance.
> 
> Th irony of State of Kansas (petitioner) v.  Leroy Hendricks (respondent).  Hendricks was considered “sane” before trial and sentencing as a violent sexual predator on the grounds that he both fully apprehended that sexual predation was wrong, and that he was fully capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his own defense.  When his sentence expired, the state moved to re-incarcerate him in a mental institution this time on the grounds he was insane because he "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence."  No one could argue that the guy was really sane, probably, or that they would want him for a next-door-neighbor - but how's that for a quandary in defining sanity?  Heh heh.
> 
> Anyway, since there seemed a lot of talk about what abnormal was, but no consensus on what normal was, I made up my own definition.  Does that answer your question?  (Told you you'd be sorry you asked.)
------
LinguisticS|981768142
14a15,16
> 
> SouthEastAsianLanguages
------
SouthEastAsianLanguages|981768221
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> CambodianLanguage -- LaotianLanguage -- ThaiLanguage -- VietnameseLanguage
------
ThomasHarperInce|981768350
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Thomas Harper Ince (American director)
> 
> Invented many mechanisms of professional movie production, like the usage of a detailed "shooting script", which also contained information on when who was in the scene, and the "scene plot" which listed all interiors and exteriors, cost control plans and so on. He helped create a standardized and mechanized mode of production. He also was one of the first who had a seperate writer, director and cutter (instead of doing evering himself).
> 
> His movies were mainly early Westerns, which were successful because of their beautiful images and their rhythm.
> 
> 1910: director at I.M.P.
> 
> 1911: Bison Life Motion pictures (merged with Universal 1912)
> 
> 1912: "Studio Inceville" and the Bison 101 movies (as projects for Bison Life Motion Pictures)
> 
> 
------
ThomasHarperInce|981768367
13d12
< 
------
FilmHistory|981768424
20c20,21
< *  ThomasHarperInce
---
> *  ThomasHarperInce
> *  MackSenett
------
FilmHistory|981768580
21c21
< *  MackSenett
---
> *  MackSennett
------
MackSennett|981768816
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Mack Sennett is the inventor of the slapstick comedy. He was a singer, dancer, clown, actor, set designer and director for Biograph, and founded Keystone together with Adam Kessel. Many important actors were discovered by him and started their career at Keystone. Those include CharlieChaplin, BenTurpin, FattyArbuckle, Laurel and Hardy, GloriaSwanson and many more
------
MackSennett|981768852
1c1
< Mack Sennett is the inventor of the slapstick comedy. He was a singer, dancer, clown, actor, set designer and director for Biograph, and founded Keystone together with Adam Kessel. Many important actors were discovered by him and started their career at Keystone. Those include CharlieChaplin, BenTurpin, FattyArbuckle, Laurel and Hardy, GloriaSwanson and many more
---
> Mack Sennett is the inventor of the slapstick comedy. He was a singer, dancer, clown, actor, set designer and director for Biograph, and founded Keystone in 1912 together with Adam Kessel. Many important actors were discovered by him and started their career at Keystone. Those include CharlieChaplin, BenTurpin, FattyArbuckle, Laurel and Hardy, GloriaSwanson and many more
------
FilmHistory|981768932
21c21,25
< *  MackSennett
---
> *  MackSennett
> 
> Other important stuff:
> 
> *  MPPC
------
FilmHistory|981768955
25c25
< *  MPPC
---
> *  MppC
------
MppC|981769053
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture patents company, also known as the Edison Trust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, Eastman Kodak.
------
MppC|981769078
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture patents company, also known as the Edison Trust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, Eastman Kodak.
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the Edison Trust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, Eastman Kodak.
------
BeeR|981769213
9a10
> Belgians proud themselves on having the richest beer culture. There are over threehundred kinds of beer among which Stella Artois, Alken Maes, Jupiler and Duvel are some of the most well known. It is also said that the Belgian beers are the best beers in the world. This, however, is mostly said by the Belgians themselves.
11a13,14
> 
> 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981769604
19c19
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth?, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison. In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems. A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health. One may examine, for example, a liver. Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science. It can be x-rayed or biopsied. Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured. Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for. In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed. The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured. While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity. Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another. Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice. 
---
> The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison. In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems. A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health. One may examine, for example, a liver. Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science. It can be x-rayed or biopsied. Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured. Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for. In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed. The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured. While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity. Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another. Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice. 
21c21
< The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified. For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute." Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences. As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses. In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM. 
---
> The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified. For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute." Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences. As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses. In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM. 
------
AyeSpy|981770371
11c11
< He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.  He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness.
---
> He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.  He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness.  He practices the annoying habit of refusing to use the specialized terminololgy of these fields in the belief that it obscures more than it illuminates.  "if it can't be said in ordinary talk, nobody's gonna understand it, anyway!"  He is probably anti-authoritarian. 
166c166
< Anyway, since there seemed a lot of talk about what abnormal was, but no consensus on what normal was, I made up my own definition.  Does that answer your question?  (Told you you'd be sorry you asked.)
---
> Anyway, since there seemed a lot of talk about what abnormal was, but no consensus on what normal was, I made up my own definition.  Does that answer your question?  (Told you you'd be sorry you asked.)
------
CambodianLanguage|981771840
1c1,33
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Cambodian is somewhat unusual among its neighboring countries' languages of ThaiLanguage, LaotianLanguage and VietnameseLanguage in that it's not a TonalLanguage.
> 
> Cambodian descends from Sanskrit and Pali, and has much in 
> common with Thai and Laotian.
> 
> Accents are sometimes quite marked; notable accents are found
> in speakers from Phhom Penh (the capital city) and Battambong.
> 
> (This analysis comes from my observation as a conversant speaker of Cambodian without any background in linguistics).
> 
> A notable characteristic of the Phnom Penh accent is a tendency
> toward slang and laziness in pronunciation, much like American urban slang.  For instance, "Phnom Penh" will sometimes be shortened to "m'Penh".  Another characteristic of the Phnom Penh accent is observed in words with an "r" subconsonant in the first syllable (that is, where r is the second consonant, as in the Enlish word "bread").  The r is not pronounced, the first consonant is pronounced harder than usual, and the syllable is spoken with a dipping tone much like the "hoi" tone in the VietnameseLanguage.  For example, I have heard the word "dre" (meaning "fish") pronounced "te"; the "d" becomes a "t", and the vowel (long A) begins low and rises in tone.
> 
> Cambodian written language is alphabetic like English (and unlike
> Chinese).  Its alphabet consists is written in two separate parts; consonants and vowels.  Only pronunciation is given here, because I can't find a good way to display the characters, but the pronunciation is listed in the traditional form.
> 
> 
> Consonants
> 
> gaw kaw  go ko  ngo
> jaw chaw jo cho nyo
> daw taw  do to  naw
> Daw taw  Do to  no
> yo  ro   lo vo  saw
> haw law  aw
> 
> 
> Vowels
> 
> aa/Ea Ay/EE A/E ew/ew eww/eww
> OO/UU O/U 
> bleh... more some other time.
------
CambodianLanguage|981771866
1d0
< 
21,26c20,25
< gaw kaw  go ko  ngo
< jaw chaw jo cho nyo
< daw taw  do to  naw
< Daw taw  Do to  no
< yo  ro   lo vo  saw
< haw law  aw
---
>  gaw kaw  go ko  ngo
>  jaw chaw jo cho nyo
>  daw taw  do to  naw
>  Daw taw  Do to  no
>  yo  ro   lo vo  saw
>  haw law  aw
31,33c30,32
< aa/Ea Ay/EE A/E ew/ew eww/eww
< OO/UU O/U 
< bleh... more some other time.
---
>  aa/Ea Ay/EE A/E ew/ew eww/eww
>  OO/UU O/U 
>  bleh... more some other time.
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981780027
1c1
< Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Your author hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and poses the question:  could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
---
> The subject of this article is Bruce Hamilton's views on the problem of defining sanity.  (Probably, in our opinion, it should be moved to BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity.)  To write a review of what is known, from medical, psychological, and philosophical points of view about this topic, please see SanIty.
3,5c3
< "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, and other definitions, some of which have been developed from time to time in the interest of policital expediency (of which, more later).
<  
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions.  Sanity is also defined as being mentally "normal."  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, your author posits that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual. 
---
> Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Bruce Hamilton, who orginated this article, is a layman who has read some psychology books and who thinks he has this stuff figured out.  Bruce hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and pose this question: could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
7c5
< It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas. Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane. 
---
> "SanIty" is defined in ordinary dictionaries in such vague terms as the following: the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, etc.  Some such definitions have probably been advanced in the interest of political expediency (on which, more later).  Of course, we realize that ordinary dictionary definitions of difficult concepts such as sanity are far from adequate.  In fact, we aren't quite sure why we're quoting a dictionary at this juncture.
9c7,15
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but by and large, one sees testing for such criteria used more frequently in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. 
---
> The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." This etymology, which by itself means rather little, nonetheless would seem to imply that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions--at least insofar as there ''are'' any medical definitions of the term.  We're not too sure about that.
> 
> Sanity is also defined, by someone we are not willing to identify at this juncture, as being mentally "normal."  But enough about ''that'' definition.  Maybe it'll come up later in this article, maybe not.  We're not sure why we're mentioning it at this point.
> 
> Some people (again, we don't know who; maybe your Aunt Ethel) equate sanity with mental health.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, Bruce Hamilton posits that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual.  We'll put off exploring more historically and medically important conceptions of sanity until we have indulged Bruce--why not?  After all, Bruce's opinions on these subjects, about which medically-trained psychiatrists spend their entire lives, are very important.
> 
> Of course, to make sense of this thesis, we will have to explore in greater detail exactly what "clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning" means.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  Whether we will actually do these things remains to be seen.
> 
> There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but by and large, one sees testing for such criteria used more frequently in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  And, of course, no reputable psychologist holds that IntelliGence is by itself a good indicator of sanity; which might make one wonder why we're even considering the notion that IntelliGence is an indicator of sanity, but no matter.
45c51
< There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biological damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. At this writing, this school of thought enjoys majority support in the West.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Traditional Eastern philosophical and religious thought tend more in this direction.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy 
---
> There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biological damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. At this writing, this school of thought enjoys majority support in the West.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Traditional Eastern philosophical and religious thought tend more in this direction.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy, with tongue-in-cheek comments inserted by LarrySanger
------
SanityTalk|981781677
93a94,103
> ----
> Bruce, I'm not usually this much of an asshole, though ''some'' people know very well that I'm capable of it.  :-)  Your attitude, that your opinions on the subject are as important as psychiatric opinions (and thus should be put under titles such as "SanIty" and "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity"), touches on a strange pet peeve of mine.  I'm all for developing our own ideas.  I love trying to figure things out for myself, and I have no trouble being irreverent and disrespectful to the mainstream, when warranted.  In fact, insofar as I understand it, for what it's worth (''very'' little, of course), I think I largely agree with you.  But that doesn't matter.  My pet peeve is the attitude you take here: you are failing to do justice to what the zillions of brilliant psychiatrists who have written zillions of books on these subjects have said.  Now, if the stated subject of your article were BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity, then I'd have ''absolutely no problem whatsoever'' with your article, because you're the world's greatest expert on ''that.''
> 
> It would be a little like my trying to write a long, definitive-sounding article on, let's see...kayaking.  Why, I've been kayaking.  I have helped haul kayaks around the Prince William Sound.  I've met (in person!) a guy who wrote a book about kayaking in the Prince William Sound.  Suppose I were to say, in the article, "There is a problem with the way that people kayak.  They have their rowing patterns (or whatever) all wrong.  This article will explain why it's wrong."  Then I proceed to explain the better rowing pattern.  Suppose I were to put that article under the heading KayakinG.  ''Then'' suppose the aforementioned author of the book on kayaking, a ''very'' experienced kayaker and I believe definitely an expert on kayaking, were to read my article.  What would he think?  If he cared at all, he'd think: "Who the &*@# is the bozo who wrote this &@#%*, and why was ''he'' elected to write the article on this subject?  Why should ''anybody'' give a flyin' &@#^ about his opinions?"
> 
> You have '''every''' right to your opinion, and '''every''' right to express it on Nupedia.  But, in ''my'' opinion (just my opinion--but I think many would agree with me), you do not have the right to treat your opinion as anywhere near to being on a par with those of actual experts, which you do by the mere act of voicing your opinion in an article under the heading "Sanity" or "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity."  I don't care if you've read books and thought about it and are smart.  Doesn't matter.  You should put your article on "BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity" or "AyeSpyOnSanity" (that's catchy).  Then no one can fault you with wanting to promulgate ''your'' totally unqualified views as being on a par, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with totally qualified views.  Jaysus, Bruce, don't you know that virtually every smart psychologist who has written on this topic has been over the conceptual ground you've covered?
> 
> I'm a trained epistemologist, and I could write a decent Nupedia article on epistemic circularity.  I have thought ''a lot'' about that subject at a very advanced level--I dare say that on the very narrow question of how to define 'epistemic circularity', I'm probably one of the few experts in the world.  Despite that, I wouldn't include my own theory (developed in my dissertation) in an encyclopedia article on this subject.  Why not?  Because it was developed by a flippin' ''graduate student,'' in his ''dissertation,'' ferchrissakes; my theory would be news to everyone except my dissertation committee.  You don't put ''new research'' and ''idiosyncratic opinion'' into encyclopedia articles, because encyclopedia articles are--''for better or worse''--summations of "what is known" about the topic in question.  I guess it's a damn shame that I'm not going to grace the world by publishing my dissertation or parts of my dissertation and put my opinions on epistemic circularity into the realm of "what is known" on the topic.  Until I do, for purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if my theory blows all the others out of the water, etc.  That's not what encyclopedia articles are for.
> 
> -- LarrySanger, stepping off his soapbox finally, now fully intending to do something productive rather than critical for Wikipedia
------
SanityTalk|981782175
103c103,105
< -- LarrySanger, stepping off his soapbox finally, now fully intending to do something productive rather than critical for Wikipedia
---
> -- LarrySanger, stepping off his soapbox finally, now fully intending to do something productive rather than critical for Wikipedia
> 
> P.S. To be clear: I do '''not''' think that only if you're an expert on topic T should you write on topic T.  That's not my point at all.  My point is that you should not advance your own opinions on topic T as though they were particularly important--unless, of course, they ''are'' important.  By the way, LarrysText needs to be wikified in this respect, i.e., we need to remove my opinion-stating.  To provoke students, I sometimes stated my own opinions on the topics on which I was lecturing.  But I ''definitely'' don't think that my opinions should occur in encyclopedia articles on those same topics, because I'm not anything like an important philosopher.
------
AyeSpy|981782934
134c134
< Constantly evaluating one’s own behavior, and one’s own intentions, and the behavior of others, and the intentions of others, towards survival for all.
---
> Constantly evaluating one?s own behavior, and one?s own intentions, and the behavior of others, and the intentions of others, towards survival for all.
142c142
< Living in the “now.”
---
> Living in the ?now.?
156c156
< The full realization and voluntary acceptance of one’s actual circumstances, and the accurate estimation of one’s power or lack of power to change them.
---
> The full realization and voluntary acceptance of one?s actual circumstances, and the accurate estimation of one?s power or lack of power to change them.
164c164
< Th irony of State of Kansas (petitioner) v.  Leroy Hendricks (respondent).  Hendricks was considered “sane” before trial and sentencing as a violent sexual predator on the grounds that he both fully apprehended that sexual predation was wrong, and that he was fully capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his own defense.  When his sentence expired, the state moved to re-incarcerate him in a mental institution this time on the grounds he was insane because he "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence."  No one could argue that the guy was really sane, probably, or that they would want him for a next-door-neighbor - but how's that for a quandary in defining sanity?  Heh heh.
---
> Th irony of State of Kansas (petitioner) v.  Leroy Hendricks (respondent).  Hendricks was considered ?sane? before trial and sentencing as a violent sexual predator on the grounds that he both fully apprehended that sexual predation was wrong, and that he was fully capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his own defense.  When his sentence expired, the state moved to re-incarcerate him in a mental institution this time on the grounds he was insane because he "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence."  No one could argue that the guy was really sane, probably, or that they would want him for a next-door-neighbor - but how's that for a quandary in defining sanity?  Heh heh.
166a167,170
> 
> ----
> 
> Yes, it does. (Specially the last paragraphs). Thanks. --AstroNomer
------
SanityTalk|981782993
95c95
< Bruce, I'm not usually this much of an asshole, though ''some'' people know very well that I'm capable of it.  :-)  Your attitude, that your opinions on the subject are as important as psychiatric opinions (and thus should be put under titles such as "SanIty" and "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity"), touches on a strange pet peeve of mine.  I'm all for developing our own ideas.  I love trying to figure things out for myself, and I have no trouble being irreverent and disrespectful to the mainstream, when warranted.  In fact, insofar as I understand it, for what it's worth (''very'' little, of course), I think I largely agree with you.  But that doesn't matter.  My pet peeve is the attitude you take here: you are failing to do justice to what the zillions of brilliant psychiatrists who have written zillions of books on these subjects have said.  Now, if the stated subject of your article were BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity, then I'd have ''absolutely no problem whatsoever'' with your article, because you're the world's greatest expert on ''that.''
---
> Bruce, I'm not usually this much of an asshole, though ''some'' people know very well that I'm capable of it.  :-)  Your attitude, that your opinions on the subject are as important as psychiatric opinions (and thus should be put under titles such as "SanIty" and "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity"), illustrates a strange pet peeve of mine.  I'm all for developing our own ideas.  I love trying to figure things out for myself, and I have no trouble being irreverent and disrespectful to the mainstream, when warranted.  In fact, insofar as I understand it, for what it's worth (''very'' little, of course), I think I largely agree with you.  But that doesn't matter.  My pet peeve is taking a disrespectful, dismissive attitude toward the efforts of many brilliant people who are, by nearly all accounts, experts on the subject you discuss.  CrankS are pathetic, among other reasons, because they have this attitude.  And you're taking this attitude: you are failing to do justice to what the zillions of brilliant psychiatrists who have written zillions of books on these subjects have said.  Now, if the stated subject of your article were BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity, then I'd have ''absolutely no problem whatsoever'' with your article, because you're the world's greatest expert on ''that.''
97c97
< It would be a little like my trying to write a long, definitive-sounding article on, let's see...kayaking.  Why, I've been kayaking.  I have helped haul kayaks around the Prince William Sound.  I've met (in person!) a guy who wrote a book about kayaking in the Prince William Sound.  Suppose I were to say, in the article, "There is a problem with the way that people kayak.  They have their rowing patterns (or whatever) all wrong.  This article will explain why it's wrong."  Then I proceed to explain the better rowing pattern.  Suppose I were to put that article under the heading KayakinG.  ''Then'' suppose the aforementioned author of the book on kayaking, a ''very'' experienced kayaker and I believe definitely an expert on kayaking, were to read my article.  What would he think?  If he cared at all, he'd think: "Who the &*@# is the bozo who wrote this &@#%*, and why was ''he'' elected to write the article on this subject?  Why should ''anybody'' give a flyin' &@#^ about his opinions?"
---
> Let me try a different way of explaining.  Your article is a little like my trying to write a long, definitive-sounding article on, let's see...kayaking.  Why, I've been kayaking.  I have helped haul kayaks around the Prince William Sound.  I've met (in person!) a guy who wrote a book about kayaking in the Prince William Sound.  Suppose I were to say, in the article, "There is a problem with the way that people kayak.  They have their rowing patterns (or whatever) all wrong.  This article will explain why it's wrong."  Then I proceed to explain the better rowing pattern.  Maybe I'd do so very convincingly.  Now suppose I were to put that article in an encyclopedia under the heading KayakinG.  ''Then'' suppose the aforementioned author of the book on kayaking, a ''very'' experienced kayaker and I believe definitely an expert on kayaking, were to read my article.  What would he think?  If he cared at all, he'd think: "Who the &*@# is the bozo who wrote this &@#%*, and why was ''he'' elected to write the article summarizing what is known about this subject?  Why should ''anybody'' give a flyin' &@#^ about his opinions?"
99c99
< You have '''every''' right to your opinion, and '''every''' right to express it on Nupedia.  But, in ''my'' opinion (just my opinion--but I think many would agree with me), you do not have the right to treat your opinion as anywhere near to being on a par with those of actual experts, which you do by the mere act of voicing your opinion in an article under the heading "Sanity" or "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity."  I don't care if you've read books and thought about it and are smart.  Doesn't matter.  You should put your article on "BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity" or "AyeSpyOnSanity" (that's catchy).  Then no one can fault you with wanting to promulgate ''your'' totally unqualified views as being on a par, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with totally qualified views.  Jaysus, Bruce, don't you know that virtually every smart psychologist who has written on this topic has been over the conceptual ground you've covered?
---
> You have '''every''' right to your opinion, and '''every''' right to express it on Wikipedia.  But, in ''my'' opinion (just my opinion--but I think many would agree with me), you do not have the right to treat your opinion as anywhere near to being on a par with those of actual experts; you do this by the ''mere'' act of voicing your opinion in an article under the heading "Sanity" or "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity."  Keep your opinions to yourself, if you want to write on ''those'' topics.  I don't care if you've read books and thought about it and are smart.  Doesn't matter.  You should put your article on "BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity" or "AyeSpyOnSanity" (that's catchy).  Then no one can fault you with wanting to promulgate ''your'' totally unqualified views as being on a par, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with totally qualified views.  Jaysus, Bruce, don't you know that virtually every smart psychologist who has written on this topic has been over the conceptual ground you've covered?
101c101
< I'm a trained epistemologist, and I could write a decent Nupedia article on epistemic circularity.  I have thought ''a lot'' about that subject at a very advanced level--I dare say that on the very narrow question of how to define 'epistemic circularity', I'm probably one of the few experts in the world.  Despite that, I wouldn't include my own theory (developed in my dissertation) in an encyclopedia article on this subject.  Why not?  Because it was developed by a flippin' ''graduate student,'' in his ''dissertation,'' ferchrissakes; my theory would be news to everyone except my dissertation committee.  You don't put ''new research'' and ''idiosyncratic opinion'' into encyclopedia articles, because encyclopedia articles are--''for better or worse''--summations of "what is known" about the topic in question.  I guess it's a damn shame that I'm not going to grace the world by publishing my dissertation or parts of my dissertation and put my opinions on epistemic circularity into the realm of "what is known" on the topic.  Until I do, for purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if my theory blows all the others out of the water, etc.  That's not what encyclopedia articles are for.
---
> I'm a trained epistemologist, and I could write a decent Nupedia article on epistemic circularity.  I have thought ''a lot'' about that subject at a very advanced level--I dare say that on the very narrow question of how to define 'epistemic circularity', I'm probably one of the few experts in the world.  Despite that, I wouldn't include my own theory (developed in my dissertation) in an encyclopedia article on this subject.  Why not?  Because it was developed by a flippin' ''graduate student,'' in his ''dissertation,'' ferchrissakes; my theory would be news to everyone except my dissertation committee.  You don't put ''new research'' and ''idiosyncratic opinion'' into encyclopedia articles, because encyclopedia articles are--''for better or worse''--summations of "what is known" about the topic in question.  I guess it's a damn shame that I'm not going to grace the world by publishing my dissertation or parts of my dissertation and thereby putting my opinions on epistemic circularity into the realm of "what is known" on the topic.  Until I do, for purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if my theory blows all the others out of the water, etc.  Encyclopedia article shouldn't even mention it, until many experts or the public at large or ''somebody'' recognizes the work as important.
105c105
< P.S. To be clear: I do '''not''' think that only if you're an expert on topic T should you write on topic T.  That's not my point at all.  My point is that you should not advance your own opinions on topic T as though they were particularly important--unless, of course, they ''are'' important.  By the way, LarrysText needs to be wikified in this respect, i.e., we need to remove my opinion-stating.  To provoke students, I sometimes stated my own opinions on the topics on which I was lecturing.  But I ''definitely'' don't think that my opinions should occur in encyclopedia articles on those same topics, because I'm not anything like an important philosopher.
---
> P.S. To be clear: I do '''not''' think that only if you're an expert on topic T should you write on topic T.  That's not my point at all.  My point is that one should not advance one's own opinions on topic T as though they were particularly important--unless, of course, they ''are'' important.  By the way, one way in which LarrysText needs to be wikified is relevant here, i.e., we need to remove my opinion-stating.  To provoke students, I sometimes stated my own opinions on the topics on which I was lecturing.  (At least I was very clear that I was stating ''my own'' opinions when I did so.)  But I ''definitely'' don't think that my opinions should occur in encyclopedia articles on those same topics, because I'm not anything like an important philosopher.
------
SanityTalk|981783101
95d94
< Bruce, I'm not usually this much of an asshole, though ''some'' people know very well that I'm capable of it.  :-)  Your attitude, that your opinions on the subject are as important as psychiatric opinions (and thus should be put under titles such as "SanIty" and "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity"), illustrates a strange pet peeve of mine.  I'm all for developing our own ideas.  I love trying to figure things out for myself, and I have no trouble being irreverent and disrespectful to the mainstream, when warranted.  In fact, insofar as I understand it, for what it's worth (''very'' little, of course), I think I largely agree with you.  But that doesn't matter.  My pet peeve is taking a disrespectful, dismissive attitude toward the efforts of many brilliant people who are, by nearly all accounts, experts on the subject you discuss.  CrankS are pathetic, among other reasons, because they have this attitude.  And you're taking this attitude: you are failing to do justice to what the zillions of brilliant psychiatrists who have written zillions of books on these subjects have said.  Now, if the stated subject of your article were BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity, then I'd have ''absolutely no problem whatsoever'' with your article, because you're the world's greatest expert on ''that.''
97,105d95
< Let me try a different way of explaining.  Your article is a little like my trying to write a long, definitive-sounding article on, let's see...kayaking.  Why, I've been kayaking.  I have helped haul kayaks around the Prince William Sound.  I've met (in person!) a guy who wrote a book about kayaking in the Prince William Sound.  Suppose I were to say, in the article, "There is a problem with the way that people kayak.  They have their rowing patterns (or whatever) all wrong.  This article will explain why it's wrong."  Then I proceed to explain the better rowing pattern.  Maybe I'd do so very convincingly.  Now suppose I were to put that article in an encyclopedia under the heading KayakinG.  ''Then'' suppose the aforementioned author of the book on kayaking, a ''very'' experienced kayaker and I believe definitely an expert on kayaking, were to read my article.  What would he think?  If he cared at all, he'd think: "Who the &*@# is the bozo who wrote this &@#%*, and why was ''he'' elected to write the article summarizing what is known about this subject?  Why should ''anybody'' give a flyin' &@#^ about his opinions?"
< 
< You have '''every''' right to your opinion, and '''every''' right to express it on Wikipedia.  But, in ''my'' opinion (just my opinion--but I think many would agree with me), you do not have the right to treat your opinion as anywhere near to being on a par with those of actual experts; you do this by the ''mere'' act of voicing your opinion in an article under the heading "Sanity" or "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity."  Keep your opinions to yourself, if you want to write on ''those'' topics.  I don't care if you've read books and thought about it and are smart.  Doesn't matter.  You should put your article on "BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity" or "AyeSpyOnSanity" (that's catchy).  Then no one can fault you with wanting to promulgate ''your'' totally unqualified views as being on a par, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with totally qualified views.  Jaysus, Bruce, don't you know that virtually every smart psychologist who has written on this topic has been over the conceptual ground you've covered?
< 
< I'm a trained epistemologist, and I could write a decent Nupedia article on epistemic circularity.  I have thought ''a lot'' about that subject at a very advanced level--I dare say that on the very narrow question of how to define 'epistemic circularity', I'm probably one of the few experts in the world.  Despite that, I wouldn't include my own theory (developed in my dissertation) in an encyclopedia article on this subject.  Why not?  Because it was developed by a flippin' ''graduate student,'' in his ''dissertation,'' ferchrissakes; my theory would be news to everyone except my dissertation committee.  You don't put ''new research'' and ''idiosyncratic opinion'' into encyclopedia articles, because encyclopedia articles are--''for better or worse''--summations of "what is known" about the topic in question.  I guess it's a damn shame that I'm not going to grace the world by publishing my dissertation or parts of my dissertation and thereby putting my opinions on epistemic circularity into the realm of "what is known" on the topic.  Until I do, for purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if my theory blows all the others out of the water, etc.  Encyclopedia article shouldn't even mention it, until many experts or the public at large or ''somebody'' recognizes the work as important.
< 
< -- LarrySanger, stepping off his soapbox finally, now fully intending to do something productive rather than critical for Wikipedia
< 
< P.S. To be clear: I do '''not''' think that only if you're an expert on topic T should you write on topic T.  That's not my point at all.  My point is that one should not advance one's own opinions on topic T as though they were particularly important--unless, of course, they ''are'' important.  By the way, one way in which LarrysText needs to be wikified is relevant here, i.e., we need to remove my opinion-stating.  To provoke students, I sometimes stated my own opinions on the topics on which I was lecturing.  (At least I was very clear that I was stating ''my own'' opinions when I did so.)  But I ''definitely'' don't think that my opinions should occur in encyclopedia articles on those same topics, because I'm not anything like an important philosopher.
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981783409
1c1
< The subject of this article is Bruce Hamilton's views on the problem of defining sanity.  (Probably, in our opinion, it should be moved to BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity.)  To write a review of what is known, from medical, psychological, and philosophical points of view about this topic, please see SanIty.
---
> Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Peter Cotton: "... most mainstream clinical psychology, I think you'd find, is dominated by the view that the absence of symptoms equals health. But if pressed to give a positive definition of health, most clinicians I think would have difficulty. Traditionally from Freud onwards psychotherapy and psychological systems have tended to view the world through the lens of psychopathology, so they've typically had fairly negative definitions." (followed by an hour of wrangling with three other scholars in an effort to define sanity - which event never comes to pass)
3,54c3
< Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity. Bruce Hamilton, who orginated this article, is a layman who has read some psychology books and who thinks he has this stuff figured out.  Bruce hopes to explore some of the possible reasons for this and pose this question: could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?
< 
< "SanIty" is defined in ordinary dictionaries in such vague terms as the following: the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, etc.  Some such definitions have probably been advanced in the interest of political expediency (on which, more later).  Of course, we realize that ordinary dictionary definitions of difficult concepts such as sanity are far from adequate.  In fact, we aren't quite sure why we're quoting a dictionary at this juncture.
< 
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." This etymology, which by itself means rather little, nonetheless would seem to imply that a sane mind is a healthy mind. This is, in fact, part of most medical definitions--at least insofar as there ''are'' any medical definitions of the term.  We're not too sure about that.
< 
< Sanity is also defined, by someone we are not willing to identify at this juncture, as being mentally "normal."  But enough about ''that'' definition.  Maybe it'll come up later in this article, maybe not.  We're not sure why we're mentioning it at this point.
< 
< Some people (again, we don't know who; maybe your Aunt Ethel) equate sanity with mental health.  Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, Bruce Hamilton posits that its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. If this thesis holds, one might expect to find these qualities in a sane individual.  We'll put off exploring more historically and medically important conceptions of sanity until we have indulged Bruce--why not?  After all, Bruce's opinions on these subjects, about which medically-trained psychiatrists spend their entire lives, are very important.
< 
< Of course, to make sense of this thesis, we will have to explore in greater detail exactly what "clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning" means.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  Whether we will actually do these things remains to be seen.
< 
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but by and large, one sees testing for such criteria used more frequently in determining IntelliGence than sanity. While a degree of IntelliGence may be implicit in the concept of sanity, this would not be the only measure.  One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  And, of course, no reputable psychologist holds that IntelliGence is by itself a good indicator of sanity; which might make one wonder why we're even considering the notion that IntelliGence is an indicator of sanity, but no matter.
< 
< An instance of a broadly accepted test in English speaking areas of the world which is thought to address issues of mental and emotional health would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  This test has no right or wrong answers, and the evaluee is advised of this fact.  He answers dozens of questions about how he feels and thinks regarding certain issues, and the way in which his answers relate to each other and pre-determined baseline critera determines whether the person adminstering or evaluating the test finds his attitudes more or less healthy in given areas.  If his environmental factors include the recent loss of a loved one and various of his answers reveal a depressed mood, the evaluator may declare this "appropriate."  Labels such as "normal" or "abnormal" with regard to test results are avoided.  The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, and how "accuracy" is defined, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not. 
< 
< The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used by ordinary people as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others. These criteria are frequently examined by courts in commitment proceedings, determination of fitness to stand trial, hearings on competency and other such undertakings.  More recently, especially in medically related fields, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.  One sees diagnoses based on subjective mood, and drugs advertised to improve outlook.   
< 
< Criteria other than accuracy of function have been also employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria. In some contexts, societal norms loom large. For example, in WesternCivilization?, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting. Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia? - a serious mental disorder. In many regions of the ThirdWorld?, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience. One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man. 
< 
< The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is that a person's mentality is "normal."  A search of the meaning of "normal" leads us to a definition by exclusion - that is, absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder. The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." Conversely, when one displays an apparent symptom or limitation for which no physiological cause is indicated, doctors refer to the problem as "functional."  That is, it is not related to a physical problem, but rather a mental one.  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below. 
< 
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison. In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems. A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health. One may examine, for example, a liver. Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science. It can be x-rayed or biopsied. Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured. Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for. In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed. The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured. While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity. Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another. Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice. 
< 
< The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified. For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute." Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences. As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses. In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM. 
< 
< In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity. Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science. 
< 
< And defining sane behavior must always be done, at least in part, in the context of the subject's culture. If one is raised in a given cultural environment, educated in a given fashion, and exposed to certain norms, then behavior which is inconsistent with these factors may well indicate some defect in the capacity to accurately process the information available to the mind. 
< 
< In recent times, more recognition has been given to the concept of sanity as a subjective manifestation, evidenced by mental quietude, peace of mind, and resiliancy - an ability to survive the vicissitudes of life without such mental discomfort that one's ability to function is impaired. 
< 
< In the legal community, a culture unto itself, an entirely different effort has been undertaken to define sanity. Generally speaking, the most broadly known and publicly accepted standard for sanity under law is "the ability to discern right and wrong." This has been broadened, extended, shaped and colored in widely scattered juristictions internationally in an effort to establish standards which will punish the guilty and forgive those whose temporary or permanent mental state deprived them of the requisite ability to form intent, or "mens rea" (guilty mind) under the law. 
< 
< Defenses based on various findings of mental defect by medical professionals have been offered by criminal defendants with varying levels of success, in an effort to avoid being found sane, and thus escape a death penalty or any form of punishment at all. Multiple personality disorder, sugar addiction, somnambulance, amnesia, excitement or passion, obsessive-compulsive behavior of varying kinds, all have been pled as defenses before the bar of justice. 
< 
< Finally, various governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have undertaken to use political or public policy standards to define sanity, and have underwritten psychiatric efforts to restore sanity under such definitions by remedying behaviors which betray a mindset declared unacceptable by the state. The treatments employed toward this end are typically aversive, punitive, and/or coercive. The working definition for sanity in such cases, usually implicit rather than explicit, would seem to be, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think."  The argument supporting such a definition of sanity and resulting efforts to restore same is generally this: "The state functions for the good of the people. Proper functioning of the state requires conformance and compliance with state aims and policies. Fomenting disagreement with state aims and policies interferes with the proper functioning of the state. Any sane person would desire the good of the people and would therefore not foment disagreement." As experience quickly reveals that talking therapies fail to restore the sanity of a person who openly disagrees with the state and encourages others to do so, the therapies employed necessarily become those that a deviant citizen, given his choice, would avoid. Failing this, state hospitals may resort to treatments which nullify the patient's ability to engage in unauthorized expression. Thus sanity by political definition may be restored. 
< 
< Political definitions of sanity have not been confined to openly authoritarian governments. In otherwise putatively democratice countries which have a history of democratic elections and peaceful transfer of power, state-sanctioned and state-funded mental treatement has been imposed upon political dissidents and upon members of racial and ethnic minorities whose activities and efforts to achieve equal treatment and equal rights to those enjoyed by favored elements of these societies have been felt to be a threat to civil order or state security. 
< 
< Political definitions of sanity are a reflection of the earliest attempts by humans in a social setting to live in comfort, unmolested by disquieting behavior by those around them. As far back as history has been recorded, mentions of "lunatics" (for the Latin meaning "moon-touched," after the belief that undue exposure to the full moon could damage the mind) appear. These persons fail their compatriots' test for sanity grounds observed by others rather than experienced by self. Their bevavior is erratic, unpredictable, unsettling, and cannot be rationally understood by those around them. The discomfort that they impose upon the society around them disqualifies them from being considered sane. The very concept of "sanity," as a condition, may have developed first and foremost in contrast to these early observations of it apparent absence. This primary identification of a health issue by others than the affected person is somewhat unique. One may complain of a headache, sore stomach, excessive weariness or various aches, pains, or numbness. One may notice a rash or falling hair, or be unable to keep food down. One may even be unable to concentrate or attend the utterances of others with clarity. These subjective symptoms, reported by their sufferer, translate to bodily illness of one kind or another and drive the individual to seek relief. Absent social indoctrination, however, one seldom will complain of a defect in their own sanity.
< 
< "Doctor, I'm depressed," is a complaint of relatively recent origin.  In pre-Freudian times, an individual may have been "sad," "morose," "maudlin," or "pessimistic," even afflicted with "despair" to the point of suicide.  This would not have been viewed as a mental disorder, nor occasion for a diagnosis or treatment.  It would have been perceived that the person needed cheering up, or that he was responding appropriately to some event or condition of his life which cried out for remedy, or that he was constitutionally incapable of being cheerful - much after the manner that one might be short, or bald.  Modernly, radio, television and popular periodicals carry messages from doctors and drug companies that being too sad may be a sign of clinical depression, and that one ought to seek treatment or drugs.  Hence, "Doctor, I'm depressed."  Whether the older or more modern view is more appropriate is the subject of ongoing debate between professionals in the field.
< 
< A common thread runs through the foregoing. Sanity, or health of mind, as evidenced by proper functioning is measured in each case against the ability of the individual to successfully cope with the demands of life and his society in a manner which coexists harmoniously with that society. To the degree that one inputs data faithfully, processes it accurately, and assesses the impact on self and others of his actions and reactions so as to avoid unnecessary friction or harm, he could be called sane. One could go so far as to say that errant mental function in any or all of these fields does not move an idividual over the line from the "sane" category to the "not-sane" category as long as the incidence of errant function is incidental, minor or infrequent, and proper function is predominant. Add to this the element that proper functioning necessary to cope does not place undue stresses or demands on the individual, require undue effort, nor cause excessive discomfort, (as in that the person can experience and express emotions without being victimized by them) and both objective and subjective criteria for sanity are met.  This is still a very long definition, but it seems to satisfy the requirements of almost every context.
< 
< The words "unnecessary friction or harm" probably cannot be omitted, but they are the weakest point of the proposed definition.  What is seen as necessary by one may be seen as wholly unnecessary and undesirable by another.  The case of the political dissident is such an example.  He sees his friction with the society around him as entirely necessary, for it is his position that the society must be altered for the good of all.  That same society, in preserving its continued existence, views such a position as deviant and dangerous, and is likely to exert pressure to eliminate it.
< 
< There is lively debate as to whether physical intervention is necessary or effective to achieve, maintain or restore sanity in the absence of quantifiable biological damage or dysfunction. The three main schools of thought in this arena could be called the "healthy brain - healthy mind" school, the "healthy mind - healthy brain" school and the "spiritual" school. The first maintains that mental function is a product of biologial function, and that therefore brain health and biochemical balance determines sanity. At this writing, this school of thought enjoys majority support in the West.  The second holds that observed changes in the brain and biochemical status are the product of mental function, and that mental health can therefore be addressed without treating the brain. The third holds that the mind is independent of the physical existence of the brain, and that the brain merely permits the mind to be expressed in the body. Organic damage to the brain would necessarily impair this expression. Traditional Eastern philosophical and religious thought tend more in this direction.  Various practitioners and researchers may adhere to a combination of the foregoing schools. How a society approaches its effort to maintain viabililty and cohesiveness through the sanity of its members would be determined by which school of thought enjoys the broadest acceptance in that society. -- AyeSpy, with tongue-in-cheek comments inserted by LarrySanger
< 
< ----
< See also SanityTalk. 
---
> Larry's point is made
------
AyeSpy|981783596
1d0
< AyeSpy has no college degree, and has not attended an accredited InstituteOfHigherLearning.  He declares that his ramblings should not be regarded as authoritative or mainstream, but rather the IdiosyncratiC, (though hopefully well-considered) views of one looking from the outside in.
3,170d1
< AyeSpy has over 3900 classroom and field hours in investigative and intelligence training - including classes in ethics, human behavior and psychology, methods of managing interpersonal interaction; the equivalent of more than a master's degree in his field.  He has 21 years as a private investigator for law firms.
< 
< He writes science fiction.
< 
< He has worked professionally in over 30 different fields, from horse husbandry, auto mechanics and home construction to photography, marketing, personnel management and counseling.
< 
< He is a vocalist, guitarist, and song writer.
< 
< He has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion.  He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness.  He practices the annoying habit of refusing to use the specialized terminololgy of these fields in the belief that it obscures more than it illuminates.  "if it can't be said in ordinary talk, nobody's gonna understand it, anyway!"  He is probably anti-authoritarian. 
< 
< What on earth does AyeSpy do with himself all day?
< 
< AyeSpy as Investigator - Job Duties:
< 
< Photos/videography/diagraming of accident scenes, plaintiff and defendant vehicles, client injuries, scars, disfigurement, disabilities.
< 
< Photos/videography of Photos or micro-photography of physical evidence and of purportedly defective products, food adulteration, etc.
< 	
< Obtaining of photos or video taken by others and analysis of same.  Includes: Police, coroner, private security officers and/or investigators, adjusters, aerial photos
< 
< Inspect vehicles for evidence of impact force, accident causation reasons, crashworthiness, mechanisms of injury causation.  Supervise vehicle tear-down for these purposes.
< 
< Secure, preserve and regulate access to accident vehicles as appropriate 
< 
< Obtain, Inspect, analyze, and preserve physical evidence and purportedly defective products of all kinds in order to determine facts and liability.  For instance:  failed ladders, chairs, tires, mechanical car parts, stair elements, stoves, electrical parts, lights, ropes, cable and webbing, hinges, frames, stands, glass items, clothing, hand tools, power tools, fuel systems and tanks, bikes, motorcycles, medical appliances, springs, tensioners, latches, valves, etc.
< 	
< Investigation to determine the manufacturers and distributors of products when not clearly stated on same
< 
< Obtaining of exemplar products for comparison and testing
< 	
< Inspection and analysis of premises (including plumbing, wiring, framing, glazing, roofing, masonry, stairs, floors, railings, drywall) in order to determine code compliance and to determine accident causation facts and liability.  
< 
< Premises illumination analysis
< 
< Investigation and analysis of job safety factors and plant operation to determine when ordinary negligence is exceeded or third party liability enters in.
< 
< Locate and interview witnesses, record witness statements. 
< 
< Sitting in on (to observe and regulate) recorded statements of clients by insurance reps
< 
< Analysis of potential toxic exposure and causes for environmental illness
< 
< Analysis of compliance or lack thereof with safe animal restraint and handling practices
< 
< Investigation of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws
< 
< Inspection and analysis of roadways, traffic control elements, traffic control plans for safety, compliance with laws and codes, visibility, etc. to determine possible contribution to accident causation.
< 
< Accident reconstruction from physical evidence and witness accounts including:  vehicle movement, speed from skid, speed from crush, speed from roll, vehicle attitude, occupant impact, elapsed time between events, avoidance factors, braking performance, visibility and vehicle illumination, use or non-use of restraint, etc.
< 
< Obtaining of outside reports from police, coroner, other jurisdictions, etc.
< 
< Videotape scenes, client activities, defendant activities, statements, other evidence
< 
< Obtain police and television and other public-source videos
< 
< Video copying and editing
< 
< Find and hire consulting and testifying experts in all fields and liaison with same.
< 
< Unsnarl difficult property damage issues and P/D value disputes
< 
< Investigate to locate insurance and analyze insurance exposure under case facts
< 
< Evaluate questionable incoming cases as to worth and sufficiency.
< 
< Locate missing persons including defendants, witnesses and clients.
< 
< Identify and locate defendants and their agents for purposes of service and correctly naming in complaint
< 
< Attend and record salient facts of plaintiff and defendant traffic trials.  Prepare plaintiff for traffic trial.
< 
< Police, fire, coroner, prosecutor liaison to assist prosecution and conviction of defendants
< 
< Review of medical and coroner records to determine causation of injury or death.  Liaison with  coroner to get erroneous causation corrected on official report
< 
< Back-up prospective case interviewing
< 
< Prospective case interviewing in hospital or home setting
< 
< Rapid service of process on friendly witnesses
< 
< Surveillance
< 
< Public records research to determine history of accident site, and identities and zones of responsibility of potential defendants
< 
< Defendant asset and criminal and civil record searches - background investigation for credibility purposes
< 
< Legal research and statutory and case citation to assist attorney in case analysis
< 
< Writing of some pleadings in state and federal court.
< 
< Determination of relevant discovery issues as requested
< 
< Assisting clients in response to discovery if necessary
< 
< American Trial Lawyers Association research of current and past similar cases against same or similar defendant or product
< 
< Premises security plan and execution analysis
< 
< Area crime trend analysis
< 
< Travel as necessary to conduct any and all of above out of town and/or out of state.
< 
< Represent firm to other firms, public agencies, witnesses and to potential clients in the most capable and professional light possible
< 
< To see the list of fields in which AyeSpy has earned $$, look at the AyeSpyList.  Included under separate heading are activities pursued out of necessity or for pleasure, but without remuneration...
< ----
< Bruce, I think you underestimate the value of SeriousScholarship. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< ''Au Contraire, mon ami''.  I esteem it highly.  Why do you think I added the warning to readers that I have no degree and no college education?  I don't want anyone to place undue reliance on my musings.  I only wish I'd had the opportunity to pursue it in my youth.  I am frustrated when I lack time and resources to pursue any given line of enquiry to its absolute conclusion, either academically or in life.  I have been repeatedly encouraged by professionals to pursue a professional degree, even at this late stage in my life.  Economic realities have prevented it, however.  My family would starve.  One of my great points of pride as a parent has been paving the way for my kids, the eldest of whom enrolls in her post-grad program in the fall, the youngest of whom is already positioned to out-earn me in the field of IT.  
< 
< On the other hand, it has been my experience that SeriousScholars, highly valuing (and justly so) the effort with which they exhausted themselves to come by knowledge hard-won, tend to jealously guard the status which the successful completion of their studies confers.  As such, they tend to be reluctant to acknowledge that the observations of those "uneducated" persons around them, sans-degree, might have validity - exceeding even, at times, the validity of those by the expert. 
< 
< I have thought up, composed, and written pleadings which, filed with the court and considered ''in camera'' without oral argument, defeated the motions or counter-motions of experienced lawyers.  I have averted courtroom defeats by catching factual or legal errors in pleadings before they were filed.  I have brought to the attention of engineers errors in their observations, assumptions or calculations which invalidated their conclusions.  I have brought medical technical data to the attention of medical examiners, with the result that they corrected an erroneous finding on cause of death.  I have found results in patient medical testing, and material in medical texts, which proved malpractice.  Did you know that a "right bundle branch block" finding on an ECG is a differential for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (instead of, say, gastritis) and that failure to immediately start a prophylactic course of of anticoagulants could kill the patient?  I know of at least two emergency docs who either overlooked or forgot that fact, in spite of 10 years of SeriousScholarship.
< 
< I deal on a daily basis with experts of all kinds, their contributions to legal cases, and am regularly confronted with the fact that their pursuit of SeriousScholarship gives them an ability which I will never possess to a) analyze, interpret and form accurate conclusions from technical data and b) testify to same in court.  Hell, I can't even testify to my own investigative results, because I work for the firm.  So, I hire, brief, and manage experts of every stripe.  I could not live without them.  But some of those experts whom the firm winds up using on a regular basis have developed a habit of having me vet their reports before finalizing them.  They value that little extra insurance against being caught with their pants down.  In 21 years of very active trial practice, this 11-lawyer firm is undefeated at trial.  That record is unmatched in this state.  (They'll get us sooner or later, I'm sure.  But not yet.)
< 
< So, from the viewpoint of a total generalist, I tend to correlate data from diverse fields, test various hypotheses, and come up with what I, in my vanity and arrogance, sometimes think of as insights that others might find interesting.  This is not to say that the professionals in these fields are not better informed than I.  Within the confines of their field, they doubtless are.  I hope that my occasional irreverance for convention does not leave readers with the feeling that I do not respect SeriousScholarship.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
< ----
< I stand corrected! -- LarrySanger
< 
< ----
< 
< May I ask why so interested in the subject of (in)sanity? -- AstroNomer
< ----
< 
< Sure!  (you may regret having asked this one) as above, (AyeSpy)"...has made a lifelong study of education technology as well as philosophy and comparative religion. He has an interest in quantum physics, and the concept referred to as Quantum Consciousness."  This interest was born when I was 8 or before, when I made up my mind to become the best teacher ever.  That dream faded somewhere along the way, but the fascination with learning never did.
< 
< A corollary to this interest was an absorbing interest in optimum mental function, especially, later, as it might relate to (of all things) spiritual awareness.  How do you get a guy operating at his mental best, optimumly able to learn and grow?  My early readings shed little light on this, as I found psychiatric and psychological treatises (which I originally assumed would be authoritative on the subject) to be almost silent on the subject, being preoccupied with mental morbidity.  "We can tell you what's wrong, but we won't say what it would look like if it were right."  Over the years, I collected a long list of definitions of sanity, some here:
< 
< Constantly evaluating one?s own behavior, and one?s own intentions, and the behavior of others, and the intentions of others, towards survival for all.
< 
< Concordance between the perceived/recorded and the actual.
< 
< Mental function which tends away from the body and toward the intent of God.
< 
< Mental function in harmony with natural physical instinct.
< 
< Living in the ?now.?
< 
< The mental state resulting from the removal or resolution of conflicts caused by the discord between intellect and instinct.
< 
< Pure rationality, including the rejection of superstition such as religion.
< 
< The state of mind originally bestowed by God, broken by man, and capable of restoration through penance and faith.
< 
< The acknowledgment that there can be no complete joinder between the subjective and objective universes.
< 
< Mental self-possession and self-control, such that external influences are incapable of irreparably upsetting the balance.
< 
< Harmony with the Universal Mind.
< 
< The full realization and voluntary acceptance of one?s actual circumstances, and the accurate estimation of one?s power or lack of power to change them.
< 
< The acceptance of the world as it is, rather than as one would wish it to be, by dealing in rational assumptions, arguments and conclusions based in observable fact.
< 
< Total self-knowledge and self-acceptance
< 
< Positive behavior resulting from nurturing example and ideal biochemical balance.
< 
< Th irony of State of Kansas (petitioner) v.  Leroy Hendricks (respondent).  Hendricks was considered ?sane? before trial and sentencing as a violent sexual predator on the grounds that he both fully apprehended that sexual predation was wrong, and that he was fully capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his own defense.  When his sentence expired, the state moved to re-incarcerate him in a mental institution this time on the grounds he was insane because he "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence."  No one could argue that the guy was really sane, probably, or that they would want him for a next-door-neighbor - but how's that for a quandary in defining sanity?  Heh heh.
< 
< Anyway, since there seemed a lot of talk about what abnormal was, but no consensus on what normal was, I made up my own definition.  Does that answer your question?  (Told you you'd be sorry you asked.)
< 
< ----
< 
< Yes, it does. (Specially the last paragraphs). Thanks. --AstroNomer
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981784136
1,3c1
< Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Peter Cotton: "... most mainstream clinical psychology, I think you'd find, is dominated by the view that the absence of symptoms equals health. But if pressed to give a positive definition of health, most clinicians I think would have difficulty. Traditionally from Freud onwards psychotherapy and psychological systems have tended to view the world through the lens of psychopathology, so they've typically had fairly negative definitions." (followed by an hour of wrangling with three other scholars in an effort to define sanity - which event never comes to pass)
< 
< Larry's point is made
---
> 
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981784322
1c1,3
< 
---
> Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Peter Cotton: "... most mainstream clinical psychology, I think you'd find, is dominated by the view that the absence of symptoms equals health. But if pressed to give a positive definition of health, most clinicians I think would have difficulty. Traditionally from Freud onwards psychotherapy and psychological systems have tended to view the world through the lens of psychopathology, so they've typically had fairly negative definitions." (followed by an hour of wrangling with three other scholars in an effort to define sanity - which event never comes to pass)
> 
> Larry's point is made.
------
SanityTalk|981787321
95c95
< 
---
> Hey Bruce, you didn't have to take down your article.  You should post it under a different title (how about: AyeSpy/OnSanity); it's still of interest to some people, I'm sure.  It was far from useless or idiotic.  You know, my point ''wasn't'' that your article is wrong, badly-written, or of little value!  My point was only that it isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity.  The works of Sigmund Freud don't constitute an encyclopedia article about sanity, either.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
NamingConventions|981794623
76a77,79
> 
> Sounds great, Cliff.  Cheers, mate.  --KlausSeistrup
> 
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981805010
6a7,8
> Topics will follow the format of 
> 
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981805330
7c7
< Topics will follow the format of 
---
> Topics will follow the format of definition of the title, what can go wrong, the ideal situation, how to do the test, and what can be wrong if the test is not good.
------
TestingMotorCoilResistance|981821484
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A three-phase induction motor has internal coil windings.
> 
> These windings must remain the correct value for the motor size and coil configuration, and they must remain the same value as one another.
> 
> Typical values are six ohms between all phases.
> 
> In a typical three phase induction motor circuit, an appropriate place to test is at the load side of the direct-on-line motor starter.
> 
> Figure 1 
> 
>  
>        O  O  O
>         /  /  /
>        /  /  /
>        O  O  O
>        A  B  C
> 
> Tests should be made between A and B, A and C, and B and C.
> 
------
TestingEarthFaultResistance|981822356
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A three-phase induction motor has conductors which are insulated to withstand the full rated supply voltage.
> 
> This insulation may break down so that the insulation resistance falls below certain values.
> 
> The conductors must have an insulation resistance of greater than one hundred kilohms to function at all, and greater than one megohm ideally.
> 
> In a typical three phase induction motor circuit, an appropriate place to test is at the load side of the direct-on-line motor
> starter. 
> 
> Figure 1 
> 
>        O  O  O
>         /  /  /
>        /  /  /
>        O  O  O
>        A  B  C         Earth
> 
> If the motor system has satisfactory "MotorCoilResistance", the test should be made between A, B, or C and Earth.
------
SanityTalk|981826384
95c95,97
< Hey Bruce, you didn't have to take down your article.  You should post it under a different title (how about: AyeSpy/OnSanity); it's still of interest to some people, I'm sure.  It was far from useless or idiotic.  You know, my point ''wasn't'' that your article is wrong, badly-written, or of little value!  My point was only that it isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity.  The works of Sigmund Freud don't constitute an encyclopedia article about sanity, either.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> Hey Bruce, you didn't have to take down your article.  You should post it under a different title (how about: AyeSpy/OnSanity); it's still of interest to some people, I'm sure.  It was far from useless or idiotic.  You know, my point ''wasn't'' that your article is wrong, badly-written, or of little value!  My point was only that it isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity.  The works of Sigmund Freud don't constitute an encyclopedia article about sanity, either.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> ----
> No kidding.  In the entire body of his work, he nibbled around the edges, but never bothered to define it.  My hide may not be as thick as I imagined.  I am weighing whether the considerable distraction WikiPedia has been to me is worth it to me or anyone.  I seem to have lost my sense of humor on the issue.  Give me a bit to think it out...
------
MppC|981829237
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the Edison Trust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, Eastman Kodak.
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak.
------
ElectricalEngineering|981832495
0a1,6
> Electrical Engineering may be defined as the practical application of electrical technology.  Electrical engineers
> develop, construct and test all manner of devices, from common household appliances (microwave ovens, etc.) to high tech medical imaging devices (MRI, etc.)
> 
> We have some information about specific aspects of Electrical
> Engineering, as follows, but I'm not sure what it means.  --JimboWales
> 
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981832600
2a3,4
> ''Question from Jimbo: Perhaps we should have a more general article about different kinds of induction motors and their uses?  This information, while certainly interesting, is baffling to me, as a non-electrical engineer.  If I am being silly, please just delete this note and go on about your business.  :-)''
> 
------
SanityTalk|981833040
97c97,99
< No kidding.  In the entire body of his work, he nibbled around the edges, but never bothered to define it.  My hide may not be as thick as I imagined.  I am weighing whether the considerable distraction WikiPedia has been to me is worth it to me or anyone.  I seem to have lost my sense of humor on the issue.  Give me a bit to think it out...
---
> No kidding.  In the entire body of his work, he nibbled around the edges, but never bothered to define it.  My hide may not be as thick as I imagined.  I am weighing whether the considerable distraction WikiPedia has been to me is worth it to me or anyone.  I seem to have lost my sense of humor on the issue.  Give me a bit to think it out...
> ----
> I was too harsh, Bruce, needlessly so.  I'm sorry about that.  I'm not kidding that you irritated a big pet peeve of mine, which might explain the reaction.  My other PetPeeves include tailgaters, wife-beaters, people who don't take responsibility for their children, ''any'' manner of bias in news reporting, crankishness of all sorts, calling stuff "art" just in order to try to stretch the definition of "art," self-righteous and unrepentant dishonesty, people who insist that I ought to do X whenever I strongly disagree, bad attempts (meaning, ''most'') at achieving musical style "fusions," and probably a few other things--including biased encyclopedia articles (which is not unlike biased news reporting).  My reactions to these things is, in most cases, all out of proportion to the seriousness of the actual infraction.  So, you see.  I am sorry.  I will make an effort to restrain myself in the future. -- LarrySanger
------
AnnaKournikova|981833363
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA.
> 
> Kournikova's first GrandSlam title came in 1999 at the AustralianOpen in the Womens Doubles event with partner MartinaHingis.  Kournikova and Hingis have frequently played as doubles partners.
> 
> Kournikova is perhaps the best known player among people who are not fans of tennis, and she is perhaps more famous for her beauty than for her tennis skills.
------
AnnaKournikova|981833929
1c1
< Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA.
---
> Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is an only child.
5c5
< Kournikova is perhaps the best known player among people who are not fans of tennis, and she is perhaps more famous for her beauty than for her tennis skills.
---
> Kournikova is perhaps the best known player among people who are not fans of tennis, and she is perhaps more famous for her beauty than for her tennis skills.  She was named one of PeopleMagazine's 50 most beautiful people in 1998, and she had a small role (as a motel manager) in the 2000 film MyMyselfAndIrene, starring JimCarrey.
------
MacroeconomicS|981842967
3c3
< Until the 1930s most economic analysis concentrated  on individual firms and industries. With the GreatDepression of the 1930s, however, and the development of the concept of national income and product statistics, the field of MacroeconomicS began to expand. The policy goals of the discipline include economic growth, price stability, and full employment.
---
> Until the 1930s most economic analysis concentrated  on individual firms and industries. With the GreatDepression of the 1930s, however, and the development of the concept of national income and product statistics, the field of MacroeconomicS began to expand. The policy goals of the discipline include economic growth, price stability, full employment and the attainment of a favourable balance of payments.
------
SanityTalk|981843275
99c99,103
< I was too harsh, Bruce, needlessly so.  I'm sorry about that.  I'm not kidding that you irritated a big pet peeve of mine, which might explain the reaction.  My other PetPeeves include tailgaters, wife-beaters, people who don't take responsibility for their children, ''any'' manner of bias in news reporting, crankishness of all sorts, calling stuff "art" just in order to try to stretch the definition of "art," self-righteous and unrepentant dishonesty, people who insist that I ought to do X whenever I strongly disagree, bad attempts (meaning, ''most'') at achieving musical style "fusions," and probably a few other things--including biased encyclopedia articles (which is not unlike biased news reporting).  My reactions to these things is, in most cases, all out of proportion to the seriousness of the actual infraction.  So, you see.  I am sorry.  I will make an effort to restrain myself in the future. -- LarrySanger
---
> I was too harsh, Bruce, needlessly so.  I'm sorry about that.  I'm not kidding that you irritated a big pet peeve of mine, which might explain the reaction.  My other PetPeeves include tailgaters, wife-beaters, people who don't take responsibility for their children, ''any'' manner of bias in news reporting, crankishness of all sorts, calling stuff "art" just in order to try to stretch the definition of "art," self-righteous and unrepentant dishonesty, people who insist that I ought to do X whenever I strongly disagree, bad attempts (meaning, ''most'') at achieving musical style "fusions," and probably a few other things--including biased encyclopedia articles (which is not unlike biased news reporting).  My reactions to these things is, in most cases, all out of proportion to the seriousness of the actual infraction.  So, you see.  I am sorry.  I will make an effort to restrain myself in the future. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> We all have our pet peeves.  With age, we hope to become temperate.  How old are you, Larry?  30?  33?  New PhD, right?  I may not have mentioned that I have been reading philosophy and psychology for just over 33 years.  My most concentrated bout of study in the field was 13 1/2 hours a day, six days a week, from April 1976 to April 1979.  I have not "dabbled" in this field.
> 
> On another note, I ask anyone here if they can help me turn up an encyclopedia article entitled "sanity" published by anyone, anywhere.  I will even take an old one, if anyone can find it.
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981843373
3a4,5
> ----
> If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even and old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same.
------
SanIty|981843485
2a3,4
> ----
> If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even and old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same. 
------
SanityTalk|981845323
103c103,107
< On another note, I ask anyone here if they can help me turn up an encyclopedia article entitled "sanity" published by anyone, anywhere.  I will even take an old one, if anyone can find it.
---
> On another note, I ask anyone here if they can help me turn up an encyclopedia article entitled "sanity" published by anyone, anywhere.  I will even take an old one, if anyone can find it.
> ----
> I suggest we just stop and delete this entire exchange.  I very much regret that I replied rudely and in such detail.
> 
> -- LarrySanger
------
AmericA|981846359
0a1,2
> The word is derived from the given name of AmerigoVespucci (1454-1512). He was an italian merchant and explorer-navigator who took part in early voyages to the New World (1499-1500, 1501-02). 
> 
7c9
< In the UnitedStates and other countries, ''America'' usually refers to the UnitedStates (as in the song "America the Beautiful") rather than to TheAmericas.  In many of the rest of the countries of TheAmericas, ''America'' often refers to TheAmericas.
---
> In the UnitedStates and other countries, ''America'' usually refers to the UnitedStates (as in the song "America the Beautiful") rather than to TheAmericas.  In many of the rest of the countries of TheAmericas, ''America'' often refers to TheAmericas.
------
AmericA|981846382
1c1
< The word is derived from the given name of AmerigoVespucci (1454-1512). He was an italian merchant and explorer-navigator who took part in early voyages to the New World (1499-1500, 1501-02). 
---
> The word AmericA is derived from the given name of AmerigoVespucci (1454-1512). He was an italian merchant and explorer-navigator who took part in early voyages to the New World (1499-1500, 1501-02). 
------
SanityTalk|981849080
1,107c1
< You people are driving me crazy!  *wink*  Just kidding.  I couldn't resist.  Keep talking... --JimboWales
< ----
< 
< This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573719 mental health] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761553774 insanity (topic in the law)]
< 
< ""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.
< 
< Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
< ----
< Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Of course it is.  I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things.  As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want.  Anything I write is going to be from my point of view.  Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works.  All valid views are not necessarily mainstream.  All mainstream views are not necessarily valid.  I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both.  You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.
< ----
< I'll have a look.
< 
< Not everything I write is from my point of view, Bruce.  Do you find that paradoxical?
< 
< Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it.  Sure.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are--at least.
< 
< By the way, regardless of whether you sign the article and regard it as yours, in my opinion it belongs to the wiki, and I will make bold to change it whenever I wanna.  :-)  Without asking you.
< 
< -- LarrySanger
< ----
< Fair enough.  After all, I agree to the WikiPedia license when I dump it here.  I think I at least mentioned most mainstream views in passing.  I still don't like my last paragraph or so, so expect that to change.  I have a well-formed concept but the words elude me at the moment.  Blame it on a right-brain moment.  As to your or anyone's revisions of "my" article, If I cannot get it to retain the sense of what I meant, I can always remove my name from it.  For the nonce, I leave it appended so folks know upon whom to blame the drivel presented. ;^)
< -- AyeSpy
< ----
< Hi Bruce,
< 
< I don't know how to improve this article, because I don't know enough about the topic of mental disorders in general.  I do have some comments nonetheless--so, contrary to my own stated policy, I'll indent my comments and let you fix the article, if you can and want to.  I am going to be blunt, because I think you will benefit from bluntness in this case.  Here we go:
< 
< "SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.
< 
< :Who has defined it this way?  You're using passive voice.  I don't believe you.  :-)  I don't think anyone has defined "sanity" this way, other than you; and I don't care how you define it, to be blunt, I care how psychologists and psychiatrists and people who have really studied this stuff.  And who are the "users" you're talking about?  This first paragraph doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.  It sounds like you're bullshiting to me, frankly.  Are you?
< 
< The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy."  The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind.
< 
< :Etymologies are notoriously bad for giving a ''scientific analysis'' of a natural phenomenon.  While the etymology is interesting and should be left in the article, it shouldn't be made the basis of a thesis; it should merely be mentioned in passing.
< 
< Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, ''proper functioning'', especially of biological systems.  As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning.  One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual.
< 
< :Frankly, although I personally strongly agree with all of this, it seems to me less than enlightening--platitudinous.  If you don't ''know'' much about a subject, I'd say your task amounts to either (1) heavy research, or (2) producing a melange of platitudes, bullshittery, and simple falsehoods.  Hmmm...
< 
< It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas.  Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.  
< 
< :There are many things that "clear and accurate awareness and reasoning" ''could'' mean, and I wonder which of them you do mean.  For example, those studying logic and critical reasoning believe they're studying the standards of good reasoning and clear thinking.  So, by your lights, does sanity amount to being logical, and insanity illogical?  Well, that might be part of it, but that's certainly not all of it.  I'd say it's a definition by inessentials, but then, what do I know?
< 
< There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.
< 
< :There are?  Really?  Who says, you?  Why should you care, if you just declare it without proving it or giving any evidence?  "Have been declared to be"?  Who declared them thus?  You?  And are they using your concept of intelligence?  Frankly, due to unanswered questions like this, I just don't know how to assess the above sentence except in a dismissive fashion.
< 
< One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity.  The ''kinds'' of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.  
< 
< :You seem to have line of thought as follows: AyeSpy has a (rather vague) definition of sanity that amounts to "clear thinking and accurate reasoning"; ''some''one has declared that the only (or best?  who knows?) sort of clear thinking is "objectively" measured by intelligence tests (since intelligence is what intelligence tests measure, presumably, but you're not too clear on that, it seems); but, by AyeSpy's definition of sanity, this unknown theorist's view of what clear thinking is implies that "intelligence" isn't a good analysis "sanity."
< 
< :How many problems can you identify in the above reasoning?
< 
< The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others.  More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.
< 
< :Which have been used as indicators of sanity, ''by whom''?  And what does "personal mental composure" mean?
< 
< Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria.  In some contexts, societal norms loom large.  For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting.  Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder.  In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience.  One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.
< 
< :This is perhaps the first interesting thing you've said; but you might try citing a source or two, because it is far from original.
< 
< The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity.  In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder."  The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment.  Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity."  The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.
< 
< :Why don't you quote a psychiatric source, and make an effort to ''explain'' what "the" definition is?  And oh, there's only one definition in currency?  I wouldn't have expected that, but then, what do I know?
< 
< :I've got to get a move on so I am not going to be able to comment in depth on the rest of this.
< 
< The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison.  In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems.  A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health.  One may examine, for example, a liver.  Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science.  It can be x-rayed or biopsied.  Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured.  Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for.  In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed.  The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured.  While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity.  Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another.  Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.
< 
< The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified.  For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute."  Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences.  As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses.  In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.
< 
< In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity.  Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.
< 
< :The above has dropped into a journalistic sort of mode, and it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity.  Let me cut to the chase, then.  Bruce, I couldn't care less what your views about insanity are.  If I read an article about sanity and insanity, I want to know, ''in detail'', what ''the received'' views are.  This can include minority views, but they are the minority views of (who else?) ''psychiatrists.''  If there isn't a psychiatrist who hasn't promulgated your view, that's probably because your view is not very plausible.  I can say this without knowing anything about your view.  I can even say it knowing what I do know so far about your view, ''and'' agreeing (I guess?) with your general drift.  But that '''doesn't matter'''!  It's ''far'' more important to learn first from the experts, and try to convey that very clearly, and then, ''only'' then, make an attempt at building on or controverting that.
< 
< :Anyway, I think you should rename your article BruceOnSanity.  That is an accurate title.  It isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< I'll get back to you on this, Larry. I am inclined to rename the article something like "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity," as I am loathe to dig about for every single publication I used in support of my statements, so as to make it the definitive encyclopedia article on "Sanity."  Suffice it to say that my introductory definition, minus the part in quotes, is synthesized and paraphrased from three ordinary dictionaries.  The part in quotes is a tacit matter of defacto political practice, and I will move it to another part of the article.  The "platitudinous" paragraph is to mention the next logical step to the reader, rather than to take it unseen, no matter how obvious it might otherwise seem.
< 
< ''..."it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity."'' You seem to be under the impression (broadly held, BTW) that psychiatry or medicine or some consensus authority actually defines sanity.  Here is the real kicker - there '''IS NO''' "received view" on the definition of "sanity" from doctors or psychiatrists.  One must read tons of books by them (done, thank you), each individual author defining it differently if he defines it at all (they prefer to go on at length about abnormalities, and the obvious fact that an absence of them is the preferred condition), and then try to find points of general agreement between them.  The "medical" definition I used is paraphrased from the only medical dictionary I could find which did not define it as merely "Soundness or health of mind. Normal mentality."  Question is, what the heck do you mean, "Normal?"  The word "normal" is not a (forgive me) normative word, unless its characteristics are either obvious by definition, or can be demonstrated (like the normal function of a liver, heart, gut, brain, what-have-you).  Well, I finally found "Normal" as being "without mental disorder."  What's a mental disorder?  See DSM-IV.  You read DSM-IV, and it says "we can't agree and don't really know what a mental disorder is, or if it should be called a disorder at all - but here is the long list of things we do agree ought not to be a part of human mentality." 
< 
< Note that I did not say in the article that there was only one medical definition.  I said there was a "most general" one - one than can be found in medical literature which does not conflict with other definitions found in medical literature.  The only thing they agree on is "normal."  Quoting Taber's, (F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, 1974):  "normal - 3. In psychology, free from mental disorder, or of average development or intelligence."
< 
< Who defines sanity in terms of interpersonal relations and safety of self and others?  Heck - EVERYONE!  But I should prabably make clear that I'm talking about a "street" definition, not an authoritative one.  Examples:  Why should he be committed?  He's a danger to himself or others.  Is he sane enough to fly a commercial jet?  No - he takes unreasonable risks.  Is she sane?  No - she does not relate normally with others.  She talks to herself, babbles incoherently, flails her arms for no reason, whatever.  Is he sane enough to assist in his own defense?  No - he keeps calling his lawyer "Jesus" and accusing him of working for the CIA.
< 
< now I gotta run - but I will see if the article cannot be tuned up some.  I should probably introduce my thesis more clearly, "Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity, and here's why.  And, by the way, could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?"
< ----
< OK, Larry - I think I have addressed the majority (though not all) of your concerns.  I will revisit this after I have thought of other things for a while.  I wonder - does anyone else have concerns or comment?  The more I work on this article, the more I think I would like it to be a good and thoughtful one, though not an authoritative or definitive one.
< ----
< Hey Bruce, you didn't have to take down your article.  You should post it under a different title (how about: AyeSpy/OnSanity); it's still of interest to some people, I'm sure.  It was far from useless or idiotic.  You know, my point ''wasn't'' that your article is wrong, badly-written, or of little value!  My point was only that it isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity.  The works of Sigmund Freud don't constitute an encyclopedia article about sanity, either.  :-) -- LarrySanger
< ----
< No kidding.  In the entire body of his work, he nibbled around the edges, but never bothered to define it.  My hide may not be as thick as I imagined.  I am weighing whether the considerable distraction WikiPedia has been to me is worth it to me or anyone.  I seem to have lost my sense of humor on the issue.  Give me a bit to think it out...
< ----
< I was too harsh, Bruce, needlessly so.  I'm sorry about that.  I'm not kidding that you irritated a big pet peeve of mine, which might explain the reaction.  My other PetPeeves include tailgaters, wife-beaters, people who don't take responsibility for their children, ''any'' manner of bias in news reporting, crankishness of all sorts, calling stuff "art" just in order to try to stretch the definition of "art," self-righteous and unrepentant dishonesty, people who insist that I ought to do X whenever I strongly disagree, bad attempts (meaning, ''most'') at achieving musical style "fusions," and probably a few other things--including biased encyclopedia articles (which is not unlike biased news reporting).  My reactions to these things is, in most cases, all out of proportion to the seriousness of the actual infraction.  So, you see.  I am sorry.  I will make an effort to restrain myself in the future. -- LarrySanger
< ----
< We all have our pet peeves.  With age, we hope to become temperate.  How old are you, Larry?  30?  33?  New PhD, right?  I may not have mentioned that I have been reading philosophy and psychology for just over 33 years.  My most concentrated bout of study in the field was 13 1/2 hours a day, six days a week, from April 1976 to April 1979.  I have not "dabbled" in this field.
< 
< On another note, I ask anyone here if they can help me turn up an encyclopedia article entitled "sanity" published by anyone, anywhere.  I will even take an old one, if anyone can find it.
< ----
< I suggest we just stop and delete this entire exchange.  I very much regret that I replied rudely and in such detail.
< 
< -- LarrySanger
---
> I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on Sanity.  In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- LarrySanger
------
SanityTalk|981849108
1c1
< I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on Sanity.  In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- LarrySanger
---
> I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on SanIty.  In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- LarrySanger
------
IsaacAsimov|981856039
14a15,16
> * /RobotBooks
> * /GalacticEmpireBooks
18c20
< * /Talk
---
> * /Talk
------
IsaacAsimov/RobotBooks|981856142
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * /IRoboT
> * /TheRestOfTheRobots
> * /TheCompleteRobot
> * /TheCavesOfSteel
> * /TheNakedSun
> * /TheRobotsOfDawn
> * /RobotsAndEmpire
------
IsaacAsimov/GalacticEmpireBooks|981856216
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * /TheCurrentsOfSpace
> * /PebbleInTheSky
> 
------
IsaacAsimov|981856705
8c8
< IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars, like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), /FoundationsEdge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest ScienceFiction short story ever written. 
---
> IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots (''see'' ThreeLawsOfRobotics) and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars, like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), /FoundationsEdge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest ScienceFiction short story ever written. 
------
IsaacAsimov|981856847
8c8
< IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots (''see'' ThreeLawsOfRobotics) and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included The Stars, like Dust (1951), The Currents of Space (1952), The Caves of Steel (1954), The Naked Sun (1957), Earth Is Room Enough (1957), /FoundationsEdge (1982), and The Robots of Dawn (1983). His "Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest ScienceFiction short story ever written. 
---
> IsaacAsimov began contributing stories to ScienceFiction magazines in 1939 and in 1950 published his first book, Pebble in the Sky. His trilogy of novels, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation (1951-53), which recounts the collapse and rebirth of a vast interstellar empire in the universe of the future, is his most famous work of ScienceFiction. In the short-story collection I, Robot (1950), he developed a set of ethics for robots (''see'' ThreeLawsOfRobotics) and intelligent machines that greatly influenced other writers' treatment of the subject. His other novels and collections of stories included /TheStarsLikeDust (1951), /TheCurrentsOfSpace (1952), /TheCavesOfSteel (1954), /TheNakedSun (1957), /EarthIsRoomEnough (1957), /FoundationsEdge (1982), and /TheRobotsOfDawn (1983). His "/Nightfall" (1941) is thought by many to be the finest ScienceFiction short story ever written. 
------
FootBall|981857218
16d15
< In the United States, the previous definition corresponds to SocceR.
18a18,20
> In many countries (mainly in SouthAmericA and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend.
> 
> In the United States, the previous definition corresponds to SocceR.
------
FootBall|981857268
18c18
< In many countries (mainly in SouthAmericA and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend.
---
> In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend.
------
AustriaAdvocacy|981859756
5c5,6
< Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment -- WojPob
---
> Our problem is that no one reacts when a NaZi party becomes a partner in a so called ''democratic'' Govenment -- WojPob
> The FPOE is no NaZi party. No, I don't like them. -- ReiniUrban
------
AustriaAdvocacy|981859768
6c6,7
< The FPOE is no NaZi party. No, I don't like them. -- ReiniUrban
---
> 
> The FPOE is no NaZi party. No, I don't like them. -- ReiniUrban
------
ReiniUrban|981859849
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> does a lot of computer related stuff, but is really into television and movies than anything else.
> See http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
------
AnnaKournikova|981860575
1c1
< Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is an only child.
---
> Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is the only child.
------
AnnaKournikova|981860889
1c1
< Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is the only child.
---
> Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is an only child.
------
MacroeconomicS|981861552
4a5,6
> One of the great challenges of recent economics has been struggles to reconcile macroeconomic and microeconomic models.  RationalExpectations Theorists such as RobertLucas suggested (in the 1970s) that at least some traditional KeynesiaN macroeconomic models were questionable in light of what they must implicitly assume about individual behavior.
> 
------
AnnaKournikova|981861629
1c1
< Anna Kournikova is a professional tennis player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is an only child.
---
> Anna Kournikova is a professional TenniS player.  Kournikova was born June 7th, 1981 in MoscoW, RussiA, but currently lives in BradentowN, Florida.  She is an only child.
------
MartinaHingis|981861648
1c1
< Martina Hingis is a professional tennis player.  Born September 30th, 1980 in Kosice, Slovakia, Hingis now lives in Saddlebrook, FloridA, in the UnitedStates.
---
> Martina Hingis is a professional TenniS player.  Born September 30th, 1980 in Kosice, Slovakia, Hingis now lives in Saddlebrook, FloridA, in the UnitedStates.
------
AndorrA|981861882
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> /History
> /Geography
> /People
> /Governement
> /Economy
> /Communications
> /Transportations
> /Military
> /TransnationalIssues
------
AndorrA|981861903
1,9c1,9
< /History
< /Geography
< /People
< /Governement
< /Economy
< /Communications
< /Transportations
< /Military
< /TransnationalIssues
---
> :/History
> :/Geography
> :/People
> :/Governement
> :/Economy
> :/Communications
> :/Transportations
> :/Military
> :/TransnationalIssues
------
AndorrA|981861970
0a1,6
> This text is from the public domain CIA World Factbook.
> 
> Long isolated and impoverished, mountainous Andorra has achieved considerable prosperity since World War II
> through its tourist industry. Many immigrants (legal and illegal) are attracted to the thriving economy with its lack of income
> taxes. 
> 
------
AndorrA/History|981862003
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Long isolated and impoverished, mountainous Andorra has achieved considerable prosperity since World War II
> through its tourist industry. Many immigrants (legal and illegal) are attracted to the thriving economy with its lack of income
> taxes. 
------
AndorrA/Geography|981862038
1c1,50
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Location: Southwestern Europe, between France and Spain 
> 
> Geographic coordinates: 42 30 N, 1 30 E 
> 
> Map references: Europe 
> 
> Area: 
> total: 468 sq km 
> land: 468 sq km 
> water: 0 sq km 
> 
> Area - comparative: 2.5 times the size of Washington, DC 
> 
> Land boundaries: 
> total: 120.3 km 
> border countries: France 56.6 km, Spain 63.7 km 
> 
> Coastline: 0 km (landlocked) 
> 
> Maritime claims: none (landlocked) 
> 
> Climate: temperate; snowy, cold winters and warm, dry summers 
> 
> Terrain: rugged mountains dissected by narrow valleys 
> 
> Elevation extremes: 
> lowest point: Riu Runer 840 m 
> highest point: Coma Pedrosa 2,946 m 
> 
> Natural resources: hydropower, mineral water, timber, iron ore, lead 
> 
> Land use: 
> arable land: 4% 
> permanent crops: 0% 
> permanent pastures: 45% 
> forests and woodland: 35% 
> other: 16% (1998 est.) 
> 
> Irrigated land: NA sq km 
> 
> Natural hazards: snowslides, avalanches 
> 
> Environment - current issues: deforestation; overgrazing of mountain meadows contributes to soil erosion; air pollution; waste
> water treatment and solid waste disposal 
> 
> Environment - international agreements: 
> party to: Hazardous Wastes 
> signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements 
> 
> Geography - note: landlocked 
------
NamesGivenToTheDivine|981872033
5c5
< Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, Him, He who is called "I am," AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeuS, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
---
> Names for specific conceptions of god: YahWeh, JeHovah, JesusChrist, the HolyTrinity, TheGodhead, Him, He who is called "I am," AllAh, KrishNa, BuddHa; then there are the many names for the many different gods of polytheistic religions, e.g., ZeuS, JupiTer, OdIn, and SiVa. In old persia the name of the sun god was shamash (or sha.mash). According to the old sources his sister "Ishtar" (AKA "Ianna") represented the goddess of the moon. In some narrations the both of them were mixed up, so Ishtar was the goddess of the sun and shamash was the god of the moon. Shamash -being the sun god- was the first to be pictured with a sort of corona. In a later time the christian religion adapted this kind of image when the holy saints got their gloriole.
------
AtlasShrugged/Structure|981873855
30a31,32
>  - section 1 (/SectioN151)
>  - section 2 (/SectioN152)
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN151|981873904
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> The government of Mexico nationalized the /SanSebastianMines thinking they would be a great new source of revenue for the state, only to discover that the mines were completely worthless.  Furthermore, there was never any chance of mining copper there, so /FranciscoDAnconia must have known all along the project was doomed to failure.  /EddieWillers shows the news report to /DagnyTaggart, who tries to figure out how this could be, and finally tells Eddie to get her an appointment with "the bastard," Francisco.  Eddie warns about meeting him in a way that indicates the emotional significance seeing Francisco will hold for Dagny.
> 
> * Setting
> Dagny's office at /TaggartTranscontinental.
> 
> * Characters
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /EddieWillers
>  /FranciscoDAnconia - Mentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981873971
15a16,17
>  /SectioN151
>  /SectioN151
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnyTaggart|981873977
17c17
<  /SectioN151
---
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|981873995
10a11
>  /SectioN151
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981874035
6a7
>  /SectioN151
------
AtlasShrugged/Mexico|981874074
8c8,9
<  - /SectioN143
---
>  - /SectioN143
>  - /SectioN151
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981874092
7a8
>  /SectioN151
------
AtlasShrugged/WayneFalklandHotel|981874118
4a5
>  /SectioN151
------
TestThreePhasePumps|981886791
4a5,10
> ''Reply from Rossum: 
> 1. Yes this article is a long way down the tree of specifics
> 2. Maybe it does not belong in a 'pedia, rather more in a technical manual
> 3. Because I know so much about this topic, writing is a breeze
> 4. Until Wiki crystalises I will continue to play, maybe we'll move the topic somewhere else later on. Thanks for your candid comments, Jimbo''
> 
------
LuxemburG|981888674
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Capital: Luxembourg-City
> Population: about 450 000
> Official Web-Site: <a href="http://www.luxembourg.lu">www.luxembourg.lu</a>.
------
LuxemburG|981888711
3c3
< Official Web-Site: <a href="http://www.luxembourg.lu">www.luxembourg.lu</a>.
---
> Official Web-Site: www.luxembourg.lu
------
GermanicLanguages|981889110
9a10
> * LuxembourgishLanguage
------
AnarchY|981894298
1c1
< A political system in which there is no government.
---
> Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order.
3c3
< The term anarchy is used to describe two essentially opposite political views, one which supports social order, the other which opposes it.
---
> Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begins with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure. Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism were synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. This distortion is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries.
5,7c5
< The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
< 
< The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
---
> Both the view of Anarchism as a Nihilist position admitting only destruction and the capitalist position of anarchism as purely political are grave misunderstandings of Anarchism.
------
LuxemburG|981906214
1a2
> 
3c4,5
< Official Web-Site: www.luxembourg.lu
---
> 
> [http://www.luxembourg.lu Official Web-Site]
------
ArchitecturE|981909453
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Architecture is the root of all arts.
------
JudO|981909611
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Judo is to make somebody fall down.
------
DemocracY|981909946
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Democracy is a great TV-show.
------
AustriaAdvocacy|981910007
7a8,9
> 
> How would you describe a party whoose leader holds meeting with SS veterans??? -- WojPob
------
AustriaAdvocacy|981910028
9c9
< How would you describe a party whoose leader holds meeting with SS veterans??? -- WojPob
---
> How would you describe a party whose leader holds meeting with SS veterans??? -- WojPob
------
ScienceFiction|981910272
18c18
< Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and Asimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included AEVanVogt, JGBallard, RayBradbury, Frank Herbert, HarlanEllison, PoulAnderson, SamuelRDelany, UrsulaKLeGuin, FrederikPohl, OctaviaEButler, and BrianAldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
---
> Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and IsaacAsimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included AEVanVogt, JGBallard, RayBradbury, Frank Herbert, HarlanEllison, PoulAnderson, SamuelRDelany, UrsulaKLeGuin, FrederikPohl, OctaviaEButler, and BrianAldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
------
AnarchY|981913029
1c1
< Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order.
---
> A political system in which there is no government.
3c3
< Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begins with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure. Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism were synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. This distortion is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries.
---
> The term anarchy is used to describe two essentially opposite political views, one which supports social order, the other which opposes it.
5c5,7
< Both the view of Anarchism as a Nihilist position admitting only destruction and the capitalist position of anarchism as purely political are grave misunderstandings of Anarchism.
---
> The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
> 
> The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
------
GermanicLanguages|981913431
10c10
< * LuxembourgishLanguage
---
> * LuxembourgianLanguage
------
EpiphenomenalIsm|981913908
1c1
< <i>Epiphenomenalism</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''epiphenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
---
> <i>Epiphenomenalism</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''EpiPhenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981914228
1,3c1
< Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Peter Cotton: "... most mainstream clinical psychology, I think you'd find, is dominated by the view that the absence of symptoms equals health. But if pressed to give a positive definition of health, most clinicians I think would have difficulty. Traditionally from Freud onwards psychotherapy and psychological systems have tended to view the world through the lens of psychopathology, so they've typically had fairly negative definitions." (followed by an hour of wrangling with three other scholars in an effort to define sanity - which event never comes to pass)
< 
< Larry's point is made.
---
> Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Peter Cotton: "... most mainstream clinical psychology, I think you'd find, is dominated by the view that the absence of symptoms equals health. But if pressed to give a positive definition of health, most clinicians I think would have difficulty. Traditionally from Freud onwards psychotherapy and psychological systems have tended to view the world through the lens of psychopathology, so they've typically had fairly negative definitions." (followed by an hour of on-air wrangling with three other scholars in an effort to define sanity - which event never comes to pass)
------
EpiPhenomenon|981914773
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Epiphenomemon has two distinct menaings.
> * 1) A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another.
> * 2) ''Pathology''. An additional symptom or condition or symptom in the course of a disease, not necessarily connected with the disease. 
> 
> In the first sense, it is a side-effect or by-product, that is, there is a causal relationship between the secondary phenomenon and the first.
> 
> In the second sense, the medical meaning, there is no such relationship.
> A doctor might ask a patient whom he is treating for a disease ," Have you noticed any new epiphenomena?"
> 
> (Well, mine do!!!)
> 
> Source: ''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.'' 3rd ed.
> 
------
EpiphenomenalIsm|981914943
1c1,2
< <i>Epiphenomenalism</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''EpiPhenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)
---
> <i>Epiphenomenalism</i> is a kind of DualIsm according to which physical events have mental effects, but mental events have no physical effects.  In other words, the causal interaction goes only one way, from physical to mental.  So if Pierre eats a candy bar and experience pleasure, that pleasure is caused by his eating the candy bar; but if he decides to get another candy bar, his decision does not cause his body to get another candy bar.  So mental events are just <i>side</i>-<i>effects</i>, or <i>by</i>-<i>products</i>, of physical processes in my nervous system.  (The word ''EpiPhenomenon'' means, roughly, "by-product."  That is why the view is called "epiphenomenalism"; it is the view that the mental is just a by-product of the physical.)----
> EpiPhenomenon has more than one meaning, outside of philosophy. RoseParks
------
CoBoL|981915096
1c1,2
< The name CoBoL (normally COBOL) is an acronym for Common Business Oriented Language.
---
> The name CoBoL (normally COBOL) is an acronym for Common Business Oriented Language.----
> A programming language that was developed within a six month period, and yet is still in use over 40 years later.
------
JimboWales|981916174
18a19,20
> ----
> Thanks for the suggestion re: multilanguage access to [http://unumondo.com UnuMondo]. I have enhanced the splash page accordingly! -- JerryMuelver
------
ArchitecturE|981921285
1c1,2
< Architecture is the root of all arts.
---
> Architecture is the root of all arts.----
> And provided to the context to define the EdifaceComplex...
------
TimShell|981921743
12a13,15
> 
> ----
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society you invented. You describe two groups, and then you lump anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. Further, to claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. -- RichardKulisz
------
LinguisticS|981921840
16c16,18
< SouthEastAsianLanguages
---
> SouthEastAsianLanguages----
> 
> We are going to have a problem here. On the LanguagE page, languages are being categorized by thier origin. This entry, SouthEastAsianLanguages, is a classification by geographical area. Both are possible and should be on separate pages. I am not at all sure this entry belongs directly on the LinguistcS page.
------
TimShell|981921939
15c15
< Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society you invented. You describe two groups, and then you lump anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. Further, to claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society of the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
------
TimShell|981922017
15c15
< Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society of the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
---
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
------
TimShell|981922267
13,15d12
< 
< ----
< Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
------
LinguisticS|981922293
18c18
< We are going to have a problem here. On the LanguagE page, languages are being categorized by thier origin. This entry, SouthEastAsianLanguages, is a classification by geographical area. Both are possible and should be on separate pages. I am not at all sure this entry belongs directly on the LinguistcS page.
---
> We are going to have a problem here. On the LanguagE page, languages are being categorized by thier origin. This entry, SouthEastAsianLanguages, is a classification by geographical area. Both are possible and should be on separate pages. I am not at all sure this entry belongs directly on the LinguistcS page. Perhaps a LanguagesByGeography page should be added to the LanguagE page?
------
TimShell|981922325
12a13,14
> ----
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
------
TopOlogy|981924472
0a1,2
> TopologyForBeginners needs to be written.  :-)
> 
------
AnarchY|981929325
7c7,9
< The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
---
> The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
> 
> /AnarchyTalk
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|981929802
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz? 
> ----
> I didn't add the part about anarcho-syndicalism, someone else did.  Maybe it should be deleted.
> 
> The history of anarchism is something that can be addressed in a subsection.  Which group has "historical priority" is non-essential when describing what anarchy is.
> 
> The concept should be addressed logically, with a genus-differentia definition.  Anarchy is a social system (genus) that differs from all other social systems in that in advocates the absence of government (differentia).  Then we take the genus anarchy as we just defined it, and look at different types of anarchy.  I do not think genus-differentia definitions count as propaganda.
> 
> TimShell
------
TimShell|981929839
6,14c6
< Tim - in your capitalism article, "Recently capitalism has often occured of a wider, LibertariaN? social theory that advocates the absence of political intervention from most aspects of society."
< 
< Could you take a look at this and revise to reflect what you were thinking, if you don't mind?  I would copyedit it for clarity's sake, but I cannot for the life of me quite figure out what you intended... -- AyeSpy
< 
< Actually, the "recently" was my bit.  It occured to me that capitalism is old and fairly mainstream in some countries, whereas libertarianism is new and controversial.  So the often seemed misleading.  Sorry if I broke it. -- JoshuaGrosse
< 
< OK - I edited it to say what I think you meant.  Tell me if I got it right. -- AyeSpy
< ----
< Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz
---
> Moved to /AnarchyTalk
------
TimShell|981929848
6c6
< Moved to /AnarchyTalk
---
> Moved to AnarchyTalk
------
TimShell|981929868
6c6
< Moved to AnarchyTalk
---
> Moved to Anarchy/AnarchyTalk
------
TimShell|981929879
6c6
< Moved to Anarchy/AnarchyTalk
---
> Moved to AnarchY/AnarchyTalk
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|981930215
9c9,11
< TimShell
---
> TimShell
> ----
> Richard, I'd be very curious to learn about the differences and, if any, the similarities between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism.  I know very little about these theories.  I wish you would explain the facts about what the theories state, in as unbiased a fashion as possible, on AnarchY (or perhaps AnarchIsm).  Why not just make the necessary changes?  I'd be very curious to see the results! -- LarrySanger
------
GermanLanguage|981942441
3c3
<   MiddleGerman
---
>   MiddleGerman - including LuxembourgianLanguage
------
GermanicLanguages|981942488
10d9
< * LuxembourgianLanguage
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|981943129
11c11,13
< Richard, I'd be very curious to learn about the differences and, if any, the similarities between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism.  I know very little about these theories.  I wish you would explain the facts about what the theories state, in as unbiased a fashion as possible, on AnarchY (or perhaps AnarchIsm).  Why not just make the necessary changes?  I'd be very curious to see the results! -- LarrySanger
---
> Richard, I'd be very curious to learn about the differences and, if any, the similarities between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism.  I know very little about these theories.  I wish you would explain the facts about what the theories state, in as unbiased a fashion as possible, on AnarchY (or perhaps AnarchIsm).  Why not just make the necessary changes?  I'd be very curious to see the results! -- LarrySanger
> ----
> The miscategorization of anarcho-syndicalism was my fault.  Since it looks like it's the main form of anarchism, I figured it deserved mention, but wasn't sure which heading to put it under thanks to the mention of ''cultural'' institutions.  At the time I wasn't thinking of institutions as organizations for whatever reason.  Bleah...easy to catch, at least. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
LanguagE|981943402
27a28
> * AustroAsiaticLanguages
------
AustroAsiaticLanguages|981943593
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Very diverse group, including strangely enough both tonal and toneless languages.
> 
> * KhmerLanguage = CambodianLanguage
> * MonLanguage
> * VietnameseLanguage
------
CambodianLanguage|981943804
3,4c3
< Cambodian descends from Sanskrit and Pali, and has much in 
< common with Thai and Laotian.
---
> Cambodian is one of the main AustroAsiaticLanguages, and has had considerable influence from Sanskrit, Pali, Thai, and Laotian.  (Help...I just know these connections weren't genetic).
------
LanguagE|981943961
28a29
> * TaiLanguages
------
TaiLanguages|981944018
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * ThaiLanguage
> * LaotianLanguage
------
TheProblemOfDefiningSanity|981944642
3c3
< If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even and old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same.
---
> If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even an old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same.
------
SanityTalk|981944782
1c1,3
< I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on SanIty.  In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- LarrySanger
---
> I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on SanIty.  In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even an old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same.
------
SanIty|981944964
4c4
< If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even and old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same. 
---
> If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even an old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same. 
------
AnarchY|981945386
5c5
< The first group, which includes AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism, believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
---
> The first group believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
7a8,11
> 
> Anarchist philosophies include AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalis.
> 
> Famous anarchists include PeterKropotkin and DavidFriedman.  In 1901, an anarchist named LeonCzolgosz shot and killed WilliamMcKinley, the 25th President of the United States.
------
AnarchY|981945405
9c9
< Anarchist philosophies include AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalis.
---
> Anarchist philosophies include AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism.
------
LinguisticS|981946429
18a19,20
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to separate out geography of languages like that?  As far as national languages go, there's nothing wrong with just linking to them from the appropriate country pages.  I think what we probably need is some higher level geographical categories, like SouthEastAsia, which can handle languages, countries, and a lot more besides.
------
PythagoreanTheorem|981947135
66a67,76
> ----
>          
> Proof:  Draw right triangle with sides a,b,and c as above.  Turn an identical triangle 180 degrees and stick its c side to the original triangle's to form a rectangle of sides a and b.  Draw an identical rectangle perpendicular to the first with only a corner touching.  Draw squares of side a and b to connect the two rectangles into one large square of side (a+b).  From this diagram, the area of the large square is 
> '''(a+b)'''^'''2''' = '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''' + 4(.5ab) by the formulas for the areas of squares and triangles.  
> 
> Now form a square from four of the triangles by placing the a side of one triangle in line with the b side of another, so that all four sides of the figure are (a+b).  Note that within the large square is a square of side c.  From this diagram, the area of the large square is '''(a+b)'''^'''2''' = 4(.5ab) + '''c'''^'''2'''.
> 
> Since '''(a+b)'''^'''2'''=itself, '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''' + 4(.5ab) = 4(.5ab) + '''c'''^'''2'''.
> 
> Therefore, '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''' = '''c'''^'''2'''.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981949480
51a52
>  /SebastianDAnconia
------
AtlasShrugged/SebastianDAnconia|981949642
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ancestor of /FranciscoDAnconia who fled Spain during the time of the Inquisition, settled in /Argentina, and founded /DAnconiaCopper.
------
AtlasShrugged/Companies|981949676
2a3
>  /DAnconiaCopper
------
AtlasShrugged/DAnconiaCopper|981949845
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A copper and mining company founded by /SebastianDAnconia in /Argentina during the time of the Inquisition.  Every man who ran the company saw it grow by 10% in their lifetime, so by the time /FranciscoDAnconia heads the company it is the largest in the world.  His dream, from childhood, it to increase the size of the company by 100%.
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981949882
1c1
< A copper mining project in /Mexico founded by /FranciscoDAnconia.  Francisco's reputation as a businessman is so great that investors flock to him, begging to invest money in the enterprise.  Investors include /JamesTaggart and /OrrenBoyle.  James Taggart goes so far as to build a new branch of /TaggartTranscontinental, the /SanSebastianLine, to serve the mines, sinking $30 million into the project.  When the development of the mines appears complete, the Mexican government nationalizes them as well as the San Sebastian Line, only to discover there is no copper and there never was.
---
> A copper mining project in /Mexico founded by /FranciscoDAnconia named after his ancestor /SebastianDAnconia.  Francisco's reputation as a businessman is so great that investors flock to him, begging to invest money in the enterprise.  Investors include /JamesTaggart and /OrrenBoyle.  James Taggart goes so far as to build a new branch of /TaggartTranscontinental, the /SanSebastianLine, to serve the mines, sinking $30 million into the project.  When the development of the mines appears complete, the Mexican government nationalizes them as well as the San Sebastian Line, only to discover there is no copper and there never was.
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981950191
14a15,18
> * Religion
> 
> In /SectioN152 Francisco tells Dagny he named the /SanSebastianMines after his ancestor /SebastianDAnconia, a man they both honor deeply.  This, to Dagny, is blasphemy -  the only kind of blasphemy she understands.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/HudsonRiver|981951174
1c1,2
< /DagnyTaggart's childhood home was located in the hills overlooking The Hudson River.
---
> /DagnyTaggart's childhood home was located in the hills overlooking The Hudson River.  The home is also said to be five miles from /Rockdale, though the actual Rockdale, NY is more like one hundred miles from the Hudson River.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981951744
1c1,3
< A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco D'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  As the book progresses we learn there is much more to this story.
---
> A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco d'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  As the book progresses we learn there is much more to this story.
> 
> His full name is Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981951784
161c161
< "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor,
---
> "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia sat on the floor,
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN152|981953520
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * Plot summary
> 
> In this long section, /DagnyTaggart goes to the /WayneFalklandHotel to confront /FranciscoDAnconia.  Before she arrives she reminisces about her childhood with Francisco and we learn why this man is so significant to her.
> 
> Francisco had been a childhood friend of Dagny and /EddieWillers.  He spent his childhood all over the world, because his father wanted him to feel the world was his home.  But for one month every summer he visited the Taggart estate, and his visit was the highlight of Dagny's and Eddie's year.  Francisco had an unlimited capacity for joy, and he loved tackling new challenges.  His great goal for his life was to run /DAnconiaCopper so well it would double in size.  He talked to Dagny about their great futures running their respective family businesses - this was the vision of the future Dagny came to expect.
> 
> When Dagny was sixteen she began working at Taggart Transcontinental, much to her mother's chagrin.  Her mother was worried that Dagny showed no interest in boys, or in feminine things in general.  She decided to throw Dagny a coming out party at the /WayneFalklandHotel.  Dagny loved the idea, and went there with the eager expectation of finding people who were as filled as joy as Francisco, but instead she found they were just as bored and unhappy as in everyday life.  In later years Dagny would discover her vision of the future was mistaken in the same way, and she would often think back to this party and wonder why people seemed incapable of living life in joy, why they lived instead with a constant undertone of fear and unhappiness.  Where were the men of joy?  Where were the men who were appropriate for life on earth?
> 
> That summer, when Francisco returned, he and Dagny discovered they were in love, and spent the summer going off together and making love in secret places where no one could discover them.  They kept it secret not out of guilt, but because they felt it was too personal and too special to share with anyone else.
> 
> The romance continued for eight years, as Francisco rose to become head of D'Anconia Copper and Dagny finished college and began her rise at Taggart Transcontintental.  Then, when she was 24, Francisco invited her to his room at the Wayne Falkland Hotel.  She was shocked to see, for the first time, pain in his face, and that he was torn by the obvious struggle within him that he could not explain to her.  He warns her that he will have reasons for things he does, and tells her not to wait for him.
> 
> After that night, she did not hear anything about Francisco for a year, and then she began to hear the stories of a new Francisco, a worthless, irresponsible playboy, with no apparent interest in his work.  At first she could not believe these things, but as the years passed and the stories piled up, she had no choice.  Time deadened her pain, but she never found another man to love - another man for whom life was joy.
> 
> When she arrives at the Wayne Falkland and confronts Francisco, she accuses him of deliberately plotting the swindle of the /SanSebastianMines.  She tries to determine his motives, and he leads her on, eventually telling her that he is deliberately trying to destroy the producers, that his goal in the/SanSebastianMines was to waste millions of dollars, and that /EllisWyatt will be next one to be destroyed and Taggart Transcontinental will collapse as well; he tells her that she is the one he must fight.  She could never believe he had become so corrupt, but she has no choice but to beleive it now.
> 
> 
> * Setting
> Downtown /NewYork, on and around the Taggart Estate in Dagny's childhood, the /WayneFalklandHotel.
> 
> * Characters
>  /DagnysFather
>  /DagnysMother
>  /DagnyTaggart
>  /DukeofAlba
>  /EddieWillers
>  /EllisWyatt - Mentioned.
>  /FranciscoDAnconia
>  /JimTaggart
>  /Looters - Mmentioned.
>  /MrsGilbertVail
>  /NathanielTaggart - Mentioned
>  /OrrenBoyle - Mentioned.
>  /RichardHalley - Mentioned.
>  /SebastianDanconia
------
AtlasShrugged/DAnconiaCopper|981953555
1c1
< A copper and mining company founded by /SebastianDAnconia in /Argentina during the time of the Inquisition.  Every man who ran the company saw it grow by 10% in their lifetime, so by the time /FranciscoDAnconia heads the company it is the largest in the world.  His dream, from childhood, it to increase the size of the company by 100%.
---
> A copper and mining company founded by /SebastianDAnconia in /Argentina during the time of the Inquisition.  Each man who ran the company saw it grow by 10% in his lifetime, so by the time /FranciscoDAnconia heads the company it is the largest in the world.  His dream, from childhood, it to increase the size of the company by 100%.
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981953624
33a34
>  /DagnysMother
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN152|981953649
25d24
<  /DukeofAlba
35c34
<  /SebastianDanconia
---
>  /SebastianDAnconia
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN152|981953663
28c28
<  /JimTaggart
---
>  /JamesTaggart
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnysMother|981953951
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Dagny's mother is mentioned in /SectioN152.  She worried about her daughter's apparent lack of interest in boys, and never understood Dagny's desire to work for the railroad.  Because of her lack of understanding, she was never able to give Dagny guidance or support, though she was kind and caring within her limits.
------
AtlasShrugged/WayneFalklandHotel|981954046
1c1
< A luxurious hotel in /NewYork.  It is where /FranciscoDAnconia stays when he is in town.
---
> A luxurious hotel in /NewYork, it is considered the best hotel left in the world.  It is where /FranciscoDAnconia stays when he is in town.  It was also the scene of /DagnyTaggart's debut ball when she was seventeen.
5a6
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981954302
1c1,3
< A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco d'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend of /DagnyTaggart.  As the book progresses we learn there is much more to this story.
---
> A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco d'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend and first love of /DagnyTaggart.
> 
> Francisco began working on the sly as a teenager in order to learn all he could about business.  While still a student at /PatrickHenryUniversity, he began working at a copper foundry, and investing in the stock market.  By the time he was twenty he made enough to own the foundary.
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN152|981954331
27a28
>  /FranciscosFather
------
AtlasShrugged/Characters|981954357
36a37
>  /FranciscosFather
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscosFather|981954447
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FranciscoDAnconia's father was the head of /DAnconiaCopper before Francisco.  He raised his son to be a worthy heir to the mining empire and was very proud to see that he would be.  He died when Francisco was 23.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscosFather|981954460
1c1
< FranciscoDAnconia's father was the head of /DAnconiaCopper before Francisco.  He raised his son to be a worthy heir to the mining empire and was very proud to see that he would be.  He died when Francisco was 23.
---
> /FranciscoDAnconia's father was the head of /DAnconiaCopper before Francisco.  He raised his son to be a worthy heir to the mining empire and was very proud to see that he would be.  He died when Francisco was 23.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscosFather|981954483
1a2,3
> 
> He appears in /SectioN152.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981954820
1c1
< A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco d'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire Playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend and first love of /DagnyTaggart.
---
> A central characters in AtlasShrugged.  Francisco d'Anconia is, by all accounts, a worthless millionaire playboy, owner by inheritance of the world's largest copper mining empire, the man behind the /SanSebastianMines, and a childhood friend and first love of /DagnyTaggart.
3c3,5
< Francisco began working on the sly as a teenager in order to learn all he could about business.  While still a student at /PatrickHenryUniversity, he began working at a copper foundry, and investing in the stock market.  By the time he was twenty he made enough to own the foundary.
---
> Francisco began working on the sly as a teenager in order to learn all he could about business.  While still a student at /PatrickHenryUniversity, he began working at a copper foundry, and investing in the stock market.  By the time he was twenty he made enough to own the foundary.  He begins working for /DAnconiaCopper as assistant superintendent of a mine in Montana, but is quickly promoted to head of the /NewYork office.  He takes over D'Anconia Copper at age 23, after the death of his father.
> 
> When he was 26, Francisco secretly joined the /Strikers and began to slowly destroy the D'Anconia empire so the /Looters could not get it.  He adopted the persona of a worthless playboy, which is how he is known to the world.
11a14
>  /SectioN152 - This section includes a detailed history of his life.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981955621
3c3
< Francisco began working on the sly as a teenager in order to learn all he could about business.  While still a student at /PatrickHenryUniversity, he began working at a copper foundry, and investing in the stock market.  By the time he was twenty he made enough to own the foundary.  He begins working for /DAnconiaCopper as assistant superintendent of a mine in Montana, but is quickly promoted to head of the /NewYork office.  He takes over D'Anconia Copper at age 23, after the death of his father.
---
> Francisco began working on the sly as a teenager in order to learn all he could about business.  While still a student at /PatrickHenryUniversity, he began working at a copper foundry, and investing in the stock market.  By the time he was 20 he had made enough to purchase the foundary.  He began working for /DAnconiaCopper as assistant superintendent of a mine in Montana, but was quickly promoted to head of the /NewYork office.  He took over D'Anconia Copper at age 23, after the death of his father.
------
AtlasShrugged/FranciscoDAnconia|981955674
5c5
< When he was 26, Francisco secretly joined the /Strikers and began to slowly destroy the D'Anconia empire so the /Looters could not get it.  He adopted the persona of a worthless playboy, which is how he is known to the world.
---
> When he was 26, Francisco secretly joined the /Strikers and began to slowly destroy the D'Anconia empire so the /Looters could not get it.  He adopted the persona of a worthless playboy, by which he is known to the world, as an effective cover.
------
AtlasShrugged/DagnysFather|981955728
4c4,5
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/EddieWillers|981955752
11a12
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/EllisWyatt|981955765
9a10
>  - /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/JamesTaggart|981955786
10a11
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/SectioN152|981955810
30d29
<  /Looters - Mmentioned.
------
AtlasShrugged/MrsGilbertVail|981955869
2a3,4
> In /SectioN152 we learn that Francisco was in /ElPasoTexas, not in the /Andes, at the time when Mrs. Vail claims to have been with him.
> 
4a7
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/NathanielTaggart|981955897
6c6,7
<  /SectioN132
---
>  /SectioN132
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/OrrenBoyle|981955916
8c8,9
<  /SectioN144
---
>  /SectioN144
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/RichardHalley|981955934
9a10
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/SebastianDAnconia|981955957
1c1,3
< The ancestor of /FranciscoDAnconia who fled Spain during the time of the Inquisition, settled in /Argentina, and founded /DAnconiaCopper.
---
> The ancestor of /FranciscoDAnconia who fled Spain during the time of the Inquisition, settled in /Argentina, and founded /DAnconiaCopper.
> 
> His story is told in  /SectioN152.
------
AtlasShrugged/DAnconiaCopper|981955987
1a2,4
> 
> D'Anconia Copper is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/PhoenixDurango|981956006
10a11
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/Places|981956102
2a3
>  /Algeria
5a7
>  /BuenosAries
15a18
>  /Madrid
19a23
>  /Montana
26a31
>  /Rockdale
27a33
>  /Spain
28a35
>  /Valparaiso
------
AtlasShrugged/Algeria|981956217
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN152, we learn /FranciscoDAnconia threw a party at an Algerian desert resort where he gave away an ermine coat to any woman who undressed in step with the melting of ice sculptures.
------
AtlasShrugged/BuenosAries|981956260
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The home of the d'Anconia estate and the residence of /FranciscosFather.
------
AtlasShrugged/Madrid|981956343
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN152 a young /FranciscoDAnconia mentions he spent a winter in Madrid with the Duke of Alba.
------
AtlasShrugged/Montana|981956394
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The location of /FranciscoDAnconia's first job with /DAnconiaCopper.  
> 
> It is mentioned in  /SectioN152.
------
AtlasShrugged/Rockdale|981956589
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A town near the Taggart estate in upstate New York.  /DagnyTaggart had her first position working for /TaggartTranscontinental at the /RockdaleStation, when she was 16.
> 
> The Taggart estate overlooks the /HudsonRiver.  Rockport, we are told, is five miles from the estate.  The actual town of Rockport, New York is more like 100 miles from the Hudson River.
------
AtlasShrugged/Spain|981956640
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Spain is the ancestral home of the d'Anconias.  /SebastianDAnconia fled Spain to escape the Inquisition.
> 
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/Valparaiso|981956720
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In /SectioN152 the harbor of Valparaiso is mentioned as a location for one of /FranciscoDAnconia's parties.  At this party, the guests wore bathing suits, and were showered with champagn throughout the night.
------
AtlasShrugged/Andes|981956807
1a2,3
> 
> /SebastianDAnconia's first estate in the New World was a shack in the foothills of the Andes (/SectioN152).
------
AtlasShrugged/Argentina|981956870
1c1
< Argentina is the home of /FrancisoDAnconia and the ancestral home of his family.
---
> Argentina is the home of /FranciscoDAnconia and the ancestral home of his family.  /SebastianDAnconia fled to Argentina to escape the Inquisition.
4c4,5
<  - /SectioN132
---
>  - /SectioN132
>  - /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/Cleveland|981956908
0a1,2
> Cleveland is the home of /PatrickHenryUniversity.
> 
8a11
>  - /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/ElPasoTexas|981956981
1c1,5
< El Paso, texas is the southern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
> El Paso, Texas is the southern terminus of the /RioNorteLine.  /FranciscoDAnconia was in El Paso at the time /MrsGilbertVail claimed she was with him in the /Andes.
> 
> It is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/HudsonRiver|981957001
3c3,5
<  It is mentioned in /SectioN111.
---
>  It is mentioned in:
>  /SectioN111
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/Mexico|981957017
9a10
>  - /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/NewYork|981957042
7c7,8
<  - /SectioN141
---
>  - /SectioN141
>  - /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/HalleysFifthConcerto|981957064
7a8
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/HalleysFourthConcerto|981957087
1a2,3
> 
> It is mentioned in  /SectioN152.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981957112
9a10
>  /PatrickHenryUniversity
------
AtlasShrugged/PatrickHenryUniversity|981957220
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The most prestigious university in the world.  It was attended by /JohnGalt, /FranciscoDANconia, and /RagnarDanneskjold, where they met and became friends.  /HughAkston and /RobertStadler taught there.  It is located in /Cleveland.
------
AtlasShrugged/PatrickHenryUniversity|981957234
1c1
< The most prestigious university in the world.  It was attended by /JohnGalt, /FranciscoDANconia, and /RagnarDanneskjold, where they met and became friends.  /HughAkston and /RobertStadler taught there.  It is located in /Cleveland.
---
> The most prestigious university in the world.  It was attended by /JohnGalt, /FranciscoDAnconia, and /RagnarDanneskjold, where they met and became friends.  /HughAkston and /RobertStadler taught there.  It is located in /Cleveland.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981957260
13a14
>  /RockdaleStation
------
AtlasShrugged/RockdaleStation|981957319
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A station on the /TaggartTranscontinental line, located five miles from the Taggart estate overlooking the /HudsonRiver.  It was the site of /DagnyTaggart's first job with the railroad, night operator, at age 16.
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981957345
14a15
>  /SanSebastian
------
AtlasShrugged/RockdaleStation|981957365
1a2,3
> 
> It appears in /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastian|981957466
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A community built to house the workers of the /SanSebastianMines and their families.  As it turns out, the houses, roads, and everything of practical value is built so poorly that the community can be expected to fall apart within a year or two.  Only the church was built to last.
> 
> It is mentioned in /SectioN152.
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianLine|981957481
9c9,10
<  /SectioN143
---
>  /SectioN143
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/SanSebastianMines|981957495
8a9
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartComet|981957510
5a6
>  /SectioN152
------
AtlasShrugged/Things|981957530
17a18
>  /TaggartBuilding
------
AtlasShrugged/TaggartBuilding|981957694
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A skyscraper in /NewYork, the headquarters of /TaggartTranscontinental, and the location of the Taggart Terminal.
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981958012
7a8,16
> * Historical figures and events
> 
> AtlasShrugged takes place in a world with a different history from our own, but there are some historical figures that are mentioned.
> 
> #<b>Aristotle</b> (/SectioN152): /FranciscoDAnconia wrote a thesis on the influence of Aristotle's theory of the Immovable Mover.
> #<b>Inquisition</b> (/SectioN152): /SebastianDAnconia flees Spain to escape persecution under the Inquisition.
> #<b>Nero</b> (/SectioN152): /FranciscoDAnconia compares himself to the Emperor Nero.
> #<b>Patrick Henry</b> (/SectioN152): The eponym of /PatrickHenryUniversity.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981958154
16a17,22
> * Humor
> 
> #In /SectioN152, Francisco cracks that the Mexican government was promising a roast of pork every Sunday for every man, woman, child and abortion.
> 
> #In /SectioN152, Francisco lists the various buildings constructed for the workers of the San Sebastian Mines, and notes how they are all poorly built and can be expected to collapse, except for the church.  "The church, I think, will stand.  They'll need it," he quips.  Since the other things are things of value - houses, roads, etc. - it is ironic that only the church was built to last; to Rand and her heroes, a church is of no real value.
> 
------
AtlasShrugged/TopicsOfNote|981958181
6c6
< Common street crime is conspicuously absent in /AtlasShrugged.  Characters walk the streets with no thought of being mugged or attacked.
---
> Common street crime is conspicuously absent in AtlasShrugged.  Characters walk the streets with no thought of being mugged or attacked.
------
NewTopics|981959365
5c5
< AnchorageAlaska -- GladstoneOregon -- AlchemY -- EastGermany -- BritannicaPublicDomain -- AlbaniA -- AustriA -- HistoryOfEurope -- EuroCurrency -- GermanY -- NuPedia -- EncycloPedia -- CommonSense -- DisRuption -- WhatsaWikiFor -- PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway
---
> PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps
------
CambodianLanguage|981960163
12a13,14
> ''This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?''
> 
------
CambodianLanguage|981960185
13c13
< ''This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?''
---
> ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?]''
------
TheMostRemarkableFormulaInTheWorld|981973899
31c31
< Then, since cos(pi) = 1 and sin(pi) = 0,
---
> Then, since cos(pi) = -1 and sin(pi) = 0,
------
WellOrderingPrinciple|981985382
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The well ordering principle states the following:
> :Every non-empty set S of positive integers contains a least element; that is, there is some a in S such that a <= b for all elements b in S.
> 
> This is equivalent to the AxiomOfChoice.
> 
------
BooksOfTheBible|981986836
5,43c5,43
< * Genesis
< * Exodus
< * Leviticus
< * Numbers
< * Deuteronomy
< * Joshua
< * Judges
< * Ruth
< * 1 Samuel
< * 2 Samuel
< * 1 Kings
< * 2 Kings
< * 1 Chronicles
< * 2 Chronicles
< * Ezra
< * Nehemiah
< * Esther
< * Job
< * Psalms
< * Proverbs
< * Ecclesiastes
< * The Song of Solomon
< * Isaiah
< * Jeremiah
< * Lamentations
< * Ezekiel
< * Daniel
< * Hosea
< * Joel
< * Amos
< * Obadiah
< * Jonah
< * Micah
< * Nahum
< * Habakkuk
< * Zephaniah
< * Haggai
< * Zechariah
< * Malachi
---
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleGenesis Genesis]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleExodus Exodus]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleLeviticus Leviticus]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleNumbers Numbers]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleDeuteronomy Deuteronomy]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJoshua Joshua]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJudges Judges]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleRuth Ruth]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleISamuel 1 Samuel]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIISamuel 2 Samuel]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIKings 1 Kings]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIKings 2 Kings]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIChronicles 1 Chronicles]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIChronicles 2 Chronicles]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleEzra Ezra]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleNehemiah Nehemiah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleEsther Esther]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJob Job]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBiblePsalms Psalms]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleProverbs Proverbs
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleEcclesiastes Ecclesiastes]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleTheSongofSolomon The Song of Solomon]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIsaiah Isaiah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJeremiah Jeremiah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleLamentations Lamentations]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleEzekiel Ezekiel]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleDaniel Daniel]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleHosea Hosea]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJoel Joel]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleAmos Amos]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleObadiah Obadiah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJonah Jonah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleMicah Micah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleNahum Nahum]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleHabakkuk Habakkuk]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleZephaniah Zephaniah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleHaggai Haggai]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleZechariah Zechariah]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleMalachi Malachi]
47,73c47,73
< * Matthew
< * Mark
< * Luke
< * John
< * The Acts of the Apostles
< * Romans
< * 1 Corinthians
< * 2 Corinthians
< * Galatians
< * Ephesians
< * Phillipians
< * Colossians
< * 1 Thessalonians
< * 2 Thessalonians
< * 1 Timothy
< * 2 Timothy
< * Titus
< * Philemon
< * Hebrews
< * James
< * 1 Peter
< * 2 Peter
< * 1 John
< * 2 John
< * 3 John
< * Jude
< * Revelations
---
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleMatthew Matthew]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleMark Mark]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleLuke Luke]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJohn John]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleTheActsoftheApostles The Acts of the Apostles]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleRomans Romans]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleICorinthians 1 Corinthians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIICorinthians 2 Corinthians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleGalatians Galatians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleEphesians Ephesians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBiblePhillipians Phillipians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleColossians Colossians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIThessalonians 1 Thessalonians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIThessalonians 2 Thessalonians]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleITimothy 1 Timothy]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIITimothy 2 Timothy]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleTitus Titus]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBiblePhilemon Philemon]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleHebrews Hebrews]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJames James]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIPeter 1 Peter]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIPeter 2 Peter]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIJohn 1 John]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIJohn 2 John]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleIIIJohn 3 John]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleJude Jude]
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleRevelations Revelations]
------
BooksOfTheBible|981988371
24c24
< * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleProverbs Proverbs
---
> * [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ChristianBibleProverbs Proverbs]
------
LinguisticS|981988429
20c20,22
< Do you think it's necessary to separate out geography of languages like that?  As far as national languages go, there's nothing wrong with just linking to them from the appropriate country pages.  I think what we probably need is some higher level geographical categories, like SouthEastAsia, which can handle languages, countries, and a lot more besides.
---
> Do you think it's necessary to separate out geography of languages like that?  As far as national languages go, there's nothing wrong with just linking to them from the appropriate country pages.  I think what we probably need is some higher level geographical categories, like SouthEastAsia, which can handle languages, countries, and a lot more besides.
> 
> I was just suggesting some way to separate out language families by origin and by geography. I am not wedded to any particular scheme. I wouldn't want readers to assume that SouthEastAsianLanguages are necessarily similar. Also, eventually, casual language descriptions of a particular language shoud be separated from Linguistic analysis of particular languages, I should think. Assuming the content appears...:-).
------
RaviDesai|981988434
10a11
> Quick Test: ChristianBibleIKings
------
PythagoreanTheorem|981988632
76c76,78
< Therefore, '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''' = '''c'''^'''2'''.
---
> Therefore, '''a'''^'''2''' + '''b'''^'''2''' = '''c'''^'''2'''.----
> 
> I think a visual of the triangles involved in this proof would be very helpful- even if they are really crude like mine.
------
ProgramMing|981989276
4c4
< The first computer programmer is widely recoginzed to be AdaLovelace, daughter of Anabella and LordByron (the poet).  Anabella gave her love of mathematics to Ada, who after meeting CharlesBabbage helped him work on his DifferenceEngine and other machines, documenting his designs and developing programs for them.  Even though Babbage never completed construction of any of his machines, the work that he and Ada did on them earned her the title of the world's first computer programmer.
---
> The first computer programmer is widely recoginzed to be AdaLovelace, daughter of Anabella and LordByron (the poet).  Anabella gave her love of mathematics to Ada, who after meeting CharlesBabbage helped him work on his DifferenceEngine and other machines, documenting his designs and developing programs for them.  Even though Babbage never completed construction of any of his machines, the work that he and Ada did on them earned her the title of the world's first computer programmer..
------
ProgramMing|981989296
4c4
< The first computer programmer is widely recoginzed to be AdaLovelace, daughter of Anabella and LordByron (the poet).  Anabella gave her love of mathematics to Ada, who after meeting CharlesBabbage helped him work on his DifferenceEngine and other machines, documenting his designs and developing programs for them.  Even though Babbage never completed construction of any of his machines, the work that he and Ada did on them earned her the title of the world's first computer programmer..
---
> The first computer programmer is widely recoginzed to be AdaLovelace, daughter of Anabella and LordByron (the poet).  Anabella gave her love of mathematics to Ada, who after meeting CharlesBabbage helped him work on his DifferenceEngine and other machines, documenting his designs and developing programs for them.  Even though Babbage never completed construction of any of his machines, the work that he and Ada did on them earned her the title of the world's first computer programmer.
------
BooksOfTheBible|981990207
75a76,84
> ----
> 
> I'm seeking some input here, I made each book linkable (the essense of a wiki, after-all....), but I wanted to do so in such a way that the following elements were preserved:
> 
> * The linked-to page should be somewhere on the wiki.
> * The links as they appear above should be readable.
> * The linked-to page names should unambiguously define the topic.  For instance, a page called RevelationS may contain content referring to the book in the Bible called Revelations, but it could also refer to a lot of other things as well.  The same is true for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and many other names.  A page named ChristianBibleEzra is pretty unambiguous, but it is also difficult to read.
> 
> So I settled on the above way of linking them up.  It could probably be used for many other lists as well.  The problem with it is that it is a little cumbersome.  What we really need is a <wiki-id-name displayed-wiki-link>
------
HumanComputerInteraction|981993195
13,15d12
< ----
< 
< http://www.lclark.edu/~nilsen/nilsenfam.jpg Erik Nilsen and family.
------
PythagoreanTheorem|981994107
78a79,83
> 
> ----
> 
> Actually, the sheer volume of distinct known proofs of this theorem is staggering.  See [http://www.cut-the-knot.com/pythagoras/index.html Pythagorean Theorem Proofs] for just a sampling.
> 
------
NewTopics|981994736
13a14,16
> ----
> What you really want is a "Recent Changes" page reformatted in a slightly different way.  All the information you specified is already present in Recent Changes, just perhaps not formatted in the way you like.  The point about fewer than 12 total edits may be a bit misguided though - formatting on the Wiki is not as intuitive as we might like to think, sometimes it takes 4-5 "edits" just to get it right for the first time.  You may want to say something like "4 or more edits by different people" or something like that.
> 
------
AyeSpyList|981994805
1,14c1
< Did professionally:
< Landscaping, newspaper delivery, typist, transcriptionist, personnel trainer, investigator, paralegal, maintenance engineer, plumber, drywall, childcare, electrician, carpenter, painter, glazer, carpet layer, tile, linoleum, wallpaper, automobile mechanic, excavation, PBX operator, hotel front desk, room attendant, vocalist, horse breeder, horse trainer, laborer, vending machine operator, upholstery, locksmith, counselor, human resources director, data analyst, public relations, opinion poll drafting and interpretation, marketing director, security officer, statistical analyst, loan broker, home designer, real estate development, pool maintenance, barback, A/C repair, runner, business consultant, IT recruiter, dispute mediator, photographer, videographer, author.
< 
< Did without pay:
< Songwriter, guitarist, hardwood flooring, roofing, masonry, ranching, vegetable farming, graphic art, small engine repair, electronics repair, computer programming, metal fabrication, farm fencing (as in "don't fence me in"), tournament fencing (as in, "touche'"), animal grooming, woodcutting, target shooting, archery, skiing, bowling, baseball, auto restoration, veterinary care, sculpture, jewelry making, leathercraft, shoe repair, poetry, car stereo installation, chef, sewing, antique restoration, acting, masseur, flood damage repair.
< 
< AyeSpy
< ----
< 
< You forgot: Wrote an encyclopedia.  :-) --JimboWales
< 
< ----
< 
< Well, heck.  Aint wrote one yet, though I am a published author elsewhere.  The one full-bore Nupedia article I did write (re the TaoTehChing - not the cursory commentary I dashed off here) was never submitted because the area editor told me my subject was reassigned.  Have done a fair piece of copyediting, tho...
---
> 
------
AlTruism|981994869
20,21d19
< Whether one might or might not be motivated by altruism may be dependent on how well one takes into account the "big picture." The "big picture" tends to include consciousness of factors which interconnect the survival potential of all people and ultimately all living things, which further depend for their survival on the health of the planet as a whole. So- if one is able to envision himself as dependent on the survival of the race in general, man as dependent on the success of other life forms, and life forms in general as dependent on the health of the planet, then, at least within the limited sphere of the earth, one's self-interest will always be served by doing things which appear on their face to be altrustic when in fact, one would be foregoing a smaller advantage in order to sieze a larger one.  If one is '''unable''' to grasp this and yet practices altruism, then arguably he/she is wishing to appear "noble" by doing self-abnegatory things for the supposed benefit of others. -- AyeSpy
< ----
------
RaviDesai|981995127
11d10
< Quick Test: ChristianBibleIKings
------
EthicsVsMorals|981995197
1,28d0
< Is it in any way useful to draw a distinction between Ethics and Morals? Are they not, after all, synonymous? Doesn't one pretty much imply the other? Let us answer the three foregoing questions, "Yes, No, and No" respectively and see whether such a position is defensible. 
< 
< The root word for Ethical is the Greek "ethos," meaning "character." The root word for Moral is Latin "mos," meaning "custom." 
< 
< Both words are broadly defined in contemporary English as having to do with right and wrong conduct. Character and custom, however, provide two very different standards for defining what is right and what is wrong. Character would seem to be a personal attribute, while custom is defined by a group over time. People have character. Societies have custom. To violate either can be said to be wrong, within its appropriate frame of reference. 
< 
< It is possible to draw an objective distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, which does not depend on context for a measuring stick. Let us say that good, or right, would be the quality of those things which tend toward the greatest survival for the greatest cross-section of life and bad, or wrong, would apply to those things which tend away from that greatest survival. This is a standard which can be objectively tested for, in theory.
< 
< While an objective standard of right and wrong may be desirable, this is not to say that objective standards and subjective standards are complete strangers to each other, necessarily.  After all, social mores are seldom entirely arbitrary.  They are adopted by societies during the natural course of events because at one time or another this or that rule is seen as beneficial to the survival of the group as a group.  Members who subscribe to the rules of the society arguably see survival potential in them.  
< 
< One might take Jewish dietary laws as an example of a subjective standard, in that compliance with them is rooted in faith rather than having been arrived at through research.  Empirical observation in biblical and pre-biblical times, however, provided objective evidence aplenty for the necessity of dietary rules in the absence of such recent advancements as antibiotics and refrigeration.  In early times, then, violation of dietary law may well have been "bad" or "wrong" by any standard.  Nonetheless, obedience to such dietary law now may safely be classed as an issue of custom more than character.
< 
< While those of faith will argue that their custom is dictated by the Supreme Authority and as such establishes an asolute standard for both a morals and ethics (making them indistiguishable within that milleu), we may still discuss how what is "moral" may not be "right" by objective criteria, and vice-versa.
< 
< Consider:  It is moral, within the context of their society, for native African cannibals to eat their enemies.  Judeo-Christian morality declares this practice sinful.  One may argue on one hand that such practice is harmless in the context of a hunter-gatherer economy which relies on scarce resources and to which overpopulation is anathema.  On closer inspection, however, we find that a neurologic disorder, possibly of genetic (or viral?) origin literally causes the physical deterioration of the brains of some mammals, including humans, who practice cannibalism.  This has been responsible for destructive epidemics among cannibalistic tribes, and so unqualifiedly militates against their survival.  By objective standards, then, we might find that cannibalism is "bad."  And not because this or that social standard says so, but because it is insidiously destroying populations who practice it.  But one discovers this only by moving outside of the social structure of cannibalism and applying some science.
< 
< Note that governmental bodies and professions such as medicine and the law have developed codes of conduct for their members.  These are called ethical codes, and not moral codes.  Morality, being custom-based, relies heavily on the mores of the society - which tend to have religious origins.  Therefore, in the field of morals, one talks of such things as "sin" and "virtue".  In the field of professional ethics, the discussion tends to revolve around responsibility, duty, and benefit vs negligence, betrayal and harm.  There is an obvious effort in the field of civic and professional ethics to establish and follow an objective standard based upon the concrete consequences of one's acts.
< 
< The founder (and to a lesser degree, subsequent leaders) of a social grouping may see a necessity for a given type of behavior in a purely ethical sense.  "We must do this or perish."  He may attempt to educate others as to the necessity of the behavior which he prescribes.  How likely is it, though, that the followers, adherents, members or what-have-you will share their leader's insights and understanding?  One of the reasons they are sheep instead of shepherds is that they sense a superior ability to survive in the guy holding the staff.  So, when education fails, when personal wisdom and responsibility are inadequate, rules, threats and punishments are established.  Now we have moved from the field of ethics, founded in personal character - and into the field of morals, founded in approval by authority.
< 
< Ethically, there may be such things as neutral-value activities.  Walking around naked, using profanity, painting one's car fuscia - all may have no innate implications as to survivability in and of themselves.  However, one may quickly find that one's activites have impact on the sensory and emotional states of others.  As such, violating a social more or "good taste," even if it carries no penalty, interferes with the smooth passage of others through life and in such a miniscule fashion reduces the general survival.  This fact can make the violation of moral standards an unethical act because of the turmoil created.
< 
< So - things can be innately good or bad, all social standards aside.  A person of character might learn what he can about the world around him; determine what will positively or negatively impact it; resolve to support the former, and strive against the latter.  Such a person by any standard would probably have to be classified as ethical.  Some social groups might find his actions offensive or sinful, but if he is honest about his observations, possesses personal integrity, and is true to values which embrace working maximum benefit and minimum harm - for their own sake - we could not but call him ethical.
< 
< Ralph Waldo Emerson almost grasped this fully over two hundred years ago in his essay, "Self-Reliance."  He railed against the political sycophants and religious hypocrites of his day, pointing out that their values obtained to self-aggrandizement and social popularity, but not to the general good.  Therefore, they were untrue to themselves.
< 
< EthicalRelativism holds that good and bad exist only by reference to human social standards.  I believe it can be successfully argued that while moral behavior must needs be so referenced, ethical behavior can be determined on its own merit, relative only to its bare consequences as, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a pond, they travel out into the universe.  The only limitation which would exist, therefore, on the ability of a person to be ethical would be the breadth and depth of his vision. -- AyeSpy
< ----
32,45d3
< ----
< I will, for now forego tackling the medical ethics question.  The issue of property, however is an interesting one.  Items, objects, or life forms do not possess innate qualities which make them "property" of this or that person or "not-property" of anyone.  How, then, would one apply an ethical standard to the issue of theft which is not grounded in a societal or moral code?  Mr. Adams makes the case that, "An ethical view might be based on an idea of personal property that should not be taken without social consent..." but why?  Ethics requires not mere assumptions, but reason leading to conclusions.  In order to hold the ethical view that there is such a thing as personal property and that it ought not be taken, one must arrive there by reasononing.
< 
< What is it about a thing which makes it one's property?  In one form or another, one could say that it is the chain of creation.  There are two apparent chains of creation at work here, but in actuality, only one.  The illusory chain of creation is "I was created the owner of this."  The actual chain of creation is "I produced the effort or energy to create this, bring this about, or to bring it under my control.  And I did so without wasting the effort of another."  Having brought about a state of property, one may freely bestow it upon one's progeny, bringing about the illusory chain of creation.
< 
< The taking of things or property through force is only legitemized when he from whom it was taken agrees to the conquest, thereby obtaining a benefit of residing under the protection of new government, or of avoiding lethal or disabling force which would cancel his prior claim upon the property.  If a mugger takes your wallet against your protest, you have not consented or given up your claim, and so he steals it from you.  If you give your son $20.00 for gas and do not expect repayment, it is legitemately now his property.  If the U.S. conquers Texas and the residents thereof consent to U.S. government, a former taking by force is legitemized.
< 
< A person's own creative energy is in fact owned by him and to waste it works observable harm upon him and is is therefore classifiable as "bad."
< 
< A person directs his creative energy toward the accomplishment of work or creation of product, and toward the making of agreements with his fellows as to what that work or product may be traded for.  Each successive trade in a chain continues the chain of the original creation and so, even though he bought the loaf of bread instead of baking it, he created the energy which resulted in the bread and traded it to the baker so that the baker's creative efforts were not wasted.
< 
< How do people as property figure in here?  As one did not in any case create another human being, (the special case of children could be argued but this is unnecessary for now as one generally does not assert property rights over his/her children), as human beings are not controllable without their consent, and as to force involuntary control over a human wastes his effort, this disqualifies human beings from being property.
< 
< Slavery, then, would be an inherently corrupt assertion of property rights. -- AyeSpy
------
CommonSense|981995333
24,41d23
< ----
< '''Discussion:'''
< 
< Common sense as a concept has been so subject to popular abuse that its usefulness as a real philosphic tool may have been vitiated.
< 
< After all, it was "common sense" in fairly recent history that the world was flat, and the center of the universe.  Much that is "common sense" is decidedly common due to its uncritical  adoption by unthinking masses who prefer to be fed their certainties by authority with a spoon, but thought which is common, or even universal, is not necessarily sense - and may depend for its popularity on the fact that it is never closely examined.
< 
< I tear into the upside-down common sense assumptions of biology-based psychiatry with unrestrained glee, as they are perfect fodder for an exposition on how "common sense" is "common," but not "sense."  This is a "science" which insists, with stubborn certainty, that the coincidental presence of certain facts together establishes, ipso facto, a cause and effect relationship.  Further, they can tell you in the complete absence of any foundation, which is cause, and which is effect.
< 
< Take, for axample, the broadly accepted "scientific fact" that brain chemistry is a determinor of mood, emotion, and ultimately, sanity.  It "stands to reason" does it not, that if depressed people show low serum levels of serotonin and and vibrant people demonstrate high levels, that increasing serotonin will elevate mood, no?  We must not brook any argument on this point.  Sir KarlPopper gives us a clue, however, as to how we may determine the reliability of the root assumption here.  Under his criteria of falsifiability, we can disprove the entire theory if we can show that one instance of it is false.
< 
< Let us turn, then, to recent empirical work with persons diagnosed with clinical depression.  In a double-blind study, four groups of depressed persons are followed over time.  One group is untreated.  One group is given SSRI's  (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) to increase their serum levels of serotonin.  Another group is prescribed exercise, and another is given both exercise and drugs.  Recurrence of depression is highest in the group taking drugs.  It is very nearly as high in the group taking drugs and exercise.  It is significantly lower in the group receiving no treatment and lowest by an order of magnitude in the group prescribed exercise alone.
< 
< Common sense tells us what to think of these experimental results.  So does Popper.
< 
< "Scientific Authority," however will not waver from the initial premise.  Biochemistry of the brain determines mood.  Function follows form.  We just have to keep poking about until we find the right chemicals and all question of the veracity of biochemical brain theory will be erased.
< 
< It's only common sense.  -- AyeSpy
------
InvestigatorAsPhilosopher|981995563
1,40c1
< ''SherlockHolmes is depicted as both a supremely logical thinker and a supernaturally astute observer.  What hidden advantage did he hold over his peers?''
< 
< Consider:  Holmes observed the world around him in a manner which took into account the most minor details.  Those around him seldom detected the same "clues" and when they did, the evidence in front of their eyes was empty to them.  Conan Doyle may or may not have consciously given Holmes an unfair leg up over his compatriots - but regardless of intent, that advantage existed.
< 
< It is unlikely that persons who have not undertaken one form or another of professional investigation will detect how the "Holmes" world view differed from others.  It is equally unlikely that it would reveal itself to professional investigators (be they involved in science, law enforcement or private investigation) who have not also made a targeted study of the science of logic and its associated processes.
< 
< Logic is commonly seen as a study involving datasets, relationships between them, belonging and not-belonging.  This view will serve as well as any other to illustrate the synergy which exists between the three most basic elements of successful investigative technique:
< 
< '''A)  Perception'''
< 
< '''B)  Knowledge Base'''
< 
< '''C)  Logic'''
< 
< One must needs be able to see the world in front of one's nose in order to succeed at an investigative endeavor.  And by that, it is meant only to perceive - not to perceive and imbue with meaning and nuance, but merely perceive - to be accurate and complete in perception, to record accurately what is perceived, and to add or subtract nothing.  Factually, this may be one of the most rarely developed investigative skills.  Although preconception impedes observation, too many investigators of all kinds approach a scene with definite ideas as to what they are looking for, what they expect to see, and what they expect it to mean.  Even having viewed a scene initially without preconception, many are incapable of rehabilitating former observations to neutral value once they have assigned a given meaning or interpretation to them.  Thus, when new or unexpected knowledge is available to inform old observations, these individuals are handicapped.  They cannot look and make new, unbiased observations, nor remove the coloration previously applied to former observations so as to view them in light of newly available knowledge.
< 
< The oft-overlooked fact is that things perceived do not have meaning inherent in them.  That which is perceived must be compared to a knowledge base to determine what relationships exist between elements observed and other known data.  The relationships that are available serve to establish what meaning or sets of meanings may be attributed to observed items, facts or circumstances.  Take this example:  A suspect leaves his house at 8:00 AM and arrives in a neighboring town at 10:00 AM.  What are we to make of this?  In a vacuum of information, nothing.  Now consider that the towns are 26 miles apart.  Suddenly, the two hours seems excessive.  But the highway between the towns was blocked by a toxic spill cleanup operation for a time.  Time explained.  But the suspect had foreknowledge of the spill and a helicopter at his disposal... and on and on until all data which would lend meaning to the evidence is gathered.
< 
< Has the reader guessed by this time what important special advantage Holmes possessed?  It was no more nor less than this:  His knowledge base encompassed everything that was known about anything anywhere in the world in the Victorian Era.  He knew the smell of paralytic poison manufactured from the sap of a tree which grew only in the Amazon Basin.  Every single clue in every case he ever worked bore upon some knowledge which he possessed, no matter how remote the source of that knowledge might seem.  'Nuff said?  A further, though less important advantage with which he was blessed by his creator was that each clue, on the whole, was subject to only a single interpetation.  Multiple datasets in reference to a single clue generally did not exist.
< 
< The above brings us to the subject of Holmes' logical facility, or "deductive powers."  These were generally assumed to be a feature of unmatched native intelligence (Never mind that Watson was made to appear downright feeble-minded from time to time, in order to show Holmes as brilliant by comparison).  In fact, anyone of average intelligence or better can be trained to utilize "deduction" on a par with Holmes'.
< 
< '''Here's how:'''
< 
< First, the prospective investigator should be encouraged to continually expand his or her knowledge base.  There should be no off-limits learning.  If one is to investigate in the field of medications, reactions and drug development, then the first and most important datasets to acquire would obviously deal with such things as chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and the like.  Other areas of investigative specialty would likewise benefit most greatly from studies of their related datasets.
< 
< Second, in one fashion or another, the prospect should be educated in the logical concept of "belonging."  Taken grossly, this concept could relate to things as obvious as a cooking stove in a living room or, conversely, a kitchen with no stove.  Things which ought to belong to a scenario and which are present in the expected condition, receive the lowest importance in investigative observation, and things which are present when they do not belong or absent when they do belong receive first attention.  First, of course, one observes the scene and makes no evaluation.  Then one evaluates observed elements relative to each other.  Lastly, one evaluates observed elements relative to datasets which are not implicit in the scene, but are rather contained in the investigator's head or his reference sources.
< 
< Such labeling of logical process as "syllogism" are unnecessary to this educational process.  Classification of types of "belonging" or "not-belonging" are helpful but not essential.  In an investigation where an unknown subject's movements repeatedly seem to take more time than expected, for instance, the classification of this repeated fact as multiple instances of "too much time" might lead the investigator to examine the available facts for things which might explain that one repeating theme.  Why does our guy move so slowly?  A concomitant observation at various scenes of parallel, narrow tracks occurring 24" apart might indicate the possibility of a suspect who is wheelchair-bound.
< 
< 
< A synergy exists between personal ability (as in native capacity for data-processing volume and speed, sensory acuity, etc.), perception, knowledge and logic.  Increases in the appliciation of each factor can multiply the results available from the application of each other factor.  
< 
< How valuable might the observations of a skilled observer who is a non-plumber be relative to investigating for the source of leaks in comparison to the observations of a skilled plumber?  The former might look at a complex of soldered tubing with multiple joints and several leaks, and be able to determine that each leak was at or near a joint.  He might make other observations and yet assign no importance to them, owing to a lack of familiarity with subject matter.  Having assigned no importance to such observations, he might not be able to call them up in response to queries from a plumber as to what he had seen.  The latter might "see at a glance" what the former had missed.  E.G.:  Were there sanding marks visible at the margins of the solder?  Was there green or black coloration in a given pattern on the exterior of the tubing?  Were there dark shiny markings, as of dried liquid, at or adjacent to the joints?  Were there any little whitish, powdery bumps, especially with a greenish tint?  How was the tubing secured?  How much evidence of water absorption was there in surrounding wood?  The answers to these questions would tell the plumber if hard or acidic water had eaten through the tubing, whether the joints had been "brightened" (sanded) before soldering, whether flux had been used, the age of the tubing, the likelihood of failure due to excessive movement, whether the existing materials would suffice to repair the defects or if new materials (and which materials) would be required, etc.  The knowledge base or experience of the viewer can increase sensitivity to various observations and, with all observations in hand, will inform their interpretation.
< 
< If a skilled plumber makes the same observations, but is hindered by preconception (such as that the optimum repair of all defects is a complete replacement, thus maximizing profit), then he never will find out how the leaks were caused.  If an individual knows plumbing concepts but cannot observe, his interpretation of a scene will likewise be defective.
< 
< '''What does all this have to do with philosophy?'''
< 
< The reader is commended to the various writings of, for example, Bertrand Russell - especially as they relate to observation, interpretation, and the nature of knowledge.  In Russell's world view, the very real possibility exists that all human perception is corrupt and that actual or absolute knowledge is impossible.  One sees, for instance, a chair.  According to Russell, this would be a misstatement.  The actual nature of the chair, owing to atomic and subatomic physics, is invisible.  Therefore, one does not see it at all.  One's optic nerves are stimulated by the effect of reflected light on the retina of the eye, and the signals of the optic nerves are interpreted by the brain to form an image.  Even so, it is only an image of the surfaces of the chair facing the viewer.  On strict observation, the viewer cannot claim to know that the unobserved portions of the chair exist.  Application of such principles as these to the process of investigation help to instill sufficient humility in the investigator so that, with practice, he can apply the first skill of investigation - observation without interpretation.  From there, he can apply his observations to a "knowledge" base which, if he is honest, he will admit is mostly data ABOUT things which he has never personally observed.  In such a wise, he can begin to build an investigative methodology which which will lead him down fewer blind alleys and toward more true solutions than that practiced by the average bear. -- AyeSpy
---
> 
------
PhiloSophy|981995771
2c2
< WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- InvestigatorAsPhilosopher -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism
---
> WilliamAlston -- HoldComeWhatMay -- MetaPhilosophy -- CommonSense -- ThomasReid -- DirectRealism -- AlTruism
19c19
< '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' EthicsVsMorals '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
---
> '''MetaPhysics:''' FreeWillAndDeterminism '''PhilosophyOfReligion:''' FaithAndRationality '''EthIcs:''' '''EpistemOlogy:''' TheProblemOfOtherMinds
------
HelL|981995998
1,10d0
< An issue of BiblicalInterpretation about the traditional Christian notion of Hell:
< 
< Following is a link to an interesting article regarding the likelihood of historic biblical support for the traditional Christian notion of "Hell."  
< 
< In the past, when I have recommended articles such as this to "bible believing" Christians in support of my assertion to them that is was my firm belief that Jesus Christ never heard of nor spoke of Hell, I have been roundly condemmed in the most scathing terms, and promised my own dose of eternal damnation for daring to assert that the original writings of the apostles and their followers might not be faithfully represented in modern texts.
< 
< This article serves to illustrate that even versions of the Bible which some believers cleave to as "infallible" were openly characterized by their original authors as human interpretations of human writings, and therefore not 100% reliable.
< 
< An interesting read... -- AyeSpy
< 
------
TaoTehChingTalk|981996165
1,2d0
< TaoTehChingTalk
< 
8,11c6
< 
< 
< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< (moved here from the body of the text -- AyeSpy) COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: 
---
> COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: 
21,34c16
< Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. 
< 
< 
< 
< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 
< I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed. I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching. It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it. -- AyeSpy 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< 
< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. 
------
TaoTehChing|981996295
1,20d0
< The Tao Teh Ching (DaoDeJing) is an ancient Chinese writing orginally named Lao Tzu, generally accepted to have been penned about 600 BC by a fellow called Lao Tzu ("Old Master'), who was reputed to be a record-keeper of the Emperor's Court of the Chou Dynasty.  The existence of Lao Tzu is historically supported by mentions of him in scrolls dating back to 400 BC, but the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded.  Chinese Historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote a supposed "biography" of him in about 100 BC, indicating that his birth name was Li Erh.  
< 
< Scholars debate the authorship of the current version of the Tao Teh Ching.  Sections of it in its current form have been found engraved on stone tablets dated to 300 BC.  The 1973 archeological discovery of complete Chinese "scrolls" (factually silk rolls called the Ma-wang-tui Texts after the village where they were found. Text A, which has more lacunae, is thought to have been written sometime before Text B which has been dated to 200 BC) reveal that the Tao Teh Ching as modernly reported is the same form as that which was written in antiquity, thus limiting the time period during which the writings might have been changed or contributed to.
< 
< As early as the 1930's, a way to resolve disputes over authorship without declaring who is right or wrong (a Taoist solution, if you will) may have been proposed. In an essay accompanying a translation by Wai-tao and Dwight Goddard, Dr. Kiang Kang-hu offers, "Three Taoist sages who lived two or three hundred or more years apart, according to history, are commonly believed to be the same man, who by his wisdom had attained longevity… The simpler and more probable solution of the confusion is to accept the historicity of all three but to give credit for the original writing to Lao-Tzu and consider the others as able disciples and possibly editors. The book in its present form might not have been written until the third century BC… for it was engraved on stone tablets soon after that time".  Credit for some verses might be conditionally given to later Taoists "without detracting from the larger credit that belongs to Lao-Tzu".
< 
< Several modern versions of religious Taoism (Daoism) are replete with polytheism, ancestor worship, ceremony of various kinds, and alchemic efforts to achieve longevity.
< 
< What is attributed to Lao Tzu contains none of the above.
< 
< Instead, the Tao Teh Ching (hereafter called the Tao, for short) is concise, if poetical; purely mystical; and exceedingly practical.
< 
< The Tao points out universal truths which have since been independently recognized in other philosophies, both religious and secular.  Your author refrains from quoting the Tao directly, as each English Language interpretation (including even interpretation of the three-character title), of which there are dozens, differs slightly or profoundly from the next.  Suffice it to say that Lao Tzu demonstrated an understanding of such principles as these:
< 
< Force begets force.  One whose needs are simple will find them fulfilled.  Wealth does not enrich the spirit.  Self-interest and self-importance are vain and self-destructive.  Victory in war is not glorious and not to be celebrated, but stems from devastation, and is to be mourned.  The harder one tries, the more resistance he will create for himself.  The more one acts in harmony with the universe, the more he will achieve, with less effort.  The truly wise make little of their own wisdom - for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know.  It is wise to repay kindness with kindness and to repay evil with kindness.  We are our brothers' keepers.  Skill averts waste.  When we lose the fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values.  Stupidity leads to force.  The wise are responsible for the foolish.  The honest are responsible for the dishonest.  The teacher is responsible for his student.  Glorification of wealth, power and beauty beget crime, envy and shame.  The "feminine" qualities of flexibility and suppleness are superior to "masculine" strength and rigidity.  Everything in its own time and place.
< 
< Behind all this, Lao Tzu speaks of the ineffable Tao, or the "Way," which is described as the indivisible and indescribable unifying principle of the universe, from which all flows.  It is without time, form or substance, and exterior/senior to these traits.  The simpler one becomes, the greater hope he has of co-existing with the Tao, which is the only way one can truly understand it.  
< 
< In stark contrast to his near-contemporary Confucius, who was steeped in the importance of propriety and form, Lao Tzu eschewed appearance and ceremony in favor of meaning and substance.  He valued the "fruit" above the "flower." -- AyeSpy
< ----
------
ReLigion|981996381
5c5
< ChristianIty -- IsLam -- HareKrishna -- JudaIsm -- ShinTo -- BuddhIsm -- ShamanIsm -- JainIsm -- HinduIsm 
---
> ChristianIty -- IsLam -- JudaIsm -- ShinTo -- BuddhIsm -- ShamanIsm -- JainIsm -- HinduIsm 
8c8
< TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- TaoTehChing -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas -- PaliCanon -- TheBookofMormon
---
> TheBible -- TheKoran -- TheTorah -- BhagavadGita -- TheUpanishads -- TheVedas -- PaliCanon -- TheBookofMormon
------
HareKrishna|981996461
1,18d0
< Hare Krishna devotees believe that  Krishna is a literal name of the Supreme. It is said to mean  "all- attractive." All beauty is said to derive from the Supreme. The Supreme is also known as "Rama," meaning "highest eternal pleasure." 
< 
< Chanting "Hare Krishna" is supposed to be a way of seeking Krishna directly, partly through the very sounds and vibrations of the words, which serve to mediate divine energy from Krishna directly to the devotee. 
< 
< Devotees refer to "Krishna consciousness."  This is supposed to be a natural, pure state of consciousness.  This consciousness is not so much developed, as liberated from where it is trapped inside the individual. 
< 
< Krishna devotees believe in an eternal, indestructible soul which is the individual.  This consciousness migrates from life to life, improving or declining in circumstances in each existence according to learning, advancement or development (or the reverse) in a previous life.  Sufficient enlightenment has the potential to free the individual from the cycle of life and death altogether. 
< 
< The original bearer of the Krishna message to humanity is said to have been Krishna, himself.  He lived among men about five thousand years ago with a great warrior named Arjuna, in the form of his chariot driver. He revealed himself, along with special knowledge and insights before a great battle, the prospect of which had overwhelmed Arjuna's courage.
< 
< Initiated devotees of the Hare Krishna movement vow to follow certain life rules, including abstaining from gambling, intoxicants, meat (including fish, fowl and eggs) and illicit sex.  Sex in marriage for procreation is considered right and proper: 
< 
< The ideas of Krishna consciousness were brought to the West from India in 1965 by the movement's prime teacher, referred to by them as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who was 69 at the time.  His given name was Srila Prabhupada.  The apellation "His Divine Grace" is somewhat ironic in that Prabhupada laid no claim to holiness or divinity.  
< 
< Prabhupada had written books on the subject of Krishna concsiousness and had them translated from Sanskrit to English.  He began his mission in America by chanting Hare Krishna in a public park and teaching classes in a small store.   In the space of about 12 years, his message had attracted a substantial following, and it enjoys at least some popularity today in several countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America, Europe and North America.
< 
< ----
< 
------
TaoTehChingTalk|981996652
6c6
< COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: 
---
> COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement.  To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: 
16c16
< Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. 
---
> Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. 
------
TopOlogy|981996840
19,22d18
< In lay terms, what is constant about objects of a given topology is how many continuous surfaces, spaces and boundaries can be envisioned.  A sphere and a bowl have the same topology.  So do a doughnut and a teacup, (owing the the loop forming the handle of the cup) both of which represent a simple torus.  The study of topology introduced us to theoretical objects such as the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle which can be depicted, even modeled after a fashion, but not actually built in three-dimensional space.
< 
< ----
< 
39,44d34
< Modeled, yes, but built, no.  The Moebius strip is a theoretical object consisting of a two-dimensional planar surface limited by parallel lines which is twisted 180 degrees and joined to itself.  As there is no real, true planar existence in our three-dimensional world, we cannot build the Moebius strip.  The paper has thickness, however minor, and so is in reality a torus once joined to itself, the topological equivalent of a doughnut.
< 
< ''And strictly speaking the paper is not actually continuous, but is actually composed of many separated atoms, so isn't really a torus.  I think there is a certain point of "good enough" for making pictures/sculptures of mathematical objects, and that the Moebius strip in paper meets it.''
< 
< ----
< 
56,59d45
< Fair enough.  My point initially was that such theoretical shapes as Moebius strips and Klein bottles '''can''' be '''modeled''' after a fashion but not ''actually literally'' '''built''' in our three-dimensional space.  The fact that we can model a Moebius strip is instructive, and serves to get students thinking in new ways, but the 3-dimensionality of the materials used should not ultimately be ignored.  Yes, of course a torus is a two-dimensional object, deformed through a third dimension.  I referred to the surfaces of these objects, not their "guts."  As was pointed out earlier, the nature of matter, being charged particles with space between them, means we can't actually '''build''' any of these theoretical mathematical objects which consist of sets of points with no space between them.  Here is a new thought - do you suppose that faster-than-light travel will be invented by the same guy who figures out how to construct a real Klein bottle?  Or better still, figures out how to deform our three-dimensional space through an additional dimension?
< 
< ----
< 
63d48
< 
65,71d49
< 
< My last remark on the subject:  I did not write my comment for mathematicians, but for non-mathematicians.  I purposely avoided the technical precision of a mathematical statement, so that people who don't get trigonometric and quadratic equations could still appreciate the sense of what was said. When I say the "surface" I speak of the surface of the doughnut as representative of a torus, and of the torus itself '''as''' a "surface" (which it is not, under the dictionary definition of surface, since there is nothing, as a planar object, for it to be the surface "of" - it is more similar to a "membrane.").  When I refer to "guts," I speak of the area "within" and bounded by the torus, on which the equation which represents the torus is silent but which, from our three-dimensional viewpoint, our imaginations insist is "empty space."  So - I compared the doughnut to the teacup, as a torus can assume these apparent shapes from the outside, notwithstanding that it has no "inside" or "guts."  One of the activities that I have fun with is representing specialized knowledge to non-specialized minds so that outsiders can get a taste of what data insiders are dealing with, without having to pursue a masters in the subject.  When I describe law, I avoid legalistic terms.  When I describe religious interpretation, the term "hermeneutics" does not creep into my speech.  Will the average Joe in the street be able to puzzle out the meaning of a statement even though he never took college-level studies?  Yes?  Then I am happy.
< 
< Make a paper hoop without the twist.  Draw a spiral line from one side of it to the other, continuously, taking advantage of the thickness of the edge of the paper.  Keep the spiral going until the line meets itself.  A single, unbroken line on both sides of the paper.  Must be a Moebius strip, eh?  Better still, do the same with a doughnut.
< 
< As A.F. Moebius (1790-1860) was a real guy, you might spell his name right.  (sorry - being petty) But please don't attack my statements when, in order to make them transparent to regular folks, I have to abandon precision and specialized nomenclature.
< 
73d50
< 
75d51
< 
------
TopOlogy|981997179
52c52
< "Mobious" was a typo.  Anything that is a typo in something unsigned can pretty safely be edited out. In fact, if this is to be a useful resource for anyone, the whole page should be radically edited.  Among possible pages of a similar length, the average Joe on the street (whose last IQ test came in around 100, not 154 (see AyeSpy)) would not get very much edification out of it. 
---
> "Mobious" was a typo.  Anything that is a typo in something unsigned can pretty safely be edited out. In fact, if this is to be a useful resource for anyone, the whole page should be radically edited.  Among possible pages of a similar length, the average Joe on the street would not get very much edification out of it. 
------
IntelliGence|981997324
1,6d0
< IntelliGence:  1)  The power to reason.  2)  Self-awareness accompanied by a capacity for abstract reasoning.  3)  Intellectual prowess.  5)  Knowledge.  4)  Data, especially of a secure or secret nature, about the plans and activities of an adversary. 5) In the field of automation, the quality of being directed by a computing circuit or device. -- AyeSpy
< 
< (from Latin ''intellegere'' to gather within)
< 
< (Does anyone have more definitions?)--
< 
------
IdiosyncratiC|981997427
3,8d2
< Idiosyncratic traits may be fundamental or purely incidental to the SanIty of an idea or its proponent.  EinsteiN had many idosyncratic traits.  He did poorly in the authoritarian brand of math practiced at his prep school, though he is widely recognized as a mathematical genius.  He did not drive and could not find his way around Washington, D. C.  He relied on a non-genius for that skill.  He commonly forgot his belt or suspenders with the consequence that his pants would not stay up, or forgot his pants altogether.  A not-indifferent violinist and very good pianist, it was not unheard of that he would play in shirt and underwear, totally absorbed in the music and oblivious to the world around him.  His letters show a brilliant gift for prose, and he declared that a grasp of language was indispensible. Some of this data, I obtained from my father, a physicist who knew EinsteiN. -- AyeSpy
< 
< ----
< 
< We would be remiss to mention that not only brilliant geniuses have idiosyncracies; blithering idiots quite frequently do as well.
< 
11c5
< ...as would be implicit in my remark that idiosyncracy may be fundamental or incidental to the SanIty of an idea... -- AyeSpy
---
> We would be remiss to mention that not only brilliant geniuses have idiosyncracies; blithering idiots quite frequently do as well.
------
ChristianityTalk|981997786
1,25d0
< '''Commentary:'''
< 
< Generally, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exemplary of a modern conception of "western" faith, in contrast to "eastern" disciplines.  Older "western" religious traditions, those being the pagan traditions of Norse, Celtic, Germanic and other generally European peoples, the polytheistic traditions of Greece and Rome, and New World animistic aboriginal practices, seem to have largely died out in developed areas, notwithstanding a minor contemporary revival of such observances as DruidisM and WiccA.  
< 
< In contrast, the oldest "eastern" disciplines anyone has been able to detect are still in practice within their original geographical regions today.
< 
< Why would that be?
< 
< A cursory glance immediately reveals a marked difference in the nature of the use of authority between "eastern" and "western" belief systems.  Where the Sons of Abraham, in all their various stripes, tend toward authoritarianism and exclusivity with regard to religious rites, the various eastern traditions tend toward democracy and inclusiveness.  One will not find in eastern religious thought a single threat of damnation, nor claim to sole possession of all and every religious truth.  Nor will one find in western traditional religious scripture the slightest hint that other belief than the one at issue could be be given the slightest credence.  Add to this the fact that Catholicism historically had government sanction, power of taxation, military might and punitive authority for a substantial block of time in history, and one can begin to see how an interesting paradox developed.
< 
< Western religionists, being authoritarian, exclusive, and having military might, tended to stamp out their competition through slaughter or threat thereof, while eastern religionists have enjoyed governmental favor from time to time, but have not historically converted their fellow man at sword point.  By geographic coincidence, mechanization and its resulting period of "enlightenment" proceeded more quickly and broadly in the west than in the east.  
< Inquiry in the physical sciences, fomented by the forces of mechanization, laid the groundwork for objective observation and its resulting egalitarian views, all the way back to early Greek philosophers.
< 
< As a result, democratic societies grew up in largely Christian areas, though Christianity is undemocratic; and totalitarian societies (save middle-east theocracies) tend to be anti-religious or to co-exist with the eastern observances which pre-dated them, though eastern religious thought and political democracy are a perfect match.  The devout eastern student has learned tolerance, non-resistance, cooperation, disavowal of material wealth; and such principles as that revenge is base and unseemly, given that evil and corruption contain their own punishment.  So he is more easily held down under an authoritarian scheme.  Western scripture contains exhortations to rise up and smite non-believers and the unjust, to convert others to the one proper faith, and that various misdeeds should be remedied by putting the miscreant to death.  Western believers, therefore, are able to justify their faith in forceful conversion and slaughter.
< 
< The remnants of this paradoxical dichotomy still color the world political landscape.  It is the religious fundamentalists, those whom one would most quickly identify with moral uprightness, who are popularly seen as least charitable, least forgiving, and most rigid, vengeful, and intolerant.  For instance, they support prohibitory laws on moral grounds, harsh punishments for moral crimes, war to defend religious ideals and holy places, and sanction the institutional killing of human beings, in keeping with scripture.  The left, commonly the target of epithets regarding hedonism, license and moral decay, nonetheless turn out the be the champions of inclusion, equality, open government and common rights.
< 
< Go figure.  -- AyeSpy
< 
< ----
< 
< The above is not to assign a value judgment one way or the other as to which type of system is "right" or even "best," but merely an observation from where I sit in the cheap seats...-- AyeSpy
< 
< ----
< 
------
HareKrishnaTalk|981997956
1,3c1
< (This guy [Prabhupada] reminds me of BuddHa.  Coincidence or plagiarism?)
< ----
< That BuddhIsm, HinduIsm, HareKrishna, JainIsm and other religions developed in that geographic area would sound similar is more inevitability than coincidence, as the fabric of that culture and the nature of its religions are tightly intertwined.  The personage of Rama as GodHead is distinctly Hindu.  AyeSpy
---
> (This guy [Prabhupada] reminds me of BuddHa.  Coincidence or plagiarism?)
------
HoldMoreStubbornlyAtLeastTalk|981998021
1,5c1
< One may certainly hold more stubbornly at least to those notions which serve to give context, comprehensibility, and utility to other notions.
< 
< Care should be taken, however, not to exclude new information which is not inherently self-contradictory.  To the degree that new data conflicts with a large body of mutually consistent observations (note:  observations - not beliefs) one may more safely devalue it, but that a new idea was not suggested by one's interpretation of earlier data is not the same as to say that one may safely discard it because it comes as a complete surprise.  Rather, "surprise" information, instead of being automatically viewed with skepticism, may be be held in a bullpen while it is compared with other cross-verifying observations, and, if not inherently inconsistent with old data, accepted conditionally for purposes of comparison with new input in order to see what it does or does not explain.
< 
< People call this "having an open mind." -- AyeSpy
---
> 
------
AyeSpy|982001489
0a1
> For those who give a royal flyin' flip...
1a3,13
> Pardon my dust.  I believe I have removed all offending material I contributed.  Contrary to obvious appearance, I have not gathered up my toys and gone home in a huff.  I have concluded that it was error on my part to have presumed to contribute serious articles here.
> 
> My article on sanity (later, the problem of defining sanity) was objected to on the grounds, chiefly, that I did not title it to reflect that it was not authoritative, but rather was merely my views.  It was also criticized, in spite of acknowledging the only widely recognized definition of "sanity" for failing to mention what the 'receive view' on the subject was. (I have solicited reference to materials I lack, to see what authortitative position on sanity is which I have failed to consieder.)  It was indicated, nay insisted, that I should remove my article to some title such as "Ayespy on Sanity."  The implication was that to do otherwise was dishonest, in that it would pretend authority or scholarship which did not exist.  The main defect in the article would appear to be that it was propounded by one who was not, by formal academic certification an serious scholar, but rather, a crank.  I replaced the article with a quote from a presumed authority on the subject.
> 
> I bridled at posting the article with a title indicating peculiarity to myself rather than a more general title, and I had to reflect on what bothered me about that.  I concluded that what irked me was I had written the piece in hopes folks might read it and reflect.  If it was introduced with my name rather than the subject matter, the effect would be (as I am a nobody) that it would be bypassed more than read.  As this would defeat my purpose in writing it, I preferred to take it down.
> 
> On reflection, I realized that all of my articles and most of my comments here so far suffered from the same defect complained of re: the Sanity article.  In the absence of credentials, I was contributing thoughts and posting them under general headings, without clearly labeling them as being of no particular consequence (to quote Larry, "why should we ''care''...?".  Well, you probably shouldn't.  I suffer from the peculiar conceit that I will not bother to write something down unless I wish it to receive serious consideration.  Writing, to me, is like a kind of art.  The wikipedia context, contrary to my initial impression, is apparently intended to reflect serious scholarship unless clearly labeled otherwise, (while avoiding academic elitism, a balance to be achieved in a manner unclear to me).  I don't like writing "second chair."  Absent a degree, 33 years of study (reduced by a toung-in-cheek comment to:  I read a few books) in a field which I love like life itself fails to confer the status of serious scholarship on my writings.  I should, instead, "admit that I don't know very much about it" and go do some real study.  I would prefer not to contribute rather than have contributions dismissed or labeled as idiosyncratic background chatter.  I try not to waste time in small talk or light chat.  Especially not in writing.  I hope y'all (if anyone reads this) don't take offense.
> 
> Larry is probably right.  Without a degree in my field of study I should not try to get people to take me seriously.  He has indicated privately to me that it is fine him if I step back and make no further contributions.
> 
> I will still check in from time to time.
------
AyeSpy|982001836
5c5
< My article on sanity (later, the problem of defining sanity) was objected to on the grounds, chiefly, that I did not title it to reflect that it was not authoritative, but rather was merely my views.  It was also criticized, in spite of acknowledging the only widely recognized definition of "sanity" for failing to mention what the 'receive view' on the subject was. (I have solicited reference to materials I lack, to see what authortitative position on sanity is which I have failed to consieder.)  It was indicated, nay insisted, that I should remove my article to some title such as "Ayespy on Sanity."  The implication was that to do otherwise was dishonest, in that it would pretend authority or scholarship which did not exist.  The main defect in the article would appear to be that it was propounded by one who was not, by formal academic certification an serious scholar, but rather, a crank.  I replaced the article with a quote from a presumed authority on the subject.
---
> My article on sanity (later, the problem of defining sanity) was objected to on the grounds, chiefly, that I did not title it to reflect that it was not authoritative, but rather was merely my views.  It was also criticized, in spite of acknowledging the only widely recognized definition of "sanity" for failing to mention what the 'received view' on the subject was. (I have solicited reference to materials I lack, to see what authortitative position on sanity is which I have failed to consieder.)  It was indicated, nay insisted, that I should remove my article to some title such as "Ayespy on Sanity."  The implication was that to do otherwise was dishonest, in that it would pretend authority or scholarship which did not exist.  The main defect in the article would appear to be that it was propounded by one who was not, by formal academic certification an serious scholar, but rather, a crank.  I replaced the article with a quote from a presumed authority on the subject.
13c13
< I will still check in from time to time.
---
> I will still check in from time to time.
------
AyeSpy|982002248
5c5
< My article on sanity (later, the problem of defining sanity) was objected to on the grounds, chiefly, that I did not title it to reflect that it was not authoritative, but rather was merely my views.  It was also criticized, in spite of acknowledging the only widely recognized definition of "sanity" for failing to mention what the 'received view' on the subject was. (I have solicited reference to materials I lack, to see what authortitative position on sanity is which I have failed to consieder.)  It was indicated, nay insisted, that I should remove my article to some title such as "Ayespy on Sanity."  The implication was that to do otherwise was dishonest, in that it would pretend authority or scholarship which did not exist.  The main defect in the article would appear to be that it was propounded by one who was not, by formal academic certification an serious scholar, but rather, a crank.  I replaced the article with a quote from a presumed authority on the subject.
---
> My article on sanity (later, the problem of defining sanity) was objected to on the grounds, chiefly, that I did not title it to reflect that it was not authoritative, but rather was merely my views.  It was also criticized, in spite of acknowledging the only widely recognized definition of "sanity" for failing to mention what the 'received view' on the subject was. (I have solicited reference to materials I lack, to see what authortitative position on sanity I have failed to consider.)  It was indicated, nay insisted, that I should remove my article to some title such as "Ayespy on Sanity."  The implication was that to do otherwise was dishonest, in that it would pretend authority or scholarship which did not exist.  The main defect in the article would appear to be that it was propounded by one who was not by formal academic certification a serious scholar, but rather, a crank.  I replaced the article with a quote from a presumed authority on the subject.
7c7
< I bridled at posting the article with a title indicating peculiarity to myself rather than a more general title, and I had to reflect on what bothered me about that.  I concluded that what irked me was I had written the piece in hopes folks might read it and reflect.  If it was introduced with my name rather than the subject matter, the effect would be (as I am a nobody) that it would be bypassed more than read.  As this would defeat my purpose in writing it, I preferred to take it down.
---
> I bridled at posting the article with a title indicating peculiarity to myself rather than a more general title, and I had to reflect on what bothered me about that.  I concluded that what irked me was I had written the piece in hopes folks might read it and reflect.  If it was introduced with my name rather than the subject matter, the effect would be (as I am a nobody) that it would be bypassed more than read.  As this would defeat my purpose in writing it, I preferred to take it down.  There is no point in bulking up wikipedia with useless content for the sake of content.
9c9
< On reflection, I realized that all of my articles and most of my comments here so far suffered from the same defect complained of re: the Sanity article.  In the absence of credentials, I was contributing thoughts and posting them under general headings, without clearly labeling them as being of no particular consequence (to quote Larry, "why should we ''care''...?".  Well, you probably shouldn't.  I suffer from the peculiar conceit that I will not bother to write something down unless I wish it to receive serious consideration.  Writing, to me, is like a kind of art.  The wikipedia context, contrary to my initial impression, is apparently intended to reflect serious scholarship unless clearly labeled otherwise, (while avoiding academic elitism, a balance to be achieved in a manner unclear to me).  I don't like writing "second chair."  Absent a degree, 33 years of study (reduced by a toung-in-cheek comment to:  I read a few books) in a field which I love like life itself fails to confer the status of serious scholarship on my writings.  I should, instead, "admit that I don't know very much about it" and go do some real study.  I would prefer not to contribute rather than have contributions dismissed or labeled as idiosyncratic background chatter.  I try not to waste time in small talk or light chat.  Especially not in writing.  I hope y'all (if anyone reads this) don't take offense.
---
> On reflection, I realized that all of my articles and most of my comments here suffered from the same defect complained of re: the Sanity article.  In the absence of credentials, I contributed thoughts and posted them under general headings, without clearly labeling them as being of no particular consequence (to quote Larry, "why should we ''care''...?".  Well, you probably shouldn't.  However, suffer from the peculiar conceit that I will not bother to write something down unless I wish it to receive serious consideration.  This is my problem, and no one else's.  Writing, to me, is like a kind of art.  The wikipedia context, contrary to my initial impression, is intended to reflect serious scholarship unless clearly labeled otherwise, (while avoiding academic elitism, a balance to be achieved in a manner unclear to me).  And I don't like writing "second chair."  Absent a degree, 33 years of study (reduced by a tounge-in-cheek comment to:  I read a few books) in a field which I love like life itself fails to confer the stamp of serious scholarship on my writings.  I should, instead, "admit that I don't know very much about it" and go do some real study.  I would prefer not to contribute rather than have contributions dismissed or labeled as idiosyncratic background chatter.  I try not to waste time in small talk or light chat.  Especially not in writing.  I hope y'all (if anyone reads this) don't take offense.
13c13
< I will still check in from time to time.
---
> No hard feelings.  I will check in from time to time.
------
TopOlogy|982003773
1c1
< TopologyForBeginners needs to be written.  :-)
---
> TopologyForBeginners needs to be written.  :-)  Or is such a thing even possible?
------
PopularMusic|982004824
34d33
< * MichaelWSmith
35a35,36
> * MichaelWSmith
> * BritneySpears
------
HelL|982005043
1a2,5
> 
> ----
> 
> not quite sure that that belongs in the wikipedia...
------
BritneySpears|982005232
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Britney Jean Spears is an American pop singer.  Born December 2, 1981 in Kentwood, Louisiana, Britney first came to fame as a member of DisneY's MickeyMouseClub in the 1993 and 1994 seasons.
> Castmates included JustinTimberlake and JoshuaChasez, who later became members of the pop band NSync, and ChristinaAguilera, also a pop singer.
> 
> Her first album, BabyOneMoreTime, debuted in the number 1 spot on the BillboardCharts in early 1999.  Her followup album, OopsIDidItAgain was a similarly huge success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
------
BritneySpears|982005260
2c2
< Castmates included JustinTimberlake and JoshuaChasez, who later became members of the pop band NSync, and ChristinaAguilera, also a pop singer.
---
> Castmates included JustinTimberlake and JoshuaChasez, who later became members of the pop band NSynC, and ChristinaAguilera, also a pop singer.
------
FootBall|982005713
18c18,20
< In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend.
---
> In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend. This has a bad side, as groups of
> fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies.
> See HooliGans.
------
BabyOneMoreTime|982006096
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ...Baby One More Time
> 
> Debut album by BritneySpears, released January 12, 1999.
> 
> Songs include:
> 
> :...Baby, One More Time
> :(You Drive Me) Crazy
> :Sometimes
> :Soda Pop
> :Born To Make You Happy
> :From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart
> :I Will Be There
> :I Will Still Love You (with DonPhilip)
> :Thinkin' About You
> :Email My Heart
> :The Beat Goes On
------
FootBall|982006336
1,6d0
< Two teams play agains each other to score with a ball in the
< opponent's area.
< 
< The agreement ends here.
< 
< ----
------
MetallicA|982006954
5c5
< Latest Album: S&M - Live with the San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra
---
> * /Discography
------
MetallicA/Discography|982007221
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's albums (chronoligical order):
> 
> * /KillEmAll
> * /RideTheLightning
> * /MasterOfPuppets
> * /AndJusticeForAll
> * /MetallicaAlbum
> * /Load
> * /Reload
> * /GarageInc
> * /SAndM
------
MetallicA/KillEmAll|982007408
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's first album. Tracks:
> 
> :Hit the Lights
> :The Four Horsemen
> :Motorbreath
> :Jump In the Fire
> :(Anesthesia)Pulling Teeth
> :Whiplash
> :Phantom Lord
> :No Remorse
> :Seek And Destroy
> :Metal Militia
------
MetallicA/RideTheLightning|982007500
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's second album. Tracks:
> 
> :Fight Fire With Fire
> :Ride The Lightning
> :For Whom The Bell Tolls
> :Fade To Black
> :Trapped Under Ice
> :Escape
> :Creeping Death
> :The Call of Ktulu
------
BooksOfTheBible|982007665
0a1,10
> This seems like an ideal place to use '/' pagenames.
> 
> :/Genesis
> :/Exodus
> 
> and so forth.  The advantage, as you can see, is that when you enter a sub-page, you get a link back up to the main page. 
> You can edit this page to see how I did it.
> --JimboWales
> 
> 
------
MetallicA/MasterOfPuppets|982007687
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's third album. Tracks: 
> 
> :Battery
> :Master of Puppets
> :The Thing That Should Not Be
> :Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
> :Disposable Heroes
> :Leper Messiah
> :Orion
> :Damage, Inc.
------
ChristianBibleGenesis|982007861
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :/talk
> 
> :/1
> :/2
> :/3
> :/4
> :/5
> :/6
> :/7
> :/8
> :/9
> :/10
> 
> (There are 50 chapters total?)
> 
> 
> 
------
MetallicA/AndJusticeForAll|982007893
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's fourth album. Tracks: 
> 
> :Blackened
> :...And Justice For All
> :Eye of the Beholder
> :One
> :The Shortest Straw
> :Harvester Of Sorrow
> :The Frayed Ends Of Sanity
> :To Live Is To Die
> :Dyers Eve
------
ChristianBibleGenesis|982007909
1c1
< :/talk
---
> :/Talk
3,5c3,5
< :/1
< :/2
< :/3
---
> :/One
> :/Two
> :/Three
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/One|982007940
1c1,94
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
>   1In the beginning God created the heaven and the
>      earth.
>   2And the earth was without form, and void; and
>      darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
>      Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
>   3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>   4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
>      divided the light from the darkness.
>   5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
>      called Night. And the evening and the morning were
>      the first day.
>   6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst
>      of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
>      waters.
>   7And God made the firmament, and divided the
>      waters which were under the firmament from the
>      waters which were above the firmament: and it was
>      so.
>   8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the
>      evening and the morning were the second day.
>   9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
>      gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land
>      appear: and it was so.
>   10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
>      together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw
>      that it was good.
>   11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
>      herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit
>      after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:
>      and it was so.
>   12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding
>      seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose
>      seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it
>      was good.
>   13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
>   14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of
>      the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let
>      them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and
>      years:
>   15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
>      heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
>   16And God made two great lights; the greater light to
>      rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he
>      made the stars also.
>   17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to
>      give light upon the earth,
>   18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to
>      divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that
>      it was good.
>   19And the evening and the morning were the fourth
>      day.
>   20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
>      the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may
>      fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
>   21And God created great whales, and every living
>      creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
>      abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
>      after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
>   22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and
>      multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl
>      multiply in the earth.
>   23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
>   24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
>      creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
>      beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
>   25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
>      and cattle after their kind, and every thing that
>      creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw
>      that it was good.
>   26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after
>      our likeness: and let them have dominion over the
>      fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
>      the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
>      creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>   27So God created man in his own image, in the image of
>      God created he him; male and female created he
>      them.
>   28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
>      fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
>      subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
>      and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
>      thing that moveth upon the earth.
>   29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
>      bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
>      and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
>      yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
>   30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of
>      the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the
>      earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green
>      herb for meat: and it was so.
>   31And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
>      behold, it was very good. And the evening and the
>      morning were the sixth day.
------
BooksOfTheBible|982007983
1,9d0
< This seems like an ideal place to use '/' pagenames.
< 
< :/Genesis
< :/Exodus
< 
< and so forth.  The advantage, as you can see, is that when you enter a sub-page, you get a link back up to the main page. 
< You can edit this page to see how I did it.
< --JimboWales
< 
------
MetallicA/MetallicaAlbum|982008053
1c1,14
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's fifth album. It was their first mainstream, commercial success. Tracks:
> 
> :Enter Sandman
> :Sad But true
> :Holier Than Thou
> :The Unforgiven
> :Wherever I May Roam
> :Don't Tread On Me
> :Through The Never
> :Nothing Else Matters
> :Of Wolf And Man
> :The God That Failed
> :My Friend Of Misery
> :The Struggle Within
------
FootBall|982008266
1d0
< If you are outside the United States, FootBall means:
2a2,5
> Much friendly controversy has erupted over the term FootBall, primarily because it is used in different ways in different parts of the world.  Two teams play agains each other to score with a ball in the opponent's area.  The agreement ends there.
> 
> 
> If you are outside the United States, FootBall means:
------
MetallicA/Load|982008273
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's sixth album. Tracks:
> 
> :Ain't My Bitch
> :2x4
> :The House That Jack Built
> :Until It Sleeps
> :King Nothing
> :Hero Of The Day
> :Bleeding Me
> :Cure
> :Poor Twisted Me
> :Wasting My Hate
> :Mama Said
> :Thorn Within
> :Ronnie
> :The Outlaw Torn
------
MetallicA|982008308
14a15,16
> 
> If you are interested in discussing Metallica, try /Talk!
------
MetallicA/Reload|982008387
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's seventh album. Tracks:
> 
> :Fuel
> :The Memory Remains
> :Devil's Dance
> :The Unforgiven II
> :Better Than You
> :Slither
> :Carpe Diem Baby
> :Bad Seed
> :Where The Wild Things Are
> :Prince Charming
> :Low Man's Lyric
> :Attitude
> :Fixxxer
> 
------
MetallicA/Talk|982008430
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I, JimboWales, confess to listening to almost no other music than MetallicA.
> 
> I think it is really interesting to see the shift in MetallicA's image since the whole NapsteRVsMetallica controversy erupted.  MetallicA was always known as a band of the people -- a band that grew in popularity by touring a lot and connecting directly with the fans, with very little record company or MTV corporate support of any kind.
> 
> Now, they are viewed as some kind of corporate shills.
------
MetallicA/GarageInc|982008642
1c1,34
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's eighth album, which inludes cover versions of their other songs and the material from two of their earlier EP's, which were released in the 80's.
> 
> Disc one. Tracks:
> 
> :Free Speech for the Dumb
> :It's Electric
> :Sabbra Cadabra
> :Turn the Page 
> :Die Die My Darling
> :Loverman
> :Mercyful Fate
> :Astronomy
> :Whiskey in the Jar
> :Tuesday's Gone
> :The More I See
> 
> Disc two. Tracks:
> 
> :Helpless
> :The Small Hours
> :The Wait
> :Crash Course in Brain Surgery
> :Last Caress/Green Hell
> :Am I Evil?
> :Blitzkrieg
> :Breadfan
> :The Prince
> :Stone Cold Crazy
> :So What
> :Killing Time
> :Overkill
> :Damage Case
> :Stone Dead Forever
> :Too Late Too Late
------
WikiPediaAnnouncements|982008648
2a3,8
> '''February 12, 2001'''
> 
> I think we are over 1000 pages now.  If we create 1000 pages a month, we will be able to hit 100,000 pages in only 8 years.  However, I think that as we grow, we will attract more people to work on the pages, and we'll end up growing faster and faster.
> 
> So far, the search engines have not found us. --JimboWales
> 
------
CoBoL|982008733
2c2
< A programming language that was developed within a six month period, and yet is still in use over 40 years later.
---
> A ProgrammingLanguage that was developed within a six month period, and yet is still in use over 40 years later.
------
ProgrammingLanguage|982008857
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A Programming Language is a language used to program a computer.
> 
> Here is an incomplete (but surely ever-growing) list:
> 
> PascaL
> BasiC
> FortraN
> CPlusPlus
> CLanguage
> SchemE
> LisP
> PerL
> JavA
> SnoboL
> 
> (Someone who is more knowledgeable about the history of computer languages, or the taxonomy of computer languages, could surely make a better and more organized list than mine.)
------
MetallicA/SAndM|982008884
1c1,24
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MetallicA's ninth album. Live with the SanFrancisco Symphonic Orchestra. Tracks:
> 
> :Ecstacy Of Gold
> :The Call of Ktulu 
> :Master of Puppets
> :Of Wolf And Man
> :The Thing That Should Not Be
> :Fuel
> :The Memory Remains
> :No Leaf Clover
> :Hero Of The Day
> :Devil Dance 
> :Bleeding Me
> :Nothing Else Matters
> :Until It Sleeps
> :For Whom The Bell Tolls
> :Minus Human 
> :Wherever I May Roam
> :The Outlaw Torn
> :Sad But True
> :One 
> :Enter Sandman
> :Battery 
> 
------
MetallicA|982008934
1,3c1
< One of the greatest Metal bands ever
< 
< First Album: Kill 'Em All
---
> One of the greatest Metal bands ever.
16c14
< If you are interested in discussing Metallica, try /Talk!
---
> If you are interested in discussing Metallica, try /Talk!
------
ReLigion|982008938
5c5
< ChristianIty -- IsLam -- JudaIsm -- ShinTo -- BuddhIsm -- ShamanIsm -- JainIsm -- HinduIsm 
---
> ChristianIty -- IsLam -- JudaIsm -- ShinTo -- BuddhIsm -- ShamanIsm -- JainIsm -- HinduIsm -- ScientologY 
------
MetallicA/Discography|982008974
1c1
< MetallicA's albums (chronoligical order):
---
> MetallicA's albums (chronological order):
------
ScientologY|982008974
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Controversial religion based on the teachings of LRonHubbard, primarily in his book DianeticS.
------
EartH|982009346
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> You are here.
------
EartH|982009361
1c1
< You are here.
---
> You are here. :-)
------
MetallicA/Talk|982009404
5a6,7
> ----
> WojPob's theory is: something went wrong after they collectively cut their hair (which started to look a bit MulleT-like). Then they released /Load, which in the view of a lot of fans was a "weird" album. Then, less than a year later came /Reload, which was released much too quickly and obviously needed some more studio work. They still have the talent - maybe they're just too old now???
------
AndorrA/People|982009444
1c1,46
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Population: 66,824 (July 2000 est.) 
> 
> Age structure: 
> 0-14 years: 15% (male 5,382; female 4,883) 
> 15-64 years: 72% (male 25,463; female 22,837) 
> 65 years and over: 13% (male 4,160; female 4,099) (2000 est.) 
> 
> Population growth rate: 1.22% (2000 est.) 
> 
> Birth rate: 10.58 births/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Death rate: 5.27 deaths/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Net migration rate: 6.9 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.) 
> 
> Sex ratio: 
> at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female 
> under 15 years: 1.1 male(s)/female 
> 15-64 years: 1.11 male(s)/female 
> 65 years and over: 1.01 male(s)/female 
> total population: 1.1 male(s)/female (2000 est.) 
> 
> Infant mortality rate: 4.08 deaths/1,000 live births (2000 est.) 
> 
> Life expectancy at birth: 
> total population: 83.46 years 
> male: 80.56 years 
> female: 86.56 years (2000 est.) 
> 
> Total fertility rate: 1.25 children born/woman (2000 est.) 
> 
> Nationality: 
> noun: Andorran(s) 
> adjective: Andorran 
> 
> Ethnic groups: Spanish 43%, Andorran 33%, Portuguese 11%, French 7%, other 6% (1998) 
> 
> Religions: Roman Catholic (predominant) 
> 
> Languages: Catalan (official), French, Castilian 
> 
> Literacy: 
> definition: NA 
> total population: 100% 
> male: NA% 
> female: NA% 
------
AndorrA|982009590
10c10
< :/Governement
---
> :/Government
------
MetallicA/Discography|982009680
11a12,13
> 
> The band also contibuted a track (Disappear) to the MissionImpossibleTwo Soundtrack.
------
AndorrA/Government|982010019
1c1,71
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Country name: 
> conventional long form: Principality of Andorra 
> conventional short form: Andorra 
> local long form: Principat d'Andorra 
> local short form: Andorra 
> 
> Data code: AN 
> 
> Government type: parliamentary democracy (since March 1993) that retains as its heads of state a coprincipality; the two princes
> are the president of FrancE and bishop of Seo de Urgel, SpaiN, who are represented locally by coprinces' representatives 
> 
> Capital: Andorra la Vella 
> 
> Administrative divisions: 7 parishes (parroquies, singular - parroquia); Andorra la Vella, Canillo, Encamp, La Massana,
> Escaldes-Engordany, Ordino, Sant Julia de Loria 
> 
> Independence: 1278 (was formed under the joint suzerainty of France and Spain) 
> 
> National holiday: Mare de Deu de Meritxell, 8 September (1278) 
> 
> Constitution: Andorra's first written constitution was drafted in 1991; approved by referendum 14 March 1993; came into force 4
> May 1993 
> 
> Legal system: based on French and Spanish civil codes; no judicial review of legislative acts; has not accepted compulsory ICJ
> jurisdiction 
> 
> Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal 
> 
> Executive branch: 
> chief of state: French Coprince JacquesChirac (since 17 May 1995), represented by Mr. Frederic de SAINT-SERNIN (since NA);
> Spanish Coprince Episcopal Monseigneur Joan MARTI Alanis (since 31 January 1971), represented by Mr. Nemesi MARQUES
> OSTE (since NA) 
> head of government: Executive Council President Marc FORNE Molne (since 21 December 1994) 
> cabinet: Executive Council or Govern designated by the Executive Council president 
> elections: Executive Council president elected by the General Council and formally appointed by the coprinces for a four-year term;
> election last held 16 February 1997 (next to be held NA 2001) 
> election results: Marc FORNE Molne elected executive council president; percent of General Council vote - 64% 
> 
> Legislative branch: unicameral General Council of the Valleys or Consell General de las Valls (28 seats; members are elected by
> direct popular vote, 14 from a single national constituency and 14 to represent each of the 7 parishes; members serve four-year
> terms) 
> elections: last held 16 February 1997 (next to be held NA February 2001) 
> election results: percent of vote by party - UL 57%, AND 21%, IDN 7%, ND 7%, other 8%; seats by party - UL 16, AND 6, ND 2,
> IDN 2, UPO 2 
> 
> Judicial branch: Tribunal of Judges or Tribunal de Batlles; Tribunal of the Courts or Tribunal de Corts; Supreme Court of Justice of
> Andorra or Tribunal Superior de Justicia d'Andorra; Supreme Council of Justice or Consell Superior de la Justicia; Fiscal Ministry or
> Ministeri Fiscal; Constitutional Tribunal or Tribunal Constitucional 
> 
> Political parties and leaders: Liberal Party of Andorra (Partit Liberal d'Andorra) or PLA [Marc FORNE]; Liberal Union or UL
> [Francesc CERQUEDA]; National Democratic Group or AND [Ladislau BARO SOLA]; National Democratic Initiative or IDN
> [Vincenc MATEU ZAMORA]; New Democracy or ND [Jaume BARTOMEU CASSANY]; Unio Parroquial d'Ordino or UPO [Simo
> DURO COMA] 
> note: there are two other small parties 
> 
> International organization participation: CCC, CE, ECE, ICRM, IFRCS, Interpol, IOC, ITU, OSCE, UN, UNESCO, WHO, WIPO,
> WToO 
> 
> Diplomatic representation in the US: 
> chief of mission: Ambassador Juli MINOVES-TRIQUELL (also Permanent Representative to the UN) 
> chancery: 2 United Nations Plaza, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017 
> telephone: [1] (212) 750-8064 
> FAX: [1] (212) 750-6630 
> 
> Diplomatic representation from the US: the US does not have an embassy in Andorra; the US Ambassador to Spain is accredited
> to Andorra; US interests in Andorra are represented by the Consulate General's office in Barcelona (Spain); mailing address: Paseo
> Reina Elisenda, 23, 08034 BarcelonaSpain; telephone: (3493) 280-2227; FAX: (3493) 205-7705 
> 
> Flag description: three equal vertical bands of blue (hoist side), yellow, and red with the national coat of arms centered in the yellow
> band; the coat of arms features a quartered shield; similar to the flags of ChaD and RomaniA, which do not have a national coat of
> arms in the center, and the flag of MoldovA, which does bear a national emblem 
------
ProgrammingLanguage|982010318
0a1,2
> ''See ProgrammingLanguages''
> 
------
AndorrA/Economy|982010350
1c1,81
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Economy - overview: Tourism, the mainstay of Andorra's tiny, well-to-do economy, accounts for roughly 80% of GDP. An
> estimated 9 million tourists visit annually, attracted by Andorra's duty-free status and by its summer and winter resorts. Andorra's
> comparative advantage has recently eroded as the economies of neighboring France and Spain have been opened up, providing
> broader availability of goods and lower tariffs. The banking sector, with its "tax haven" status, also contributes substantially to the
> economy. Agricultural production is limited by a scarcity of arable land, and most food has to be imported. The principal livestock
> activity is sheep raising. Manufacturing consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and furniture. Andorra is a member of the EU Customs
> Union and is treated as an EU member for trade in manufactured goods (no tariffs) and as a non-EU member for agricultural
> products. 
> 
> GDP: purchasing power parity - $1.2 billion (1996 est.) 
> 
> GDP - real growth rate: NA% 
> 
> GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $18,000 (1996 est.) 
> 
> GDP - composition by sector: 
> agriculture: NA% 
> industry: NA% 
> services: NA% 
> 
> Population below poverty line: NA% 
> 
> Household income or consumption by percentage share: 
> lowest 10%: NA% 
> highest 10%: NA% 
> 
> Inflation rate (consumer prices): 1.62% (1998) 
> 
> Labor force: 30,787 salaried employees (1998) 
> 
> Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 1%, industry 21%, services 72%, other 6% (1998) 
> 
> Unemployment rate: 0% 
> 
> Budget: 
> revenues: $385 million 
> expenditures: $342 million, including capital expenditures of $NA (1997) 
> 
> Industries: tourism (particularly skiing), cattle raising, timber, tobacco, banking 
> 
> Industrial production growth rate: NA% 
> 
> Electricity - production: 116 million kWh (1998) 
> 
> Electricity - production by source: 
> fossil fuel: NA% 
> hydro: NA% 
> nuclear: NA% 
> other: NA% 
> 
> Electricity - consumption: NA kWh (1998 est.) 
> 
> Electricity - exports: NA kWh 
> 
> Electricity - imports: NA kWh; note - imports electricity from Spain and France 
> 
> Agriculture - products: small quantities of tobacco, rye, wheat, barley, oats, vegetables; sheep 
> 
> Exports: $58 million (f.o.b., 1998) 
> 
> Exports - commodities: tobacco products, furniture 
> 
> Exports - partners: France 34%, Spain 58% (1998) 
> 
> Imports: $1.077 billion (c.i.f., 1998) 
> 
> Imports - commodities: consumer goods, food, electricity 
> 
> Imports - partners: Spain 48%, France 35%, US 2.3% (1998) 
> 
> Debt - external: $NA 
> 
> Economic aid - recipient: none 
> 
> Currency: 1 French franc (F) = 100 centimes; 1 peseta (Pta) = 100 centimos; the French and Spanish currencies are used 
> 
> Exchange rates: euros per US$1 - 0.9867 (January 2000), 0.9386 (1999); French francs (F) per US$1 - 5.65 (January 1999), 5.8995
> (1998), 5.8367 (1997), 5.1155 (1996), 4.9915 (1995); Spanish pesetas (Ptas) per US$1 - 143.39 (January 1999), 149.40 (1998), 146.41
> (1997), 126.66 (1996), 124.69 (1995) 
> 
> Fiscal year: calendar year 
------
ProgrammingLanguage|982010425
3c3
< A Programming Language is a language used to program a computer.
---
> This pages should just go away, now that I see that there is a ProgrammingLanugages page.
5,18c5
< Here is an incomplete (but surely ever-growing) list:
< 
< PascaL
< BasiC
< FortraN
< CPlusPlus
< CLanguage
< SchemE
< LisP
< PerL
< JavA
< SnoboL
< 
< (Someone who is more knowledgeable about the history of computer languages, or the taxonomy of computer languages, could surely make a better and more organized list than mine.)
---
> How do we do that page forwarding thing using #forward or whatever?
------
ReviewRequests|982013427
7a8,9
> ----
> Am I right to think that this page is not particularly helpful?  Perhaps we should remove it.  It's like a "hall of shame."  Heck, ''all'' articles can be improved...
------
WikipediaL|982013500
1c1
< Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page (where you can also find [http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ a Wikipedia-L archive]):
---
> Wikipedia-L is WikiPedia's mailing list.
3c3
< [http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l Wikipedia-L]
---
> Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion the importance of which does not seem eternal.  Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other WikiPedians without doing so via the wiki format.  Great, then sign up for Wikipedia-L!  Here is a link to the sign-up page:
5c5,6
< I have just one request.  If someone asks a question, answers a question, or otherwise says something of lasting interest, will you please put it on the wiki?  TIA.
---
> :[http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l Wikipedia-L]
> :You can also find [http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ a Wikipedia-L archive].
------
BeBoldInUpdatingPages|982014062
3c3
< OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright PatentNonsense, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it with BrilliantProse (and relegate the deletions to BadJokesAndOtherDeleted Nonsense).  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
---
> OK, you folks '''still''' don't understand, so let me make this clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright PatentNonsense, don't worry about their feelings.  Correct it, add to it, and if it's a total waste of time, outright replace it with BrilliantProse (and relegate the deletions to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense).  That's the nature of a WikiWiki, and long live WikiPedia!
------
MakeaNewPage|982014182
3,9c3
< To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
< ----
< Sonic: But why? It looks stupid and it is harder to read.
< ----
< If you mean the convention of capitalizing one of the letters inside or at the end of a word, it's part of how the software works.  Last I heard, we're trying to rewrite the software so we can indicate links [[like this]] instead of LikeThis.
< ----
< Sonic: Alternatively, you could keep the old style and display it differently, i.e. if the last letter is uppercase, display it as lowercase and make it a link. If a character in the middle of the word/phrase is uppercase, let it stay uppercase and insert a whitespace in front of it, plus make it a link
---
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
------
MakeaNewPage|982014219
3c3,5
< To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
---
> To make a name, capitalize the first letter in every word in the name of the page and remove the spaces, LikeThis. For topics that have only one word, you'll have to capitalize one of the letters inside (or at the end of) the word, like PhiloSophy.
> 
> We will soon be allowing ordinary-looking links; we're changing the software.
------
PartakeInDiscussion|982014407
3a4
> Perhaps an even better idea is to create a *Talk page (such as ElephantTalk, which is comment on the ElephanT article) and move the discussion there.  After all, we'd like to focus on encyclopedia articles.----
------
ElephanT|982014443
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A large greyish animal with large ears and a trunk, found in Africa and India.
> ----
> See ElephantTalk.
------
ElephantTalk|982014479
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Discussion about the ElephanT article would go here.
> 
> Curiously, discussion of a KingCrimson song would also go here.
------
KingCrimson|982014518
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Classic but strange rock and roll band.  Members have included AdrianBelew and RobertFripp.
------
KingCrimson|982014531
1c1,3
< Classic but strange rock and roll band.  Members have included AdrianBelew and RobertFripp.
---
> Classic but strange rock and roll band.  Members have included AdrianBelew and RobertFripp.
> 
> See ElephantTalk.
------
PopularMusic|982014576
30,31d29
< * NirvanA
< * MetallicA
34a33,38
> * KingCrimson
> 
> * MetallicA
> 
> * NirvanA
> 
36c40
< * BritneySpears
---
> * BritneySpears
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|982014736
14a15,16
> ----
> ''This page and its subpages need a thorough overhaul--especially after CliffordAdams finishes updating the software that runs WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger''
------
SubSet|982019832
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Definition''':Given a SeT S, a SeT T is a SubSet of S if, for all x belonging to T, x belongs to S.
> 
> T is a SubSet of S <-> T is contained in S
> 
> 
> Example: Given the SeT of Complex Numbers: C = {a+bi: a, b belong to R, the real numbers}, then R = {x: x is a real number} is a SubSet of C.
> 
> This is true because any x in R can be represented as x+0i.
------
SubSet|982020466
1c1
< '''Definition''':Given a SeT S, a SeT T is a SubSet of S if, for all x belonging to T, x belongs to S.
---
> ''Definition'': Given a SeT <b>S</b>, a SeT <b>T</b> is a SubSet of <b>S</b> if, for all x belonging to <b>T</b>, x belongs to <b>S</b>.
3c3
< T is a SubSet of S <-> T is contained in S
---
> <b>T</b> is a SubSet of <b>S</b> <-> <b>T</b> is contained in <b>S</b>
6c6
< Example: Given the SeT of Complex Numbers: C = {a+bi: a, b belong to R, the real numbers}, then R = {x: x is a real number} is a SubSet of C.
---
> Example: Given the SeT of Complex Numbers: '''C''' = {a+bi: a, b belong to '''R''', the real numbers}, then '''R''' = {x: x is a real number} is a SubSet of '''C'''.
8c8
< This is true because any x in R can be represented as x+0i.
---
> This is true because any x in '''R''' can be represented as x+0i.
------
PartakeInDiscussion|982022347
4,5c4,9
< Perhaps an even better idea is to create a *Talk page (such as ElephantTalk, which is comment on the ElephanT article) and move the discussion there.  After all, we'd like to focus on encyclopedia articles.----
< By the way, you can participate on WikipediaL if you want to discuss something that, for whatever reason, you don't want to discuss on Wikipedia itself.
---
> Perhaps an even better idea is to create a *Talk page (such as ElephantTalk, which is comment on the ElephanT article) and move the discussion there.  After all, we'd like to focus on encyclopedia articles.
> ----
> I am thinking that a /Talk page is better than ElephantTalk.
> 
> ----
> By the way, you can participate on WikipediaL if you want to discuss something that, for whatever reason, you don't want to discuss on Wikipedia itself.
------
ScientologY|982022348
1c1,9
< Controversial religion based on the teachings of LRonHubbard, primarily in his book DianeticS.
---
> Religion founded in 1952 based on the teachings of LRonHubbard, following the 1950 publication of his book ''DianeticS the Modern Science of Mental Health''. and two subesquent volumes, ''Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science'' and ''Science of Survival.''  Hubbard eventually characterized DianeticS as a sub-study of ScientologY.  By the time he died, in 1985, Hubbard had published dozens of books on ScientologY, and only a few on DianeticS.
> 
> The central tenets of the religion are based on the belief that a person is an immortal spiritual being who has a mind and a body, but is neither of these, that he is basically good, and that he is seeking to survive.  It is taught that a person's upsets, limitations and bad acts can be attributed in part to a portion of his mind of which he is normally unaware, called variously the "reactive mind" or the "bank."  This portion of the mind is believed to store impressions of past emotional and physical trauma, which can be re-activated in times of stress.  The aware portion of a person's mind is referred to as the "analytical mind."
> 
> The central practice of ScientologY, and DianeticS before it, is an activity known as "auditing" (listening) which seeks to elevate an adherent to a state of "clear," that state being one of freedom from the influences of the reactive mind.  The practice is one  wherein a counselor called an "auditor" addresses a series of questions to a "preclear'" or one who is not yet "clear," observes and records his responses, and acknowledges them.  The aim is to enable the preclear to recover awareness and volitional control of the material previously stored in his reactive mind.  The earliest forms of Dianetic processing, still practiced today, involved a scenario reminiscent of Freudian psychoanalysis, with the preclear reclining on a couch in a reflective state called "Dianetic reverie" while the auditor observed from a chair nearby and took notes, predicating his questions and responses on utterances by the preclear and a number of clearly defined physiological indica.  Some later forms of auditing employ a device called the Hubbard Electropsychometer ("E-Meter").  This is a device which measures changes in the electrical resistance of the preclear's skin by passing approximately 1/2 volt through a pair of zinc-plated tubes much like empty soup cans, atached to the meter by wires and held by the preclear during auditing.  These low-potential changes in electrical resistance, known as galvanic response, are similar to those measured by polygraphs and related machines, and are thought to be more reliable and sensitive to the preclear's state of mind than the physiological indica of early DianeticS.
> 
> Other activites of a Scientology church include Sunday services, formal classes, naming, marriage and funeral ceremonies.  Scientology has long held that its beliefs and practices are compatible with those of other churches.  Scientology enjoyed good relations with and recognition by a number of Christian, Buddhist and other sects for a number of decades before being formally recognized as a tax exempt religious and charitable organization by the United States government in 1993.  And it was not until 1994 that a joint council of Shinto Buddhist sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship.  This continues a long tradition of Eastern faiths of assimilating or adopting elements of others faiths which they find harmonious with their ownThis may be a reflection of the fact that LRonHubbard acknowledged a strong Eastern, and specifically Buddhist influence in forming his own personal philosphy.
> 
> As with all new religions, Scientology has faced skepticism and occasional attacks from the religious and secular establishments of its day.  Early responses to these attacks have been characterized as intemperate and ill-conceived and have, in themselves, brought further censure on the young church.   As acceptance of the church has grown, so, too, have the methods of the church in responding to its critics matured.  The result has been a steady lessening of friction between Scientology and the surrounding society in recent years.  Their remain European governments whose official censure of Scientology is quite strong.  Adherents in those nations face an uphill battle in gaining acceptance.
------
PartakeInDiscussion/Talk|982022383
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Notice the name of this page is PartakeInDiscussion/Talk.
> I created it by typing /Talk on the PartakeInDiscussion page.
> 
> This seems useful to me.
------
ScientologY|982022459
9c9
< As with all new religions, Scientology has faced skepticism and occasional attacks from the religious and secular establishments of its day.  Early responses to these attacks have been characterized as intemperate and ill-conceived and have, in themselves, brought further censure on the young church.   As acceptance of the church has grown, so, too, have the methods of the church in responding to its critics matured.  The result has been a steady lessening of friction between Scientology and the surrounding society in recent years.  Their remain European governments whose official censure of Scientology is quite strong.  Adherents in those nations face an uphill battle in gaining acceptance.
---
> As with all new religions, Scientology has faced skepticism and occasional attacks from the religious and secular establishments of its day.  Early responses to these attacks have been characterized as intemperate and ill-conceived and have, in themselves, brought further censure on the young church.   As acceptance of the church has grown, so, too, have the methods of the church in responding to its critics matured.  The result has been a steady lessening of friction between Scientology and the surrounding society in recent years.  There remain European governments whose official censure of Scientology is quite strong.  Adherents in those nations face an uphill battle in gaining acceptance.
------
WikiPediaFaq|982022582
92,94c92
< '''Q.''' I am asking this again, because I do not feel I recieved an adequate answer, last time. To write pages on Math, the authors need to be able to include a large number of math symbols, graphs, etc. This is not a question of linking to someone else's images. These are items we need to be able to use freely and in our own original way. It would require, at present, uploading the content to one's own websites, assuming we have them ,and linking to this. For example, to discuss differentiation and integration in Calculus, one needs to have: an Integral sign, a summmation sign, a symbolism for limits, etc.
< Somehow, writing, the limit of sin(x)/x as x goes to infinity, just doesn't cut it.
< Already we are all missing the small epsilon for "belongs to," the symbol for "is a subset of," and many more in the Abstract Algebra entries. I think this will impede the addition of much material in the Math area.
---
> '''Q. I am asking this again, because I do not feel I recieved an adequate answer, last time. To write pages on Math, the authors need to be able to include a large number of math symbols, graphs, etc. This is not a question of linking to someone else's images. These are items we need to be able to use freely and in our own original way. It would require, at present, uploading the content to one's own websites, assuming we have them ,and linking to this. For example, to discuss differentiation and integration in Calculus, one needs to have: an Integral sign, a summmation sign, a symbolism for limits, etc.  Somehow, writing, the limit of sin(x)/x as x goes to infinity, just doesn't cut it.  Already we are all missing the small epsilon for "belongs to," the symbol for "is a subset of," and many more in the Abstract Algebra entries. I think this will impede the addition of much material in the Math area.'''
96a95,98
> 
> '''A2.''' You can send to jasonr at aristotle.bomis.com any tiny image you would like uploaded to the Wikipedia server.  You could then use that tiny image in your articles!
> 
> '''Q.  Is there any reason why we can't do what is described in A2?  Or any reason to think this is a bad idea?  Also, what will the code look like-- simply <nowiki>/likethis.gif</nowiki>, or what?'''
------
WikiPediaFaq|982022622
85c85
< '''A.'''  You can use the search feature to find similar pages.  (The search is not case-sensitive, so a search for "internet" would find any of the pages above.)
---
> A.  You can use the search feature to find similar pages.  (The search is not case-sensitive, so a search for "internet" would find any of the pages above.)
90c90
< '''A.''' The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.----
---
> A. The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.----
94c94
< '''A.''' This is a difficult problem.  Part of the problem is that html web pages don't do math symbols very well at all.  So almost any solution will be a crutch.  Within the next couple of years, browsers should be able to render MathML.  This will be a time of much joy.  Between now and then, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is a really hard problem.
---
> A. This is a difficult problem.  Part of the problem is that html web pages don't do math symbols very well at all.  So almost any solution will be a crutch.  Within the next couple of years, browsers should be able to render MathML.  This will be a time of much joy.  Between now and then, I'm open to suggestions, but I think this is a really hard problem.
96c96
< '''A2.''' You can send to jasonr at aristotle.bomis.com any tiny image you would like uploaded to the Wikipedia server.  You could then use that tiny image in your articles!
---
> A2. You can send to jasonr at aristotle.bomis.com any tiny image you would like uploaded to the Wikipedia server.  You could then use that tiny image in your articles!
------
WikiPediaFaq|982022699
87,88c87
< 
< '''Q.''' It appears that starting today, if you go to RecentChanges and click on the name to the right of a page, that is, a contributor who has identified him/herself as making the change, you get '''Invalid Page wiki.cgi'''. Why?
---
> '''Q. It appears that starting today, if you go to RecentChanges and click on the name to the right of a page, that is, a contributor who has identified him/herself as making the change, you get <nowiki>Invalid Page wiki.cgi</nowiki>. Why?'''
91c90
< 
---
> ----
98c97
< '''Q.  Is there any reason why we can't do what is described in A2?  Or any reason to think this is a bad idea?  Also, what will the code look like-- simply <nowiki>/likethis.gif</nowiki>, or what?'''
---
> '''Q.  Is there any reason why we can't do what is described just above under A2?  Or any reason to think this is a bad idea?  Also, what will the code look like-- simply <nowiki>/likethis.gif</nowiki>, or what?'''
------
WikiPediaFaq|982022724
89c89
< A. The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.----
---
> A. The changes to the code to use /pagename rather than ?pagename appear to have been incomplete.  See WikiPediaBugs for more information and discussion.
------
JudO|982022829
1c1
< Judo is to make somebody fall down.
---
> Judo is a JapaN'ese martial art.
------
JudO|982023009
1c1,3
< Judo is a JapaN'ese martial art.
---
> Judo is a martial art which originated in JapaN.  Judo is said to be a refinement of JujitsU, and was founded by JigoroKano in 1882.
> 
> Judo became an OlympiC sport in 1964. 
------
MackSennett|982023087
1c1
< Mack Sennett is the inventor of the slapstick comedy. He was a singer, dancer, clown, actor, set designer and director for Biograph, and founded Keystone in 1912 together with Adam Kessel. Many important actors were discovered by him and started their career at Keystone. Those include CharlieChaplin, BenTurpin, FattyArbuckle, Laurel and Hardy, GloriaSwanson and many more
---
> Mack Sennett is the inventor of the slapstick comedy. He was a singer, dancer, clown, actor, set designer and director for Biograph, and founded Keystone in 1912 together with Adam Kessel. Many important actors were discovered by him and started their career at Keystone. Those include CharlieChaplin, BenTurpin, FattyArbuckle, LaurelandHardy, GloriaSwanson and many more
------
AcademyAwards|982023696
8,9c8,14
< */BestActor (in a leading role) */BestActress (in a leading role)
< */BestSupportingActor           */BestSupportingActress
---
> 
> */BestActor (in a leading role) 
> */BestActress (in a leading role)
> 
> */BestSupportingActor           
> */BestSupportingActress
> 
------
FiLm|982023773
1c1
< FilmHistory -- FilmCriticism -- AcademyAwards
---
> FilmHistory -- FilmCriticism -- AcademyAwards 
4a5,6
> ActorS
> ActresseS
------
ActorS|982023796
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> :HarrisonFord
> :KeanuReeves
------
ActresseS|982023889
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> :MegRyan
> :ShannonElizabeth
> :JodieFoster
> :JulianneMoore
> :DrewBarrymore
------
ActorS|982023951
1d0
< 
2a2
> :AnthonyHopkins
3a4
> 
------
ActresseS|982024091
1,2c1
< 
< :MegRyan
---
> :DrewBarrymore
6c5,7
< :DrewBarrymore
---
> :JuliaRoberts
> :MegRyan
> :MichelleYeoh
------
DrewBarrymore|982024135
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> /Biography
> /Filmography
------
ScientologY|982024422
7c7
< Other activites of a Scientology church include Sunday services, formal classes, naming, marriage and funeral ceremonies.  Scientology has long held that its beliefs and practices are compatible with those of other churches.  Scientology enjoyed good relations with and recognition by a number of Christian, Buddhist and other sects for a number of decades before being formally recognized as a tax exempt religious and charitable organization by the United States government in 1993.  And it was not until 1994 that a joint council of Shinto Buddhist sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship.  This continues a long tradition of Eastern faiths of assimilating or adopting elements of others faiths which they find harmonious with their ownThis may be a reflection of the fact that LRonHubbard acknowledged a strong Eastern, and specifically Buddhist influence in forming his own personal philosphy.
---
> Other activites of a Scientology church include Sunday services, formal classes, naming, marriage and funeral ceremonies.  Scientology has long held that its beliefs and practices are compatible with those of other churches.  Scientology enjoyed good relations with and recognition by a number of Christian, Buddhist and other sects for a number of decades before being formally recognized as a tax exempt religious and charitable organization by the United States government in 1993.  And it was not until 1994 that a joint council of Shinto Buddhist sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship.  This continues a long tradition of Eastern faiths of assimilating or adopting elements of others faiths which they find harmonious with their own.  This may be a reflection of the fact that LRonHubbard acknowledged a strong Eastern, and specifically Buddhist influence in forming his own personal philosphy.
------
ThomasJefferson|982024677
1,2c1,2
< Thomas Jefferson was primary author of the Declaration of Independence and
< the third president of the United States, as well as a vast number of other
---
> Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was primary author of the Declaration of Independence and
> the third president of the United States (1801-1809), as well as a vast number of other
------
DianeticS|982026772
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A sub-study of ScientologY, primarily concerned with the an individual's mental and physical status, especially with regard to psychosomatic ills, in contrast to ScientologY overall, which is more concerned with the individual's spiritual well-being.
------
RecentChanges|982027003
1,5c1
< 
< Are you addicted to RecentChanges?  I know I am. :-) --JimboWales
< 
< Did you know that this is a wiki page?  Regular authors could leave notes for everyone here. --JimboWales
< 
---
> Are you addicted to RecentChanges?  I know I am.  :-)  Did you know that this is a wiki page?  Regular authors could leave notes for everyone here. --JimboWales
------
DianeticS|982027705
1c1
< A sub-study of ScientologY, primarily concerned with the an individual's mental and physical status, especially with regard to psychosomatic ills, in contrast to ScientologY overall, which is more concerned with the individual's spiritual well-being.
---
> A sub-study of ScientologY, primarily concerned with an individual's mental, emotional and physical status, especially with regard to psychosomatic ills, in contrast to ScientologY overall, which is more concerned with the individual's spiritual well-being.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982032902
9a10,18
> 
> The problem isn't in the format of the definition but in its substance.
> 
> Anarchism is not limited to politics or rejection of government. As a system, it is the absence of all hierarchy everywhere. The limitation of 'hierarchy' to political hierarchies is completely artificial and not supported by anarchists. In fact, it is easily disprovable since 'politics' is merely distribution of power and the existence of power structures in other areas of society is self-evident. Politics is inseparable from the rest of society.
> 
> Anarchism is a ''methodology'' not an ideology. Anarchism is a way of acting, a means to an end, and not the end itself. Insofar as 'anarchy' exists at all, it must be derived from anarchism. Most anarchists do not have a specific vision in mind so if one wants an honest description of what anarchists work towards then one must look at what they're actually doing. To figure out the destination anarchists wish to reach, look where they're going and not the distination which some tiny minority of people who may or may not be anarchists claim they're trying to reach. Anarchism is a movement defined by people at the bottom, not a hallucinatory vision dreamed up by "leaders" at the top. If you think this is "diffuse" then that's just too bad.
> 
> And by anarchists I mean anarcho-syndicalists whose belief in anarchism is genuine as evidenced by their having fought and died in revolutionary wars in order to bring about anarchy (whereas anarcho-capitalists have not). Saying that the history of anarchism is irrelevant is as naive as saying that the history of Marxism is irrelevant. Do you propose that a good definition of Marxism can be given by capitalists or Stalinists? To believe that an ideology can be fairly described by its enemies or propagandists who merely seek to exploit it is hopelessly naive. -- RichardKulisz
> 
11a21,25
> 
> I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "fuzzy".
> 
> Anarchism is a rejection of all hierarchy and authority. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a special case rejection of governmental authority in favour of capitalist authority. "Anarcho"-capitalists refuse to acknowledge that capitalist authority exists, that it is arbitrary, unjust and should be dismantled. It isn't possible to honestly describe "anarcho"-capitalist arguments and viewpoints without pointing out how baseless and oversimplistic they are. For example, a common argument among capitalists (and "anarcho"-capitalists are just capitalists who pretend to care about liberty) is to represent the free market as an auction where labour power is sold to buyers. Of course, it isn't because such an auction leaves the impression that the labour market is a ''seller's'' market when in fact it is a buyer's market. The best way to describe anarcho-capitalism is probably as a religion -- just state what they believe and nothing more. And if '''I''' described Christianity, I would describe it as a group fantasy dynamic to counter feelings of powerlessness, self-hatred and wishes for self-annihilation all caused by traumatic child abuse. This wouldn't go over very well with most people. -- RichardKulisz
> 
13c27
< The miscategorization of anarcho-syndicalism was my fault.  Since it looks like it's the main form of anarchism, I figured it deserved mention, but wasn't sure which heading to put it under thanks to the mention of ''cultural'' institutions.  At the time I wasn't thinking of institutions as organizations for whatever reason.  Bleah...easy to catch, at least. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> The miscategorization of anarcho-syndicalism was my fault.  Since it looks like it's the main form of anarchism, I figured it deserved mention, but wasn't sure which heading to put it under thanks to the mention of ''cultural'' institutions.  At the time I wasn't thinking of institutions as organizations for whatever reason.  Bleah...easy to catch, at least. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
CambodianLanguage|982032921
13c13,15
< ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?]''
---
> ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?]
>  -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
> completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents I've heard.''
------
CambodianLanguage|982032956
13,14c13
< ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?]
<  -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
---
> ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?] -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
------
CambodianLanguage|982033753
14c14
< completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents I've heard.''
---
> completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents Ive heard.''
------
CambodianLanguage|982033776
13,14c13,14
< ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here?] -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
< completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents Ive heard.''
---
> ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here? -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
> completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents Ive heard.]''
------
CambodianLanguage|982033835
13,14c13
< ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about".  Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here? -- No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and
< completely omitted in the Phnom Penh accents Ive heard.]''
---
> ''[This seems like a schwa - an unstressed neutral sound, like in "poor" right before the r or at the beginning of "about". Sometimes English r's get weakened to schwas.  Same deal here? No, not as far as I can tell.  The r is rolled normally, and completely omitted in the manifestations of the Phnom Penh accents Ive heard.]''
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982034355
22c22
< I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "fuzzy".
---
> I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it.
27a28,29
> 
> Of the two categories, you chose the least offensive one. The second category of 'people who oppose all social order' (implied by "which supports social order" instead of "'''the'' social order") obviously refers to bombers only. The problem is that both categories are extremely offensive and propagandistic distortions. -- RichardKulisz
------
AyeSpy|982034660
9c9
< On reflection, I realized that all of my articles and most of my comments here suffered from the same defect complained of re: the Sanity article.  In the absence of credentials, I contributed thoughts and posted them under general headings, without clearly labeling them as being of no particular consequence (to quote Larry, "why should we ''care''...?".  Well, you probably shouldn't.  However, suffer from the peculiar conceit that I will not bother to write something down unless I wish it to receive serious consideration.  This is my problem, and no one else's.  Writing, to me, is like a kind of art.  The wikipedia context, contrary to my initial impression, is intended to reflect serious scholarship unless clearly labeled otherwise, (while avoiding academic elitism, a balance to be achieved in a manner unclear to me).  And I don't like writing "second chair."  Absent a degree, 33 years of study (reduced by a tounge-in-cheek comment to:  I read a few books) in a field which I love like life itself fails to confer the stamp of serious scholarship on my writings.  I should, instead, "admit that I don't know very much about it" and go do some real study.  I would prefer not to contribute rather than have contributions dismissed or labeled as idiosyncratic background chatter.  I try not to waste time in small talk or light chat.  Especially not in writing.  I hope y'all (if anyone reads this) don't take offense.
---
> On reflection, I realized that all of my articles and most of my comments here suffered from the same defect complained of re: the Sanity article.  In the absence of credentials, I contributed thoughts and posted them under general headings, without clearly labeling them as being of no particular consequence (to quote Larry, "why should we ''care''...?".  Well, you probably shouldn't.  However, I suffer from the peculiar conceit that I will not bother to write something down unless I wish it to receive serious consideration.  This is my problem, and no one else's.  Writing, to me, is like a kind of art.  The wikipedia context, contrary to my initial impression, is intended to reflect serious scholarship unless clearly labeled otherwise, (while avoiding academic elitism, a balance to be achieved in a manner unclear to me).  And I don't like writing "second chair."  Absent a degree, 33 years of study (reduced by a tounge-in-cheek comment to:  I read a few books) in a field which I love like life itself fails to confer the stamp of serious scholarship on my writings.  I should, instead, "admit that I don't know very much about it" and go do some real study.  I would prefer not to contribute rather than have contributions dismissed or labeled as idiosyncratic background chatter.  I try not to waste time in small talk or light chat.  Especially not in writing.  I hope y'all (if anyone reads this) don't take offense.
------
KingdomAnimalia|982036294
2a3,4
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
5c7,9
< Adult animals are typically diploids, producing small motile sperm and large non-motile eggs.  In all forms the fertilized zygote intially divides to form a hollow sphere called a ''blastula''.  This then undergoes rearrangement and differentiation.  Blastulae are probably representative of the sort of colonies animals evolved from; similar forms occur among other flagellates, e.g. ''Volvox''.  However none of these other groups really ever progressed further, and large multicellular forms tend to develop by progressive growth instead.
---
> Animals are eukaryotes, and diverged off the same stock of monoflagellate protozoa that gave rise to the green plants, fungi and choanoflagellates.  The last are especially close relatives, with collared cells appearing only among them, the sponges, and rarely in certain other animal forms.  Motile cells all have a single posterior flagellum.
> 
> Adult animals are typically diploids, producing small motile sperm and large non-motile eggs.  In all forms the fertilized zygote intiallvy divides to form a hollow sphere called a ''blastula''.  This then undergoes rearrangement and differentiation.  Blastulae are probably representative of the sort of colonies animals evolved from; similar forms occur among other flagellates, e.g. ''Volvox''.  However none of these other groups really ever progressed further, and large multicellular forms tend to develop by progressive growth instead.
11c15
< The first forms that might represent animals appear in the fossil record around the end of the Precambrian.  These are called Vendians and are exceedingly difficult to relate to later forms.  Other than them, virtually every phylum makes a more or less simultaneous appearance during the Cambrian.  This massive adaptive radiation may have come about because of climate change or a simple genetic innovation, and is so sudden that it is usually called the CambrianExplosion.
---
> The first forms that might represent animals appear in the fossil record around the end of the PrecambrianEra.  These are called VendianFauna and are exceedingly difficult to relate to later forms.  Other than them, virtually every phylum makes a more or less simultaneous appearance during the CambrianPeriod.  This massive adaptive radiation may have come about because of climate change or a simple genetic innovation, and is so sudden that it is usually called the CambrianExplosion.
14a19,20
> Blah, blah, blah.  Arthropods and annelids turn out not to be related, as suggested by the very different developments of the two groups.  Instead arthropods seem to be related to the roundworms (NemaToda), linked by a chitinous cuticle which is molted.  What this does to proposals of their polyphyly I don't know.
> 
19,22c25,28
< * PhylumPorifera
< * PhylumRhombozoa
< * PhylumOrthonectida
< * PhylumPlacozoa
---
> * Phylum PoriFera
> * Phylum RhomboZoa
> * Phylum OrthoNectida
> * Phylum PlacoZoa
26,30c32,36
< * PhylumCnidaria (=Coelentrata)
< * PhylumCtenophora
< * PhylumPlatyhelminthes - probably paraphyletic to higher groups
< * PhylumRotifera
< * PhylumAcanthocephala
---
> * Phylum CnidaRia (=coelentrata)
> * Phylum CtenoPhora
> * Phylum PlatyHelminthes - flatworms, probably paraphyletic to higher groups
> * Phylum RotiFera
> * Phylum AcanthoCephala
34,40c40,46
< * PhylumNemertea
< * PhylumMollusca (e.g. AbalonE)
< * PhylumSipuncula
< * PhylumEchiura
< * PhylumPogonophora
< * PhylumVestimentifera
< * PhylumAnnelida
---
> * Phylum NemerteA
> * Phylum MolluSca
> * Phylum SipunCula
> * Phylum EchiUra
> * Phylum PogonoPhora
> * Phylum VestiMentiFera
> * Phylum AnneLida
44,49c50,55
< * PhylumCephalorhyncha (=priapulids, kinorhynchs, loriciferans)
< * PhylumNematoda
< * PhylumNematomorpha
< * PhylumOnychophora
< * PhylumTardigrada
< * PhylumArthropoda
---
> * Phylum CephaloRhyncha (=priapulida, kinorhyncha, loricifera)
> * Phylum NemaToda
> * Phylum NematoMorpha
> * Phylum OnychoPhora
> * Phylum TardiGrada
> * Phylum ArthroPoda (e.g. insecta, arachnida, crustacea)
53,55c59,61
< * PhylumBrachiopoda
< * PhylumEctoprocta (=Bryozoa)
< * PhylumPhoronida
---
> * Phylum BrachioPoda
> * Phylum EctoProcta (=bryozoa)
> * Phylum PhoroNida
59,62c65,68
< * PhylumChaetognatha
< * PhylumEchinodermata
< * PhylumHemichordata
< * PhylumChordata (e.g. HomoSapiens, AardvarK, WolF)
---
> * Phylum ChaetoGnatha
> * Phylum EchinoDermata
> * Phylum HemiChordata
> * Phylum ChordaTa (e.g. vertebrates)
------
ActorS|982036462
4c4,6
< 
---
> 
> 
> How do you make a little box?
------
ChordaTa|982038682
1c1,44
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Subphylum Urochordata'''
> 
> '''Subphylum Cephalochordata'''
> 
> '''Subphylum Craniata'''
> 
> The classification of vertebrates is awful.  Most of the standard groups - Agnatha, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Amphibia, Reptilia - are woefully paraphyletic and have either been abandoned or extended.  The results, though, have not settled in and so we are left with a mess.  Here's a tree to work from.
> 
>  Myxini (hagfish)
>  Vertebrata
>    Petromyzontiformes (lampreys)
>    Various extinct forms
>    Gnathostoma
>      Placodermi - extinct
>      Chondrichthyes (cartiligenous fish)
>      Acanthodii - extinct
>      Osteichthyes
>        Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish)
>        Sarcopterygii
>          Various extinct forms
>          Coelocanthamorpha
>          Dipnoi (lungfish)
>          Tetrapoda
>            Various extinct forms
>            Lissamphibia
>            Amniota
>              Synapsida
>                Various extinct forms
>                Mammalia
>              Anapsida
>                Various extinct forms
>                Chelonia (turtles)
>              Diapsida
>                Various extinct forms
>                Lepidosauromorpha
>                  Various extinct forms
>                  Squamata (lizards, snakes)
>                  Sphenodontida (tuataras)
>                Archosauromorpha
>                  Various extinct forms
>                  Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles, alligators)
>                  Dinosauria
>                    Various extinct forms
>                    Aves (birds)
------
ChordaTa|982039266
7c7
< The classification of vertebrates is awful.  Most of the standard groups - Agnatha, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Amphibia, Reptilia - are woefully paraphyletic and have either been abandoned or extended.  The results, though, have not settled in and so we are left with a mess.  Here's a tree to work from.
---
> Vertebrate classification is awful.  Most of the standard groups are paraphyletic, and so have either been extended (B) or abandoned.  What's left is a mess that hasn't really settled into place yet.  The following is a minimal tree including most traditionally class-level groups:
12c12
<    Various extinct forms
---
>    ''Various extinct forms''
14c14
<      Placodermi - extinct
---
>      Placodermi ''- extinct''
16,17c16,17
<      Acanthodii - extinct
<      Osteichthyes
---
>      Acanthodii ''- extinct''
>      Osteichthyes B
19,20c19,20
<        Sarcopterygii
<          Various extinct forms
---
>        Sarcopterygii B
>          ''Various extinct forms''
24c24
<            Various extinct forms
---
>            '''Various extinct forms''
28c28
<                Various extinct forms
---
>                '''Various extinct forms'''
31c31
<                Various extinct forms
---
>                '''Various extinct forms'''
34c34
<                Various extinct forms
---
>                '''Various extinct forms'''
36c36
<                  Various extinct forms
---
>                  '''Various extinct forms'''
40c40
<                  Various extinct forms
---
>                  '''Various extinct forms'''
42,44c42
<                  Dinosauria
<                    Various extinct forms
<                    Aves (birds)
---
>                  Aves (birds)
------
ChordaTa|982039315
24c24
<            '''Various extinct forms''
---
>            ''Various extinct forms''
28c28
<                '''Various extinct forms'''
---
>                ''Various extinct forms''
31c31
<                '''Various extinct forms'''
---
>                ''Various extinct forms''
34c34
<                '''Various extinct forms'''
---
>                ''Various extinct forms''
36c36
<                  '''Various extinct forms'''
---
>                  ''Various extinct forms''
40c40
<                  '''Various extinct forms'''
---
>                  ''Various extinct forms''
------
ChordaTa|982039893
1c1
< '''Subphylum Urochordata'''
---
> '''Classification'''
3c3
< '''Subphylum Cephalochordata'''
---
> The traditional classification of vertebrates is a mess, with a wide variety of paraphyletic groups that have either been abandoned or extended (here marked B).  Unfortunately, no particularly standard system has settled in to replace it; the problem is there have been too many adaptive radiations.  For now, here is a minimal tree of living forms including most traditionally class-sized groups:
5,28c5,20
< '''Subphylum Craniata'''
< 
< Vertebrate classification is awful.  Most of the standard groups are paraphyletic, and so have either been extended (B) or abandoned.  What's left is a mess that hasn't really settled into place yet.  The following is a minimal tree including most traditionally class-level groups:
< 
<  Myxini (hagfish)
<  Vertebrata
<    Petromyzontiformes (lampreys)
<    ''Various extinct forms''
<    Gnathostoma
<      Placodermi ''- extinct''
<      Chondrichthyes (cartiligenous fish)
<      Acanthodii ''- extinct''
<      Osteichthyes B
<        Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish)
<        Sarcopterygii B
<          ''Various extinct forms''
<          Coelocanthamorpha
<          Dipnoi (lungfish)
<          Tetrapoda
<            ''Various extinct forms''
<            Lissamphibia
<            Amniota
<              Synapsida
<                ''Various extinct forms''
---
>  Urochordata
>  Cephalochordata
>  Craniata
>    Myxini (hagfish)
>    Vertebrata
>      Petromyzontiformes (lampreys)
>      Gnathostoma
>        Chondrichthyes (cartiligenous fish)
>        Osteichthyes B
>          Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish)
>          Sarcopterygii B
>            Coelocanthamorpha
>            Dipnoi (lungfish)
>            Tetrapoda 
>              Lissamphibia (frogs, toads, salamanders)
>              Amniota
30,31d21
<              Anapsida
<                ''Various extinct forms''
33,42c23,28
<              Diapsida
<                ''Various extinct forms''
<                Lepidosauromorpha
<                  ''Various extinct forms''
<                  Squamata (lizards, snakes)
<                  Sphenodontida (tuataras)
<                Archosauromorpha
<                  ''Various extinct forms''
<                  Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles, alligators)
<                  Aves (birds)
---
>                Squamata (lizards, snakes)
>                Sphenodontida (tuataras)
>                Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles, alligators)
>                Aves (birds)
> 
> Information on characteristics of each group and a more detailed classification thereof should probably go under its headline - eg details of skeletal system and listing of jawless fishes under Vertebrata.
------
ChordaTa|982040254
21c21
<                Mammalia
---
>                MammaLia
28c28
< Information on characteristics of each group and a more detailed classification thereof should probably go under its headline - eg details of skeletal system and listing of jawless fishes under Vertebrata.
---
> Information on characteristics of each group and a more detailed classification thereof should probably go under its headline - eg details of skeletal system and listing of jawless fishes under Vertebrata.
------
MammaLia|982041512
1c1,35
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Monotremata'''
> 
> '''Marsupialia'''
> 
> '''Multituberculata - extinct'''
> 
> '''Eutheria'''
> 
> * Xenarthra (anteaters, sloths, armadillos; formerly called Edentata)
> * Pholidota (pangolins)
> 
> * Chiroptera (bats)
> * Dermoptera (flying lemurs)
> * Primates (apes, monkeys, HomoSapiens)
> * Scandentia (tree shrews)
> 
> * Macroscelidea (elephant shrews)
> * Rodentia (mice, rats, squirrels, porcupines, beavers, etc)
> * Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits, pikas)
> 
> * Insectivora (shrews, moles, hedgehogs, etc)
> 
> * Creodonta - extinct
> * Carnivora (dogs, WolVes, cats, bears, weasels, seals, walruses)
> 
> * Condylarthra - extinct
> * Artiodactlya (pigs, deer, cattle, goats, sheep, etc)
> * Cetacea (whales, dolphins, porpoises)
> * Tubulidentata (AardvarK)
> * Perissodactyla (horses, tapirs, rhinoceroses)
> * Hyracoidea (hyraxes, dassies)
> * Proboscidea (elephants, etc)
> * Embrythopoda - extinct
> * Demostylia - extinct
> * Sirenia (manatees, dugong, sea cows)
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982041609
22c22
< I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it.
---
> I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it. The failure to list Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bukanin and Noam Chomsky as famous anachists and the inclusion of an absolute nobody like Leon Czolgosz (whose own mother said was ''too stupid to be an anarchist'') tells me that Tim isn't familiar enough with anarchism to impose his views of it on anyone else. And since every political ideology has resulted in the murder of at least one leader of an opposing ideology, Czolgosz shooting means nothing. The murders of anarchist leaders at the hands of capitalists more than compensate. Focusing on an aberration is a common propaganda technique.
29c29
< Of the two categories, you chose the least offensive one. The second category of 'people who oppose all social order' (implied by "which supports social order" instead of "'''the'' social order") obviously refers to bombers only. The problem is that both categories are extremely offensive and propagandistic distortions. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Of the two categories, you chose the least offensive one. The second category of 'people who oppose all social order' (implied by "which supports social order" instead of "'''the'' social order") obviously refers to bombers only. The problem is that both categories are extremely offensive and propagandistic distortions. -- RichardKulisz
------
AnarchY|982044652
1d0
< A political system in which there is no government.
3,13c2,4
< The term anarchy is used to describe two essentially opposite political views, one which supports social order, the other which opposes it.
< 
< The first group believes that social order can be preserved by relying on cultural and economic institutions alone, without political insitutions.
< 
< The second group believes the social order per se should not be preserved, and opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them.
< 
< Anarchist philosophies include AnarchoCapitalism and AnarchoSyndicalism.
< 
< Famous anarchists include PeterKropotkin and DavidFriedman.  In 1901, an anarchist named LeonCzolgosz shot and killed WilliamMcKinley, the 25th President of the United States.
< 
< /AnarchyTalk
---
> I am about to attempt to find a happy middle ground here.
> Give me a little while to write... (30 minutes or so, if 
> anyone is watching).
------
AnarchY|982045387
0a1
> Anarchy is a term used in two different ways, to describe two very different political views.  It is worth noting that although it is likely that adherents of either view will surely have many disagreements with the other, it is not correct to think of them as being diametric opposites.
2,4c3,13
< I am about to attempt to find a happy middle ground here.
< Give me a little while to write... (30 minutes or so, if 
< anyone is watching).
---
> Traditionally, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to a movement 
> dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
> 
> Prominent anarchists of the traditional sort include EmmaGoldman, MikhailBakunin, and NoamChomsky.  We have a comprehensive discussion of TraditionalAnarchism.
> 
> More recently, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to supporters of AnarchoCapitalism, which may be loosely defined as the idea that there should not be a single government, but rather that the traditional functions of government might be best handled by private courts and defense agencies.  
> 
> The most prominent theorist of AnarchoCapitalism is DavidFriedman, son of NobelPrize/EconomicSciences winner MiltonFriedman.  We have a comprehensive discussion of AnarchoCapitalism.
> 
> 
> 
------
AnarchY|982045631
2c2
< 
---
> ----
7c7
< 
---
> ----
10a11,13
> ----
> 
> Proponents of these two views sometimes view each other with some hostility.  Proponents of TraditionalAnarchism may view AnarchoCapitalism as either a grave misunderstanding of anarchism proper, or a special case of the rejection of government authority in favor of capitalist authority.  Terms such as "baseless" and "oversimplistic" may be used.
11a15
> AnarchoCapitalists contend that anarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and that many anarchists are economically illiterate.
13c17
< 
---
> This page will not settle any disputes between the two, but hopes instead to acknowledge the facts of the situation (that both use the term, rightly or wrongly), and to point to separate treatments of both.
------
AnarchY|982045647
17c17,19
< This page will not settle any disputes between the two, but hopes instead to acknowledge the facts of the situation (that both use the term, rightly or wrongly), and to point to separate treatments of both.
---
> This page will not settle any disputes between the two, but hopes instead to acknowledge the facts of the situation (that both use the term, rightly or wrongly), and to point to separate treatments of both.
> 
> /Talk
------
AnarchY|982045700
19c19
< /Talk
---
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: AnarchyTalk
------
AnarchoCapitalism|982045747
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is where TimShell or some other person knowledgeable about the ideas of DavidFriedman and others like him should write about their ideas.
> 
> 
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982045929
1c1,15
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This is the place for an encyclopedic, not polemic, discussion of what Traditional Anarchism is all about.
> 
> ----
> Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order
> without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time,
> Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
> 
> Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begins with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure.
> Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism were synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics
> have taken to calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the
> Anglo-American countries. 
> 
> Both the view of Anarchism as a Nihilist position admitting only destruction and the capitalist position of anarchism as purely
> political are regarded as grave misunderstandings of Anarchism
> by advocates.
------
AnarchoCapitalism|982045954
2a3
> The discussion should be encyclopedic, I hope, and not polemic.
------
AnarchY|982046012
19c19
< You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: AnarchyTalk
---
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
------
RichardKulisz|982046067
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A very welcome newcomer to the Wikipedia, who I hope will write quite a bit about the history of anarchism.  :-) --JimboWales
------
TechnologY|982046268
7a8
> * SingularitY
------
TechnologY|982046299
8c8
< * SingularitY
---
> * TheSingularity
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982046534
29a30,31
> ----
> It seems to me Jimbo has shown a way around this dispute, although Richard and Tim may disagree.  At least Jimbo has illustrated the general direction that we should move in when we have these sorts of disputes.  The aim is to describe the theories in such a way as cannot be objected to by their proponents or their opponents--by attributing the very descriptions of the theories to their proponents and then explaining what the differences and conflicts between competing theories are (rather than ignoring the fact that there is a conflict, or engaging the conflicts on the page itself).  It seems to me this is something that anyone here can do with a little practice.  Might be good for you, too.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
TheSingularity|982046861
1c1,21
< Describe the new page here.
---
> If, as seems true, technological progress has been following an exponential curve for a very long time, then there will come a point at which technological progress accelerates essentially to infinity.  This is known as TheSingularity.
> 
> There are many different specific definitions of the term, but all seem to have a common theme, perhaps summed up best by VernorVinge in his famous essay ''Singularity'', published in 1993:
> 
> ''"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence.  Shortly thereafter, the human era will be ended."''
> 
> The basic idea of TheSingularity can be thought of as a natural extrapolation of MooresLaw.  If the computing power per dollar cost continues to double every 18 to 24 months, then it is only a matter of time (some estimates range from 2020-2050) until we have inexpensive computer hardware ($1000, say) that is as powerful as the human brain.  When that happens, it seems inevitable that realistic intelligence that equals ours can be created.
> 
> But due to such factors as "the AI advantage" (i.e., downloadable consciousness, replicable consciousness), it seems likely that such AIs would quickly be able to create even more intelligent machines.  If we can create a single $1000 Einstein, you might say, we can easily create a billion Einsteins.  Working together, they can surely generate enough technological progress to build machines so smart that they boggle the human mind.
> 
> It's a really interesting idea, no?
> 
> I would like to see a list here of prominent theorists/speculators on the subject, including:
> :VernorVinge
> :BillJoy
> :HansMoravec
> 
> As well as a discussion of some of the key concepts:
> :AiAdvantage
> 
> /Talk
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982046977
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Comment by JimboWales: I think that this is likely to happen within my own natural lifespan.  I'm 34 now, and so in 2031,
> I will be 54.  If I take care of myself, I should be able to live to 74-104, even given today's technology.
> 
> It strikes me as a virtual certainty that we will have massively cheap machine intelligence by then.  And that's going to be, for better or worse, the most amazing thing that has ever happened on EartH.
------
AnarchY|982046993
1c1,3
< Anarchy is a term used in two different ways, to describe two very different political views.  It is worth noting that although it is likely that adherents of either view will surely have many disagreements with the other, it is not correct to think of them as being diametric opposites.
---
> ''Anarchy'' is often used pejoratively simply to mean chaos, violence, and complete lack of political order.  This is one ordinary use of the word, but it does not describe a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.  ''Anarchy'' has an interesting use, according to which anarchy is a political ideal.
> 
> But when it is used to describe a political ideal, ''anarchy'' is a term used in two different ways in describing two very different political views.  It is worth noting that although it is likely that adherents of either view will surely have many disagreements with the other, it is not correct to think of them as being diametric opposites.
------
AnarchY|982047052
1c1
< ''Anarchy'' is often used pejoratively simply to mean chaos, violence, and complete lack of political order.  This is one ordinary use of the word, but it does not describe a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.  ''Anarchy'' has an interesting use, according to which anarchy is a political ideal.
---
> ''Anarchy'' is often used pejoratively simply to mean chaos, violence, and complete lack of political and/or social order.  This is one ordinary use of the word, but it does not describe a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.  ''Anarchy'' has an interesting use, according to which anarchy is a political ideal.
------
AnarchY|982047115
17c17
< AnarchoCapitalists contend that anarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and that many anarchists are economically illiterate.
---
> Advocates of AnarchoCapitalism may contend that TraditionalAnarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and that many anarchists are economically illiterate.
------
MammaMia|982047316
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> An exclamation, meaning "Oh my gosh!" or something of that sort.
> 
> This may be an ItalianLanguage expression, or perhaps only English-speaking people's fantasy of an ItalianLanguage expression, I do not know.
> 
> Not to be confused with MammaLia, the order of Mammals in our Science area.  ;-)
------
AnarchY|982047494
17c17
< Advocates of AnarchoCapitalism may contend that TraditionalAnarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and that many anarchists are economically illiterate.
---
> Advocates of AnarchoCapitalism may contend that TraditionalAnarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and may also claim that many anarchists of the traditional sort are economically illiterate.
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982047833
1d0
< 
5c4,10
< It strikes me as a virtual certainty that we will have massively cheap machine intelligence by then.  And that's going to be, for better or worse, the most amazing thing that has ever happened on EartH.
---
> It strikes me as a virtual certainty that we will have massively cheap machine intelligence by then.  And that's going to be, for better or worse, the most amazing thing that has ever happened on EartH.
> ----
> While we're firing off personal opinions.  It's an open question exactly how powerful a computer one would need to support consciousness (heck, that possibility is still somewhat open).  A friend of mine, though, suggested this possibility: you need basically as many connections as an ape brain has.  In our ''vacuum datarum'' I would go with this, since it's obvious and fits with consciousness arising evolutionarily when it did.
> 
> In that case, we have a long ways to go, since most of our computers are about as powerful as worms.  Good at different things, of course, but I don't see them helping too much.  So don't wait up...well, I guess you should if you can, but that's a different matter. :)
> 
> Btw, never extrapolate trends too far!  Technology can't surpass physical limits, which strongly seem to exist.  So its growth should be logistic rather than exponential, and we're far enough away from the limits we know of that it makes sense we can't yet tell the two apart. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982049092
10a11,18
> ----
> Oh, I agree with what you say.  This is just a fun idea more than anything else.
> 
> There is a fairly respectable argument that the processing power of the human brain is something on the order of 100 million million to 1 billion million instructions per second.  IBM is currently planning to have completed by 2005, a computer which will handle 1 billion million instructions per second.  Of course, such an expensive ($100 million) computer will not be used for something as silly as approximating human intelligence -- it will be used to work on problems in protein folding, as I understand it.  But, let's suppose that 20 years from now, a computer that powerful is cheaply available.
> 
> Given the history of computers so far, and given the technological advances that seem to be "in the pipeline", it doesn't seem totally outrageous to suggest 2021 as a date for that.
> 
> But, tack on an extra 30 years to be safe.  So, will we have it by 2051?  --JimboWales
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982050088
18c18,22
< But, tack on an extra 30 years to be safe.  So, will we have it by 2051?  --JimboWales
---
> But, tack on an extra 30 years to be safe.  So, will we have it by 2051?  --JimboWales
> 
> Oh, when I say processing power I'm not referring to speed.  A fast calculator is still a calculator.  I'm referring to the number of internal connections the system has.  Our brains have a lot of neurons connected in very complex ways, so consciousness can emerge relatively easily.  Present computers have relatively few gates hooked up to each other simplistically, so there's no such room.  And they're not getting that much better yet.
> 
> Half a century is a long time, of course, so this is all speculation.  But fun ideas can be grounded in reality, and if you learn something thinking about them it's all to the good. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982052547
31c31,33
< It seems to me Jimbo has shown a way around this dispute, although Richard and Tim may disagree.  At least Jimbo has illustrated the general direction that we should move in when we have these sorts of disputes.  The aim is to describe the theories in such a way as cannot be objected to by their proponents or their opponents--by attributing the very descriptions of the theories to their proponents and then explaining what the differences and conflicts between competing theories are (rather than ignoring the fact that there is a conflict, or engaging the conflicts on the page itself).  It seems to me this is something that anyone here can do with a little practice.  Might be good for you, too.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> It seems to me Jimbo has shown a way around this dispute, although Richard and Tim may disagree.  At least Jimbo has illustrated the general direction that we should move in when we have these sorts of disputes.  The aim is to describe the theories in such a way as cannot be objected to by their proponents or their opponents--by attributing the very descriptions of the theories to their proponents and then explaining what the differences and conflicts between competing theories are (rather than ignoring the fact that there is a conflict, or engaging the conflicts on the page itself).  It seems to me this is something that anyone here can do with a little practice.  Might be good for you, too.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> 
> There's just a couple problems in recognizing AnarchoCapitalism as a form of Anarchism. 1) Anti-capitalist anarchists were there first so including capitalists only serves to confuse matters. 2) AnarchoCapitalism is limited geographically to the very right wing countries. 3) Capitalism '''is''' authoritarian since private property is an inherently authoritarian concept (to deny that the owner gets to dictate to everyone else or that this is a form of authority is blatant destruction of the English language), so AnarchoCapitalism is a contradiction in terms. 4) It's not clear that AnarchoCapitalism is a serious political ideology instead of mere political maneuvering. So I find equal time given to AnarchoCapitalism to be a bit irritating. -- RichardKulisz
------
EthicsVsMorals|982053454
3a4,6
> 
> ----
> A formal way of distinguishing them is to define ethics as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its external relations with other entities' and define morals as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its internal relations between members'. These definitions are consistent with the usage of professional ethics (of a profession with regards to clients, patients, et cetera) versus human morality (how one human should behave with respect to another). And keeping these examples in mind, it simply isn't correct that ethics does not derive from an authority (eg, a doctor's association) or that morality does not come from personally accepted principle. It also shows that professional ethics have nothing to do with the consensus or division in the group involved.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982054556
22c22
< I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it. The failure to list Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bukanin and Noam Chomsky as famous anachists and the inclusion of an absolute nobody like Leon Czolgosz (whose own mother said was ''too stupid to be an anarchist'') tells me that Tim isn't familiar enough with anarchism to impose his views of it on anyone else. And since every political ideology has resulted in the murder of at least one leader of an opposing ideology, Czolgosz shooting means nothing. The murders of anarchist leaders at the hands of capitalists more than compensate. Focusing on an aberration is a common propaganda technique.
---
> I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it. The failure to list Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky as famous anachists and the inclusion of an absolute nobody like Leon Czolgosz (whose own mother said was ''too stupid to be an anarchist'') tells me that Tim isn't familiar enough with anarchism to impose his views of it on anyone else. And since every political ideology has resulted in the murder of at least one leader of an opposing ideology, Czolgosz shooting McKinley means nothing. The murders of anarchist leaders at the hands of capitalists more than compensate. Focusing on an aberration is a common propaganda technique.
33c33
< There's just a couple problems in recognizing AnarchoCapitalism as a form of Anarchism. 1) Anti-capitalist anarchists were there first so including capitalists only serves to confuse matters. 2) AnarchoCapitalism is limited geographically to the very right wing countries. 3) Capitalism '''is''' authoritarian since private property is an inherently authoritarian concept (to deny that the owner gets to dictate to everyone else or that this is a form of authority is blatant destruction of the English language), so AnarchoCapitalism is a contradiction in terms. 4) It's not clear that AnarchoCapitalism is a serious political ideology instead of mere political maneuvering. So I find equal time given to AnarchoCapitalism to be a bit irritating. -- RichardKulisz
---
> There's just a couple problems in recognizing AnarchoCapitalism as a form of Anarchism. 1) Anti-capitalist anarchists were there first so including capitalists only serves to confuse matters. 2) AnarchoCapitalism is limited geographically to the very right wing countries. 3) Capitalism '''is''' authoritarian since private property is an inherently authoritarian concept (to deny that the owner gets to dictate to everyone else or that this is a form of authority is blatant destruction of the English language), so AnarchoCapitalism is a contradiction in terms. 4) It's not clear that AnarchoCapitalism is a serious political ideology instead of mere political maneuvering. So I find equal time given to AnarchoCapitalism to be a bit irritating. -- RichardKulisz
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982060492
33a34,35
> 
> Since you're making your case briefly, weakly, and vaguely, I'll answer briefly, weakly, and vaguely.  (1) Matters are already long since "confused" (and it's not ''that'' confusing); you can't change that.  (2) Er, so what?  This is weak.  (3) Suffice it to say this requires more argument.  (4) This is silly and very implausible, given that there are many serious people who identify themselves as anarcho-capitalists.  I understand your irritation, but I also think you're going to have to live with it.  If you really care so much about how political views are represented on Wikipedia, why not elaborate anarcho-syndicalism fairly?  Or is it just more fun to debate?  I suppose it is, for many people. -- LarrySanger
------
AnarchY|982060606
15c15
< Proponents of these two views sometimes view each other with some hostility.  Proponents of TraditionalAnarchism may view AnarchoCapitalism as either a grave misunderstanding of anarchism proper, or a special case of the rejection of government authority in favor of capitalist authority.  Terms such as "baseless" and "oversimplistic" may be used.
---
> Proponents of these two views sometimes view each other with some hostility.  Proponents of TraditionalAnarchism may view AnarchoCapitalism as either a grave misunderstanding of anarchism proper (or not a kind of anarchism at all), or a special case of the rejection of government authority in favor of capitalist authority.  Terms such as "baseless" and "oversimplistic" may be used.
21c21
< You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
---
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982061314
35c35
< Since you're making your case briefly, weakly, and vaguely, I'll answer briefly, weakly, and vaguely.  (1) Matters are already long since "confused" (and it's not ''that'' confusing); you can't change that.  (2) Er, so what?  This is weak.  (3) Suffice it to say this requires more argument.  (4) This is silly and very implausible, given that there are many serious people who identify themselves as anarcho-capitalists.  I understand your irritation, but I also think you're going to have to live with it.  If you really care so much about how political views are represented on Wikipedia, why not elaborate anarcho-syndicalism fairly?  Or is it just more fun to debate?  I suppose it is, for many people. -- LarrySanger
---
> I'll answer briefly, weakly, and vaguely.  (1) Matters are already long since "confused" (and it's not ''that'' confusing); you can't change that.  (2) Er, so what?  (3) Suffice it to say this requires more argument.  (4) This seems very implausible, given that there are many serious people who identify themselves as anarcho-capitalists.  I understand your irritation, but I also think you're going to have to live with it.  If you really care so much about how political views are represented on Wikipedia, wouldn't your energies be better spent elaborating anarcho-syndicalism fairly--which would include anarcho-syndicalism's response to anarcho-capitalism? -- LarrySanger
------
ElectricalEngineering|982062435
7a8,9
> 
> "SecuritySystemsforHome"
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982062444
35a36,37
> 
> In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982062546
37c37
< In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].
---
> In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
------
MppC|982069995
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak.
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions that cancelled some important patents, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
------
IndependentS|982070233
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Independents were film companies who resisted the claims of the MppC. They moved away from the Edison Trust's strongholds to HollywooD, CaliforniA, where they lay the foundations of the studio system and of American film industry as such. 
------
HollywooD|982070403
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The first studio in Hollywood was founded 1911 by David Horsley for the NestorCompany. In the same year, another 15 IndependentS settled here. 
------
FilmHistory|982070453
12c12
< Some people you should know during the beginnings of Hollywood (1912-1925)
---
> Some people you should know during the beginnings of HollywooD (1912-1925)
25c25,26
< *  MppC
---
> *  MppC
> *  IndependentS
------
BooksOfTheBible|982070546
1d0
< 
85a85,86
> 
> Oh - silly me - I just discovered how the slash-name notation actually works.  This page should probably be changed to read "slash genesis" instead of the funky URL thing we've going now...
------
MppC|982070553
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions that cancelled some important patents, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions, in particular the ShermanAntitrustAct, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
------
FilmHistory|982070752
26c26,27
< *  IndependentS
---
> *  IndependentS
> *  FoxFilmCorporation
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Two|982070920
1c1,25
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
> :2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
> :3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
> :4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 
> :5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 
> :6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 
> :7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 
> :8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 
> :9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
> :10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 
> :11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 
> :12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 
> :13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 
> :14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 
> :15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
> :16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
> :17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
> :18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 
> :19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 
> :20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 
> :21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
> :22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
> :23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
> :24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
> :25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Two|982070965
1,3c1,3
< :1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
< :2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
< :3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
---
> :# Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
> :# And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
> :# And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Two|982070979
1,3c1,3
< :# Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
< :# And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
< :# And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
---
> :1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
> :2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
> :3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
------
SandBox|982071069
9a10,14
> 
> ----
> # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah....
> # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah....
> # last line 
------
SandBox|982071113
12,13c12,13
< # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah....
< # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah....
---
> # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....
> # this is a test of a really long line to see what happens when it wraps around in this strange number mode, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Two|982071207
1,25c1,25
< :1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
< :2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
< :3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
< :4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 
< :5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 
< :6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 
< :7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 
< :8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 
< :9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
< :10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 
< :11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 
< :12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 
< :13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 
< :14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 
< :15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
< :16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
< :17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
< :18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 
< :19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 
< :20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 
< :21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
< :22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
< :23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
< :24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
< :25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 
---
> # Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
> # And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
> # And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 
> # These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 
> # And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 
> # But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 
> # And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 
> # And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 
> # And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
> # And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 
> # The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 
> # And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 
> # And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 
> # And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 
> # And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
> # And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
> # But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
> # And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 
> # And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 
> # And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 
> # And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
> # And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
> # And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
> # Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
> # And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 
------
FoxFilmCorporation|982071257
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In 1913, William Fox founded two companies, Greater New York Film Rental, a distribution firm, which was part of the IndependentS, and Fox (or Box, depending on the source) Office Attractions Company, a production company. 1915, he merged them to Fox Film Corporation (see VerticalIntegration), 1917 the company moved to HollywooD. During the FirstWorldWar, Fox was the leading production company in the US. William Fox lost control over the company after the 1929 stock market crash
------
MppC|982071368
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions, in particular the ShermanAntitrustAct, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions, in particular the one in 1915, which cancelled all MPPC patents and the ShermanAntitrustAct in 1917, which ended the oligopoly, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
------
FilmHistory|982071405
27c27,28
< *  FoxFilmCorporation
---
> *  FoxFilmCorporation
> *  ParamounT
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/One|982071788
1,94c1,31
< 
<   1In the beginning God created the heaven and the
<      earth.
<   2And the earth was without form, and void; and
<      darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
<      Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
<   3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
<   4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
<      divided the light from the darkness.
<   5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
<      called Night. And the evening and the morning were
<      the first day.
<   6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst
<      of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
<      waters.
<   7And God made the firmament, and divided the
<      waters which were under the firmament from the
<      waters which were above the firmament: and it was
<      so.
<   8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the
<      evening and the morning were the second day.
<   9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
<      gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land
<      appear: and it was so.
<   10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
<      together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw
<      that it was good.
<   11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
<      herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit
<      after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:
<      and it was so.
<   12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding
<      seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose
<      seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it
<      was good.
<   13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
<   14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of
<      the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let
<      them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and
<      years:
<   15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
<      heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
<   16And God made two great lights; the greater light to
<      rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he
<      made the stars also.
<   17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to
<      give light upon the earth,
<   18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to
<      divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that
<      it was good.
<   19And the evening and the morning were the fourth
<      day.
<   20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
<      the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may
<      fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
<   21And God created great whales, and every living
<      creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
<      abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
<      after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
<   22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and
<      multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl
<      multiply in the earth.
<   23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
<   24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
<      creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
<      beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
<   25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
<      and cattle after their kind, and every thing that
<      creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw
<      that it was good.
<   26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after
<      our likeness: and let them have dominion over the
<      fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
<      the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
<      creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
<   27So God created man in his own image, in the image of
<      God created he him; male and female created he
<      them.
<   28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
<      fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
<      subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
<      and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
<      thing that moveth upon the earth.
<   29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
<      bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
<      and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
<      yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
<   30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of
<      the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the
<      earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green
<      herb for meat: and it was so.
<   31And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
<      behold, it was very good. And the evening and the
<      morning were the sixth day.
---
> # In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> # And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> # And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> # And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> # And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> # And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> # And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> # And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
> # And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> # And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
> # And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
> # And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> # And the evening and the morning were the third day.
> # And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
> # And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
> # And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> # And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
> # And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
> # And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
> # And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> # And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> # And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
> # And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
> # And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
> # And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> # And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> # So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> # And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
> # And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
> # And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
> # And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982072569
63a64,66
> 
> ----
> /Talk
------
ParamounT|982073508
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Paramount was founded by WWHodkinson in 1914, as a merger of 11 film rental bureaus. Paramount was the first company that did nationwide distribution, thus gaining a huge efficiency advantage over the old regional States' Rights system. The company did 5-year exclusive contracts with AdolphZukor's FamousPlayers, JesseLasky's FeaturePlay and with BoswortH, the contracts were expanded to 25 years later (see VerticalIntegration). Paramount also introduced the block-booking system, which meant that an exhibitor who wanted to show a paticular FamousPlayers movie had to buy an entire package, containing a set of (mostly mediocre) films from all companies that worked together with Paramount. This system was very efficient for the involved production firms and in 1917, AdolphZukor bought Paramount and merged it with FamousPlayers. The new firm was called Paramount Pictures Corporation, and was the dominating force in the American market, it had most of the major stars under contract (like MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks). AdolphZukor fired WWHodkinson, who founded FirstNational to challenge Paramount's power. FirstNational controlled a large portion of the nation's cinemas and thus Paramount decided to build it's own chain of cinemas and achieved yet greater control of the market (in 1920, it controlled 5000 cinemas, 25% of the market). In 1919, FirstNational and Paramount planned to merge, to gain full control of the market and to cut production cost, because they figured that stars couldn't demand huge sums if there was only one major company to work for. But the plan was uncovered by a provate eye hired by CharlieChaplin, MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks and DWGriffith, who wanted to know why the major companies didn't prolong their contracts. In reaction to the plan, they decided to found their own distribution company, UnitedArtists, which effectovely ended the efforts to found a monopoly. Nevertheless, Paramount was one of the dominating companies in the SecondOligopoly until the US Supreme Court split the company in two 1949. 
------
ParamounT|982073599
1c1,3
< Paramount was founded by WWHodkinson in 1914, as a merger of 11 film rental bureaus. Paramount was the first company that did nationwide distribution, thus gaining a huge efficiency advantage over the old regional States' Rights system. The company did 5-year exclusive contracts with AdolphZukor's FamousPlayers, JesseLasky's FeaturePlay and with BoswortH, the contracts were expanded to 25 years later (see VerticalIntegration). Paramount also introduced the block-booking system, which meant that an exhibitor who wanted to show a paticular FamousPlayers movie had to buy an entire package, containing a set of (mostly mediocre) films from all companies that worked together with Paramount. This system was very efficient for the involved production firms and in 1917, AdolphZukor bought Paramount and merged it with FamousPlayers. The new firm was called Paramount Pictures Corporation, and was the dominating force in the American market, it had most of the major stars under contract (like MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks). AdolphZukor fired WWHodkinson, who founded FirstNational to challenge Paramount's power. FirstNational controlled a large portion of the nation's cinemas and thus Paramount decided to build it's own chain of cinemas and achieved yet greater control of the market (in 1920, it controlled 5000 cinemas, 25% of the market). In 1919, FirstNational and Paramount planned to merge, to gain full control of the market and to cut production cost, because they figured that stars couldn't demand huge sums if there was only one major company to work for. But the plan was uncovered by a provate eye hired by CharlieChaplin, MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks and DWGriffith, who wanted to know why the major companies didn't prolong their contracts. In reaction to the plan, they decided to found their own distribution company, UnitedArtists, which effectovely ended the efforts to found a monopoly. Nevertheless, Paramount was one of the dominating companies in the SecondOligopoly until the US Supreme Court split the company in two 1949. 
---
> Paramount was founded by WWHodkinson in 1914, as a merger of 11 film rental bureaus. Paramount was the first company that did nationwide distribution, thus gaining a huge efficiency advantage over the old regional States' Rights system. The company did 5-year exclusive contracts with AdolphZukor's FamousPlayers, JesseLasky's FeaturePlay and with BoswortH, the contracts were expanded to 25 years later (see VerticalIntegration). Paramount also introduced the block-booking system, which meant that an exhibitor who wanted to show a paticular FamousPlayers movie had to buy an entire package, containing a set of (mostly mediocre) films from all companies that worked together with Paramount. This system was very efficient for the involved production firms and in 1917, AdolphZukor bought Paramount and merged it with FamousPlayers. 
> 
> The new firm was called Paramount Pictures Corporation, and was the dominating force in the American market, it had most of the major stars under contract (like MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks). AdolphZukor also fired WWHodkinson, who founded FirstNational to challenge Paramount's power. FirstNational controlled a large portion of the nation's cinemas and thus Paramount decided to build it's own chain of cinemas and achieved yet greater control of the market (in 1920, it controlled 5000 cinemas, 25% of the market). In 1919, FirstNational and Paramount planned to merge, to gain full control of the market and to cut production cost, because they figured that stars couldn't demand huge sums if there was only one major company to work for. But the plan was uncovered by a provate eye hired by CharlieChaplin, MaryPickford, DouglasFairbanks and DwGriffith, who wanted to know why the major companies didn't prolong their contracts. In reaction to the plan, they decided to found their own distribution company, UnitedArtists, which effectovely ended the efforts to found a monopoly. Nevertheless, Paramount was one of the dominating companies in the SecondOligopoly until the US Supreme Court split the company in two 1949. 
------
MppC|982073833
1c1
< MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions, in particular the one in 1915, which cancelled all MPPC patents and the ShermanAntitrustAct in 1917, which ended the oligopoly, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
---
> MPPC stands for Motion Picture Patents Company, also known as the EdisonTrust, also known as the FirstOligopoly. It was a trust of all the major film companies and the biggest supplier of raw film, EastmanKodak. The reason for it's decline are manifold. The most important ones are the misjudgement of consumer interest and the quick rise of the so-called IndependentS, who later became the SecondOligopoly. There were also US Supreme Court decisions, in particular the one in 1912, which cancelled the patent on raw film, the one in 1915, which cancelled all MPPC patents and the ShermanAntitrustAct in 1917, which ended the oligopoly, but at that time, the MPPC was already defeated. 
------
IndependentS|982073886
1c1
< The Independents were film companies who resisted the claims of the MppC. They moved away from the Edison Trust's strongholds to HollywooD, CaliforniA, where they lay the foundations of the studio system and of American film industry as such. 
---
> The Independents were film companies who resisted the claims of the MppC. They built their own cameras to evade the trust's patents and moved away from the Edison Trust's strongholds to HollywooD, CaliforniA, where they lay the foundations of the studio system and of American film industry as such. 
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982074754
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Interesting article, Larry.  I too believe that God is much more interested in our '''character''' than our '''comfort'''.  However, I do find your concept of Natural Evil a bit puzzling.  A tornado may be disasterous and horrible, but calling it ''evil'' seems a bit strange to me.  And where do you draw the line?  Does a tornado have to take a life to be evil, or can it simply destroy some property?  What if it never touches down - is it still evil?  I dunno, I just don't think I buy into this.
> 
> Terrible things happen to good people, and these events you call evil.  But often these people can overcome these events and eventually become a much better person than they ever would have if the event had never happened.  I've seen it happen dozens of times.  So was the event really evil, can a thing that is evil result in something that is good?  Can it do so if God does not really exist?
> 
> The small little community I live in just recently was devistated when three high-school aged girls were killed when the mini-van they were riding swerved off the road and rolled over.  There was no alcohol involved, it appears they hit a pothole and lost control of the vehicle.  All three girls were very active in their respective churches, we know that they were all Christians.  I do not wish to diminish in the least the amount of grief that their families and indeed our entire community went through.  But I will say this, that our community pulled together around these families, and absolutely outpoured our love onto them.  Hundreds of families got involved in bringing whatever comfort we could to the grieving families, and as a result of their testimonies many kids who were making bad choices for themselves have decided to start making better ones.  I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see the pothole as evil.
> 
> The premises of the argument seem to have the bent that if God truly existed we would live in a environment where nothing ever went wrong.  No one would ever get hurt regardless of the circumstances, and everyone would have enough to eat and drink.  Why that does sound a lot like the Garden of Eden, doesn't it?  It also sounds a lot like we would have very little freedom there - all of our choices would be between things that were already pre-ordained to be good for us.  God never promised us smooth sailing, it simply isn't how the world works anymore.  He did, however, promise us comfort in our times of sorrow and I can tell you from personal experience that he does deliver.
> 
> --RaviDesai.
------
ActorS|982077275
0a1,8
> :JullietteBinoche
> :HumpreyBogart
> :JimCarey
> :SeanConnery
> :MichaelDouglas
> :BlytheDanner
> :HenryFonda
> :JaneFonda
1a10,14
> :JodieFoster
> :RichardGere
> :TomHanks
> :AudreyHepburn
> :KatherineHepburn
2a16,26
> :VivienLeigh
> :JackLemmon
> :SophiaLoren
> :PeterLorre
> :WalterMathau
> :PaulNewman
> :JackNicholson
> :GwenethPaltrow
> :SidneyPoitier
> :DennisQuaid
> :RobertRedford
3a28,33
> :JuliaRoberts
> :MegRyan
> :ElizabethTaylor
> :SpencerTracy
> :NatalieWood
> :JoanneWoodward
------
ActorS|982077731
2a3
> :EllenBurstein
4a6,7
> :BillCosby
> :JudithDench (Dame)
11a15,16
> :WhoopieGoldberg
> :CubaGoodingJr''.''
14a20
> :DustinHoffman
20a27
> :ShirleyMcLaine
25a33
> :RandyQuaid
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982082230
9a10,11
> ----
> Ravi - One of Webster's definitions of the noun "evil" is something that brings sorrow, distress or calamity.  That leaves plenty of room for Larry's natural evils.  If you read the next to last paragraph of his essay/lecture, you see the outline of your own argument above.  You will also see that his conclusion is that the argument claiming that the existence of evil disproves God, fails.  A conclusion which you obviously share.  In very dry and "clinical" terms, he has actually made the same argument to which you bring a wonderfully huma perspective, above.  I think you'll agree his article is not in itself defective, and deserves a careful reading to the end.
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982084202
11a12,19
> 
> ----
> AyeSpy, I did read his article carefully, I don't disagree with the result all.  It is quite clear to me that we share quite similar views.  What I disagreed with is calling a natural phenomenon "evil".  However, by your Webster's definition, perhaps I need to recant that.  But for me, evil was not the result, but the intent.  In other words, you could do evil by intent, even if the result was "good".  The reverse also true.  Since a tornado cannot show intent, I have a difficult time labelling it evil.
> 
> At the beginning of my post I indicated that I agreed with Larry that God is more interested in our Character than in our Comfort.  I said I agreed with him because, while he did not use those exact words, that is essentially what the result of his argument is.  That which does not kill us outright makes us stronger, and gives us more moral character.  In general, this is quite true, as the example I gave indicated as well.
> 
> However, I don't think we need to view everything bad that happens to us as something evil that God passed our way in order to grow our moral character.
> 
------
MammaMia|982084275
1c1
< An exclamation, meaning "Oh my gosh!" or something of that sort.
---
> An exclamation, literally "my momma," signifying surprise, awe, exasperation, anger, or fear.
------
RaviDesai|982085168
10a11,12
> ----
> Hey, Ravi, I noticed you were pulling in some of the genesis chapters.  Are you planning on doing this to the whole bible?  After all, it's ''really'' big, and it might be better to just refer people to an on-line translation.  Btw, which translation are you using? -- JoshuaGrosse
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982086500
12d11
< 
18a18,31
> ----
> Just so.  One needs to take care to distiguish the moral concept of evil, which implies intent, from the generic evil as a noun, which is basically "something bad."  When you look at evil in the dictionary as an adjective, all the value judgement stuff is included.
> 
> There are gobs and gobs of different conceptions of even the one Christian God, from person to person and sect to sect.  Some will tell you that an anthropomorhic God, possessed of human-style motivations while being omniscient and omnipotent, has the time, attention and resources and what's more the will, to attend to each and every one of His children on earth, map out a specific plan for them, and then watch and judge each individually moment-to-moment as to whether that individual accepts and follows God's plan for his life, or rejects it and strays.  Theoretically, those disposed to go along with the program get to heaven.  In such a scenario, literally everything which happens to one is directly and literally part of God's plan, and how one responds to the various tests presented help determine his worth as a potential heaven-dweller.  For the sake of economy, God could test hundreds or thousands at a time by smiting them with a tornado or a tsunami.
> 
> Larry's comments would fall right in line with that conception of God, or a very similar one.
> 
> At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a Christian theory that God is not matter but spirit, and when he created man in his own image, that was a siritual image and man is therefore a soul like unto God.  This same God, omniscient and omnipotent, set up a universe full of traps once his children rebelled against him (ate of the fruit of the tree of knowlege of good and evil) and cast them out into it, knowing all the while that only those with a pure soul and loving heart would be able to escape it.  Those who valued matter over spirit would be lost forever.  His "plan" for salvation was general, not specific to this or that individual.  When Man in his conceit strayed too far, He tried wiping them out and starting over with Noah, but material man was still too in love with the world.  So, He sent His son (reduntant as all all men are his literal children, born of his will) to remind everyone, "Hey - love one another, and follow the path I set out, or you ain't never gettin' home.  There's only one road back to the Father, and you're not on it."  Then He went about His divine business, whatever that may be, checking in now and again to see how the kids are doing.
> 
> (These are not theories I made up, but I've had both of them preached to me)
> 
> Under the second theory, God is "more concerned about our character than our comfort," and has set out signposts to be followed.  Those who follow the road get to come home and dwell in the house of the Lord forever.  This would be a God who would neither cause nor prevent tornadoes or eathquakes, but whose children would have an infinite variety of opportunities to learn from their lives and either move closer to Him or farther away.  In either case he would love them all, and mourn the lost.  Larry's argument still works under this scenario, but the literalness with which this or that person is "tested" would no longer apply.
> 
> However you believe is up to you, but you can look at Larry's article on its bare merits and then suggest or make changes which retain the arguments but perhaps open the way for a wider range of interpretation of the same Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-loving God.  No?
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982086770
37c37,39
< In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
---
> I'll answer briefly. (2) is a response to your observation on (1); matters are not confused everywhere and it behooves us not to confuse them further. (3) Property is control over how others use an object and right-libertarians argue for absolute property rights with total control over how others use an object. If people do not recognize this as authoritarian then the point requires more argument than belongs in an encyclopedia entry. (4) You're right, that was a mistake. I was speaking from personal experience only. (5) I am well-rebuked. :) -- RichardKulisz
> 
> In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
------
RaviDesai|982087209
12a13,14
> ----
> I, too, was wondering which version this was.  Personally, I think it's cool.  Wouldn't it be wild if we could read the entire bible, koran, whatever in an encyclopedia?  Finally the brevity with which encylopedias address subject matter would no longer be dictated by space considerations.  I once postulated a educational model for a search engine of reference sources, which would be cross-referenced in "trees" both alphabetically and by subject.  You could look up "sloth" under "S" or arrive at it by going to Science/Biology/Taxonomy/Animalia/Mammalia and whatever.  Same with Harper's Ferry.  Look it up under the alphabet to go to History/American/Civil War/John Brown or Civil War/Battles, etc.  WikiPedia has a potential to do something very much like this.  As we are not limited by physical space, we don't have to say "you can't put that here.  It's too big."
------
IndependentS|982087965
1c1
< The Independents were film companies who resisted the claims of the MppC. They built their own cameras to evade the trust's patents and moved away from the Edison Trust's strongholds to HollywooD, CaliforniA, where they lay the foundations of the studio system and of American film industry as such. 
---
> The Independents were film companies who resisted the claims of the MppC. They built their own cameras to evade the trust's patents and moved away from the Edison Trust's strongholds to HollywooD, CaliforniA, where they laid the foundations of the studio system and of the American film industry as such. 
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982088341
39c39,41
< In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
---
> In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
> 
> Why don't we treat the matter the same way - reserve libertarianism for the right, and anarchism for the left?  AnarchY would have a note at the bottom saying "sometimes used in a broader sense to include AnarchoCapitalism, which blah blah" but would otherwise treat traditional forms, and libertarianism would have a note sating "formerly used in a broader sense to include AnarchoSyndicalism, which blah blah" but would otherwise treat what have become standard forms.  It seems to me this is the simplest way to disentangle the two philosophies. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Talk|982089054
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I think this page should probably be renamed.  After all, it's part of the Jewish canon as well.
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Talk|982091229
1c1,6
< I think this page should probably be renamed.  After all, it's part of the Jewish canon as well.
---
> I think this page should probably be renamed.  After all, it's part of the Jewish canon as well.
> 
> ----
> 
> Actually, I was inclined to make it more specific, since it's
> the King James Version of Genesis in the Christian bible.
------
HollywooD|982092907
0a1
> Hollywood, CaliforniA was founded in 1857 by the Wilcox family.
------
FirstNational|982094166
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The First National Exhibitors' Circuit was founded 1917 by the merger of 26 of the nation's biggest First Run cinema chains, controlling more than 600 cinemas, more than 200 of them were First Run cinemas. The foundation, an initiative by Thomas L. Tally, was a reaction to the overwhelming influence of ParamounT, which dominated the market. First National was set up to combine the finacial power of the involved firms, to buy stars, to finance their movies and to gain the right to distribute them later. Between 1917 and 1918, they made contracts with MaryPickford and CharlieChaplin, the first million dollar deals in the history of film.
> First National's finacial power and it's control over the lucrative First Run cinemas posed a threat to ParamounT, so it decided to enter the cinema business. With a sum of ten milion dollars they built their own chain of First Run houses and, after a secret plan to merge with First National failed (which led to the foundation of UnitedArtists, and to the loss of First National's biggest stars). In the early twenties, Paramount attempted a hostile takeover, buying one of First Nationals member firms after the other. 
------
HollywooD|982095099
2c2
< The first studio in Hollywood was founded 1911 by David Horsley for the NestorCompany. In the same year, another 15 IndependentS settled here. 
---
> <p>The first studio in Hollywood was founded 1911 by David Horsley for the NestorCompany. In the same year, another 15 IndependentS settled here.  Film production companies began to flock to HollywooD because of the good weather and longer days.  In the early days of film, there were no electric lights and so the only source of enough light to adequately expose the film was sun light.  Up until that point, New York had been the capital of film production.</p>
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982095130
31a32,34
> ----
> Hi, Ravi!  Thanks for the thoughtful comments!  You wrote:
> :However, I do find your concept of Natural Evil a bit puzzling.  A tornado may be disasterous and horrible, but calling it ''evil'' seems a bit strange to me.  And where do you draw the line?  Does a tornado have to take a life to be evil, or can it simply destroy some property?
32a36,59
> This isn't ''my'' concept; it's the way that natural misfortunes are referred to when philosophers and theologians discuss The Problem of Evil.  Nothing hangs on our using that word, either.  The so-called Problem of Evil is just as bad if you refer to "natural evils" (notice, this can take a plural) as "disasters," "misfortunes," or whatever.  If you like, we can call it the Problem of Really Bad Things.
> 
> :But often these people can overcome these events and eventually become a much better person than they ever would have if the event had never happened.  I've seen it happen dozens of times.  So was the event really evil, can a thing that is evil result in something that is good?  Can it do so if God does not really exist?
> 
> This is one of the options you have in replying to the argument: you are free to deny that natural evil (misfortune, disaster) really is a bad thing.  Maybe it's all a ''good'' thing and therefore perfectly consistent with God's being all-loving.  Regardless of that, I don't see how God's existence would be required to have something good result from pain and suffering.
> 
> AyeSpy wrote:
> 
> :If you read the next to last paragraph of his essay/lecture, you see the outline of your own argument above. You will also see that his conclusion is that the argument claiming that the existence of evil disproves God, fails. 
> 
> Did I really say that?  I shouldn't have, if so.
> 
> Ravi replied:
> 
> :At the beginning of my post I indicated that I agreed with Larry that God is more interested in our Character than in our Comfort. I said I agreed with him because, while he did not use those exact words, that is essentially what the result of his argument is. 
> 
> Again, did I really say that (so that you can agree with me)?  I thought I was just explaining one point of view, not necessarily expressing my own.
> 
> Then AyeSpy:
> :However you believe is up to you, but you can look at Larry's article on its bare merits and then suggest or make changes which retain the arguments but perhaps open the way for a wider range of interpretation of the same Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-loving God. No? 
> 
> By all means, Ravi, if you wish to expand any particular point that I've made in the article, go for it.  While you do it, however, please be sure to attribute your views to the person or people who hold them, rather than asserting straightforwardly that the views are correct.  We want to retain a semblance of lack of bias here.  :-)
> 
> -- LarrySanger
------
HollywooD|982095370
2c2,3
< <p>The first studio in Hollywood was founded 1911 by David Horsley for the NestorCompany. In the same year, another 15 IndependentS settled here.  Film production companies began to flock to HollywooD because of the good weather and longer days.  In the early days of film, there were no electric lights and so the only source of enough light to adequately expose the film was sun light.  Up until that point, New York had been the capital of film production.</p>
---
> 
> The first studio in Hollywood was founded 1911 by David Horsley for the NestorCompany. In the same year, another 15 IndependentS settled here.  Film production companies began to flock to HollywooD because of the good weather and longer days.  In the early days of film, there were no electric lights and so the only source of enough light to adequately expose the film was sun light.  Up until that point, New York had been the capital of film production.
------
ActorS|982095439
16a17
> :CaryGrant
39a41
> :JohnWayne
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Talk|982095488
2d1
< 
4d2
< 
6a5,6
> ----
> Well, only if we propose to have the full texts of several different Bibles.  But then we'd still need a nondenominational page to discuss the book of Genesis.  Hmmm....not an easy problem to solve right away...
------
WilliamShakespeare|982096387
1c1,11
< Describe the new page here.
---
> WilliamShakespeare was a playwright and actor in England.  He predominantly wrote between 1485 and 1510.  For how well respected he is today, remarkably little is actually known of his life.  This fact accounts for the many theories on who, other than the actor William Shakespeare, wrote the works.  However, Shakespeare's reputation--as a poet and dramaturgist--has ebbed and flowed over the past five centuries.
> 
> <p>His dramatic work has been categorized in the following divisions:
> :ShakespeareanTragedies
> :ShakespeareanComedies
> :ShakespeareanHistories
> :ShakespeareanRomances
> 
> <p>His other literary works include:
> :ShakespeareanSonnets
> :ShakespeareanLongPoetry
------
TheaTer|982096598
13a14,19
> 
> 20th Century American Theater:
> : EugeneOneil
> : ArthurMiller
> : DavidMamet
> 
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982096677
3c3
< I am going to finish up with the so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i>, which has, as its conclusion, "God does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.  I want to remind you that, just because I am presenting this argument, that does not mean that I think it is a good argument, or that I agree with its conclusion.  I just want you to understand what the argument is, and then you can go and think whatever you like about it.
---
> The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has, as its conclusion, "God does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.
5c5
< Now, we have talked about the rationality of <i>theism</i> -- about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well talk about the rationality of <i>atheism</i>.  If you are an atheist, you would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  It would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Christians see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
---
> Much ink has been spilled over the questions regarding rationality of <i>theism</i> (see FaithAndRationality)--about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well talk about the <a>TheRationalityOfAtheism</i>.
66c66
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
LarrysText|982096777
13c13
< ::PhilosophyOfReligion -- WhatIsGod -- FaithAndRationality -- ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TheOntologicalArgument -- TheCosmologicalArgument -- TheTeleologicalArgument -- TheProblemOfEvil 
---
> ::PhilosophyOfReligion -- WhatIsGod -- FaithAndRationality -- ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TheOntologicalArgument -- TheCosmologicalArgument -- TheTeleologicalArgument -- TheProblemOfEvil -- TheRationalityOfAtheism
------
TheRationalityOfAtheism|982096787
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, further expansion of this section is greatly encouraged> 
> 
> If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism ''rationally,'' one would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Theists see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
------
TheRationalityOfAtheism|982096821
3c3,5
< If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism ''rationally,'' one would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Theists see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
---
> If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism ''rationally,'' one would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Theists see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
> 
> See also TheProblemOfEvil and FaithAndRationality.
------
TheRationalityOfAtheism|982096861
3c3
< If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism ''rationally,'' one would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Theists see this and sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
---
> If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism ''rationally,'' one would appear to need some arguments <i>that</i> <i>God</i> <i>does</i> <i>not</i> <i>exist</i>.  Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists.  That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good reason to believe that God exists.  It would <i>not</i> show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist.  Theists sometimes say: you can’t prove that God <i>does</i> <i>not</i> exist, because you can’t prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be <i>agnostic</i>.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982097102
5c5
< Much ink has been spilled over the questions regarding rationality of <i>theism</i> (see FaithAndRationality)--about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well talk about the <a>TheRationalityOfAtheism</i>.
---
> Much ink has been spilled over the questions regarding rationality of <i>theism</i> (see FaithAndRationality)--about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well question the <a>TheRationalityOfAtheism</i>.
7c7
< But some atheistic philosophers insist that one <i>can</i> prove that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.  You <i>can</i> prove a negative, they say: you <i>can</i> prove that something does not exist.  How?  You show that the very concept of a thing is contrary to known facts.  That’s how the argument from evil goes.  Very briefly, the argument from evil proceeds like this: if God did exist, then he would eliminate evil from the world; but we see evil all around us; therefore, God does not exist.  I am sure you have thought of this problem before.  Now let’s see if we can state it more rigorously, and what objections might be made against it.
---
> In response to these questions, some atheistic philosophers insist that one <i>can</i> prove that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.  One <i>can</i> prove a negative, they say, i.e., one <i>can</i> prove that something does not exist.  One show that the very concept of a thing is contrary to known facts.  That is how the argument from evil proceeds: if God did exist, then he would eliminate evil from the world; but we see evil all around us; therefore, God does not exist.
11,27c11,19
< 1. If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving.
< 
< 2. If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it.
< 
< 3. If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient.
< 
< 4. If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent.
< 
< 5. If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving.
< 
< 6. Hence (by premises 2-5), if evil exists in the world, then either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving.
< 
< 7. But evil does exist in the world.
< 
< 8. Thus (by premise 6 and 7) either God is not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not all-loving.
< 
< 9. Therefore (by premises 1 and 8), God does not exist.  (That is, the God of Judeo-Christian religion, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, does not exist.)
---
> #If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving.
> #If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it.
> #If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient.
> #If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent.
> #If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving.
> #Hence (by premises 2-5), if evil exists in the world, then either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving.
> #But evil does exist in the world.
> #Thus (by premise 6 and 7) either God is not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not all-loving.
> #Therefore (by premises 1 and 8), God does not exist.  (That is, the God of Judeo-Christian religion, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, does not exist.)
------
TheRationalityOfAtheism|982097360
5c5,7
< See also TheProblemOfEvil and FaithAndRationality.
---
> Atheists tend to counter with OccamsRazor.  If there truly is no reason at all to suppose something exists, then chances are it doesn't.
> 
> See also TheProblemOfEvil and FaithAndRationality.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982098062
3c3
< The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has, as its conclusion, "God does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.
---
> The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has, as its conclusion, "GoD does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.
7c7
< In response to these questions, some atheistic philosophers insist that one <i>can</i> prove that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.  One <i>can</i> prove a negative, they say, i.e., one <i>can</i> prove that something does not exist.  One show that the very concept of a thing is contrary to known facts.  That is how the argument from evil proceeds: if God did exist, then he would eliminate evil from the world; but we see evil all around us; therefore, God does not exist.
---
> In response to these questions, some atheistic philosophers insist that one <i>can</i> prove that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim GoD does not exist.  One <i>can</i> prove a negative, they say, i.e., one <i>can</i> prove that something does not exist.  One show that the very concept of a thing is contrary to known facts.  That is how the argument from evil proceeds: if God did exist, then he would eliminate evil from the world; but we see evil all around us; therefore, God does not exist.
19c19
< #Therefore (by premises 1 and 8), God does not exist.  (That is, the God of Judeo-Christian religion, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, does not exist.)
---
> #Therefore (by premises 1 and 8), God does not exist.  (That is, the God of Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions, which is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, does not exist.)
21c21
< Now let’s go back over the premises and see which ones we might criticize.  Remember that if you want to criticize an argument, then either you attack the premises, or you show that the premises do not entail the conclusion.  Now, the way I have formulated the argument from evil, the premises <i>do</i> entail the conclusion: this is a deductively valid argument.  That means that <i>if</i> the premises are all true, <i>then</i> the conclusion must be true.  But that’s not too impressive.  If I had wanted to, I <i>could</i> have formulated the ontological argument and the cosmological arguments as deductively valid arguments; I would then, if I wanted to criticize those arguments, simply attack the premises.  So if you are certain that the conclusion of a valid argument is wrong, one of the premises must be wrong.  You just have to say which one, and say <i>why</i> that one is wrong.
---
> Consider now the premises in turn.
23c23
< So that’s what we’re going to do here.  We’ll go over the different premises and see whether they can stand up to scrutiny.  Premise (1) just states some basic facts about the Judeo-Christian conception of God: "If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving."  Ordinary Christians certainly do not want to reject premise (1).  Other people might end up rejecting this premise, because they want to believe in a <i>different</i> sort of God.
---
> Premise (1) simply states some basic facts about the conception of God under consideration: "If God exists, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving."  Ordinary Christians, for example, certainly do not want to reject premise (1).  Other people might end up rejecting this premise, because they want to believe in a <i>different</i> sort of GoD.
25c25
< How about premise (2)?  "If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it."  Why think this?  Well, evil has to have <i>some</i> explanation.  Why would a good God allow evil to exist in the world?  Maybe he doesn’t know about it; or maybe he <i>can’t</i> get rid of it; or maybe he doesn’t <i>want</i> to eliminate it.  But is there any <i>other</i> explanation?  Perhaps, but I don’t think so.  Just ask yourself this: suppose God <i>knew</i> about evil, he <i>could</i> eliminate all of it, and he <i>wanted</i> to eliminate all of it; could evil even <i>possibly</i> exist then?  Surely not.  If God <i>knew</i> about all the evil, and he <i>could</i> get rid of it, and he <i>desired</i> to get rid of it, then God <i>would</i> get rid of it.  But then we simply say: suppose that evil <i>does</i> exist.  In that case, either God doesn’t know about it, he can’t get rid of it, or he doesn’t want to get rid of it.  One of those options is open to us (or perhaps a combination of them).  That’s what premise (2) says.  So I don’t think we can criticize premise (2).
---
> Consider premise (2): "If evil exists in the world, then either (1) God does not know about it, (2) God cannot eliminate it, or (3) God does not want to eliminate it."  Why think this?  Simply put, for a traditional theist, evil has to have <i>some</i> explanation.  Why would a good God allow evil to exist in the world?  Maybe he does not know about it; or maybe he <i>can’t</i> get rid of it; or maybe he does not <i>want</i> to eliminate it.  But is there any <i>other</i> explanation?  Perhaps; perhaps not.  Suppose God <i>knew</i> about evil, he <i>could</i> eliminate all of it, and he <i>wanted</i> to eliminate all of it; could evil even <i>possibly</i> exist then?  Surely not.  If God <i>knew</i> about all the evil, and he <i>could</i> get rid of it, and he <i>desired</i> to get rid of it, then God <i>would</i> get rid of it.  But then we simply say: suppose that evil <i>does</i> exist.  In that case, either God does not know about it, he cannot get rid of it, or he does not want to get rid of it.  One of those options is open to us (or perhaps a combination of them).  That is what premise (2) says.
27c27
< Now look at premise (3).  "If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient."  That seems perfectly true.  If there’s <i>anything</i> that God doesn’t know, then God isn’t omniscient; what it means to be omniscient is to know everything that there is to know.
---
> Now examine premise (3).  "If God does not know about evil, then God is not omniscient."  That seems perfectly true.  If there is <i>anything</i> that God does not know, then God is not omniscient; what it means to be omniscient is to know everything that there is to know.
29c29
< Similar things can be said about premise (4).  "If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent."  That also seems incontrovertibly true.  If there is anything that God can’t do, anything that doesn’t involve a contradiction anyway, then God isn’t omnipotent.  It is sometimes held that to eliminate evil ''would'' result in a contradiction - that is, we live in the best of all possible worlds.  However, without a lot more justification this can be ignored for the time being.  If God were omnipotent then he could certainly eliminate evil.  So I think both premises (3) and (4) have to be accepted.
---
> Similar things can be said about premise (4).  "If God cannot eliminate evil, then God is not omnipotent."  That also seems incontrovertibly true.  If there is anything that God cannot do--anything that does not involve a contradiction, anyway--then God is not omnipotent.  It is sometimes held that to eliminate evil ''would'' result in a contradiction; that is, we live in the BestOfAllPossibleWorlds (a view made famous by GottfriedLeibniz).  But let us set this view aside for the time being.  If God were omnipotent then, it seems, he could eliminate evil.
31c31
< But now what about premise (5)?  "If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving."  This one is more doubtful.  In fact I am sure that a lot of you will want to raise objections to it.  Isn’t it at least <i>possible</i> that God is all-loving, but he still doesn’t want to eliminate evil?  Maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  Well, we’ll elaborate on this objection in a bit.  Just keep in mind that we are going to come back to it; so premise (5) is the first premise we’ve found which is really dubious.
---
> So both premises (3) and (4) seem unobjectionable.
33c33
< Next consider premise (6).  "Hence (by premises 2-5), if evil exists in the world, then either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving."  This follows deductively from premises (2)-(5); the only way to reject premise (6) is to reject (2), (3), (4), or (5); and so if we end up deny premise (5), that will be enough to allow us to say that (6) is false.
---
> Next consider premise (5), which is perhaps more interesting.  "If God does not want to eliminate evil, then God is not all-loving."  This premise seems more doubtful.  In fact I am sure that a lot of you will want to raise objections to it.  Is it not at least <i>possible</i> that God is all-loving, but he still does not want to eliminate the pain and suffering in the world?  Maybe it is perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  We will elaborate this point in a bit.  Just keep in mind that we are going to come back to it; so premise (5) is the first premise we have found that is possibly dubious.
35c35
< What about premise (7)?  "But evil does exist in the world."  Some people deny this.  But how?  How could anyone possibly deny that evil exists in the world?
---
> Premise (6) follows deductively from premises (2)-(5); the only way to reject premise (6) is to reject (2), (3), (4), or (5).
37c37
< Some people say that evil is <i>merely</i> an <i>appearance</i>; it is <i>only</i> an illusion.  Nothing is <i>really</i> evil.  I suppose the idea is that if you get yourself into the right frame of mind, probably a rather fuzzy frame of mind, then evil seems powerless and inconsequential.  What really matters is goodness, happiness, love, or something like that; so evil doesn’t matter, and in a sense it doesn’t really exist.
---
> Premise (7) is: "But evil does exist in the world."  Some people deny this.  Some people say that evil is <i>merely</i> an <i>appearance</i>; it is <i>only</i> an illusion.  Nothing is <i>really</i> evil.  In a certain frame of mind, evil might seem powerless and inconsequential.  What really matters is goodness, happiness, love, or something like that; so evil does not matter, and in a sense it does not really exist.
39c39
< I have to admit that I have a hard time taking that view seriously.  First of all, even if evil "doesn’t matter," that certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t <i>exist</i>.  Because plainly it <i>does</i> exist.  Hitler exterminated six million Jews; that wasn’t evil?  People suffer from debilitating diseases all around the world; that’s not an evil we all potentially face?  People are regularly killed by tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.  Those events aren’t really evil?  Their obvious hatefulness is illusory?  That seems ridiculous.  Unless you have some sophisticated way to explain <i>why</i> evil is merely illusory, this view can be safely rejected.  I seriously doubt you can solve the problem of evil by simply <i>denying</i> that evil exists.
---
> It is difficult for most people to take this view seriously.  First of all, even if evil "doesn not really matter," it nevertheless plainly <i>exists</i>.  Hitler exterminated six million Jews; that was surely evil.  People suffer from debilitating diseases all around the world; that too is surely an evil (a so-called "natural evil"; see below) we all potentially face.  People are regularly killed by tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.  Those events are awful evils.  It sounds extremely implausible, to most people, to say that their obvious hatefulness or badness is illusory.  Unless one has some sophisticated way to explain <i>why</i> evil is merely illusory, this view can be safely rejected.
43c43,45
< So after going over each premise of the argument from evil, we have found just <i>one</i> premise, namely (5), and ''perhaps'' also statement 4, that gives us substantial hope of escaping the conclusion.  As I said, maybe it’s perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.  But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>theodicy</i>.  A theodicy is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  And mind you, in order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.  I think that when I put it this way, this is a topic you may have thought a fair amount about; maybe some of you already have views about it.
---
> After going over each premise of the argument from evil, we have found <i>one</i> premise, namely (5), and ''perhaps'' also premise (4), that gives us substantial hope of escaping the conclusion.  Again: maybe it is perfectly consistent for an all-loving God to allow evil to exist in the world.
> 
> But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>TheoDicy</i>.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982098111
34a35,37
> ''While I disagree with you about the status of things here,
> the point I have been making to TimShell I will make to you as well.  This article, the short article on the term 'Anarchy' can simply serve as '''description''' of how the term is used.  It may be a shame that things have gotten confused, but rather than ignore the confusion, I attempted to describe it so that a newcomer to the term will better understand.  The point may not be to give each side equal treatment, but merely to educate newcomers that the term is actively used in two different ways.'' --JimboWales
> 
------
TheoDicy|982098218
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A ''theodicy'' is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  In order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.
> 
> The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
------
ActorS|982098238
4a5
> :NicolasCage
------
AnarchY|982098247
18a19,20
> Both views are united in their opposition to the existence of government, but they part company soon after on issues of private property and social institutions generally.
> 
21c23
< You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
---
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
------
TheoDicy|982098259
0a1,2
> <the following is a portion (partly edited) of LarrysText, further development is greatly encouraged> 
> 
------
LarrysText|982098326
13c13
< ::PhilosophyOfReligion -- WhatIsGod -- FaithAndRationality -- ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TheOntologicalArgument -- TheCosmologicalArgument -- TheTeleologicalArgument -- TheProblemOfEvil -- TheRationalityOfAtheism
---
> ::PhilosophyOfReligion -- WhatIsGod -- FaithAndRationality -- ObviouslyBadArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TraditionallyRespectableArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod -- TheOntologicalArgument -- TheCosmologicalArgument -- TheTeleologicalArgument -- TheProblemOfEvil -- TheRationalityOfAtheism -- TheoDicy
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Talk|982098380
6c6,8
< Well, only if we propose to have the full texts of several different Bibles.  But then we'd still need a nondenominational page to discuss the book of Genesis.  Hmmm....not an easy problem to solve right away...
---
> Well, only if we propose to have the full texts of several different Bibles.  But then we'd still need a nondenominational page to discuss the book of Genesis.  Hmmm....not an easy problem to solve right away...
> ----
> I agree completely with what everyone has said.  Especially the part about it not being an easy problem to solve right away.  :-)
------
ActorS|982098558
1c1
< :JullietteBinoche
---
> 
12d11
< :JaneFonda
14d12
< :JodieFoster
16d13
< :WhoopieGoldberg
20,21d16
< :AudreyHepburn
< :KatherineHepburn
24d18
< :VivienLeigh
29d22
< :ShirleyMcLaine
32,33d24
< :GwenethPaltrow
< :SidneyPoitier
38,40d28
< :JuliaRoberts
< :MegRyan
< :ElizabethTaylor
43,44d30
< :NatalieWood
< :JoanneWoodward
------
ActresseS|982098582
1a2
> :JullietteBinoche
2a4
> :JaneFonda
3a6,10
> :WhoopieGoldberg
> :AudreyHepburn
> :KatherineHepburn
> :VivienLeigh
> :ShirleyMcLaine
4a12,13
> :GwenethPaltrow
> :SidneyPoitier
7c16,19
< :MichelleYeoh
---
> :ElizabethTaylor
> :NatalieWood
> :JoanneWoodward
> :MichelleYeoh
------
AnarchoCapitalism|982098682
4a5
> /Talk
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982099039
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> JoshuaGrosse (I'm pretty sure it was him!) wrote on another page:
> 
> 'In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.htmlthis article]. '
> 
> This particular article isn't bad overall, but it might lead the reader to a few misconceptions.  First, the anarchocapitalism is not the 'house ideology' of the Libertarian Party.  No doubt there are some anarchists in the ranks of the LP, but as far as I know they do not dominate.
> 
> It should be noted that the author, MikeHuben, is best known on the Internet for his ''critique'' of libertarianism.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982099061
45c45
< But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>TheoDicy</i>.
---
> But how?  How could a God that is all-loving allow evil not only to exist, but to <i>flourish</i> in the world?  That is the project of giving a <i>TheoDicy</i> (q.v.).
47c47
< I should insert here that some people think that all they have to prove is that a loving God <i>can</i> <i>have</i> <i>some</i> <i>purpose</i> in permitting evil to exist.  These people <i>deny</i> that they have to <i>state</i> God’s purposes.  What would be the point of that?  God’s purposes are not our purposes; the nature of God is mysterious.  So if you are a mystic this view should be attractive to you.  All you have to do is to argue that a loving God <i>might</i> have some reason for allowing the existence of evil; you don’t have to state what the reason is.  I think this is an extremely popular view among Christians.  For two reasons, no doubt: first, it is extremely pious not to try to guess at God’s thoughts; and second, it gives us a justification for not making an actual attempt to explain evil, which promises to be a very difficult task indeed.
---
> Some theologians--of a mystical bent--believe that all they have to prove is that a loving God <i>can</i> <i>have</i> <i>some</i> <i>purpose</i> in permitting evil to exist.  These people <i>deny</i> that they have to <i>state</i> God’s purposes.  There would be little point in doing that.  God’s purposes are not our purposes, they say; the nature of God is mysterious.  All one has to do is to argue that a loving God <i>might</i> have some reason for allowing the existence of evil; one need not state what the reason is.  This is an extremely popular view among ordinary theistic nontheologians, for two reasons, no doubt: first, it seems extremely pious not to try to guess at God’s thoughts (indeed, some religions enjoin us from doing so); and second, it gives us a reason for not making an actual attempt to explain evil, which promises to be a difficult task.
49c49
< But let’s review a few actual attempts to explain evil.  The first is to point to the existence of free will.  God gave us free will; and so we are able to bring evil upon ourselves.  We are to blame for the evils which we inflict and suffer.  This is an unfortunate consequence of our status as free beings; but it is far better that we are free, and hence that we suffer evil, than it would be if we were merely unfree pawns in a perfect game that God played by himself.
---
> Let us review a few actual attempts to explain evil (without necessarily endorsing any of them).
51c51
< This is very persuasive to many people.  But there is a very serious problem with it: very much of the evil that we suffer is not due, in any direct way, to any choices that human beings make.  When the Black Death rode in the late Middle Ages, and wiped out millions upon millions of Europeans, that certainly was not due to any act of any human being.  Or take any natural disaster at all: human beings do not cause, and cannot prevent, devastating earthquakes.  So we should distinguish between <i>moral</i> evil and <i>natural</i> evil, a distinction I’ve been blurring up until now.  Moral evil is any bad thing that humans are responsible for; natural evil is any bad thing, such as an earthquake or flood, that humans are not responsible for.  Human beings are to blame for moral evil; but they are not to blame for natural evil.
---
> We might explain evil by pointing to the existence of free will.  God gave us free will; so we are able to bring evil upon ourselves.  We are to blame for the evils which we inflict and suffer.  This is an unfortunate consequence of our status as free beings.  But it is far better that we are free, and hence that we suffer evil, than it would be if we were merely unfree pawns in a perfect game that God played by himself.
53c53
< "Ah," you may say, "but we are.  Adam and Eve freely committed the Original Sin, of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and we have been paying for that great sin ever since."  Now, I don’t want to get into any specific issues of Biblical exegesis and Church doctrine.  But suffice it to say that it would be harsh, to say the least, that <i>absolutely</i> <i>every</i> <i>member</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>human</i> <i>race</i> who came after Adam and Eve should have to pay, throughout their lives, with all manner of suffering, for that Original Sin of Adam and Eve.  I hope you’ll forgive me if I say that does not sound like something that a loving God would do.  There may be a way to explain how a loving God can permit evil; but I doubt that the best way to explain it is to say that we all <i>deserve</i> all the evil we get, because Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin.
---
> This is very persuasive to many people.  But there is a very serious problem with it: very much of the evil--the misfortune--that we suffer is not due, in any direct way, to any choices that human beings make.  When the Black Death rode in the late Middle Ages, and wiped out millions upon millions of Europeans, that certainly was not due to any act of any human being.  Or take any natural disaster at all: human beings do not cause, and cannot prevent, devastating earthquakes.  So we should distinguish between <i>moral</i> evil and <i>natural</i> evil, a distinction we have been blurring up until now.  Moral evil is any bad thing that for which humans ''are'' responsible; natural evil is any bad thing, such as an earthquake or flood, for which humans ''are not'' responsible.  Human beings are to blame for moral evil, but they are not to blame for natural evil.
55c55
< So here’s another answer, a more plausible answer, I think.  A universe in which we are tested and improved by having to face evils, is far better than a universe in which we might complacently live in blissful ignorance of evil.  The souls who will inhabit heaven will be far better and stronger if they live in a world beset with all sorts of evils.  Evil improves us.  And so God has allowed Satan to come to the power that he now has.  Satan tempts us and if we resist, we are better for it.  Satan also tests our will and resolve with all sorts of natural evils, earthquakes, floods, and whatnot; and if we pass the test we are better for it.
---
> "Ah," one may say, "but we are.  Adam and Eve freely committed the Original Sin, of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and we have been paying for that great sin ever since."  We could get into specific issues of Biblical exegesis and Church doctrine at this point.  Suffice it for now to say that it would seem to be rather harsh, to say the least, that <i>absolutely</i> <i>every</i> <i>member</i> <i>of</i> <i>the</i> <i>human</i> <i>race</i> who came after Adam and Eve should have to pay, throughout their lives, with all manner of suffering, for that Original Sin of Adam and Eve.  This, according to many, is something that a loving God would do.
57c57
< Now if I wanted to, I could bring a lot of objections to this.  Surely the absolute <i>horrors</i> that humanity has faced, especially in the twentieth century, are unnecessary to improve our moral mettle.  I could, if I wanted to, insist on such objections at length.  But I think we have come to the point where you can see the outlines of the major issues involved in the problem.  So I will leave it to you to hash out the details and to answer any further objections, that might come to you, yourselves.
---
> Here is another answer.  A universe in which we are tested and improved by having to face evils is far better than a universe in which we might complacently live in blissful ignorance of evil.  The souls who will inhabit heaven will be far better and stronger if they live in a world beset with all sorts of evils.  Evil improves us.  So God has allowed Satan to come to the power that he now has.  Satan tempts us and if we resist, we are better for it.  Satan also tests our will and resolve with all sorts of natural evils, earthquakes, floods, and whatnot; if we pass the test we are better for it.
58a59
> If one wanted to, one could bring a lot of objections to this.  Surely the absolute <i>horrors</i> that humanity has faced, especially in the twentieth century, are unnecessary to improve our moral mettle.  We could insist on such objections at length.  But then we are engaging the project of TheoDicy in detail, a topic for TheOlogy more than for PhilosophyOfReligion.
60c61
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982099109
1c1
< <the following is a portion (partly edited) of LarrysText, wikification is encouraged>
---
> <the following is a wikified portion of LarrysText; further development is encouraged; see also TheoDicy>
5c5
< Much ink has been spilled over the questions regarding rationality of <i>theism</i> (see FaithAndRationality)--about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well question the <a>TheRationalityOfAtheism</i>.
---
> Much ink has been spilled over the questions regarding rationality of <i>theism</i> (see FaithAndRationality)--about whether arguments are needed in order to be rational in believing in God, for example.  But we could just as well question the <i>TheRationalityOfAtheism</i>.
61c61
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
GoD|982099164
9c9
< A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered; in argument for the thesis that God does ''not'' exist, TheProblemOfEvil has been posed.
---
> A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered; in argument for the thesis that God does ''not'' exist, TheProblemOfEvil has been posed with the project of TheoDicy a response.
------
ActorS|982099172
1d0
< 
31c30,35
< 
---
>  
> 
> Q: How do you make a little box?
> A: With little boards. ;-)
> 
> What do you mean by 'little box'?
33c37
< How do you make a little box?
---
> Also, I still see some girls here on the boys page.
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982099585
1c1
< JoshuaGrosse (I'm pretty sure it was him!) wrote on another page:
---
> Someone wrote on another page:
3c3
< 'In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.htmlthis article]. '
---
> 'In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article]. '
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982099961
22c22,24
< Half a century is a long time, of course, so this is all speculation.  But fun ideas can be grounded in reality, and if you learn something thinking about them it's all to the good. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> Half a century is a long time, of course, so this is all speculation.  But fun ideas can be grounded in reality, and if you learn something thinking about them it's all to the good. -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> The number of hardware connections isn't what's important. AI will never emerge from raw hardware and nobody expects it to. What matters is the number of connections in a software, which can greatly surpass those in hardware. Silicon has a raw speed at least three orders of magnitude higher than meat. This speed can be harnessed by multi-tasking to create a much larger neural net than a straight-forward implementation would allow. In any case, multi-tasking can be done at the hardware level with FPGAs. -- RichardKulisz
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982100394
7a8,9
> ----
> Nothing wrong with critiques.  I find they're usually a better way of evaluating ideas: everyone will defend their own position eloquently, but you can only build a strong counter-attack against an idea with flaws.  So looking at how strong criticisms are usually gives you a better idea of how good the original was.
------
ShannonElizabeth|982100761
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Shannon Elizabeth is an American actress.  Born September 7, 1976, Elizabeth came to prominence in the hit comedy AmericanPie.
> 
> She was born in HoustonTexas, and was raised in WacoTexas.  Her father is of Syrian and Lebanese descent, while her mother is of French, English, and AmericanIndian descent. 
> 
> In August of 1999, Shannon Elizabeth appeared in PlayboyMagazine.
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982100865
24c24,26
< The number of hardware connections isn't what's important. AI will never emerge from raw hardware and nobody expects it to. What matters is the number of connections in a software, which can greatly surpass those in hardware. Silicon has a raw speed at least three orders of magnitude higher than meat. This speed can be harnessed by multi-tasking to create a much larger neural net than a straight-forward implementation would allow. In any case, multi-tasking can be done at the hardware level with FPGAs. -- RichardKulisz
---
> The number of hardware connections isn't what's important. AI will never emerge from raw hardware and nobody expects it to. What matters is the number of connections in a software, which can greatly surpass those in hardware. Silicon has a raw speed at least three orders of magnitude higher than meat. This speed can be harnessed by multi-tasking to create a much larger neural net than a straight-forward implementation would allow. In any case, multi-tasking can be done at the hardware level with FPGAs. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> Software connectivity is still way below what it needs to be, though, and again I don't think we've been making geometric strides on that front.  But you're right, it is a software problem, so gates aren't especially relevant.  There isn't nearly as convenient a name for the basic software structural unit, is there?
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982101385
9c9,11
< Nothing wrong with critiques.  I find they're usually a better way of evaluating ideas: everyone will defend their own position eloquently, but you can only build a strong counter-attack against an idea with flaws.  So looking at how strong criticisms are usually gives you a better idea of how good the original was.
---
> Nothing wrong with critiques.  I find they're usually a better way of evaluating ideas: everyone will defend their own position eloquently, but you can only build a strong counter-attack against an idea with flaws.  So looking at how strong criticisms are usually gives you a better idea of how good the original was.
> ----
> I agree completely.  The only point, though, is that Huben may wish to tar libertarianism by association with AnarchoCapitalism.
------
TheProblemOfEvil/Talk|982101441
59c59,70
< -- LarrySanger
---
> -- LarrySanger
> ----
> "AyeSpy wrote: 
> 
> 
> If you read the next to last paragraph of his essay/lecture, you see the outline of your own argument above. You will also see that his conclusion is that the argument claiming that the existence of evil disproves God, fails. 
> 
> Did I really say that? I shouldn't have, if so."  -- LarrySanger
> 
> I should put this differently:  ''If'' you are persuaded, as I am, that premise (5) does not logically fit any known data, then the combination of an all.../all.../all... God is not disproven by the ProblemOfEvil argument, as one of its necessary premises fails.  This, in combination with the second-to-last paragraph seem compatible with Ravi's stance, just not as emotionally so.
> 
> Obviously, if you believe an all-loving God cannot permit evil, then you must bow to the force of the original argument.  But then you would also have to believe that a loving mother could not visit unpleasantness and therefore discipline upon her child, since the child obviously would not find discipline pleasant.  A Christian believer already believes, likely, that scripture supports discipline as essential to love.  For this reason, It would appear futile for an atheist to attemt to pursuade a Christian with the ProblemOfEvil.  He might pursuade non-believers, but then what would be the point?  He'd be "preaching to the choir."  Heh heh ;^)
------
TheoDicy|982101468
3c3
< A ''theodicy'' is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God’s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  In order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.
---
> A ''theodicy'' is a theory about why God allows evil to exist in the world.  In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God?s <i>actual</i> <i>purposes</i> in allowing evil to exist in the world.  In order to be a <i>successful</i> theodicy, the purposes stated must be wholly consistent with the notion that God is all-loving.  So what is called for is an explanation of the purposes that a loving God might have in permitting evil to exist.
5c5,8
< The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
---
> The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
> 
> ----
> Please delete this note after you see it... What is the purpose of 'q.v.' above?  Was it just a cut-and-paste that caused it, or?
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982101772
15a16,17
> 
> /Questions
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982102132
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I do not know all that much about traditional AnarchY, but
> I would like to learn.
> 
> I find it fairly easy to envision the social systems proposed by laissez-faire capitalists (minarchists) and anarcho-capitalists.  I find it fairly easy to envisionthe social
> systems proposed by communists or socialists (central planning and all that).  I do not know, though, what is meant by the claim to be opposed to all hierarchy or social structure.
> 
> Perhaps a concrete example will illustrate what I do not understand.  At home, I have a television.  Let's suppose that you do not have a television at your home, and that you want one.  Suppose further that you decide to take mine.  What happens?
> 
> Lassez-faire capitalists say that I should call the cops.  AnarchoCapitalists say that I should call my private defense agency.  Communists generally are not opposed to personal property (just private ownership of the means of production,
> which we can suppose my television is not), so I guess they would say to call the cops, too.
> 
> I ask this in all sincerity, because I do not know the answer.
------
AnarchoCapitalists|982102164
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Those who advocate AnarchoCapitalism.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982102603
44a45,46
> 
> I think it is inaccurate to say that libertarianism is 'right' and anarchism is 'left'.  I know, anyway, that most libertarians would balk vehemently at the label 'right'.  These are people who want to legalize marijuana, pornography and gay marriage, who want to end registration for the draft, and permit free immigration and emigration from all countries.  The opposite positions are all traditionally associated with the right (at least in the U.S.). 
------
TheoDicy|982103735
5,8c5
< The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
< 
< ----
< Please delete this note after you see it... What is the purpose of 'q.v.' above?  Was it just a cut-and-paste that caused it, or?
---
> The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
------
MathematicsAndStatistics|982105308
3c3
< :PhilosophyOfMath -- FermatsLastTheorem
---
> :PhilosophyOfMath -- FermatsLastTheorem -- ProbabilityAndStatistics
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982106348
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a "universe", a finite set of "elementary events". We define a "weighting function" which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the "weight" of the elementary event. We can represent any "event" by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
> 
> Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability, summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details, and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe.
> 
> 
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982106588
1c1
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a "universe", a finite set of "elementary events". We define a "weighting function" which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the "weight" of the elementary event. We can represent any "event" by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a 'universe', a finite set of 'elementary events'. We define a 'weighting function' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the 'weight' of the elementary event. We can represent any 'event' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982107660
46c46,48
< I think it is inaccurate to say that libertarianism is 'right' and anarchism is 'left'.  I know, anyway, that most libertarians would balk vehemently at the label 'right'.  These are people who want to legalize marijuana, pornography and gay marriage, who want to end registration for the draft, and permit free immigration and emigration from all countries.  The opposite positions are all traditionally associated with the right (at least in the U.S.). 
---
> I think it is inaccurate to say that libertarianism is 'right' and anarchism is 'left'.  I know, anyway, that most libertarians would balk vehemently at the label 'right'.  These are people who want to legalize marijuana, pornography and gay marriage, who want to end registration for the draft, and permit free immigration and emigration from all countries.  The opposite positions are all traditionally associated with the right (at least in the U.S.). 
> 
> Why is it that I can use terms so universally recognized everywhere except wiki, where they are instantly balked at?  Right and left have nothing to do with anything so specific as moral majority or degree of government control.  The former refers to a desire for equality of rights, the latter for equality of condition.  Or at the very least, they will every time I use them. :)
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982113464
48a49,58
> 
> ----
> 
> I didn't realize that those terms were universally recognized or used in that way.  Are they?  I mean, exceptions of all kinds
> immediately pop to mind.
> 
> If the right wing is supposed to be for equality of rights, then why do they tend to seek strong laws to restrict the use of drugs used by lower classes (marijuana) while not seeking to restrict the use of drugs used by the upper classes (wine)?  What about equality of rights for homosexuals to marry?
> 
> If that's the way that the classification is supposed to work,
> then we have to say that Republicans are more liberal than libertarians, because libertarians favor equality of rights for homosexual marriage!  Sounds strange to me!  I think that in this particular case, the *left* has the idea of equality of rights.
------
TheoDicy|982113626
5c5,11
< The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
---
> The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
> 
> ----
> 
> Yet another minor inquiry, to be deleted asap.  I know what q.v. means, it just seems silly, since there's a link right there.  I think in print you have to say q.v. to let people know that they ought to go look something up.  Here, the hyperlink says that.
> Maybe not, though.  I have no strong opinion.  :-)  I just didn't
> want to edit out the q.v. without asking.
------
FermatsLastTheorem|982113703
9c9
< Using sophisticated tools from algebraic geometry, the English mathematician AndrewWiles, with help from his former student, Richard Taylor, devised a proof of FermatsLastTheorem that was published in 1995 in the journal Annals of Mathematics.
---
> Using sophisticated tools from algebraic geometry, the English mathematician AndrewWiles, with help from his former student, RichardTaylor, devised a proof of FermatsLastTheorem that was published in 1995 in the journal AnnalsofMathematics.
------
RaviDesai|982113988
14c14,23
< I, too, was wondering which version this was.  Personally, I think it's cool.  Wouldn't it be wild if we could read the entire bible, koran, whatever in an encyclopedia?  Finally the brevity with which encylopedias address subject matter would no longer be dictated by space considerations.  I once postulated a educational model for a search engine of reference sources, which would be cross-referenced in "trees" both alphabetically and by subject.  You could look up "sloth" under "S" or arrive at it by going to Science/Biology/Taxonomy/Animalia/Mammalia and whatever.  Same with Harper's Ferry.  Look it up under the alphabet to go to History/American/Civil War/John Brown or Civil War/Battles, etc.  WikiPedia has a potential to do something very much like this.  As we are not limited by physical space, we don't have to say "you can't put that here.  It's too big."
---
> I, too, was wondering which version this was.  Personally, I think it's cool.  Wouldn't it be wild if we could read the entire bible, koran, whatever in an encyclopedia?  Finally the brevity with which encylopedias address subject matter would no longer be dictated by space considerations.  I once postulated a educational model for a search engine of reference sources, which would be cross-referenced in "trees" both alphabetically and by subject.  You could look up "sloth" under "S" or arrive at it by going to Science/Biology/Taxonomy/Animalia/Mammalia and whatever.  Same with Harper's Ferry.  Look it up under the alphabet to go to History/American/Civil War/John Brown or Civil War/Battles, etc.  WikiPedia has a potential to do something very much like this.  As we are not limited by physical space, we don't have to say "you can't put that here.  It's too big."
> ----
> 
> I tend to agree, but I do wonder where we might want to draw the line (if at all).  I posted in the UnitedStatesConstitution and the JapanConstitution, just on the theory that it is free and that it is useful background information.
> 
> Similarly for the Bible, I suppose.  Especially if we wikify it.  So when you see a character like AdaM or JesusChrist, you can just click to read who that person is.  You could weave in and out of the text and public commentary on the text.
> 
> But what about the full text of MobyDick?  Does that belong here?  I'm less convinced.  It might be more useful to simply point to an un-wiki copy, because permitting people to wikify that text is probably fairly pointless.
> 
> Still... this is such an exciting experiment, I'd like to see us play with everything!  :-)
------
MobyDick|982114019
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Epic novel by HermanMelville.
------
HermanMelville|982114039
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Author of MobyDick, BillyBudd, and other novels.
------
TheoDicy|982115042
5,11c5
< The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz (q.v.).  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
< 
< ----
< 
< Yet another minor inquiry, to be deleted asap.  I know what q.v. means, it just seems silly, since there's a link right there.  I think in print you have to say q.v. to let people know that they ought to go look something up.  Here, the hyperlink says that.
< Maybe not, though.  I have no strong opinion.  :-)  I just didn't
< want to edit out the q.v. without asking.
---
> The word is taken from the title of a work that supplied one theodicy, namely that this is TheBestOfAllPossibleWorlds: the ''TheoDicee'' by GottfriedLeibniz.  See also TheProblemOfEvil.
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982115474
11c11,13
< I agree completely.  The only point, though, is that Huben may wish to tar libertarianism by association with AnarchoCapitalism.
---
> I agree completely.  The only point, though, is that Huben may wish to tar libertarianism by association with AnarchoCapitalism.
> 
> What does libertarianism mean in the above sentence? Does it refer to the right-libertarianism of the proponents of the Libertarian party or does it also include anarcho-syndicalists as left-libertarians? And what does right-libertarianism mean if one does not take it to be synonymous with AnarchoCapitalism?
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982116029
12c12,15
< I ask this in all sincerity, because I do not know the answer.
---
> I ask this in all sincerity, because I do not know the answer.
> ----
> 
> You report him to whatever cooperatives you and he belong to. Acting in an unethical and immoral manner can have a wide range of repercussions. Human beings are naturally interdependent and anarcho-syndicalists use these interdependencies without recourse to an artificial hierarchy like the justice system or police.
------
TheSingularity/Talk|982116293
26a27,28
> 
> Afraid not. The basic structural unit depends on how you construct the AI. It can be neurons in a network or frames or whatever.
------
AnarchY/AnarchyTalk|982119947
52,53c52
< I didn't realize that those terms were universally recognized or used in that way.  Are they?  I mean, exceptions of all kinds
< immediately pop to mind.
---
> I didn't realize that those terms were universally recognized or used in that way.  Are they?  I mean, exceptions of all kinds immediately pop to mind.
58a58,62
> 
> ----
> Ok, so I didn't go all the way to the end of the spectrum.  The very farthest right would be a system of plain and simple inequality, like despotism and aristocracy.  As you go to the left, equality of rights gets added, then of opportunity, and then of condition.  The idea is that inequities are ironed out as you go left.
> 
> I think this is a ''reasonably'' standard version of the political spectrum.  It does a good job lining up with other criteria, for instance, stance on capitalism (which leads to inequality of condition, so goes on the right).  The libertarian party actually uses this latter axis on its page, so it obviously doesn't reject ''that'' dichotomy, at least.  It just for whatever reason doesn't refer to it as the left-right political spectrum, probably because they don't want to be equated with conservativism. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
ActorS|982121948
37c37,38
< Also, I still see some girls here on the boys page.
---
> Also, I still see some girls here on the boys page.----
> In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS
------
WhatIsaWiki|982121968
1c1
< A <I>wiki</I> is a collection of interlinked <b>web</b> pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
---
> A <I>wiki</I> is a collection of interlinked web pages, each of which can be visited and edited by anyone.  You can even edit ''this'' page: just click "Edit text of this page" below.  
3c3
< So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, et cetera.
---
> So it's a collaborative website, constantly expanding as new people add pages about their interests, comment on old pages, et cetera.  So, join in!
5,7c5,7
< The original wiki http://c2.com/cgi/wiki might give you an idea of ''one'' way a fully-developed wiki might look.
< 
< ''Question about the safety of wikis removed to the WikiPediaFaq.  Other discussion removed to BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense.''
---
> Maybe you want to know
> *WhatsaWikiFor?
> *WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
------
AnarchoCapitalism/Talk|982121980
7a8,9
> 
> Another problem with that article is that Benjamin Tucker is given as an example of an "early" anarcho-capitalist. Tucker's attachment to capitalism is fictional as explained in [http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG5.html "Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?"]. There were no early anarcho-capitalists; the "movement" was invented out of thin air a mere couple of decades ago. Electioneering experts call this an astro-turf movement. AnarchoCapitalism's styling itself after anarchism is propaganda based on lies.
13c15
< What does libertarianism mean in the above sentence? Does it refer to the right-libertarianism of the proponents of the Libertarian party or does it also include anarcho-syndicalists as left-libertarians? And what does right-libertarianism mean if one does not take it to be synonymous with AnarchoCapitalism?
---
> What does libertarianism mean in the above sentence? Does it refer to the right-libertarianism of the proponents of the Libertarian party or does it also include anarcho-syndicalists as left-libertarians? And what does right-libertarianism mean if one does not take it to be synonymous with AnarchoCapitalism? If Mike Huben does wish to tar left-libertarians by associating them with right-libertarians, he need do no more than recognize the right-libertarians' own claims.
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|982122045
14c14
< More tips are to be found at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki .
---
> After you've learned all that, never again should you ask, WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
16c16
< ''This page and its subpages need a thorough overhaul--especially after CliffordAdams finishes updating the software that runs WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger''
---
> ''This page and its subpages need a thorough overhaul--especially after CliffordAdams finishes updating the software that runs WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger''
------
HowDoesOneEditaPage|982122185
14c14
< After you've learned all that, never again should you ask, WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
---
> Practice editing pages in our SandBox.  Never again should you ask, WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
------
ActorS|982122249
38c38
< In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS
---
> In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS...I hope the page editor who deleted all the women, except Judith Dench, Ellen Burstein, Blythe Danner, and Sophia Loren and further messed up the alphabetizing will correct it.
------
HomePage|982122285
1c1
< This is the new WikiPedia!  The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few random links?  Then, BeBoldInUpdatingPages!
---
> Welcome to WikiPedia!  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
3c3
< PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- HumanComputerInteraction -- BusinessAndEconomics -- PoLitics -- ReLigion -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- UnitedStates -- HiStory -- LinguisticS --  LiteraryArt -- MuSic -- DanCe -- ArtsandEntertainment -- ReCreation -- SportS -- QuoteS
---
> :PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy
5c5,11
< Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
---
> :GeoGraphy -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LinguisticS & LanguagE""s -- PoLitics -- EconomicS -- AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- SociOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- AnomalousPhenomena
> 
> :TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- EngineerIng -- ComputinG -- TransporT -- BusinessAndIndustry -- BusinessAndEconomics -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- CommunicAtion -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- ''HumanComputerInteraction (this link should be moved when the Lewis and Clark class is done with it)''
> 
> :ArtsandEntertainment -- MuSic -- DanCe -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- LiteraryArt -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
> 
> ''The above reflects only one of WikiPedia's CategorySchemes.''
7c13
< Have you told others about something and want some help cleaning up the resulting article?  Tell everyone on ReviewRequests.
---
> Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
10,12c16,17
< * WhatIsaWiki?  WhatsaWikiFor?  WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki?
< * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''
< * I caught some typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes.  So WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited?
---
> * WhatIsaWiki?
> * HowDoesOneEditaPage?  ''Quick hint: press the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of every page!''  Practice editing pages in our SandBox.
14,15c19
< * What are your NewTopics?  Where's the BrilliantProse?  How can we avoid PatentNonsense?
< * What are Wikipedia's encyclopedia CategorySchemes?
---
> * What are your NewTopics?
18c22
< We have a WikiPediaAnnouncements page.  Read it; add to it.  Practice editing pages in our SandBox.
---
> :'''Read WikiPediaAnnouncements to stay on top of the latest developments!'''
24d27
< 
27c30
< 
---
> ----
------
HomePage|982122462
3c3
< :PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- PhysIcs -- ChemIstry -- BiologicalScience''''s -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences -- AstroNomy
---
> :PhiloSophy -- MathematicsAndStatistics -- ScienCe -- PhysIcs -- BiologicalScience''''s -- AstroNomy -- ChemIstry -- BioChemistry -- MolecularBiology -- BotAny -- ZooLogy -- EarthSciences 
5c5
< :GeoGraphy -- CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LinguisticS & LanguagE""s -- PoLitics -- EconomicS -- AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- SociOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- AnomalousPhenomena
---
> :CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LinguisticS & LanguagE""s -- PoLitics -- EconomicS -- AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- SociOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- AnomalousPhenomena
7c7
< :TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- EngineerIng -- ComputinG -- TransporT -- BusinessAndIndustry -- BusinessAndEconomics -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- CommunicAtion -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- TheLaw -- PublicAffairs -- ''HumanComputerInteraction (this link should be moved when the Lewis and Clark class is done with it)''
---
> :TechnologY -- ArchitecturE -- EngineerIng -- ComputinG -- TransporT -- BusinessAndIndustry -- BusinessAndEconomics -- TheLaw -- AgriculturalScience -- EduCation -- CommunicAtion -- LibraryAndInformationScience -- HealthSciences -- FamilyAndConsumerScience -- PublicAffairs -- ''HumanComputerInteraction (this link should be moved when the Lewis and Clark class is done with it)''
9c9
< :ArtsandEntertainment -- MuSic -- DanCe -- FiLm -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- LiteraryArt -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
---
> :ArtsandEntertainment -- MuSic -- DanCe -- FiLm -- LiteraryArt -- ReLigion -- ReCreation -- SportS -- ClassIcs -- CriticalTheory -- VisualArtsAndDesign -- PaintIng -- SculpTure -- PerformingArts -- TheaterAndDrama -- GameS -- HobbieS -- TourIsm
11c11
< ''The above reflects only one of WikiPedia's CategorySchemes.''
---
> ::''The above reflects only one of WikiPedia's CategorySchemes.''
15c15
< You're confused and you're wondering
---
> You're wondering
20c20
< If you have other questions, just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikiPediaProcess and WikipediaL.
---
> Other questions?  Just ask on the WikiPediaFaq.  See also WikiPediaProcess and WikipediaL.
22c22
< :'''Read WikiPediaAnnouncements to stay on top of the latest developments!'''
---
> '''Read WikiPediaAnnouncements to stay on top of the latest developments!'''
------
HomePage|982122498
5c5
< :CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LinguisticS & LanguagE""s -- PoLitics -- EconomicS -- AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- SociOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- AnomalousPhenomena
---
> :CountriesOfTheWorld -- HiStory -- LinguisticS & LanguagE -- PoLitics -- EconomicS -- AnthropOlogy -- ArchaeOlogy -- PsychOlogy -- SociOlogy -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- AnomalousPhenomena
------
UnitedStates|982122541
5a6
> * UnitedStatesConstitution
------
HomePage|982122597
11c11
< ::''The above reflects only one of WikiPedia's CategorySchemes.''
---
> :::''The above reflects only one of WikiPedia's CategorySchemes.''
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982122653
17c17,21
< /Questions
---
> /Questions
> 
> ----
> 
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
------
TransporT|982122698
4a5,6
> * SpaceTransport
> ** SpacecraftPropulsion
------
HomePage|982122759
13c13
< Want to learn about something and you want others to tell you all about it?  Then add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
---
> Want to learn about something?  Add the topic to our list of RequestedArticles.
------
HomePage|982122889
1c1
< Welcome to WikiPedia!  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
------
HomePage|982122939
1c1
< '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages, despite having started work in January 2001.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
------
HomePage|982122992
1c1
< '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We've got over 1,000 pages, despite having started work in January 2001.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We started work in January 2001.  We've got over 1,000 pages already.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Write a little (or a lot) about what you know!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
------
HomePage|982123023
1c1,3
< '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We started work in January 2001.  We've got over 1,000 pages already.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Write a little (or a lot) about what you know!  Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> '''Welcome to WikiPedia!'''  We're writing a complete encyclopedia from scratch, collaboratively.  We started work in January 2001.  We've got over 1,000 pages already.  We want to make over 100,000.  So, let's get to work!  Write a little (or a lot) about what you know!
> 
> Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
------
HomePage|982123048
3c3
< Some questions you might have are answered below, but first why not dive in and explore a few links?
---
> Some questions you might have are answered below, but why not first explore a few links?
------
PartakeInDiscussion|982123399
4,7c4
< Perhaps an even better idea is to create a *Talk page (such as ElephantTalk, which is comment on the ElephanT article) and move the discussion there.  After all, we'd like to focus on encyclopedia articles.
< ----
< I am thinking that a /Talk page is better than ElephantTalk.
< 
---
> Perhaps an even better idea is to create a /Talk page (such as ElephanT/Talk, which is comment on the ElephanT article) and move the discussion there.  After all, we'd like to focus on content over controversy.
------
ElephanT|982123425
3c3
< See ElephantTalk.
---
> See /Talk.
------
ElephanT/Talk|982123449
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Chat about elephants on this page.
> 
> Chat about the KingCrimson song on ElephantTalk.
------
ElephantTalk|982123501
1,3c1
< Discussion about the ElephanT article would go here.
< 
< Curiously, discussion of a KingCrimson song would also go here.
---
> A typically bizarre song by one of the newer incarnations of KingCrimson.  Features "Frippertronics."
------
ElephantTalk|982123535
1c1
< A typically bizarre song by one of the newer incarnations of KingCrimson.  Features "Frippertronics."
---
> A typically bizarre song by one of the newer incarnations of KingCrimson.  Features "FripperTronics," courtesy RobertFripp.
------
ActorS|982123666
38a39,40
> ----
> /Talk
------
ActorS/Talk|982123796
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Re: "actor" vs. "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward
------
AnonymousCoward|982123862
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The author of much drivel on SlashDot as well as on other SlashSites.  The author of often insightful remarks on NuPedia, however.
------
ActorS|982123926
31,36d30
< 
< Q: How do you make a little box?
< A: With little boards. ;-)
< 
< What do you mean by 'little box'?
< 
40c34
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|982123991
58a59,65
> ----
> From ActorS:
> 
> Q: How do you make a little box?
> A: With little boards. ;-)
> 
> What do you mean by 'little box'?
------
ActorS|982124049
32c32
< In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS...I hope the page editor who deleted all the women, except Judith Dench, Ellen Burstein, Blythe Danner, and Sophia Loren and further messed up the alphabetizing will correct it.
---
> In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS...I hope the page editor who deleted all the women, except Judith Dench, Ellen Burstein, Blythe Danner, and Sophia Loren and further messed up the alphabetizing will correct it.  You might notice also that Sidney Poitier is a man, or so I always thought.
------
ActorS/Talk|982124083
1c1
< Re: "actor" vs. "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward
---
> Re: "actor" vs. "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982124383
4,15c4,11
< Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order
< without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time,
< Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
< 
< Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begins with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure.
< Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism were synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics
< have taken to calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the
< Anglo-American countries. 
< 
< Both the view of Anarchism as a Nihilist position admitting only destruction and the capitalist position of anarchism as purely
< political are regarded as grave misunderstandings of Anarchism
< by advocates.
---
> 
> Anarchy is frequently portrayed as chaos and anarchists as terrorists. Proponents of any extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. Very few anarchists are nihilists. Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
> 
> Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begin with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure. Anarchists reject the claims of the property owner and the landlord. Having rejected private property, they reject the political machinery (the State)which defends and supports private property. In place of private property, anarchism is based on personal possessions and democratically controlled communal property.
> 
> The anarchist rejection of government is derivative and entails the rejection of electioneering. Insofar as politics refers to the actions of power structures then anarchism seeks the abolition of politics itself. Anarchism is a social and economic movement with ramifications in the political sphere. To regard anarchism as a political ideology is an error. In place of political maneuvering, anarchists champion the use of direct action of which the general strike, occupation of workplaces and sabotage are prime examples. The purpose of sabotage is to impair or destroy the machinery of capitalism and not the propagation of terror.
> 
> Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves AnarchoCapitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries. Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of anarchists, the AnarchoCapitalists are not regarded as anarchists.
21c17
< Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
------
ActorS|982129025
32a33,34
> 
>  * A female who acts is an actress.  Thus, when Hilary Swank won an AcademyAward, it was for Best Actress, not Best Actor Who Is Female.  Please see GeorgeOrwell's 'Politics and the English Language' for more on manipulating thought by abusing language.
------
ActorS|982129046
34c34
<  * A female who acts is an actress.  Thus, when Hilary Swank won an AcademyAward, it was for Best Actress, not Best Actor Who Is Female.  Please see GeorgeOrwell's 'Politics and the English Language' for more on manipulating thought by abusing language.
---
> * A female who acts is an actress.  Thus, when Hilary Swank won an AcademyAward, it was for Best Actress, not Best Actor Who Is Female.  Please see GeorgeOrwell's 'Politics and the English Language' for more on manipulating thought by abusing language.
------
ActorS|982129246
30,32d29
<  
< Also, I still see some girls here on the boys page.----
< In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS...I hope the page editor who deleted all the women, except Judith Dench, Ellen Burstein, Blythe Danner, and Sophia Loren and further messed up the alphabetizing will correct it.  You might notice also that Sidney Poitier is a man, or so I always thought.
34d30
< * A female who acts is an actress.  Thus, when Hilary Swank won an AcademyAward, it was for Best Actress, not Best Actor Who Is Female.  Please see GeorgeOrwell's 'Politics and the English Language' for more on manipulating thought by abusing language.
------
ActorS/Talk|982129269
0a1,6
> Also, I still see some girls here on the boys page.
> ----
> In case you haven't noticed, women refer to themselves now as ActorS...I hope the page editor who deleted all the women, except Judith Dench, Ellen Burstein, Blythe Danner, and Sophia Loren and further messed up the alphabetizing will correct it.  You might notice also that Sidney Poitier is a man, or so I always thought.
> 
> * A female who acts is an actress.  Thus, when Hilary Swank won an AcademyAward, it was for Best Actress, not Best Actor Who Is Female.  Please see GeorgeOrwell's 'Politics and the English Language' for more on manipulating thought by abusing language.
> 
------
ActorS/Talk|982131229
7c7,9
< Re: "actor" vs. "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)
---
> * ''Great essay, [http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html this], but doesn't have enough detail about the ways political hacks abuse language.  That is a fascinating topic.  I'm also not quite sure that it's the best way to describe the resistance to "actress."''
> 
> Re: "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982132098
1c1
< <the following is a wikified portion of LarrysText; further development is encouraged; see also TheoDicy>
---
> ''<The following is a wikified portion of LarrysText; further development is encouraged; see also TheoDicy.>''
3c3
< The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has, as its conclusion, "GoD does not exist."  This is also called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.
---
> The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has as its conclusion "GoD does not exist."  The argument expresses something called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.  This entry will outline the argument and some responses to it.
21c21
< Consider now the premises in turn.
---
> One might find The Problem of Evil in the fact that the premises of this argument seem compelling, but the conclusion is (to theists) unacceptable.  Consider now the premises in turn.
------
DirectRealism|982132108
1c1
< A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions (JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy.
---
> A theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. This is contrasted with IndirectRealism or RepresenationAlism, which claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world. Direct realists sometimes claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms of perceptions (JlAustin is well known for arguing this). Perception is an exemplar of direct contact with something. Examples of indirect perception might be seeing something in a photograph, or hearing a recording of a voice. Direct realists often argue, contra representationalists, that the fact that one becomes aware of a tree in perception through a complex neurophysical process does not argue in favor of indirect perception. It merely establishes the method, undoubtedly complex, by which direct awareness of the world is secured. Arguing that perceiving a tree directly requires a magical, acausal mirroring of the tree in the mind is akin to arguing that traveling directly to grandmother's requires that one magically appear at her doorstep. The inference from the fact of a complex route to indirectness may be an instance of the GeneticFallacy.
------
TheProblemOfEvil|982132118
3c3
< The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has as its conclusion "GoD does not exist."  The argument expresses something called the <i>problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>evil</i>.  This entry will outline the argument and some responses to it.
---
> The so-called <i>argument</i> <i>from</i> <i>evil</i> has as its conclusion "GoD does not exist."  The argument expresses something called the <i>Problem</i> <i>of</i> <i>Evil</i>.  This entry will outline the argument and some responses to it.
------
CategorySchemes|982132148
50a51,52
> 
> This one was mine.  Is what you did on the HomePage based on this, Larry?  Thanks! -- JoshuaGrosse
------
SetTheory|982132154
138a139,140
> 
> Nothing much seems to be happening on this page!
------
BiologicalScience|982132311
2a3,9
> For pages on the many diverse forms of life themselves, explore the five kingdoms:
> * KingdomMonera
> * KingdomProtista
> * KingdomFungi
> * KingdomPlantae
> * KingdomAnimalia
> 
------
ScienCe|982132344
8,13d7
< * KingdomMonera
< * KingdomProtista
< * KingdomPlantae
< * KingdomFungi
< * KingdomAnimalia
< 
------
CategorySchemes|982132604
52c52
< This one was mine.  Is what you did on the HomePage based on this, Larry?  Thanks! -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> This one was mine.  Is what you did on the HomePage based on this, Larry? -- JoshuaGrosse
------
CategorySchemes|982132659
52a53,54
> 
> It's sort of a combination of the Nupedia scheme (see the top of this page) and yours--the only difference between the two schemes, perhaps, is that "Foundational Disciplines" and "Natural Sciences" are mashed together. -- LarrySanger
------
TheRecorder|982133727
3,6c3
< The instrument went into decline after the 18th century, being used for about the last time as an other-wordly sound by Gluck in his opera Orfeo ed Euridice.  It was revived at the end of the 19th century by the English researcher into earlier music, Arnold Dolmetsch.  Subsequently it became very popular in schools, since in its initial stages it is relatively easy to play ... though that does not remain the case in more advanced music.
< 
< I played the Recorder when i was in 6th grade
< -Zed 
---
> The instrument went into decline after the 18th century, being used for about the last time as an other-wordly sound by Gluck in his opera Orfeo ed Euridice.  It was revived at the end of the 19th century by the English researcher into earlier music, Arnold Dolmetsch.  Subsequently it became very popular in schools, since in its initial stages it is relatively easy to play ... though that does not remain the case in more advanced music.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|982133779
65c65,70
< What do you mean by 'little box'?
---
> What do you mean by 'little box'?
> ----
> From TheRecorder:
> 
> I played the Recorder when i was in 6th grade
> -Zed
------
MuSic|982134030
3c3
< PopularMusic -- CelticMusic -- IrishTraditionalMusic -- DonegalFiddleTradition
---
> '''MusicalGenres:''' ClassicaLMusic -- ElectronicMusic -- RockAndRoll -- FunK -- DiscO -- JazZ -- PopularMusic -- CelticMusic -- IrishTraditionalMusic
5c5
< FiddleandViolin -- FidDle -- FiddleStyles -- DoubleStops
---
> '''MusicalInstruments:''' TheRecorder -- FiddleandViolin -- FidDle
7c7
< MusicalTheory
---
> '''WesternArtMusic:''' BaroquePeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- ClassicalPeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- RomanticPeriodOfWesternArtMusic
9c9
< Here are some more ideas:
---
> '''MusicalComposers:''' JohannSebastianBach -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- Gustav Mahler -- PiotrTchaikovsky
11c11
< BaroquePeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- ClassicalPeriodOfWesternArtMusic -- RomanticPeriodOfWesternArtMusic
---
> '''MusicOlogy:''' DefinitionOfMusic -- CounterPoint -- MusicalTheory
13,25c13
< JohannSebastianBach -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- LudwigVanBeethoven -- Gustav Mahler -- PiotrTchaikovsky
< 
< DefinitionOfMusic -- CounterPoint
< 
< TheRecorder
< 
< JazzMusic 
< 
< Feel free to add more topics; simply click the "Edit text of this page" link.
< 
< How about some genres?
< 
< ClassicaLMusic -- ElectronicMusic -- RoCk -- FunK -- DiscO -- JaZZ
---
> Feel free to add more topics; simply click the "Edit text of this page" link.
------
ComputerSoftware|982134263
4a5
> *** NupeCode
------
NupeCode|982134337
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Nupecode'' is NuPedia's software.  It is OpenSource.  Can be used for enormous peer review projects.
------
ComputerSoftware|982134355
4a5
> *** SlashCode
------
SlashCode|982134394
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Slashcode is the OpenSource software that runs http://www.slashdot.org, which has spawned many imitators.
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982146605
1c1
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a 'universe', a finite set of 'elementary events'. We define a 'weighting function' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the 'weight' of the elementary event. We can represent any 'event' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a `universe`, a finite set of 'elementary events'. We define a 'weighting function' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the 'weight' of the elementary event. We can represent any 'event' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982146750
1c1
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a `universe`, a finite set of 'elementary events'. We define a 'weighting function' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the 'weight' of the elementary event. We can represent any 'event' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a ''universe'', a finite set of ''elementary events''. We define a ''weighting function'' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the ''weight'' of the elementary event. We can represent any ''event'' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
5c5
< 
---
> : RABeldin
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982146916
5c5
< : RABeldin
---
> :RABeldin --
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982146975
5c5
< :RABeldin --
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982147115
5c5
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html:RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982147146
5c5
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html:RABeldin ]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982147294
0a1,3
> :ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
> :PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
> 
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982147670
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 1) Let ''U'' be a set of discrete points, {e}, called ''elementary events''.
> 
> 2) Let every elementary event have a non-negative weight, w(e), assigned to it.
> 
> 3) Let composite events be represented by subsets of ''U''.
> 
> 4) Define the probability of an event X (subset of ''U''), be the sum of the weights, w(e), for every ''elementary event'' in X divided by the sum of the weights for all of ''U''.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
FrequencyProbability|982148584
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> If we throw a thumbtack onto a table once, we would have a hard time predicting whether the point would touch the surface of the table or not. But if we repeat this experiment many times, we will see that the number of times the point touches the surface divided by the number of throws will eventually stablize at a specific value. 
> 
> Repeating a series of trials will produce similar, but not identical, results for each series. This observation is called ''statistical regularity''.
> 
> This phenomenon has motivated the development of the '''relative frequency''' concept of probability. Most of the procedures commonly used to make statistical estimates or tests were developed by statisticians who used this concept exclusively. They are usually called ''frequentists''.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
------
FrequencyProbability|982148627
1c1
< : ProbabilityAndStatistics
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics -- PersonalProbability
9c9
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
FrequencyProbability|982148664
5c5
< Repeating a series of trials will produce similar, but not identical, results for each series. This observation is called ''statistical regularity''.
---
> Repeating a series of trials will produce similar, but not identical, results for each series. This observation is called '''statistical regularity'''.
------
PersonalProbability|982148839
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- FrequencyProbability -- ProbabilityAxioms
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982148904
0a1,2
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
> 
------
PlanningResearch|982148977
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982149038
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- PlanningResearch -- InterpretingStatisticalData
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
InterpretingStatisticalData|982149097
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982149158
1c1
< :ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
---
> :ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
------
EclecticProbability|982149222
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982149271
1c1,2
< :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics
> :FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
------
FrequencyProbability|982149326
1c1,2
< : ProbabilityAndStatistics -- PersonalProbability
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982149372
1,2c1,3
< :ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
< :PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
---
> : MathematicsAndStatistics
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
> : PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
------
EclecticProbability|982149707
1c1,4
< :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability
> 
> Many statisticians adopt an ''eclectic'' view of the 1950's and 1960's debate between proponents of the frequency interpretation and proponents of personal probability. These eclectics say in essence, '''if it walks like a duck...'''. They are willing to consider any phenomena which obey the axioms of probability theory as a reasonable interpreation. Sometimes they will use methods associated with frequentists and at other times, they use ''Bayesian'' methods.
------
PersonalProbability|982150196
1c1,4
< :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- FrequencyProbability -- ProbabilityAxioms
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- EclecticProbability
> 
> Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by L. J. Savage and Bruno deFinetti and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
------
PlanningResearch|982151382
1c1,4
< :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> : StatisticalRegularity
> : SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
> : DesigningExperiments -- SurveySampling
2a6,16
> Most scientific work starts with a question about the world we live in. For a statistician, these questions can be classified into a few different kinds. 
> 
> 1) We can start with questions about a single ''Unit'', like a biological organism, a manufactured product, a plot of ground, a city block or any of many different ''things'' we want to understand. In this type of study, we are often concerned with the ''dynamics'' of the Unit; how does it vary in time? Can we identify what aspects seem to control others? 
> 
> 2) Sometimes, our interest in a ''Unit'' may be purely instrumental, that is, we are interested in the Unit because of a ''population'' to which it belongs or an ''environment'' in which it resides. Our desire to describe a population may be satisfied by a statistical report on a ''sample'' from that population. The methodology is to select a sample and observe just the Units which are selected and then to summarize our results and interpret their meaning for the population. When we deliberately manipulate something in the process of observation, we call it an ''experiment''. When we attempt to observe the Units without affecting them, we call it a ''survey''.
> 
> 3) Someimes, we want to understand the ''internal workings'' of a Unit so we look at its components and how they relate to each other. Physiology is an example of a discipline in which this kind of focus is common.
> 
> In much research, we use all three modes at different stages. A useful synthesis of this kind of thinking was provided by Ludwig von Bertallanfy.
> 
>  
------
PlanningResearch|982151652
14c14
< In much research, we use all three modes at different stages. A useful synthesis of this kind of thinking was provided by Ludwig von Bertallanfy.
---
> In much research, we use all three modes at different stages. A useful synthesis of this kind of thinking was provided by [http://www.isss.org/lumLVB.htm Ludwig von Bertalanffy].
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982152535
1c1,2
< :ProbabilityAndStatistics -- PlanningResearch -- InterpretingStatisticalData
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics -- StatisticalRegularity
> : PlanningResearch -- InterpretingStatisticalData
3c4,18
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
---
> In general, statistical data can be described as a list of ''subjects'' or ''Units'' and the data associated with each of them. Although most research uses many data types for each Unit, we will limit ourselves to just one data item each for this simple introduction. 
> 
> We have two objectives for our summary:
> 
> 1) How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of central tendancy''.
> 
> 2) How do they differ? This is often called ''variability''.
> 
> When we are summarizing a quantity like length or weight or age, it is common to answer the first question with the '''mean''', the '''median''', or the '''mode'''. 
> 
> The '''mean''' is what we call the ''average'' in ordinary English, just the sum of all the observations divided by the number of observations. Once we have chosen this method of describing the communality, we usually use the '''standard deviation''' to describe how the observations differ. The ''SD'' (as we abbreviate it) is the '''square root of the average of squared deviations from the mean'''.
> 
> The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''range''', the '''interquartile range''', and the '''absolute deviation'''. You can find out more about these from a good introductory statistics textbook.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
StatisticalRegularity|982152657
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> : FrequencyProbability
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
FrequencyProbability|982152741
2c2
< : ProbabilityAxioms -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
---
> : StatisticalRegularity -- ProbabilityAxioms -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
4,8c4
< If we throw a thumbtack onto a table once, we would have a hard time predicting whether the point would touch the surface of the table or not. But if we repeat this experiment many times, we will see that the number of times the point touches the surface divided by the number of throws will eventually stablize at a specific value. 
< 
< Repeating a series of trials will produce similar, but not identical, results for each series. This observation is called '''statistical regularity'''.
< 
< This phenomenon has motivated the development of the '''relative frequency''' concept of probability. Most of the procedures commonly used to make statistical estimates or tests were developed by statisticians who used this concept exclusively. They are usually called ''frequentists''.
---
> ''Statistical Regularity'' has motivated the development of the '''relative frequency''' concept of probability. Most of the procedures commonly used to make statistical estimates or tests were developed by statisticians who used this concept exclusively. They are usually called ''frequentists''.
------
StatisticalRegularity|982152831
4a5,10
> If we throw a thumbtack onto a table once, we would have a hard time predicting whether the point would touch the surface of the table or not. But if we repeat this experiment many times, we will see that the number of times the point touches the surface divided by the number of throws will eventually stablize at a specific value. 
> 
> Repeating a series of trials will produce similar, but not identical, results for each series. This observation is called '''statistical regularity'''.
> 
> The same idea occurs in games of chance, demographic statistics, quality control of a manufacturing process, and in many other parts of our lives.
> 
------
FrequencyProbability|982153033
5a6,7
> During the 1950's and 1960's, there was a debate among statisticians which featured the ''frequentists'' versus the ''Bayesians''. The former insisted that statistical procedures only made sense when one uses the relative frequency concept. The Bayesians supported the use of ''degrees of belief'' as a basis for a new form of statistical practice.
> 
------
EsperantoLanguage|982167152
4a5,6
> Approximately 1.6 million people speak Esperanto (to Foreign Service Level 3 ability) as of the year 2000.
> 
18a21,25
> 
> Another useful link is http://www.esperanto-usa.org.  US-ians can contact ELNA, PO Box 1129, El Cerrito CA 94530; 1-510-653-0998 (real person), 1-800-ESPERANTO (automated info and information requests).
> 
> See also news://soc.culture.esperanto.
> 
------
NewTopics|982167475
5c5
< PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps
---
> PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps -- ActorS -- ActressesS --
------
ActressesS|982167866
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :AnnetteBenning
> :JullietteBinoche
> :EllenBurstein
> :LeslieCaron
> :GlennClose
> :BlytheDanner
> :JudithDench (Dame)
> :JaneFonda
> :DianeFossey
> :AudreyHepburn
> :KatherineHepburn
> :VivienLeigh
> :SophiaLoren
> :ShirleyMcLaine
> :GwenethPaltrow
> :JuliaRoberts
> :ElizabethTaylor
------
ActorS|982167968
2d1
< :EllenBurstein
7d5
< :JudithDench (Dame)
9d6
< :BlytheDanner
19d15
< :SophiaLoren
------
ActressesS|982168087
17c17,18
< :ElizabethTaylor
---
> :ElizabethTaylor
> :JoanneWoodward
------
ActorS|982168194
3a4
> :JamesCagney
7a9
> :PeterFonda
16a19
> :SteveMartin
21a25
> :AnthonyQuinn
------
ActressesS|982168687
9a10,11
> :JodieFoster
> :WhoopieGoldberg
16a19
> :MegRyan
17a21
> :NatalieWood
------
ActorS/Talk|982169195
9c9,11
< Re: "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)
---
> Re: "actress"...yet another perfectly useful word forever tarred with the brush of political incorrectness.  Female actpersons might refer to themselves as ActorS, but there are still many people who refer to them (quite respectfully) as ActresseS.  It's what they are, isn't it? -- AnonymousCoward (ducking)----
> 
> Linguistically speaking, what is common usage IS correct. These females who act are, as a group, whatever the plurality of AME speakers call them, be it ActorS or ActresseS. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE!!!(Answer to A.C.) Since there is a dispute here, started by me, I will cede to the older nomenclature and possibly the majority opinion. I have created ActresseS. Wait til next year though...:-).
------
ActorS|982169280
22a23
> :SidnetPoitier
------
ActorS|982170704
31a32
> Female actors are listed (with the utmost respect) under ActresseS.
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|982172940
42a43,97
> Four More Elementary Group Theorems
> 
> 
> I.   For all a. b belonging to (G,*), if a*b=e, then a=b^-1 and b=a^-1.
> * <b>Proof</b>
> * Part A.
> * Let a*b=e.
> * Then (a*b)*b^-1=e*b^-1.
> * Then a*(b*b^-1)= b^-1.
> * Then a*e= b^-1.
> * Therefore, a=b^-1.
> *
> * Part B.
> * Let a*b=e.
> * Then a^-1*(a*b)= a^-1*e.
> * Then (a^-1*a)*b=a^-1.
> * Then e*b=a^-1.
> * Therefore, b=a^-1
> *
> II.  For all a,b belonging to (G,*), (a*b)^-1=b^-1*a^-1.
> * <b>Proof</b>
> * This theorem says that the inverse of a*b= b^-1*a^-1.
> * So we have to prove that (a*b)*(b^-1*a^-1)= e.
> * Then  (a*b)*(b^-1*a^-1)=(a*(b*(*b^-1*a^-1))= a*((b*b^-1)*a^-1).
> * Then  (a*b)*(b^-1*a^-1)= a*(e*a^1)= a*a^-1=e.
> * Therefore, by Theorem I, b^-1*a^-1 is the inverse of a*b.
> *
> III. For all a belonging to (G,*), (a^-1)^-1=a.
> * This theorem states that the inverse of the inverse of an element in a Group, is itself.
> * <b>Proof</b>
> * Since a*a^-1=e, by Theorem I, the inverse of a^-1=a.
> * Therefore,  (a^-1)^-1=a.
> *
> IV.  For all a,x,y, belonging to (G,*), if a*x=a*y, then x=y, and if x*a=y*a, then x=y.
> * <b>Proof</b>
> * Part A.
> * If a*x=a*y, then a^-1*(a*x)=a^-1*(a*y).
> * Then (a^-1*a)*x= (a^-1*a)*y.
> * Then e*x=e*y.
> * Therefore, x=y.
> *
> * Part B.
> * If x*a=y*a, then (x*a)*a^-1=(y*a)*a^-1.
> * Then x*(a*a^-1)= y*(a*a^-1).
> * Then x*e=y*e.
> * Therefore, x=y.
> * The results of Theorem IV are often called the ''cancellation rules'' for a Group.
> 
>          
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
------
ElementaryGroupTheory|982173056
41c41
< *	If this is successful, then the assumption that the proposition is false, is, itself, false. Hence, the proposition is true.
---
> *	If this is successful, then the assumption that the proposition is false, is, itself, false. Hence, the proposition is true.----
46c46
< I.   For all a. b belonging to (G,*), if a*b=e, then a=b^-1 and b=a^-1.
---
> I.   For all a. b belonging to a GrouP (G,*), if a*b=e, then a=b^-1 and b=a^-1.
62c62
< II.  For all a,b belonging to (G,*), (a*b)^-1=b^-1*a^-1.
---
> II.  For all a,b belonging to a GrouP (G,*), (a*b)^-1=b^-1*a^-1.
70c70
< III. For all a belonging to (G,*), (a^-1)^-1=a.
---
> III. For all a belonging to a GrouP (G,*), (a^-1)^-1=a.
76c76
< IV.  For all a,x,y, belonging to (G,*), if a*x=a*y, then x=y, and if x*a=y*a, then x=y.
---
> IV.  For all a,x,y, belonging to GrouP (G,*), if a*x=a*y, then x=y, and if x*a=y*a, then x=y.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982174317
4c4
< 1) Let ''U'' be a set of discrete points, {e}, called ''elementary events''.
---
> 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e''', called ''elementary events''.
6c6
< 2) Let every elementary event have a non-negative weight, w(e), assigned to it.
---
> 2) Let every elementary event. '''e''' have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
8c8
< 3) Let composite events be represented by subsets of ''U''.
---
> 3) Let composite events, Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
10c10
< 4) Define the probability of an event X (subset of ''U''), be the sum of the weights, w(e), for every ''elementary event'' in X divided by the sum of the weights for all of ''U''.
---
> 4) Define the ''probability'' of an event '''X''' (any subset of '''U'''), as the sum of the weights, w('''e'''), for every ''elementary event'' contained in '''X''' divided by the sum of the weights of every element of '''U'''.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982174567
8c8
< 3) Let composite events, Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
---
> 3) Let ''composite events'', Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982174765
4c4
< 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e''', called ''elementary events''.
---
> 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''..., be called ''elementary events''.
6c6
< 2) Let every elementary event. '''e''' have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
---
> 2) Let every elementary event, '''e''', have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982174867
6c6
< 2) Let every elementary event, '''e''', have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
---
> 2) Let every elementary event, '''e''' in '''U''', have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982175094
4c4
< 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''..., be called ''elementary events''.
---
> 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called ''elementary events''.
------
LiteraTure|982175289
1d0
< * ErnestHemingway
3,4d1
< * JRRTolkieN 
< * AynRand
6c3,7
< * StanislawLem
---
> * ErnestHemingway
> * StanislawLem
> * AynRand
> * JRRTolkieN 
> 
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982175727
17a18,19
> The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode'' is not necessarily unique, like the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
> 
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982175833
18c18
< The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode'' is not necessarily unique, like the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
---
> The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode''' is not necessarily unique, unlike the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
------
ActorS/Talk|982178286
11a12,22
> ----
> I thought about this when I created the two pages, believe me.  I thought about it, too, when I created separate pages for MaleTennisProfessionals and FemaleTennisProfessionals.  In both cases, I was guided by the highest professional awards.  In tennis, women play in a separate league from men.  In acting, 
> the AcademyAwards (and, I believe, all the other major awards) are granted separately to male and female performers.
> 
> In both cases, there is a good reason for the distinction.  If men and women played in the same tennis league, it would be extremely unfair.  That's a biological fact, as far as I know.  Maybe in the future, it will not be true, but for today, it is true.
> 
> In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different.  It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather, with MichellePfeiffer playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando, but...
> 
> If we were making a page listing famous philosophers, or famous scientists, I do not think that a separate listing would be a good thing at all.  Unless, of course, someone wanted to make a page highlighting famous female scientists of the past, when they were more rare, or something like that.
> 
> One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals/A', etc.
------
ActressesS|982178595
0a1,4
> I believe this page was created in error, or else I do not understand the purpose of it.  We have a page named ActresseS,
> so what's this one for?  Shall I move these performers to that page, and cause this page to forward to that one?  I won't do so for a day or two, or until someone tells me that it is o.k. to do so, because perhaps there is some reason that I have missed.
> 
> 
------
PoLitics|982179534
3c3
< Topics to expound on...
---
> ----
5,28c5,45
< * LibertarianisM
< * CommunisM
< * FeudalisM
< * CapitalisM
< * FederalisM
< * SocialisM
< * SyndicalisM
< * DemocracY
< * AnarchY
< * PlutocracY
< * OligarchY
< * AuthoritariaN
< * RepubliC
< * CityState
< * NationState
< * WorldState
< 
< * NationalSocialism
< * LibertarianCapitalism
< 
< * TechnoDemocracy
< * TechnoAnarchy
< * TechnoCapitalism
< * TechnoOligarchy
---
> '''PoliticalIdeologies:'''
> 
> LeftWingIdeologies: BolshevisM -- CommunisM -- MarxisM -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TraditionalAnarchism
> 
> RightWingIdeologies: CapitalisM -- ConservatisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism
> 
> LibertarianIdeologies: AnarchoCapitalism -- LibertarianisM
> 
> OtherAndAmbiguousIdeologies: AnarchisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- RepublicanisM -- StatesRights
> 
> TechnoPolitics: TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoOligarchy
> 
> ----
> 
> '''PoliticalParties:'''
> 
> LeftWingParties:
> 
> RightWingParties:
> 
> OtherParties:
> 
> ----
> 
> '''PoliticalConcepts:'''
> 
> IdeologicalConcepts: AnarchY -- ConservativE -- LeftWing -- LiberaL -- RightWing
> 
> PoliticalEntities: CitY -- CityState -- CountY -- GovernmenT -- NationState -- Province -- WorldState
> 
> ClassicalConcepts: DemocracY -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepubliC -- TyrannY
> 
> ----
> 
> ''PoliticalTheory:'''
> 
> PoliticalPhilosophy: TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment
> 
> ClassicalAndModernPoliticalTheorists: PlatO -- AristotlE -- JohnLocke -- JeanJacquesRousseau -- KarlMarx -- JohnStuartMill
> 
> ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- RobertNozick
------
AnarchisM|982179601
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The view that AnarchY is the best state of political affairs.  See AnarchY.
------
AnarchisM|982179649
1c1
< The view that AnarchY is the best state of political affairs.  See AnarchY.
---
> The view that AnarchY is the best state of political affairs.  Includes TraditionalAnarchism and, arguably, AnarchoCapitalism.  See AnarchY.
------
PoLitics|982179673
39c39
< ''PoliticalTheory:'''
---
> '''PoliticalTheory:'''
45c45
< ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- RobertNozick
---
> ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- RobertNozick
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982179803
16,17c16,17
< 
< '''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
---
> ----
> /Talk
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982180038
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> '''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
> ----
> Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982180059
3c3
< Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
---
> Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982180117
3c3
< Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
---
> Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982180291
3c3
< Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.
---
> Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered AnarchisM and the NaturalLaw theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I?d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I?m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn?t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.
7c7
< Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.
---
> Indeed, it?s on <i>those</i> questions that you?ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the LibertariaN''''s and the SocialisT''''s (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It?s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.
11c11
< Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!
---
> LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn?t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government's main imperative should be: Hands off!
13c13
< Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
---
> Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
17c17
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
AynRand|982180308
1,13c1,15
<  Born Alice Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, February 2, 1905.
<  Emigrated to the United States in 1926, changing her name to Ayn Rand.
<  Moved to Hollywood and began writing for the movie industry. 
<  Married Frank O'Connor, 1929. 
<  Released 'The Night of January 16th', a play, 1934. 
<  Wrote two unsuccessful novels, 'We the Living' (1936), 'Anthem' (1938). 
<  Wrote the best selling novel, 'TheFountainhead' (1943). 
<  In 1951 met psychology student NathanielBranden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
<  Wrote philosophical novel 'AtlasShrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
<  Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement to promote her philosophy of ObjectivisM. 
<  Developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through non-fiction works throughout the 1960s and 1970s. 
<  Broke with Branden, 1968, following certain infidelities on his part. 
<  Died March 6, 1982
---
> *Born Alice Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, February 2, 1905.
> *Emigrated to the United States in 1926, changing her name to Ayn Rand.
> *Moved to Hollywood and began writing for the movie industry. 
> *Married Frank O'Connor, 1929. 
> *Released 'The Night of January 16th', a play, 1934. 
> *Wrote two unsuccessful novels, 'We the Living' (1936), 'Anthem' (1938). 
> *Wrote the best selling novel, 'TheFountainhead' (1943). 
> *In 1951 met psychology student NathanielBranden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
> *Wrote philosophical novel 'AtlasShrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
> *Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement to promote her philosophy of ObjectivisM. 
> *Developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through non-fiction works throughout the 1960s and 1970s. 
> *Broke with Branden, 1968, following certain infidelities on his part. 
> *Died March 6, 1982
> ----
> Somebody needs to render this into declarative sentences.
------
ActorS/Talk|982180442
18c18,19
< In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different.  It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather, with MichellePfeiffer playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando, but...
---
> In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different.  It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather, with MichellePfeiffer playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando, but...----
> The question seems to me, whether their is a difference in the activity called ''acting'' for men and women. I don't see any. Remember, in Shakespeare's time all roles were played by men. Why are "the parts played by men and those by women inherently different," by the way?
22c23
< One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals/A', etc.
---
> One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals/A', etc.
------
AnarchisM|982180504
1c1,21
< The view that AnarchY is the best state of political affairs.  Includes TraditionalAnarchism and, arguably, AnarchoCapitalism.  See AnarchY.
---
> ''Anarchism'' is the view that AnarchY is the best state of political affairs.
> ----
> Traditionally, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to a movement 
> dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
> 
> Prominent anarchists of the traditional sort include EmmaGoldman, MikhailBakunin, and NoamChomsky.  We have a comprehensive discussion of TraditionalAnarchism.
> ----
> More recently, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to supporters of AnarchoCapitalism, which may be loosely defined as the idea that there should not be a single government, but rather that the traditional functions of government might be best handled by private courts and defense agencies.  
> 
> The most prominent theorist of AnarchoCapitalism is DavidFriedman, son of NobelPrize/EconomicSciences winner MiltonFriedman.  We have a comprehensive discussion of AnarchoCapitalism.
> ----
> 
> Proponents of these two views sometimes view each other with some hostility.  Proponents of TraditionalAnarchism may view AnarchoCapitalism as either a grave misunderstanding of anarchism proper (or not a kind of anarchism at all), or a special case of the rejection of government authority in favor of capitalist authority.  Terms such as "baseless" and "oversimplistic" may be used.
> 
> Advocates of AnarchoCapitalism may contend that TraditionalAnarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and may also claim that many anarchists of the traditional sort are economically illiterate.
> 
> Both views are united in their opposition to the existence of government, but they part company soon after on issues of private property and social institutions generally.
> 
> This page will not settle any disputes between the two, but hopes instead to acknowledge the facts of the situation (that both use the term, rightly or wrongly), and to point to separate treatments of both.
> 
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
------
ActorS/Talk|982180528
19c19
< The question seems to me, whether their is a difference in the activity called ''acting'' for men and women. I don't see any. Remember, in Shakespeare's time all roles were played by men. Why are "the parts played by men and those by women inherently different," by the way?
---
> The question seems to me, whether their is a difference in the activity called ''acting'' for men and women. I don't see any. Remember, in Shakespeare's time all roles were played by men. Why are "the parts played by men and those by women inherently different," by the way?----
------
AnarchY|982180535
4,6d3
< ----
< Traditionally, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to a movement 
< dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
8,23c5
< Prominent anarchists of the traditional sort include EmmaGoldman, MikhailBakunin, and NoamChomsky.  We have a comprehensive discussion of TraditionalAnarchism.
< ----
< More recently, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to supporters of AnarchoCapitalism, which may be loosely defined as the idea that there should not be a single government, but rather that the traditional functions of government might be best handled by private courts and defense agencies.  
< 
< The most prominent theorist of AnarchoCapitalism is DavidFriedman, son of NobelPrize/EconomicSciences winner MiltonFriedman.  We have a comprehensive discussion of AnarchoCapitalism.
< ----
< 
< Proponents of these two views sometimes view each other with some hostility.  Proponents of TraditionalAnarchism may view AnarchoCapitalism as either a grave misunderstanding of anarchism proper (or not a kind of anarchism at all), or a special case of the rejection of government authority in favor of capitalist authority.  Terms such as "baseless" and "oversimplistic" may be used.
< 
< Advocates of AnarchoCapitalism may contend that TraditionalAnarchism is ill-defined, and most likely will reject the view that there is any such thing as 'capitalist authority'  and may also claim that many anarchists of the traditional sort are economically illiterate.
< 
< Both views are united in their opposition to the existence of government, but they part company soon after on issues of private property and social institutions generally.
< 
< This page will not settle any disputes between the two, but hopes instead to acknowledge the facts of the situation (that both use the term, rightly or wrongly), and to point to separate treatments of both.
< 
< You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
---
> See AnarchisM.
------
AnarchisM/AnarchyTalk|982180611
1c1,62
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Tim, in AnarchY, you replaced the historical definition of the term with a propaganda definition that has no value. The propaganda definition is inaccurate since anarcho-syndicalists "opposes cultural, economic, and political institutions equally, often failing to distinguish between them" and so fall in the category of destroyers of society in the definition. The definition describes two groups, and then lumps anarcho-syndicalists with "anarcho"-capitalists in the wrong group. Further, I made no mention of government in my definition, because it's irrelevant. Anarcho-syndicalists aim to demolish government by not acknowledging it. To claim that "anarcho"-capitalists have equal claim to the term Anarchy as anarcho-syndicalists is a gross distortion of history. The latter have existed for more than a hundred years. The former about two or three decades. I do not think you understand Anarchism. Are you an anarchist or otherwise student of the movement? -- RichardKulisz? 
> ----
> I didn't add the part about anarcho-syndicalism, someone else did.  Maybe it should be deleted.
> 
> The history of anarchism is something that can be addressed in a subsection.  Which group has "historical priority" is non-essential when describing what anarchy is.
> 
> The concept should be addressed logically, with a genus-differentia definition.  Anarchy is a social system (genus) that differs from all other social systems in that in advocates the absence of government (differentia).  Then we take the genus anarchy as we just defined it, and look at different types of anarchy.  I do not think genus-differentia definitions count as propaganda.
> 
> TimShell
> 
> The problem isn't in the format of the definition but in its substance.
> 
> Anarchism is not limited to politics or rejection of government. As a system, it is the absence of all hierarchy everywhere. The limitation of 'hierarchy' to political hierarchies is completely artificial and not supported by anarchists. In fact, it is easily disprovable since 'politics' is merely distribution of power and the existence of power structures in other areas of society is self-evident. Politics is inseparable from the rest of society.
> 
> Anarchism is a ''methodology'' not an ideology. Anarchism is a way of acting, a means to an end, and not the end itself. Insofar as 'anarchy' exists at all, it must be derived from anarchism. Most anarchists do not have a specific vision in mind so if one wants an honest description of what anarchists work towards then one must look at what they're actually doing. To figure out the destination anarchists wish to reach, look where they're going and not the distination which some tiny minority of people who may or may not be anarchists claim they're trying to reach. Anarchism is a movement defined by people at the bottom, not a hallucinatory vision dreamed up by "leaders" at the top. If you think this is "diffuse" then that's just too bad.
> 
> And by anarchists I mean anarcho-syndicalists whose belief in anarchism is genuine as evidenced by their having fought and died in revolutionary wars in order to bring about anarchy (whereas anarcho-capitalists have not). Saying that the history of anarchism is irrelevant is as naive as saying that the history of Marxism is irrelevant. Do you propose that a good definition of Marxism can be given by capitalists or Stalinists? To believe that an ideology can be fairly described by its enemies or propagandists who merely seek to exploit it is hopelessly naive. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> ----
> Richard, I'd be very curious to learn about the differences and, if any, the similarities between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism.  I know very little about these theories.  I wish you would explain the facts about what the theories state, in as unbiased a fashion as possible, on AnarchY (or perhaps AnarchIsm).  Why not just make the necessary changes?  I'd be very curious to see the results! -- LarrySanger
> 
> I already made the changes and Tim unmade them on the basis that they're "diffuse" and not what he expects them to be. And now he's added more propaganda. What does an individual incident (the shooting of some US President) have to do with the day to day actions of anarchists? Where's the mention of Direct Action? Where's the explanation of how anarchists use the general strike and sabotage? And what the heck does murder have to do with famous anarchists (why is it in the same paragraph)? It seems to me that Tim aims to divide anarchism into two sides; nutso bombers and capitalist extremists. If this is indeed the case then Tim falls into the "enemy of anarchism ''and'' propagandist exploiter" category and should refrain from trying to define the term, let alone suppressing other people's definitions of it. The failure to list Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky as famous anachists and the inclusion of an absolute nobody like Leon Czolgosz (whose own mother said was ''too stupid to be an anarchist'') tells me that Tim isn't familiar enough with anarchism to impose his views of it on anyone else. And since every political ideology has resulted in the murder of at least one leader of an opposing ideology, Czolgosz shooting McKinley means nothing. The murders of anarchist leaders at the hands of capitalists more than compensate. Focusing on an aberration is a common propaganda technique.
> 
> Anarchism is a rejection of all hierarchy and authority. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a special case rejection of governmental authority in favour of capitalist authority. "Anarcho"-capitalists refuse to acknowledge that capitalist authority exists, that it is arbitrary, unjust and should be dismantled. It isn't possible to honestly describe "anarcho"-capitalist arguments and viewpoints without pointing out how baseless and oversimplistic they are. For example, a common argument among capitalists (and "anarcho"-capitalists are just capitalists who pretend to care about liberty) is to represent the free market as an auction where labour power is sold to buyers. Of course, it isn't because such an auction leaves the impression that the labour market is a ''seller's'' market when in fact it is a buyer's market. The best way to describe anarcho-capitalism is probably as a religion -- just state what they believe and nothing more. And if '''I''' described Christianity, I would describe it as a group fantasy dynamic to counter feelings of powerlessness, self-hatred and wishes for self-annihilation all caused by traumatic child abuse. This wouldn't go over very well with most people. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> ----
> The miscategorization of anarcho-syndicalism was my fault.  Since it looks like it's the main form of anarchism, I figured it deserved mention, but wasn't sure which heading to put it under thanks to the mention of ''cultural'' institutions.  At the time I wasn't thinking of institutions as organizations for whatever reason.  Bleah...easy to catch, at least. -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> Of the two categories, you chose the least offensive one. The second category of 'people who oppose all social order' (implied by "which supports social order" instead of "'''the'' social order") obviously refers to bombers only. The problem is that both categories are extremely offensive and propagandistic distortions. -- RichardKulisz
> ----
> It seems to me Jimbo has shown a way around this dispute, although Richard and Tim may disagree.  At least Jimbo has illustrated the general direction that we should move in when we have these sorts of disputes.  The aim is to describe the theories in such a way as cannot be objected to by their proponents or their opponents--by attributing the very descriptions of the theories to their proponents and then explaining what the differences and conflicts between competing theories are (rather than ignoring the fact that there is a conflict, or engaging the conflicts on the page itself).  It seems to me this is something that anyone here can do with a little practice.  Might be good for you, too.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> 
> There's just a couple problems in recognizing AnarchoCapitalism as a form of Anarchism. 1) Anti-capitalist anarchists were there first so including capitalists only serves to confuse matters. 2) AnarchoCapitalism is limited geographically to the very right wing countries. 3) Capitalism '''is''' authoritarian since private property is an inherently authoritarian concept (to deny that the owner gets to dictate to everyone else or that this is a form of authority is blatant destruction of the English language), so AnarchoCapitalism is a contradiction in terms. 4) It's not clear that AnarchoCapitalism is a serious political ideology instead of mere political maneuvering. So I find equal time given to AnarchoCapitalism to be a bit irritating. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> ''While I disagree with you about the status of things here,
> the point I have been making to TimShell I will make to you as well.  This article, the short article on the term 'Anarchy' can simply serve as '''description''' of how the term is used.  It may be a shame that things have gotten confused, but rather than ignore the confusion, I attempted to describe it so that a newcomer to the term will better understand.  The point may not be to give each side equal treatment, but merely to educate newcomers that the term is actively used in two different ways.'' --JimboWales
> 
> I'll answer briefly, weakly, and vaguely.  (1) Matters are already long since "confused" (and it's not ''that'' confusing); you can't change that.  (2) Er, so what?  (3) Suffice it to say this requires more argument.  (4) This seems very implausible, given that there are many serious people who identify themselves as anarcho-capitalists.  I understand your irritation, but I also think you're going to have to live with it.  If you really care so much about how political views are represented on Wikipedia, wouldn't your energies be better spent elaborating anarcho-syndicalism fairly--which would include anarcho-syndicalism's response to anarcho-capitalism? -- LarrySanger
> 
> I'll answer briefly. (2) is a response to your observation on (1); matters are not confused everywhere and it behooves us not to confuse them further. (3) Property is control over how others use an object and right-libertarians argue for absolute property rights with total control over how others use an object. If people do not recognize this as authoritarian then the point requires more argument than belongs in an encyclopedia entry. (4) You're right, that was a mistake. I was speaking from personal experience only. (5) I am well-rebuked. :) -- RichardKulisz
> 
> In case anyone really doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be about, have a look at [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html this article].  See the final paragraph for how the author treats the problem Richard raises.
> 
> Why don't we treat the matter the same way - reserve libertarianism for the right, and anarchism for the left?  AnarchY would have a note at the bottom saying "sometimes used in a broader sense to include AnarchoCapitalism, which blah blah" but would otherwise treat traditional forms, and libertarianism would have a note sating "formerly used in a broader sense to include AnarchoSyndicalism, which blah blah" but would otherwise treat what have become standard forms.  It seems to me this is the simplest way to disentangle the two philosophies. -- JoshuaGrosse
> 
> I think it is inaccurate to say that libertarianism is 'right' and anarchism is 'left'.  I know, anyway, that most libertarians would balk vehemently at the label 'right'.  These are people who want to legalize marijuana, pornography and gay marriage, who want to end registration for the draft, and permit free immigration and emigration from all countries.  The opposite positions are all traditionally associated with the right (at least in the U.S.). 
> 
> Why is it that I can use terms so universally recognized everywhere except wiki, where they are instantly balked at?  Right and left have nothing to do with anything so specific as moral majority or degree of government control.  The former refers to a desire for equality of rights, the latter for equality of condition.  Or at the very least, they will every time I use them. :)
> 
> ----
> 
> I didn't realize that those terms were universally recognized or used in that way.  Are they?  I mean, exceptions of all kinds immediately pop to mind.
> 
> If the right wing is supposed to be for equality of rights, then why do they tend to seek strong laws to restrict the use of drugs used by lower classes (marijuana) while not seeking to restrict the use of drugs used by the upper classes (wine)?  What about equality of rights for homosexuals to marry?
> 
> If that's the way that the classification is supposed to work,
> then we have to say that Republicans are more liberal than libertarians, because libertarians favor equality of rights for homosexual marriage!  Sounds strange to me!  I think that in this particular case, the *left* has the idea of equality of rights.
> 
> ----
> Ok, so I didn't go all the way to the end of the spectrum.  The very farthest right would be a system of plain and simple inequality, like despotism and aristocracy.  As you go to the left, equality of rights gets added, then of opportunity, and then of condition.  The idea is that inequities are ironed out as you go left.
> 
> I think this is a ''reasonably'' standard version of the political spectrum.  It does a good job lining up with other criteria, for instance, stance on capitalism (which leads to inequality of condition, so goes on the right).  The libertarian party actually uses this latter axis on its page, so it obviously doesn't reject ''that'' dichotomy, at least.  It just for whatever reason doesn't refer to it as the left-right political spectrum, probably because they don't want to be equated with conservativism. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
ActressesS|982180712
21a22
> :MichellePfeiffer
------
AnarchisM|982180837
3,4c3
< Traditionally, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to a movement 
< dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy. Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
---
> Traditionally, the term ''anarchism'' has been applied to a movement, here named TraditionalAnarchism just for convenience, dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.  Proponents of the extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order.  In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. 
6,8c5
< Prominent anarchists of the traditional sort include EmmaGoldman, MikhailBakunin, and NoamChomsky.  We have a comprehensive discussion of TraditionalAnarchism.
< ----
< More recently, the term ''anarchy'' has been applied to supporters of AnarchoCapitalism, which may be loosely defined as the idea that there should not be a single government, but rather that the traditional functions of government might be best handled by private courts and defense agencies.  
---
> Prominent anarchists of the traditional sort include EmmaGoldman, MikhailBakunin, and NoamChomsky.
10c7
< The most prominent theorist of AnarchoCapitalism is DavidFriedman, son of NobelPrize/EconomicSciences winner MiltonFriedman.  We have a comprehensive discussion of AnarchoCapitalism.
---
> See TraditionalAnarchism.
11a9,11
> More recently, the term ''anarchism'' has been used to describe AnarchoCapitalism, which may be loosely defined as the idea that there should not be a single government, but rather that the traditional functions of government might be best handled by private courts and defense agencies.  
> 
> The most prominent theorist of AnarchoCapitalism is DavidFriedman, son of NobelPrize/EconomicSciences winner MiltonFriedman.  
12a13,14
> See AnarchoCapitalism.
> ----
21c23
< You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
---
> You can see a little bit of the lively debate here: /AnarchyTalk
------
AnarchY|982180937
3c3
< But when it is used to describe a political ideal, ''anarchy'' is a term used in two different ways in describing two very different political views.  It is worth noting that although it is likely that adherents of either view will surely have many disagreements with the other, it is not correct to think of them as being diametric opposites.
---
> But when it is used to describe a political ideal, ''anarchy'' is a term used in two different ways by the adherents of two different political views: TraditionalAnarchism and AnarchoCapitalism.  It is worth noting that although it is likely that adherents of either view will surely have many disagreements with the other, it is not correct to think of them as being diametric opposites.
5c5
< See AnarchisM.
---
> See AnarchisM.
------
ActressesS|982181034
4c4
< 
---
> :DrewBarrymore
------
LeslieCaron|982181048
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  After AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
------
ActorS/Talk|982181087
18,19c18,23
< In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different.  It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather, with MichellePfeiffer playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando, but...----
< The question seems to me, whether their is a difference in the activity called ''acting'' for men and women. I don't see any. Remember, in Shakespeare's time all roles were played by men. Why are "the parts played by men and those by women inherently different," by the way?----
---
> In acting, it is generally, but of course not universally, the case that parts played by women and parts played by men are inherently different.  It might be possible to remake, say, TheGodfather, with MichellePfeiffer playing the role previously played by MarlonBrando, but... --JimboWales
> ----
> The question seems to me, whether their is a difference in the activity called ''acting'' for men and women. I don't see any. Remember, in Shakespeare's time all roles were played by men. Why are "the parts played by men and those by women inherently different," by the way?
> ----
> I would answer this by saying that the problem was sexism in Shakespeare's time, not in our own.  The role of LadyMacBeth
> is best portrayed by a woman, I think.  A film detailing the life of MotherTheresa, starring SylvesterStallone in the central role, would be a farce, would it not?
20a25,29
> Remember that I said, "generally, but by no means universally".
> 
> Perhaps in the future, the methods of makeup will have advanced to a sufficient stage that SeanConnery could play a convincing PrincessDiana, but for now, gender is relevant to the roles, and it is not sexism to note this fact. --JimboWales
> 
> ----
23c32
< One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals/A', etc.
---
> One of the beautiful things about a wiki is, of course, that someone can create a page of 'ActingProfessionals' that lists all of them, male or female, on the same page, or in alphabetical order, like 'ActingProfessionals/A', etc. --JimboWales
------
LeslieCaron|982181225
1c1
< Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  After AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
---
> Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that after AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
------
PoLitics|982181244
6a7,8
> (Before exploring this section you may wish to learn about the PoliticalSpectrum).
> 
------
LeslieCaron|982181276
1c1
< Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that after AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
---
> Film actress and dancer.  Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that after AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
------
PoliticalSpectrum|982181296
3c3
< Because there are many possible political spectrums, one should not talk about _the_ political spectrum as if there were only one.  At the very least, one should first establish context by defining the axis upon which different positions will be measured.  Unfortunately, this is seldom done.
---
> Because there are many possible political spectrums, one should not talk about _the_ political spectrum as if there were only one.  At the very least, one should first establish context by defining the axis upon which different positions will be measured.  Unfortunately, this is seldom done (see PoLitics, e.g.).
------
PoliticalSpectrum|982181392
9c9
< This right-left spectrum is so common that many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it.  However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.
---
> This right-left spectrum is so common that many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it (see PoLitics, e.g.).  However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.
------
AynRand|982181541
1,15c1,20
< *Born Alice Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, February 2, 1905.
< *Emigrated to the United States in 1926, changing her name to Ayn Rand.
< *Moved to Hollywood and began writing for the movie industry. 
< *Married Frank O'Connor, 1929. 
< *Released 'The Night of January 16th', a play, 1934. 
< *Wrote two unsuccessful novels, 'We the Living' (1936), 'Anthem' (1938). 
< *Wrote the best selling novel, 'TheFountainhead' (1943). 
< *In 1951 met psychology student NathanielBranden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
< *Wrote philosophical novel 'AtlasShrugged' (1957), also a best seller. 
< *Along with Branden, launched the Objectivist movement to promote her philosophy of ObjectivisM. 
< *Developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through non-fiction works throughout the 1960s and 1970s. 
< *Broke with Branden, 1968, following certain infidelities on his part. 
< *Died March 6, 1982
< ----
< Somebody needs to render this into declarative sentences.
---
> 
> Ayn Rand was a popular and controversial American philosopher and novelist.  She was born Alyssa (or Alice) Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905. Rand emigrated to the UnitedStates in 1926, changing her name to Ayn Rand.
> 
> After living in Chicago for a short time, Rand moved to Hollywood and began writing for the movie industry.  She met an actor,
> FrankOConnor, by tripping him on purpose and married him in 1929.
> 
> Rand released 'The Night of January 16th', a play, in 1934, and
> published two commercially unsuccessful novels, 'WeTheLiving' (1936), and 'AntheM' (1938). 
> 
> Rand's first major success came with the best selling novel, 'TheFountainhead' (1943). 
> 
> In 1951 Rand met psychology student NathanielBranden, who became Rand's first follower, and later a romantic partner. 
> 
> Rand then wrote philosophical novel 'AtlasShrugged' (1957), also a best seller. Along with Branden, she launched the Objectivist movement to promote her philosophy of ObjectivisM. 
> 
> Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through non-fiction works.
> 
> Rand broke with Branden in 1968, following certain infidelities on his part. 
> 
> She died March 6, 1982.
------
LeslieCaron|982181749
1c1
< Film actress and dancer.  Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that after AudreyHepburn, the most beautiful actress who ever lived.
---
> Film actress and dancer.  Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that she was, after AudreyHepburn, [http://web.ukonline.co.uk/js.robo/scansc/caron/s.htm the most beautiful actress who ever lived].
------
PoliticalSpectrum|982181914
7c7
< In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM ("the right") versus SocialisM ("the left", called liberalism in the UnitedStates).  There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis.  Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes.
---
> In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM ("the right") versus SocialisM ("the left", called liberalism in the UnitedStates).  There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis.  Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes.  EricHoffer suggested that the right-left spectrum measures whether one is frightened by change (the right) or whether one embraces change (the left).  ThomasSowell has argued that one is left-wing to the extent that one beleives human nature, and therefore human society, is malleable, and right-wing to the extent that one believes human nature is fixed.  Since it is not obvious how these various concepts are related, it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are refering to.
9c9
< This right-left spectrum is so common that many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it (see PoLitics, e.g.).  However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.
---
> Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted.  Many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it (see PoLitics, e.g.).  However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.
------
AnAmericanInParis|982182285
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A 1951 MusicalFilm starring GeneKelly and LeslieCaron, set in Paris, directed by Vincente Minnelli.  The climax of the film is 18 minutes of fantastic dancing featuring Kelly and Caron, set to GeorgeGershwin's "An American In Paris."
------
FiLm|982182358
4,6c4,11
<  
< ActorS
< ActresseS
---
> ----
> Film people:
> 
> ActorS -- ActresseS
> ----
> FilmGenres:
> 
> MusicalFilm
------
ActresseS|982182435
1a2
> :AnnetteBenning
2a4,8
> :EllenBurstein
> :LeslieCaron
> :GlennClose
> :BlytheDanner
> :JudithDench (Dame)
4a11
> :DianeFossey
9a17
> :SophiaLoren
12a21
> :MichellePfeiffer
15c24
< :MegRyan
---
> :MegRyan 
------
FiLm|982182467
11c11
< MusicalFilm
---
> MusicalFilm
------
ActressesS|982182473
1,27c1
< I believe this page was created in error, or else I do not understand the purpose of it.  We have a page named ActresseS,
< so what's this one for?  Shall I move these performers to that page, and cause this page to forward to that one?  I won't do so for a day or two, or until someone tells me that it is o.k. to do so, because perhaps there is some reason that I have missed.
< 
< :DrewBarrymore
< :AnnetteBenning
< :JullietteBinoche
< :EllenBurstein
< :LeslieCaron
< :GlennClose
< :BlytheDanner
< :JudithDench (Dame)
< :JaneFonda
< :DianeFossey
< :JodieFoster
< :WhoopieGoldberg
< :AudreyHepburn
< :KatherineHepburn
< :VivienLeigh
< :SophiaLoren
< :ShirleyMcLaine
< :GwenethPaltrow
< :MichellePfeiffer
< :JuliaRoberts
< :MegRyan
< :ElizabethTaylor
< :NatalieWood
< :JoanneWoodward
---
> #REDIRECT ActresseS
------
MusicalFilm|982182532
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A film that features songs, sung by the actors, seamlessly interwoven into the narrative.
> 
> Some famous musicals include AnAmericanInParis.
------
ActresseS|982182571
22a23
> :DeniseRichards
------
PoliticalSpectrum|982182749
17,39c17
< Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points.  There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer.  In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses.  So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial.
< 
< The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory.  Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism.  In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse
< ----
< Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'.  Which is the horizontal axis?
< 
< ''Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)''
< 
< ****
< But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart.  The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative.
< 
< The diagram can be represented like this:
<    ++
<  +-  -+
<    --
< 
< ''Oh...I see what they're doing.  In that case the corners of the graph are grossly mislabeled - a completely totalitarian government is authoritarian whether or not they allow a free market.  But all in all, it's the square is suggested, only tilted in a non-standard way.  Usually left-right is portrayed as an economic spectrum.  I'm very sorry for the confusion.  I still say the source is biased, though.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
< ****
< Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism.  As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions.  Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions.  As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government.  So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes.
< 
< ''Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians).  It's in this sense that I was using the term.  Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond.  A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.''
< 
< ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''
---
> /Talk
------
LeslieCaron|982182826
1c1,3
< Film actress and dancer.  Star of AnAmericanInParis, GiGi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that she was, after AudreyHepburn, [http://web.ukonline.co.uk/js.robo/scansc/caron/s.htm the most beautiful actress who ever lived].
---
> Leslie Caron is a French film actress and dancer.  She was born July 1, 1931 in Boulogne-Billancourt, France.  She was discovered  by GeneKelly, who chose her to appear opposite him in AnAmericanInParis.
> 
> She went on to star in GiGi, LiLi, and other classic films set in FrancE.  Some fans believe that she was, after AudreyHepburn, [http://web.ukonline.co.uk/js.robo/scansc/caron/s.htm the most beautiful actress who ever lived].
------
PoliticalSpectrum/Talk|982182897
1c1,27
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points.  There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer.  In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses.  So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial.
> 
> The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory.  Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism.  In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse
> ----
> Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'.  Which is the horizontal axis?
> 
> ''Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)''
> 
> ****
> But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart.  The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative.
> 
> The diagram can be represented like this:
>    ++
>  +-  -+
>    --
> 
> ''Oh...I see what they're doing.  In that case the corners of the graph are grossly mislabeled - a completely totalitarian government is authoritarian whether or not they allow a free market.  But all in all, it's the square is suggested, only tilted in a non-standard way.  Usually left-right is portrayed as an economic spectrum.  I'm very sorry for the confusion.  I still say the source is biased, though.'' -- JoshuaGrosse
> ****
> Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism.  As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions.  Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions.  As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government.  So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes.
> 
> ''Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians).  It's in this sense that I was using the term.  Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond.  A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.''
> 
> ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it).  And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''
> ----
> Tim, you wrote:
> :In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM ("the right") versus SocialisM ("the left", called liberalism in the UnitedStates).
> I think we need to find a better word for The Right than "conservatism" because that means, after all, something quite different in countries where the tradition for decades has been socialism.  Perhaps there isn't a single word--perhaps it's simply "support for traditional values and some support for capitalism."
------
LeslieCaron|982182912
3a4,5
> 
> She continues to act, appearing recently for example in the acclaimed film ChocolaT.
------
PoLitics|982183012
4d3
< 
20d18
< 
30d27
< 
33c30
< IdeologicalConcepts: AnarchY -- ConservativE -- LeftWing -- LiberaL -- RightWing
---
> IdeologicalConcepts: AnarchY -- ConservativE -- LeftWing -- LiberaL -- PoliticalSpectrum -- RightWing
40d36
< 
------
ActresseS|982183030
22d21
< :SidneyPoitier
------
ActorS|982183097
23c23
< :SidnetPoitier
---
> :SidneyPoitier
------
NewTopics|982183173
5c5
< PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps -- ActorS -- ActressesS --
---
> PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps -- ActorS -- ActresseS --
------
MusicalFilm|982183742
3c3,12
< Some famous musicals include AnAmericanInParis.
---
> Some famous musicals include AnAmericanInParis.
> Also:
> :SouthPacific
> :OklaHoma
> :CarouSel
> :KissMeKate
> :TheKingAndI
> :TheSoundOfMusic
> :WestSideStory
> 
------
ActresseS|982183929
0a1
> :JulieAndrews
7a9
> :CatherineDeNeuve
------
MusicalFilm|982184150
11a12
> :MyFairLady
------
MusicalFilm|982184203
12a13,14
> :DirtyDancing
> :SaturdayNightFever
------
FiLm|982184375
11c11,17
< MusicalFilm
---
> :MusicalFilm
> :ComedyFilm
> :DramaFilm
> :ScienceFictionFilm
> :HorrorFilm
> :ThrillerFilm
> :ActionFilm
------
PersonalProbability|982184375
4c4
< Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by L. J. Savage and Bruno deFinetti and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
---
> Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/savage.htm L. J. Savage] and Bruno deFinetti and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
------
MusicalFilm|982184515
9a10
> :GiGi
------
PersonalProbability|982184845
4c4
< Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/savage.htm L. J. Savage] and Bruno deFinetti and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
---
> Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/savage.htm L. J. Savage] and [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/uncert.htm#finetti Bruno deFinetti] and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
------
ActorS|982185059
6a7
> :GerardDepardieu
20a22
> :YvesMontand
------
PersonalProbability|982185267
4c4
< Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/savage.htm L. J. Savage] and [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/uncert.htm#finetti Bruno deFinetti] and others. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
---
> Recognizing that different people view the same proposition with different ''degrees of belief'', the concept of '''personal probability'' was championed by [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/savage.htm L. J. Savage] and [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/uncert.htm#finetti Bruno deFinetti] and others such as [http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553336 Frank P. Ramsey]. They created the idea of defining rational belief as an abstraction of betting behavior subject to the constraint that one doesn't want to be inconsistent in his behavior. This approach has been called ''Bayesian'', ''subjective'' or ''personal'' probability. A series of critiques of statistical methods was based on this concept and formed the basis of the debate during the decades of 1950 and 1960. Today, there are a variety of applications of personal probability that have gained wide acceptance.
------
FrequencyProbability|982185450
4c4
< ''Statistical Regularity'' has motivated the development of the '''relative frequency''' concept of probability. Most of the procedures commonly used to make statistical estimates or tests were developed by statisticians who used this concept exclusively. They are usually called ''frequentists''.
---
> ''Statistical Regularity'' has motivated the development of the '''relative frequency''' concept of probability. Most of the procedures commonly used to make statistical estimates or tests were developed by statisticians who used this concept exclusively. They are usually called ''frequentists''. This school is often associated with the names of [http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Neyman.html Jerzy Neyman] and [http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~sungurea/introstat/history/w98/espearson.html Egon Pearson] who described the logic of statistical hypothesis testing.
------
FrequencyProbability|982185493
6c6
< During the 1950's and 1960's, there was a debate among statisticians which featured the ''frequentists'' versus the ''Bayesians''. The former insisted that statistical procedures only made sense when one uses the relative frequency concept. The Bayesians supported the use of ''degrees of belief'' as a basis for a new form of statistical practice.
---
> Prior to and during the 1950's and 1960's, there was a debate among statisticians which featured the ''frequentists'' versus the ''Bayesians''. The former insisted that statistical procedures only made sense when one uses the relative frequency concept. The Bayesians supported the use of ''degrees of belief'' as a basis for a new form of statistical practice.
------
DesigningExperiments|982186502
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> : PlanningResearch -- SurveySampling
> 
> The prototype of the thinking of a statistician considering the design of an experiment was exemplified by [http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Fisher.html Sir Ronald A. Fisher]. He described how to test the hypothesis that a certain lady could distinguish by flavor alone whether the milk or the tea was first placed in the cup. This sounds like a frivolous application, but in fact, it allowed him to illustrate the most important ideas of experimental design.
> 
> Developments of the theory of ''Linear Models'' have encompassed and surpassed the cases that concerned early writers. Today, the theory rests on advanced topics in AbstractAlgebra and Combinatorics.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
DesigningExperiments|982186559
6c6
< Developments of the theory of ''Linear Models'' have encompassed and surpassed the cases that concerned early writers. Today, the theory rests on advanced topics in AbstractAlgebra and Combinatorics.
---
> Developments of the theory of ''Linear Models'' have encompassed and surpassed the cases that concerned early writers. Today, the theory rests on advanced topics in AbstractAlgebra and CombinaTorics.
------
SurveySampling|982187319
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> 
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics 
> : PlanningResearch -- DesigningExperiments? 
> 
> The model of a randomly selected sample from a finite population has been very fruitful. Sophisticated sampling techniques that are both economical and scientifically reliable have been developed. An entire industry of public opinion polling  as well as the technical activities of the [http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm U.S. Bureau of the Census] depend on these techniques. 
> 
> The most elementary methodology is called ''simple random sampling''. It assures that every possible subset of the population which has the desired sample size is given the same probability of selection. The possibility of very expensive  or very atypical samples has lead to a variety of modfications such as stratified samples, cluster sampling, and multistage samples. The most experienced center in these techniques outside the Census Bureau is the [http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/research.html University of Michigan Survey Research Center].
> 
> [RABeldin] 
------
SurveySampling|982187389
2d1
< 
10c9
< [RABeldin] 
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin] 
------
ChristianBibleGenesis/Talk|982187894
8c8,11
< I agree completely with what everyone has said.  Especially the part about it not being an easy problem to solve right away.  :-)
---
> I agree completely with what everyone has said.  Especially the part about it not being an easy problem to solve right away.  :-)
> ----
> Y'know, it wouldn't be hard at all to come up with a perl script
> that would place the full text of the bible on the wiki.  But do we want to be ProjectGutenberg as well as an encyclopedia?
------
AbstractAlgebra|982188151
1c1
< An abstract algebra is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more operations on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
---
> An ''abstract algebra''--i.e., there are more than one abstract algebrae--is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more OperatioN""s on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
3,7c3,7
< * MathematicalGrouP''s''
< * RinG''s'' and ModulE''s''
< * FielD''s'' and VectorSpace''s''
< * AssociativeAlgebra''e'' and LieAlgebra''e''
< * LatticE''s''
---
> * MathematicalGrouP""s
> * RinG""s and ModulE""s
> * FielD""s'' and VectorSpace""s
> * AssociativeAlgebra""e and LieAlgebra""e
> * LatticE""s
9c9
< A subalgebra of a given algebra is a SubSet thereof closed under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  A MappinG between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
---
> A subalgebra of a given algebra is a SubSet thereof CloseD under all relevant operations, so that it forms an algebra of the same kind under them (or more technically their restrictions).  A MappinG between two algebrae that preserves all relevant operations and relations is called a HomoMorphism; if it is also a BiJection, it is called an IsoMorphism.  Isomorphic algebrae are indistinguishable as far as algebraic structure is concerned.
------
AbstractAlgebra|982188164
5c5
< * FielD""s'' and VectorSpace""s
---
> * FielD""s and VectorSpace""s
------
AbstractAlgebra|982188186
1c1
< An ''abstract algebra''--i.e., there are more than one abstract algebrae--is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more OperatioN""s on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
---
> An ''abstract algebra''--i.e., there is more than one abstract algebrae--is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more OperatioN""s on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
------
AbstractAlgebra|982188197
1c1
< An ''abstract algebra''--i.e., there is more than one abstract algebrae--is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more OperatioN""s on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
---
> An ''abstract algebra''--i.e., there is more than one abstract algebra--is a mathematical system consisting of a SeT of elements together with one or more OperatioN""s on that set.  Of course these aren't particularly interesting without some additional constraints as to how the operations behave.  Some of the most important abstract algebrae are as follows:
------
ObjectivisM|982189138
5c5
< Reailty is what it is, independent of our beliefs or desires. No two facts of reality can contradict each other- this is an important test of truth. Everything that exists has a specific identity and a specific nature that determines how it acts. Nature is to be explained in terms of nature, without reference to the supernatural. Everything that occurs has a material cause, and everything that exists has a material basis. 
---
> Reality is what it is, independent of our beliefs or desires. No two facts of reality can contradict each other- this is an important test of truth. Everything that exists has a specific identity and a specific nature that determines how it acts. Nature is to be explained in terms of nature, without reference to the supernatural. Everything that occurs has a material cause, and everything that exists has a material basis. 
------
GoD|982190595
9c9,13
< A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered; in argument for the thesis that God does ''not'' exist, TheProblemOfEvil has been posed with the project of TheoDicy a response.
---
> A number of ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod have been offered; in argument for the thesis that God does ''not'' exist, TheProblemOfEvil has been posed with the project of TheoDicy a response.
> ----
> See also, TheUltimate
> 
> 
------
LoGic|982192765
13a14
> The ultimate goal of logic is to show nothing can be proved.
15c16
< See also DefinitionOfLogic; DeductionAndInduction; ArgumentForms; MeaningAndDefinitions.
---
> See also DefinitionOfLogic; DeductionAndInduction; ArgumentForms; MeaningAndDefinitions.
------
ItalY|982193117
1,3c1,2
< Italia (Italy) is a republic in the 
< south of EuropE. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
< MediterraneanSea.
---
> Italia (Italy) is a republic in the south of Europe. It is a boot-shaped peninsula with two big islands in the
> Mediterranean Sea: one is Sicily and the other is Sardinia.
8a8
> Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup three (3) times: 1934, 1938 and 1982. Some of world's best FootBall teams come from Italy. The latter include Milan AC, Inter Milano FC, AS Roma, Lazio (also from Rome), Juventus (from Torino) and Fiorentina (from Florence).
10c10,11
< Italy has won the FootBall WorldCup several times. Some of world's best FootBall teams come from ItalY. The latter include AC Milano, AS Roma, Juventus Torino and FiorentinA.
---
> Italy is also the country best known for its food (pizza, spaghetti, etc.) and the leaning tower of Pisa.
> Pisa is a beautiful small town in Tuscany, and the tower wasn't built to be leaning, but began leaning soon after they started construction around the thirteenth century.
------
LoGic|982194414
14d13
< The ultimate goal of logic is to show nothing can be proved.
------
BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense|982194449
70c70,74
< -Zed
---
> -Zed
> ----
> From LoGic:
> 
> The ultimate goal of logic is to show nothing can be proved.
------
PoLitics|982197793
17a18,19
> ''This categorization doesn't make any sense.  Either AnarchoCapitalism and CapitalisM belong together or BolshevisM and TraditionalAnarchism belong apart.  A good sign that something is wrong is that so many traditional things, like RepublicanisM, are left homeless.  Any ideas for fixes?''
> 
------
PoLitics|982198209
19a20,21
> '''Here's an idea, which might not be the most useful one.  We could arrange the ideologies alphabetically, under the assumption that attempting to group or relate them on a global page raises more questions than it answers. --JimboWales'''
> 
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982198364
3c3,5
< Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
---
> Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
> ----
> Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
------
GeologicTimescale|982199231
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Numbers refer to end of time period, in millions of years before now.  Is there a better way to format this?
> 
>     *  CenozoicEra
>          NeogenePeriod
>    23    PalaeogenePeriod
>    65  MesozoicEra
>         CretaceousPeriod
>   146    JurassicPeriod
>   208    TriassicPeriod
>   245  PalaeozoicEra
>          PermianPeriod
>   290    CarboniferousPeriod
>   363    DevonianPeriod
>   409    SilurianPeriod
>   439    OrdovicianPeriod
>   510    CambrianPeriod
>   570  PrecambrianEra
------
GeologicTimescale|982199260
1c1
< Numbers refer to end of time period, in millions of years before now.  Is there a better way to format this?
---
> Numbers refer to end of time period, in millions of years before now.
3,17c3,17
<     *  CenozoicEra
<          NeogenePeriod
<    23    PalaeogenePeriod
<    65  MesozoicEra
<         CretaceousPeriod
<   146    JurassicPeriod
<   208    TriassicPeriod
<   245  PalaeozoicEra
<          PermianPeriod
<   290    CarboniferousPeriod
<   363    DevonianPeriod
<   409    SilurianPeriod
<   439    OrdovicianPeriod
<   510    CambrianPeriod
<   570  PrecambrianEra
---
>    *  CenozoicEra
>         NeogenePeriod
>   23    PalaeogenePeriod
>   65  MesozoicEra
>        CretaceousPeriod
>  146    JurassicPeriod
>  208    TriassicPeriod
>  245  PalaeozoicEra
>         PermianPeriod
>  290    CarboniferousPeriod
>  363    DevonianPeriod
>  409    SilurianPeriod
>  439    OrdovicianPeriod
>  510    CambrianPeriod
>  570  PrecambrianEra
------
TheUltimate|982199592
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> TheUltimate is a general term embracing the concept of an ultimate supernatural reality which transcends material reality and from which, according to a broad spectrum of Eastern philosophies and religions, material reality derives.  In general, TheUltimate is non-personal, non-anthropomorphic, and may or may not possess discrete will, intelligence or awareness as such.
> 
> Examples of religions and philosophies which embrace the concept of TheUltimate in one form or another include TaoIsm, JainIsm, BuddHism, ShinTo, Hinduism, and others.  Terms which serve to identify TheUltimate among such beliefs include TaO (the Way), AtMan (Universal Spirit), BrahMan (The Power), UniversalMind, UniversalIntelligence, Dainichi-Nyorai (nature-substance), and numerous other apellations.  Even polytheistic Eastern faiths tend to acknowedge a unifying principle which trenscends their various gods. 
> 
> The vital essence of Man, soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have originally derived in each case from TheUltimate, and to be indestructible after the nature of theUltimate, and to be capable of returning to its source.  This returning could be said to be the goal of most Eastern religion.  In every case, 
> 
> The general commonalities between the various versions of TheUltimate are:  infinity,  indescribability, inconceiveability, formlessness, lack of identity and transcendence.  An additional commonality is that one must renounce and/or transcend physical existence, in some cases even to the point of extinguishing identity and individual awareness, in order to co-exist with TheUltimate.  Uniformly, human passions and vices are regarded as barriers to spiritual advancement, and such virtues as humility, charity and pacifism are felt to help pave the way to enlightenment.
> 
> Paralells may be drawn between such tradition and Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic thought.  The concept of a single ultimate vital principle, undivided and incapable of being depicted through gods or icons, which is parent to the individual souls of men, and to which men strive to return is the most obvious comparison.  That this sought-after return is impaired by evil thought and deed, and facilitated by loving action is common, as well.  In addition, the traditions share a general value system which discourages worldliness and encourages seeking higher, more intangible principles, such as reward in the after-life.
> 
> Where the basic division begins to appear betwen Eastern and Western spiritual tradition with regard to TheUltimate is in personification.  The Western Ultimate is generally understood to be an identifiable personage distinct from nature, with a recognizable thought process, purpose and direct action, no matter how transcendent.  The Eastern Ultimate is rather conceived to be the origin point or basic principle of an essential natural process and indistinguishable, ultimately, from nature itself.
> 
> As such, a Western God could demand fealty or faith, while an Eastern Ultimate would demand nothing but, by its very nature and existence, would mutely dictate how individual actions affect destiny.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982210471
5c5,10
< Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
---
> Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
> 
> ----
> Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with AnarchisM, the rich with FascisM and the academics with StalinisM. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the ''soviets'' in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.
> 
> In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982213618
5c5
< Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
---
> Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
10c10
< In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
---
> In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
------
ColdWar|982214461
1,3c1,3
< the cold war describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars in korea, vietnam and afghanistan, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in a armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
< Also, the armys of the countries involved never had much participation in the cold war, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (USA), MI6 (Great Britain), BND (West Germany), STASI (East Germany) and the KGB(USSR).
< The cold war also inspired alot of movie-companys and writers, resulting in an enourmous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (james bond) some less.
---
> The Cold War describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in an armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. Because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
> Also, the armies of the countries involved never had much participation in the Cold War, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (USA), MI6 (Great Britain), BND (West Germany), STASI (East Germany) and the KGB(USSR).
> The Cold War also inspired a lot of movie-companyies and writers, resulting in an enormous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (James Bond) some less.
------
PoLitics|982217365
18,21c18
< ''This categorization doesn't make any sense.  Either AnarchoCapitalism and CapitalisM belong together or BolshevisM and TraditionalAnarchism belong apart.  A good sign that something is wrong is that so many traditional things, like RepublicanisM, are left homeless.  Any ideas for fixes?''
< 
< '''Here's an idea, which might not be the most useful one.  We could arrange the ideologies alphabetically, under the assumption that attempting to group or relate them on a global page raises more questions than it answers. --JimboWales'''
< 
---
> /Talk
------
PoLitics/Talk|982217678
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''This categorization doesn't make any sense.  Either AnarchoCapitalism and CapitalisM belong together or BolshevisM and TraditionalAnarchism belong apart.  A good sign that something is wrong is that so many traditional things, like RepublicanisM, are left homeless.  Any ideas for fixes?''
> 
> '''Here's an idea, which might not be the most useful one.  We could arrange the ideologies alphabetically, under the assumption that attempting to group or relate them on a global page raises more questions than it answers. --JimboWales'''
> ----
> First of all, to spare our nerves, please refrain from exaggeration: yes, the categorization does make some sense, but maybe not perfect sense.  And maybe there are better categorizations.  Can you do better?
> 
> The only serious problem that I saw when I put the categorization up is that capitalism is espoused both by libertarian ideologies and by right-wing ideologies; in fact, that's what they have in common.  One might make a supercategory CapitalistIdeologies, but the problem then is that fascism is left out (fascism never was capitalistic by any reasonable definition of capitalism).  I guess the solution is simply to put "capitalism" under both headings (which I will do right now!).
> 
> By the way, Jimbo's suggestion is very tempting, except that this is, after all, the only serious problem that I could see with the categorization scheme.  I think it's ''nice'' to put order on the world when possible and when helpful to a degree.
------
PoLitics|982217811
12c12
< LibertarianIdeologies: AnarchoCapitalism -- LibertarianisM
---
> LibertarianIdeologies: AnarchoCapitalism -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- LibertarianisM
44a45,46
> 
> PunDits: WilliamFBuckleyJr
------
PoLitics|982217900
10c10
< RightWingIdeologies: CapitalisM -- ConservatisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism
---
> RightWingIdeologies: CapitalisM -- ConservatisM -- FascisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism
46c46
< PunDits: WilliamFBuckleyJr
---
> PunDits: WilliamFBuckleyJr
------
PoLitics/Talk|982220490
9c9,19
< By the way, Jimbo's suggestion is very tempting, except that this is, after all, the only serious problem that I could see with the categorization scheme.  I think it's ''nice'' to put order on the world when possible and when helpful to a degree.
---
> By the way, Jimbo's suggestion is very tempting, except that this is, after all, the only serious problem that I could see with the categorization scheme.  I think it's ''nice'' to put order on the world when possible and when helpful to a degree.
> ----
> The problem with the categorization scheme is it throws the whole economic left in together and splits up the economic right:
>              Socialist   Capitalist
>           +------------------------
>  High gov |   Left        Right
>  Low gov  |   Left      Libertarian
> 
> One or the other should be changed.  Either libertarianism should go back in with the economic right, which makes it easy to handle the position of capitalism; or all four corners of the square (~LP diamond) should be separated, i.e. anarchism or stalinism should be removed therefrom.  I'm not sure what the corners get named, though; left and right seem to me to cover sides rather than corners (see elsewhere) and I don't know the name for right-high-government.
> 
> This probably seems like I'm being ridiculously difficult to work with, but I really do want wikipedia to be fair.  Awarding special status to groups just because they claim it is silly, and not very objective. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoLitics/Talk|982221099
11c11
< The problem with the categorization scheme is it throws the whole economic left in together and splits up the economic right:
---
> I agree, but there are problems with this categorization.  As far as schemes in terms of spectra go, the problem with this one is it throws the whole economic left in together and splits up the economic right:
19c19,23
< This probably seems like I'm being ridiculously difficult to work with, but I really do want wikipedia to be fair.  Awarding special status to groups just because they claim it is silly, and not very objective. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> This probably seems like I'm being ridiculously difficult to work with, but I really do want wikipedia to be fair.  Awarding special status to groups just because they claim it is silly, and not very objective.
> 
> The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are going to be difficult to pidgeonhole things into.
> 
>  -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoLitics/Talk|982221107
21,23c21
< The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are going to be difficult to pidgeonhole things into.
< 
<  -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are going to be difficult to pidgeonhole things into. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoLitics/Talk|982221145
21c21
< The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are going to be difficult to pidgeonhole things into. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoLitics/Talk|982221185
13c13
<           +------------------------
---
>           ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
21c21
< The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
------
PoLitics/Talk|982221448
21c21
< The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories, and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories (same as capitalism), and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
------
FielD|982224887
1c1,56
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A FielD, briefly, is an algebraic system of elements, usually called numbers, in which the 
> operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (except division by zero) may be performed without leaving the system, the formal associative, commutative, and distributive rules hold, and the equations a=b+x and a=b*y have solutions, without restriction, provided in the latter case a not=0. 
> 
> 
> '''Definition''': Given a SeT '''F''' and two BinaryOperation''s'' defined on '''F''', called addition and multiplication, denoted "+" and "*" respectively. Then ('''F''',+,*) is called a FielD if:
> 
> *   1). For all a,b belonging to (F,+,*), both a+b and a*b belong to (F,+,*).
> *        Closure of F under + and *.
> 
>  
> *   2). For all a,b,c in (F,+,*), a+(b+c)= (a+b)+c 
> *        and a*(b*c)=(a*b)*c.
> *        Both + and * are Associative in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   3). For all a,b belonging to (F,+,*), a+b=b+a 
> *        and a*b=b*a. 
> *        Both+ and * are commutative in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   4). For all a,b,c, belonging to (F,+,*), a*(b+c)= (a*b)+(a*c)
> *        and (a+b)*c=(a*c)+(b*c).
> *        The operation * is distributive over the operation + in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   5). For all a belonging to (F,+,*), there exists an element 0, such a+0=a
> *        and 0+a=a.
> *        Existence of an additive identity in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   6). For all a belonging to (F,+,*), there exists an element 1, such that a*1=a
> *        and 1*a=a.
> *        Existence of a multiplicative identity in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   7). For all a belonging to (F,+,*), there exists an element –a in (F,+,*), such that   
> *        a+(-a)=0 and (-a)+a=0.
> *        Existence of an additive inverse for all a in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> *   8). For all a not=0 belonging to (F,*,+), there exists an element a^-1 in (F,+,*),    
> *        such that a*(a^-1)=1 and (a^-1)*a=1.
> *        Existence of a multiplicative inverse for all a in (F,+,*).
> 
> 
> Examples: Three Common FielD''s''.
>  
> *The Rational Numbers '''Z'''={all a/b: a, b belong to I, the IntegerNumbers, and b not=0}.
> 
> *The RealNumbers= '''R.''' .
> 
> *The ComplexNumbers '''C'''={x: x=a+bi, where a,b belong to '''R''', and i=sqrt(-1)}.
> 
> The concept of a FielD is of use, for example, in defining VectorS and MatriceS, two structures in LinearAlgebra, whose components can be elements of an arbitrary FielD.  
> 
> 
------
ActorS/Talk|982226210
27c27,28
< Perhaps in the future, the methods of makeup will have advanced to a sufficient stage that SeanConnery could play a convincing PrincessDiana, but for now, gender is relevant to the roles, and it is not sexism to note this fact. --JimboWales
---
> Perhaps in the future, the methods of makeup will have advanced to a sufficient stage that SeanConnery could play a convincing PrincessDiana, but for now, gender is relevant to the roles, and it is not sexism to note this fact. --JimboWales----
> And I suppose having ElizabethTaylor playing MotherTheresa or OprahWinfrey playing PrincessDiana would be good casting? Notice you are choosing characters who HAVE lived and of whom we already have a visual image. Remember that MaryMartin played PeterPan?
------
SandBox|982227898
14c14,16
< # last line 
---
> # last line ----
> 
> � I made a little box in the SandBox
------
JimboWales|982228172
20c20,21
< Thanks for the suggestion re: multilanguage access to [http://unumondo.com UnuMondo]. I have enhanced the splash page accordingly! -- JerryMuelver
---
> Thanks for the suggestion re: multilanguage access to [http://unumondo.com UnuMondo]. I have enhanced the splash page accordingly! -- JerryMuelver----
> � � � � � � � � � For JimboWales...hold down ALT and enter, say, 0141 in the keypad. 
------
MusicalInstruments|982235247
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Double bass
------
ScienCe|982237021
6a7,8
> * EcoLogy
> * GeNetics
------
MarylanD|982237457
1a2,3
> 
> Famous for its cookies MarylandCookies.
------
SetTheory|982239533
1,140c1,42
< Sets are one of the base concepts of mathematics.  A SeT is, more or less, just a collection of objects, called its elements.  Standard notation uses braces around the list of elements, as in:
< 
<    {red, green, blue}
<    {x : x is a primary color}
< 
< The notation is not self-explanatory.
< If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in all of the sets. The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
< 
<    A1 u A2 u A3 ...
<    A1 n A2 n A3 ...
< 
< respectively.  If you don't mind jumping ahead a bit, the subsets of a given set form a BooleanAlgebra under these operations.  The set of all subsets of X is called its PowerSet and is denoted 2^X.
< 
< '''Axioms for set theory'''
< 
< The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets so long as they are composed of other sets - from which most mathematical objects can be constructed anyways - and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axioms, and in some senses are too restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
< 
< The above is more than a little confusing. What does it mean to "handle sets"? What is a "model" in this context? How does the singleton operation prevent the existence of a set of all sets? 
< 
< The axioms of ZF are as follows:
<    Axiom of extension:        Two sets are the same iff they have the same elements.
<    Axiom of null set:         There is an empty set {}.
<    Axiom of unordered pairs:  If X,Y are sets, so is {X,Y}.
<    Axiom of unions:           For any set X, there is another set composed of the union of its elements.
<    Axiom of infinite:         There exists a set X such that, if x is in X, so is {x}.  
< 
< ''This has been left in here uncorrected for a long time now.  Is the empty set infinite?''
< 
<    Axiom of replacement:      Given any set and any MappinG, formally defined as a proposition P(x,y) where
<                               P(x,y) and P(x,z) implies y=z, there is a set containing precisely the images of 
<                               its elements.
<    Axiom of PowerSet''s'':    There exists a set P(X) containing precisely the subsets of any given set X.
<    Axiom of regularity:       Every non-empty set X contains some element Y such that X and Y are disjoint.
< 
< *What does "composed of" mean above? 
< To rephrase the axiom, given a set X, there is a set Y whose elements are precisely those
< that are elements of some element of X.  This again will be a little confusing: in ZF, the only things that exist
< are sets, and the only things that sets contain are other sets. For example, if 
<    { {1,2}, {3,4}, {4,5,6} }
< is a set then
<    { 1,2,3,4,5,6 }
< is a set.
< 
< *Details apart, it isn't really possible for somebody who is not already familiar with set theory to understand the above.
< For anyone who wants to understand, it is an idea to have a little familiarity with set theory in its `less formal' form,
< and the problems it has, so as to see why set theory is the way it is.  Part of the reason it is necessary is due to examples
< such as RussellsParadox :
<    Let R = { x | x is not a member of x }
<    Question: is R a member of R
<    Problem: If R is a member of R then R does not satisfy the criterion for membership -- contradiction.
<             If R is not a member of R then R does satisfy the criterion for membership -- another contradiction.
< 
< ''You people can't have it both ways.''
< 
< The AxiomOfChoice leads to the existence of several sets, like a well-ordering for the real numbers, that can't be constructed in ordinary ZF set theory.  However, it is impossible to prove they don't exist - the axiom is independent of the axioms of ZF - and so we are free to add it to our axioms if we want.  This has become more or less conventional, since most of the sets it adds are handy to have, even if we can never find an explicit representation for any of them.
< 
< One other point about the AxiomOfChoice is that whenever you implicitly assume that the cardinality (i.e. size) of a set exists, you are using AxiomOfChoice in order to do this.  Since all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities, you get unconstructible sets either way.
< 
< COMMENT: This is not at all true - cardinality can be defined
< without using AC. The statement about "all constructible sets"
< having distinct cardinalities makes no obvious sense. What
< is meant here by a "constructible set"?
< 
< ''The usual way of defining cardinals is by taking a representative ordinal of each size, which you can't do without the axiom of choice.  The only other way I've ever seen done is by taking equivalence classes of sets, but these don't end up being ZF sets - i.e. you have to use objects outside the system being considered.''
< 
< COMMENT: The axiom
< of choice is not needed to define cardinals in ZF - the
< equivalence classes can be taken to be sets, by defining the
< cardinal of x as the set of all sets of minimal rank
< equivalent to x. We are also perfectly free to simply
< introduce a special function symbol for cardinals, governed
< by the axiom card(x)=card(y) <-> x and y are equivalent.
< (Suppes does it this way.) Associating the axiom of choice
< with there mere possibility of talking about cardinals is
< quite unjustified.
< 
< RESPONSE: What makes you think these equivalence classes actually exist within the framework of ZF?  I think the following proves they don't.  Take the equivalence class C containing {{}} and apply the axiom of unions to get a set U.  Then for any set X, {X} is in C and so X is a member of U.  In other words, U is ''a set of all sets'' which is well-known to be impossible within ZF.
< 
< ''Except for the fact that you have ignored the phrase "of minimal rank".  Not all singleton sets {X} are sets '''of minimal rank''' equivalent to {{}}.  (Let's see how horribly messy we can make this page...)''
< 
< Oops, you're right.  I figured I'd probably do something wrong.  But in any case, can you guarantee that such equivalence classes exist within ZF?  I remember something about it being difficult, even if the above is wrong.  (Btw, this page will need some extensive reworking anyways).
< 
< RESPONSE: It's trivial to prove the existence of cardinals
< as equivalence classes in the indicated way in ZF.
< 
< RESPONSE II: Ok, would you mind providing a reference is to how?  Not that I don't believe you, but it would be nice to have the details...
< 
< See e.g. the chapter on set theory in Mendelson, Introduction
< to Mathematical Logic, for a definition of the cumulative hierarchy of sets: R(0)=the empty set, R(alpha+1)=the power
< set of R(alpha), R(lambda)=union of R(alpha) for alpha<lambda,
< for limit lambda. The axiom of regularity is equivalent to
< the statement that for every set x there is an alpha such that
< x is in R(alpha).The cardinal of x can be defined as the set of sets in R(alpha) that are equivalent to x, where alpha is the smallest beta such that R(beta) contains a set equivalent to x.
< 
< 
< That's not to say the cardinals don't exist, just that they can't be constructed in ZF, unless you use an alternate technique.  The standard alternate technique is to choose some representative from each equivalence class, typically the ordinals.  But I don't think its easy to do this if the ordinals don't hit every set, which they can't if trichotomy of cardinals doesn't hold. --JG
< 
< COMMENT: The cardinals (constructed using AC) are linearly ordered (in fact well ordered for obvious reasons).  
< Under the above sort of definition, one loses the ability to say `either |X| <= |Y| or else |X| >= |Y|' 
< where <= and >= denote the usual cardinal inequalities.  This doesn't help its cause as an `intuitive' measure
< of `infinity size'.
< 
< COMMENT: One does not "lose the ability to say" this. What is
< true is that it cannot be proved without AC that any two cardinals are comparable. This is not to say that the cardinals
< cannot be defined without AC. 
< 
< ''A set X has been constructed if there is a 'way' of determining whether any given element is in it.  I'm being deliberately vague, but I think you can see the idea.  ZF+AC asserts the real numbers have a basis as a vector space over the rationals, but you are never going to be able to demonstrate an example of some such set.  ZF-AC asserts that there is a set which can't be put into one-to-one correspondence with any ordinal, and if I am not mistaken you can't find me one of those either (though I'm not entirely sure, since you're not allowed to use AC to set up the correspondence).''
< 
< COMMENT: This is not only vague, but it is not a recognizable
< informal version of anything formally defined in set theory. In
< particular, it is completely obscure what you mean by saying
< that all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities.
< 
< RESPONSE: I should have been a little more specific.  I meant distinct cardinality in the narrow sense, where it is being defined in terms of ordinals.  My point was that, though every infinte set you will ever build can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers or something built by power-setting them, there must be other sets if the generalized continuum hypothesis is false, and ZF-AC asserts that it is.  However, I'm not entirely sure that the 1-to-1 correspondences can be constructed without AC, so this might be a mistake on my part.  I would ''love'' any info on that.
< 
< COMMENT: I don't understand what you have in mind in saying that
< "ZF-AC asserts that it is" - the generalized continuum hypothesis is not implied by ZF-AC. Further, what does "the 1-to-1 correspondences" refer to?
< 
< RESPONSE: The generalized continuum hypothesis isn't, but its negation is.  Simple contrapostitive of GCH -> AC.  The 1-to-1 correspondences are just those, namely, the things we have to set up to prove that a given set has the same cardinality as another given set.  In ZF+AC, GCH is undecidable, so everything constructed must satisfy GCH (else it would be false) and so be of the same cardinality as some power set of N, ie have some 1-to-1 correspondence between them.  But potentially this 1-to-1 correspondence need not be constructable either, and exist because of AC - this last point I am not sure about.
< 
< COMMENT: Yes, if by ZF-AC you mean ZF plus the negation of
< AC, it is inconsistent with GCH. Your statement that everything
< constructed in ZF+AC must satisfy GCH has no obvious meaning.
< Your implication (if I understand you correctly) that if GCH
< holds every set must be "of the same cardinality of some power
< set of N" is unclear. What do you mean by "a power set of N"?
< 
< Response: I mean the things that GCH usually asserts are the only cardinals...I'm sorry for the bad terminology but I couldn't think of any better way to put it.
< 
< COMMENT: I will assume then that by saying that a cardinal
< satisfies GCH you mean that it is not a counterexample to
< GCH, i.e. it is not a cardinal k or 2^k such that 2^k is greater than the successor of k. However, that "everything constructed in
< ZF+AC must satisfy GCH" has no obvious interpretation on which
< it is correct. For example, is the power set of the set of
< natural numbers "constructed in ZF+AC"? If so, what does it
< mean that it satisfies GCH?
< 
< On the other hand, AxiomOfChoice also allows one to prove that the solid unit sphere can be broken up into 5 (infinitely complicated) pieces, shuffled around (with no scaling/shearing etc... just rotation and translation), and put back together to make two solid spheres, each identical to the original. (The Banach-Tarski Paradox)
< 
< Nothing much seems to be happening on this page!
---
> Set theory is a part of mathematics created by the German
> mathematician Georg Cantor at the end of the 19th century.
> Initially controversial, set theory has come to play the
> role of a foundational theory in modern mathematics, in
> the sense of a theory invoked to justify assumptions
> made in mathematics concerning the existence of mathematical
> objects (such as numbers or functions) and their properties.
> Formal versions of set theory also have a foundational role
> to play as specifying a theoretical ideal of mathematical
> rigor in proofs. At the same time the basic concepts of
> set theory are used throughout mathematics, while the subject
> is pursued in its own right as a speciality by a comparatively
> small group of mathematicians and logicians. It should be
> mentioned that there are also mathematicians using and
> promoting different approaches to the foundations of
> mathematics.
> 
> The basic concepts of set theory are set and membership. A
> set is thought of as any collection of objects, called the
> members of the set. In mathematics, the members of sets are
> any mathematical objects, and in particular can themselves
> be sets. Thus one speaks of the set of natural numbers (0,1,2,..), the sets of real numbers, the sets of functions
> from the natural numbers to the natural numbers, but also
> e.g. of the set {0,2,N} which has as members the numbers 0
> and 2 and the set N of natural numbers. Cantor's basic
> discovery, which got set theory going as a new field of
> study, was that if we define two sets A and B to have the same number of members (the same cardinality) when there is a way of
> pairing off members of A exhaustively with members of B, then
> the set N of natural numbers has the same cardinality as the
> set Q of rational numbers (they are both said to be countably
> infinite), but the set R of real numbers does not have the
> same cardinality as N or Q. Cantor gave two proofs that R
> is not countable, and the second of these, using what is known
> as the diagonal construction, has been extraordinarily 
> influential and has had manifold applications in logic and
> mathematics.
> 
> The appearance around the turn of the century of the
> so-called set-theoretical paradoxes prompted the formulation
> in 1908 by Zermelo of an axiomatic theory of sets, and the
> theory of sets now most often studied and used is the
> theory called Zermelo-Fraenkel or ZF.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982239536
9a10,11
> 
> ''Actually, Fascism is capitalistic. This is evidenced by the defection of Capitalists to Fascism whenever a socialist revolution threatens. This even happened in the UnitedStates at the time of the NewDeal when a group of prominent capitalists took steps to overthrow President Roosevelt and replace Congress with a Fascist regime. To quote one of the conspirators "I would spend half of my fortune to save the other half."''
------
SetTheory|982239639
22c22
< be sets. Thus one speaks of the set of natural numbers (0,1,2,..), the sets of real numbers, the sets of functions
---
> be sets. Thus one speaks of the set of natural numbers (0,1,2,..), the set of real numbers, the set of functions
------
SportS|982245659
51a52,57
> 
> Sports emphasizing balance and co-ordination (usually recreational but can also be competitive)
> 
> * IceSkating
> * RollerSkating
> * Skateboarding
53a60
> * SurfinG
59c66,69
< brain-sports (where you have to think):
---
> Brain-sports (where you have to think) - Card Games:
> * ContractBridge
> 
> Brain-sports (where you have to think) - Board Games:
61c71
< * GoO ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
---
> * GameOfGo ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
------
FielD|982253687
45,46c45
< 
< Examples: Three Common FielD''s''.
---
> Note that a FielD is just a RinG where all elements have multiplicative inverses, except 0 which cannot.  Examples: Three Common FielD''s''.
------
FielD|982253809
47c47
< *The Rational Numbers '''Z'''={all a/b: a, b belong to I, the IntegerNumbers, and b not=0}.
---
> *The Rational Numbers '''Q'''={all a/b: a, b belong to '''Z''', the IntegerNumbers, and b not=0}.
------
MusicalInstruments|982254179
1c1,2
< Double bass
---
> DoubleBass
> BongO
------
PoLitics/Talk|982254294
11a12,14
> 
> In one system there is complete government control of the economy.  In the other, a complete absence of government control in the economy.  So clearly, they must be the same thing.
> 
------
TheUltimate|982254580
5c5
< The vital essence of Man, soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have originally derived in each case from TheUltimate, and to be indestructible after the nature of theUltimate, and to be capable of returning to its source.  This returning could be said to be the goal of most Eastern religion.  In every case, 
---
> The vital essence of Man, soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have originally derived in each case from TheUltimate, and to be indestructible after the nature of theUltimate, and to be capable of returning to its source.  This returning could be said to be the goal of most Eastern religion.
7c7
< The general commonalities between the various versions of TheUltimate are:  infinity,  indescribability, inconceiveability, formlessness, lack of identity and transcendence.  An additional commonality is that one must renounce and/or transcend physical existence, in some cases even to the point of extinguishing identity and individual awareness, in order to co-exist with TheUltimate.  Uniformly, human passions and vices are regarded as barriers to spiritual advancement, and such virtues as humility, charity and pacifism are felt to help pave the way to enlightenment.
---
> The general commonalities between the various versions of TheUltimate are:  infinity,  indescribability, inconceiveability, formlessness, lack of identity and transcendence.  An additional commonality is that one must renounce and/or transcend physical existence and its distractions, in some cases even to the point of extinguishing identity and individual awareness, in order to understand or co-exist with TheUltimate.  Uniformly, human passions and vices are regarded as barriers to spiritual advancement, and such virtues as humility, charity and pacifism are felt to help pave the way to enlightenment.
13c13
< As such, a Western God could demand fealty or faith, while an Eastern Ultimate would demand nothing but, by its very nature and existence, would mutely dictate how individual actions affect destiny.
---
> As such, a Western God can require fealty or faith, while an Eastern Ultimate requires nothing but, by its very nature and existence, mutely dictates how individual actions and attitudes affect destiny.
------
TheUltimate|982254618
3c3
< Examples of religions and philosophies which embrace the concept of TheUltimate in one form or another include TaoIsm, JainIsm, BuddHism, ShinTo, Hinduism, and others.  Terms which serve to identify TheUltimate among such beliefs include TaO (the Way), AtMan (Universal Spirit), BrahMan (The Power), UniversalMind, UniversalIntelligence, Dainichi-Nyorai (nature-substance), and numerous other apellations.  Even polytheistic Eastern faiths tend to acknowedge a unifying principle which trenscends their various gods. 
---
> Examples of religions and philosophies which embrace the concept of TheUltimate in one form or another include TaoIsm, JainIsm, BuddHism, ShinTo, HinduIsm, and others.  Terms which serve to identify TheUltimate among such beliefs include TaO (the Way), AtMan (Universal Spirit), BrahMan (The Power), UniversalMind, UniversalIntelligence, Dainichi-Nyorai (nature-substance), and numerous other apellations.  Even polytheistic Eastern faiths tend to acknowedge a unifying principle which trenscends their various gods. 
------
TheUltimate|982254798
5c5
< The vital essence of Man, soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have originally derived in each case from TheUltimate, and to be indestructible after the nature of theUltimate, and to be capable of returning to its source.  This returning could be said to be the goal of most Eastern religion.
---
> The vital essence of Man, soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have originally derived in each case from TheUltimate, and to be indestructible after the nature of TheUltimate, and to be capable of returning to its source.  This returning could be said to be the goal of most Eastern religion.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982255702
26a27,32
> ----
> I don't think you are being difficult, JoshuaGrosse.  I think that this is a difficult problem, and that it is worth chewing on it for awhile.
> 
> I'm a little unclear on who wrote which, above, although I could figure it out from the 'other revisions'.  But, no time right now.  All I wanted to say is that it strikes me as very odd to list both CapitalisM and LibertarianisM as ideologies.  Someone talked about CapitalisT''''s who became FascisT'''s in the face of some SocialisT upheaval.  This surely doesn't refer to people who held CapitalisM as an ideology, but rather to people who were owners of capital.  That's not the same thing at all.
> 
> 
------
PoLitics/Talk|982255782
30c30
< I'm a little unclear on who wrote which, above, although I could figure it out from the 'other revisions'.  But, no time right now.  All I wanted to say is that it strikes me as very odd to list both CapitalisM and LibertarianisM as ideologies.  Someone talked about CapitalisT''''s who became FascisT'''s in the face of some SocialisT upheaval.  This surely doesn't refer to people who held CapitalisM as an ideology, but rather to people who were owners of capital.  That's not the same thing at all.
---
> I'm a little unclear on who wrote which, above, although I could figure it out from the 'other revisions'.  But, no time right now.  All I wanted to say is that it strikes me as very odd to list both CapitalisM and LibertarianisM as ideologies.  Someone talked about CapitalisT''s who became FascisT''s in the face of some SocialisT upheaval.  This surely doesn't refer to people who held CapitalisM as an ideology, but rather to people who were owners of capital.  That's not the same thing at all.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982256029
10a11,12
> 
> I think it fairly obvious that the differences between Stalinism and Fascism are relatively minor points of emphasis and justification.  I also think this points out the inherent conceptual confusion involved in attempting to lay everything out on a single left-to-right spectrum.  If Fascism is far to the right, and Stalinism is far to the left, and if both amount in practice to pretty much the same thing... then... --JimboWales
------
PoLitics/Talk|982256124
14a15
> ''Our government interferes with the economy, but it's still capitalist.  The term doesn't refer to an absence of government intervention - that would exclude most of the economies of today and include pastoralism - but rather to the economy being based on private enterprise.  If memory serves, fascisms are in favor of that, they just want to regulate it very closely.''
------
ColdWar|982256168
1,3c1,3
< The Cold War describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in an armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. Because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
< Also, the armies of the countries involved never had much participation in the Cold War, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (USA), MI6 (Great Britain), BND (West Germany), STASI (East Germany) and the KGB(USSR).
< The Cold War also inspired a lot of movie-companyies and writers, resulting in an enormous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (James Bond) some less.
---
> The Cold War describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars such as the KoreanWar, VietnamWar and the conflict in AfghanistaN, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in an armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. Because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western Germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
> Also, the armies of the countries involved never had much participation in the Cold War, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (UnitedStates), MI6 (GreatBritain), BND (WestGermany), STASI (EastGermany) and the KGB (USSR).
> The Cold War also inspired a lot of movie-companies and writers, resulting in an enormous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (JamesBond) some less.
------
JimboWales|982256279
21c21,25
< � � � � � � � � � For JimboWales...hold down ALT and enter, say, 0141 in the keypad. 
---
> * * * * * * * * * For JimboWales...hold down ALT and enter, say, 0141 in the keypad. 
> 
> Ah, I wasn't the one asking how to make them, I was asking the person who asked what they meant.
> 
> It seems that what you are calling little boxes will show up as funny characters to some people, if they have some special fonts installed.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982257034
12a13,14
> 
> Stalinism and Fascism have a lot of similarities thanks to both being totalitarian governments, but that doesn't mean one should overlook their differences.  Stalinists promised a worker's utopia and go on the left, Fascists promised a good police state and go on the right.  Other axes are usually added to reflect their commonalities, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the coordinate difference on the one we have!  If you do, you shouldn't expect to get a meaningfully discerning system. -- JoshuaGrosse
------
MetaphoR|982260259
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A figurative use of language that is used to paint one concept with the attributes normally associated with another.
> 
> For example, "ship of state" is a metaphor that likens the government to a ship: just as a ship needs a captain to make decisions, give orders, and control things, so a government needs someone to make decisions, give orders, and control things.  By refering to the "ship of state" one emphasizes this aspect of government.
> 
> Metaphors are very powerful tools because they allow for the expression of very abstract principles by reference to conretes.  They can also be dangerous to understanding, in that people may fail to recognize the figurative nature of a metaphor, and come to take it literally.
------
ColdWar|982260373
3a4,5
> 
> "Cold War" is a MetaphoR.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982260767
15a16,18
> 
> What is the difference between "the absence of government intervention" and "private enterprise"?  If an enterprise is private, then the government is not controlling it.  That's what private (as opposed to public) means.
> 
------
PoLitics/Talk|982260801
17c17
< What is the difference between "the absence of government intervention" and "private enterprise"?  If an enterprise is private, then the government is not controlling it.  That's what private (as opposed to public) means.
---
> What is the difference between "the absence of government intervention" and "private enterprise"?  If an enterprise is private, then the government is not intervening in it.  That's what private (as opposed to public) means.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982260900
18a19,20
> Also, if I wish to talk about a system based on the absence of government intervention, what word should I use?
> 
------
MetaphoR|982260961
5c5
< Metaphors are very powerful tools because they allow for the expression of very abstract principles by reference to conretes.  They can also be dangerous to understanding, in that people may fail to recognize the figurative nature of a metaphor, and come to take it literally.
---
> Metaphors are very powerful tools because they allow for the expression of very abstract principles by reference to concretes.  They can also be dangerous to understanding, in that people may fail to recognize the figurative nature of a metaphor, and come to take it literally.
------
SetTheory|982267740
42a43,44
> 
> /oldversion
------
SetTheory|982267751
44c44
< /oldversion
---
> /OldVersion
------
SetTheory/OldVersion|982267790
1c1,140
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Sets are one of the base concepts of mathematics.  A SeT is, more or less, just a collection of objects, called its elements.  Standard notation uses braces around the list of elements, as in:
> 
>    {red, green, blue}
>    {x : x is a primary color}
> 
> The notation is not self-explanatory.
> If every x in some set A is contained in some set B, then A is said to be a SubSet of B.  Every set has as subsets itself, called the improper subset, and the empty set {}.  The union of a collection of sets '''S''' = {S1,S2,S3,...} is the set of all elements contained in at least one of the sets S1,S2,S3,....The intersection of a collection of sets '''T''' = {T1,T2,T3,...} is the set of all elements contained in all of the sets. The union and intersection of sets, say A1,A2,A3,... are denoted
> 
>    A1 u A2 u A3 ...
>    A1 n A2 n A3 ...
> 
> respectively.  If you don't mind jumping ahead a bit, the subsets of a given set form a BooleanAlgebra under these operations.  The set of all subsets of X is called its PowerSet and is denoted 2^X.
> 
> '''Axioms for set theory'''
> 
> The most common axioms for set theory are those of Zermelo and Fraenkel, which do a good job handling most sets so long as they are composed of other sets - from which most mathematical objects can be constructed anyways - and are equivalent to several other axiomatizations.  However, they aren't the only possible axioms, and in some senses are too restrictive.  For instance, they provide a way to go from any set X to a set {X} and thereby prevent the existence of a set of all sets, which some other models allow.
> 
> The above is more than a little confusing. What does it mean to "handle sets"? What is a "model" in this context? How does the singleton operation prevent the existence of a set of all sets? 
> 
> The axioms of ZF are as follows:
>    Axiom of extension:        Two sets are the same iff they have the same elements.
>    Axiom of null set:         There is an empty set {}.
>    Axiom of unordered pairs:  If X,Y are sets, so is {X,Y}.
>    Axiom of unions:           For any set X, there is another set composed of the union of its elements.
>    Axiom of infinite:         There exists a set X such that, if x is in X, so is {x}.  
> 
> ''This has been left in here uncorrected for a long time now.  Is the empty set infinite?''
> 
>    Axiom of replacement:      Given any set and any MappinG, formally defined as a proposition P(x,y) where
>                               P(x,y) and P(x,z) implies y=z, there is a set containing precisely the images of 
>                               its elements.
>    Axiom of PowerSet''s'':    There exists a set P(X) containing precisely the subsets of any given set X.
>    Axiom of regularity:       Every non-empty set X contains some element Y such that X and Y are disjoint.
> 
> *What does "composed of" mean above? 
> To rephrase the axiom, given a set X, there is a set Y whose elements are precisely those
> that are elements of some element of X.  This again will be a little confusing: in ZF, the only things that exist
> are sets, and the only things that sets contain are other sets. For example, if 
>    { {1,2}, {3,4}, {4,5,6} }
> is a set then
>    { 1,2,3,4,5,6 }
> is a set.
> 
> *Details apart, it isn't really possible for somebody who is not already familiar with set theory to understand the above.
> For anyone who wants to understand, it is an idea to have a little familiarity with set theory in its `less formal' form,
> and the problems it has, so as to see why set theory is the way it is.  Part of the reason it is necessary is due to examples
> such as RussellsParadox :
>    Let R = { x | x is not a member of x }
>    Question: is R a member of R
>    Problem: If R is a member of R then R does not satisfy the criterion for membership -- contradiction.
>             If R is not a member of R then R does satisfy the criterion for membership -- another contradiction.
> 
> ''You people can't have it both ways.''
> 
> The AxiomOfChoice leads to the existence of several sets, like a well-ordering for the real numbers, that can't be constructed in ordinary ZF set theory.  However, it is impossible to prove they don't exist - the axiom is independent of the axioms of ZF - and so we are free to add it to our axioms if we want.  This has become more or less conventional, since most of the sets it adds are handy to have, even if we can never find an explicit representation for any of them.
> 
> One other point about the AxiomOfChoice is that whenever you implicitly assume that the cardinality (i.e. size) of a set exists, you are using AxiomOfChoice in order to do this.  Since all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities, you get unconstructible sets either way.
> 
> COMMENT: This is not at all true - cardinality can be defined
> without using AC. The statement about "all constructible sets"
> having distinct cardinalities makes no obvious sense. What
> is meant here by a "constructible set"?
> 
> ''The usual way of defining cardinals is by taking a representative ordinal of each size, which you can't do without the axiom of choice.  The only other way I've ever seen done is by taking equivalence classes of sets, but these don't end up being ZF sets - i.e. you have to use objects outside the system being considered.''
> 
> COMMENT: The axiom
> of choice is not needed to define cardinals in ZF - the
> equivalence classes can be taken to be sets, by defining the
> cardinal of x as the set of all sets of minimal rank
> equivalent to x. We are also perfectly free to simply
> introduce a special function symbol for cardinals, governed
> by the axiom card(x)=card(y) <-> x and y are equivalent.
> (Suppes does it this way.) Associating the axiom of choice
> with there mere possibility of talking about cardinals is
> quite unjustified.
> 
> RESPONSE: What makes you think these equivalence classes actually exist within the framework of ZF?  I think the following proves they don't.  Take the equivalence class C containing {{}} and apply the axiom of unions to get a set U.  Then for any set X, {X} is in C and so X is a member of U.  In other words, U is ''a set of all sets'' which is well-known to be impossible within ZF.
> 
> ''Except for the fact that you have ignored the phrase "of minimal rank".  Not all singleton sets {X} are sets '''of minimal rank''' equivalent to {{}}.  (Let's see how horribly messy we can make this page...)''
> 
> Oops, you're right.  I figured I'd probably do something wrong.  But in any case, can you guarantee that such equivalence classes exist within ZF?  I remember something about it being difficult, even if the above is wrong.  (Btw, this page will need some extensive reworking anyways).
> 
> RESPONSE: It's trivial to prove the existence of cardinals
> as equivalence classes in the indicated way in ZF.
> 
> RESPONSE II: Ok, would you mind providing a reference is to how?  Not that I don't believe you, but it would be nice to have the details...
> 
> See e.g. the chapter on set theory in Mendelson, Introduction
> to Mathematical Logic, for a definition of the cumulative hierarchy of sets: R(0)=the empty set, R(alpha+1)=the power
> set of R(alpha), R(lambda)=union of R(alpha) for alpha<lambda,
> for limit lambda. The axiom of regularity is equivalent to
> the statement that for every set x there is an alpha such that
> x is in R(alpha).The cardinal of x can be defined as the set of sets in R(alpha) that are equivalent to x, where alpha is the smallest beta such that R(beta) contains a set equivalent to x.
> 
> 
> That's not to say the cardinals don't exist, just that they can't be constructed in ZF, unless you use an alternate technique.  The standard alternate technique is to choose some representative from each equivalence class, typically the ordinals.  But I don't think its easy to do this if the ordinals don't hit every set, which they can't if trichotomy of cardinals doesn't hold. --JG
> 
> COMMENT: The cardinals (constructed using AC) are linearly ordered (in fact well ordered for obvious reasons).  
> Under the above sort of definition, one loses the ability to say `either |X| <= |Y| or else |X| >= |Y|' 
> where <= and >= denote the usual cardinal inequalities.  This doesn't help its cause as an `intuitive' measure
> of `infinity size'.
> 
> COMMENT: One does not "lose the ability to say" this. What is
> true is that it cannot be proved without AC that any two cardinals are comparable. This is not to say that the cardinals
> cannot be defined without AC. 
> 
> ''A set X has been constructed if there is a 'way' of determining whether any given element is in it.  I'm being deliberately vague, but I think you can see the idea.  ZF+AC asserts the real numbers have a basis as a vector space over the rationals, but you are never going to be able to demonstrate an example of some such set.  ZF-AC asserts that there is a set which can't be put into one-to-one correspondence with any ordinal, and if I am not mistaken you can't find me one of those either (though I'm not entirely sure, since you're not allowed to use AC to set up the correspondence).''
> 
> COMMENT: This is not only vague, but it is not a recognizable
> informal version of anything formally defined in set theory. In
> particular, it is completely obscure what you mean by saying
> that all constructible sets have distinct cardinalities.
> 
> RESPONSE: I should have been a little more specific.  I meant distinct cardinality in the narrow sense, where it is being defined in terms of ordinals.  My point was that, though every infinte set you will ever build can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers or something built by power-setting them, there must be other sets if the generalized continuum hypothesis is false, and ZF-AC asserts that it is.  However, I'm not entirely sure that the 1-to-1 correspondences can be constructed without AC, so this might be a mistake on my part.  I would ''love'' any info on that.
> 
> COMMENT: I don't understand what you have in mind in saying that
> "ZF-AC asserts that it is" - the generalized continuum hypothesis is not implied by ZF-AC. Further, what does "the 1-to-1 correspondences" refer to?
> 
> RESPONSE: The generalized continuum hypothesis isn't, but its negation is.  Simple contrapostitive of GCH -> AC.  The 1-to-1 correspondences are just those, namely, the things we have to set up to prove that a given set has the same cardinality as another given set.  In ZF+AC, GCH is undecidable, so everything constructed must satisfy GCH (else it would be false) and so be of the same cardinality as some power set of N, ie have some 1-to-1 correspondence between them.  But potentially this 1-to-1 correspondence need not be constructable either, and exist because of AC - this last point I am not sure about.
> 
> COMMENT: Yes, if by ZF-AC you mean ZF plus the negation of
> AC, it is inconsistent with GCH. Your statement that everything
> constructed in ZF+AC must satisfy GCH has no obvious meaning.
> Your implication (if I understand you correctly) that if GCH
> holds every set must be "of the same cardinality of some power
> set of N" is unclear. What do you mean by "a power set of N"?
> 
> Response: I mean the things that GCH usually asserts are the only cardinals...I'm sorry for the bad terminology but I couldn't think of any better way to put it.
> 
> COMMENT: I will assume then that by saying that a cardinal
> satisfies GCH you mean that it is not a counterexample to
> GCH, i.e. it is not a cardinal k or 2^k such that 2^k is greater than the successor of k. However, that "everything constructed in
> ZF+AC must satisfy GCH" has no obvious interpretation on which
> it is correct. For example, is the power set of the set of
> natural numbers "constructed in ZF+AC"? If so, what does it
> mean that it satisfies GCH?
> 
> On the other hand, AxiomOfChoice also allows one to prove that the solid unit sphere can be broken up into 5 (infinitely complicated) pieces, shuffled around (with no scaling/shearing etc... just rotation and translation), and put back together to make two solid spheres, each identical to the original. (The Banach-Tarski Paradox)
> 
> Nothing much seems to be happening on this page!
------
SetTheory|982267932
43,44c43,44
< 
< /OldVersion
---
> ----
> Does the above have the same content as the /OldVersion?  Please check.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982268859
36a37,38
> ----
> '''Enough, already!'''  If you people would have been writing ''useful content'' instead of engaging in less-than-helpful political bickering, we'd have, oh, another 200 useful articles by now.  Yes, yes, I know political bashing seems more fun--but is it really?  I submit to you that it is not.  It's like cheap, tawdry sex--kind of fun while you're doing it, but it makes you feel kind of nasty afterwards.  (I wouldn't know about that, though, really.)  I know I've been engaging in this, although not as much as ''some'' of you...I hereby swear it off.  This isn't the place for it!  Go to Usenet, ferchrissakes!  Use your wiki time to do something useful, please!
37a40
> But how do we solve political disputes?  We make ''decisions.''  If you see a page about which you have some political bone to pick, you must decide, on the spot, whether you can live with it or whether you simply must change it.  If you must change it, then go ahead and change it.  Probably, someone will attempt a compromise solution (such as the one Jimbo proposed).
38a42,44
> At any rate, I confidently predict that if we stopped ''talking'' about making changes and started actually making them, this wiki would be...why, even better than it already is!
> 
> --LarrySanger
------
PoLitics|982269212
6c6
< (Before exploring this section you may wish to learn about the PoliticalSpectrum).
---
> AnarchisM -- AnarchoCapitalism -- BolshevisM -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- CommunisM -- ConservatisM -- DemocracY -- FascisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- LibertarianisM -- MarxisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepublicanisM (and we don't mean the GOP) -- StatesRights -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoOligarchyTheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TotalitarianisM -- TraditionalAnarchism
8,18c8
< LeftWingIdeologies: BolshevisM -- CommunisM -- MarxisM -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TraditionalAnarchism
< 
< RightWingIdeologies: CapitalisM -- ConservatisM -- FascisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism
< 
< LibertarianIdeologies: AnarchoCapitalism -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- LibertarianisM
< 
< OtherAndAmbiguousIdeologies: AnarchisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- RepublicanisM -- StatesRights
< 
< TechnoPolitics: TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoOligarchy
< 
< /Talk
---
> /Talk (but please don't)
33,35c23
< PoliticalEntities: CitY -- CityState -- CountY -- GovernmenT -- NationState -- Province -- WorldState
< 
< ClassicalConcepts: DemocracY -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepubliC -- TyrannY
---
> PoliticalEntities: CitY -- CityState -- CountY -- GovernmenT -- NationState -- Province -- WorldState -- RepubliC -- TyrannY
------
PoLitics|982269246
6c6
< AnarchisM -- AnarchoCapitalism -- BolshevisM -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- CommunisM -- ConservatisM -- DemocracY -- FascisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- LibertarianisM -- MarxisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepublicanisM (and we don't mean the GOP) -- StatesRights -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoOligarchyTheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TotalitarianisM -- TraditionalAnarchism
---
> AnarchisM -- AnarchoCapitalism -- BolshevisM -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- CommunisM -- ConservatisM -- DemocracY -- FascisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- LibertarianisM -- MarxisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepublicanisM (and we don't mean the GOP) -- StatesRights -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoOligarchy -- TheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TotalitarianisM -- TraditionalAnarchism
------
PoLitics/Talk|982269740
44c44
< --LarrySanger
---
> --LarrySanger
------
SandBox|982269817
16a17,19
> 
> I can't make a box :(  Is it a Mac thing?
> ��� I can copy and paste boxes, though.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982269829
44a45,48
> ----
> Trouble is, it's not linear - it's not even planar.  It's more like a color chart.  You have seen these three-dimensional color solids which interrelate colors on the basis of what relative proportions of the primary colors each has, and then adds the how much white or black is included (or how dark or light) and how much saturation.  The resulting values can only be represented on a solid, because there are too many axes in play to use a planar coordinates.
> 
> Here are factors which are present or absent in greater or lesser degrees in different socio/political/economic systems:  Private ownership of property; heritability of status/authority/property rights; private economic decision-making; level of governmental authority to dictate to citizenry; free elections; direct vs indirect representation; freedom of conscience; permeability of borders; formal recognition of investment and security vehicles; formal recognition of collective bargaining; synchronicity of government with otherwise unrelated ideology (race, religion, caste, etc.).  Good luck making an x,y chart which will plot each government on the globe without errors.  Alphabetical organization looks better and better...
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982269907
3c3
< Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered AnarchisM and the NaturalLaw theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I?d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I?m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn?t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.
---
> What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.
5c5
< You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.
---
> We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.
7c7
< Indeed, it?s on <i>those</i> questions that you?ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the LibertariaN''''s and the SocialisT''''s (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It?s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.
---
> It is on <i>those</i> questions that one can find the differences between ConservatisM, WelfareStateLiberalism, LibertarianisM, SocialisM, and FascisM.  There are a handful of anarchists (see AnarchisM) among the Socialists (see TraditionalAnarchism) and the Libertarians (see AnarchoCapitalism).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  What they disagree about is what government should do.
9c9
< One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.
---
> One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.
------
LibertarianisM|982270306
1c1
< Libertarianism is a political belief system that holds that an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  
---
> LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
3c3,9
< In the narrow sense of the term, ''libertarian'' includes only such people on the right of the economic spectrum, who define rights in terms of things like freedom to keep property and equality of process.  The private sector is left to control itself - compare AnarchoCapitalism and contrast AnarchoSyndicalism.
---
> For libertarians, there are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it hurts no one else.
> 
> Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarians, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government's main imperative should be: Hands off!
> 
> Libertarians prefer not to be called RightWing, and libertarianism has significant differences with both ConservatisM and LiberalisM (as those terms are used in the UnitedStates): see PoliticalSpectrum.
> 
> Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982270343
11c11
< LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn?t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government's main imperative should be: Hands off!
---
> LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982270379
9c9
< One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.
---
> One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and ''SocialisM,'' which wants the state to do a lot of things.
11c11
< LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.
---
> ''LibertarianisM,'' in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.
13c13
< Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
---
> ''SocialisM,'' nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
------
SocialisM|982270520
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Socialism'' is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>the final</i> stage in the progression of a socialist society.
> 
> A socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.
> 
> Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.
> 
> Thus, for a socialist, the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
> 
> See also CommunisM; AnarchisM; LiberalisM; WelfareStateLiberalism; ThePurposeOfGovernment.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982270727
9c9
< One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and ''SocialisM,'' which wants the state to do a lot of things.
---
> One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: Libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and Socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.  ''LibertarianisM,'' in political theory, is the view that the function of the state is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  ''SocialisM,'' nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.
11,15c11
< ''LibertarianisM,'' in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.
< 
< ''SocialisM,'' nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.
< 
< Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
---
> As you can see, <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  This turns to be one of the most important questions that can be asked.
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment|982270800
1c1
< <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 
---
> <The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikified; further development encouraged> 
3c3
< What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.
---
> A good StatE is one that does (well) whatever GovernmenT""s should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.
5c5
< We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.
---
> We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect RightS and to preserve JusticE.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.
13c13
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
LarrysText|982270834
23c23
< ::PoliticalPhilosophy -- TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment
---
> ::PoliticalPhilosophy -- TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment -- LibertarianisM -- SocialisM
------
PoLitics/Talk|982270961
48a49,50
> ----
> Already changed--no help from you, whoever you are.  ;-)  --LarrySanger
------
ThePurposeOfGovernment/Talk|982271333
14c14,16
< Stalinism and Fascism have a lot of similarities thanks to both being totalitarian governments, but that doesn't mean one should overlook their differences.  Stalinists promised a worker's utopia and go on the left, Fascists promised a good police state and go on the right.  Other axes are usually added to reflect their commonalities, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the coordinate difference on the one we have!  If you do, you shouldn't expect to get a meaningfully discerning system. -- JoshuaGrosse
---
> Stalinism and Fascism have a lot of similarities thanks to both being totalitarian governments, but that doesn't mean one should overlook their differences.  Stalinists promised a worker's utopia and go on the left, Fascists promised a good police state and go on the right.  Other axes are usually added to reflect their commonalities, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the coordinate difference on the one we have!  If you do, you shouldn't expect to get a meaningfully discerning system. -- JoshuaGrosse
> ----
> I am waiting for one of you know-it-alls to supply a better definition.  Nothing's stopping you. -- LarrySanger
------
ColdWar|982271982
1,3c1,2
< The Cold War describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990. Except for a few minor wars such as the KoreanWar, VietnamWar and the conflict in AfghanistaN, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in an armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. Because of that, the population of the countries this war took place (mostly eastern and western Germany) never took much notice about this war going on.
< Also, the armies of the countries involved never had much participation in the Cold War, the war was fought by organizations like the CIA (UnitedStates), MI6 (GreatBritain), BND (WestGermany), STASI (EastGermany) and the KGB (USSR).
< The Cold War also inspired a lot of movie-companies and writers, resulting in an enormous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (JamesBond) some less.
---
> The Cold War describes the ways of fighting between the western and the eastern countries between 1950-1990 (particularly between NATO and the countries of the WarsawPact). Except for the KoreanWar, VietnamWar and the conflict in AfghanistaN, the aggression between those two parts of the world never shaped in an armed conflict, but was held by spys and traitors which were working undercover. Because of that, the population of the countries (this war took place mostly in eastern and western GermanY) never took much notice about this war going on. Also, the armies of the countries involved never had much participation in the ColdWar; the war was fought by intelligence organizations like the CIA (UnitedStates), MI6 (GreatBritain), BND (WestGermany), STASI (EastGermany) and the KGB (USSR).
> The ColdWar also inspired a lot of movie-companies and writers, resulting in an enormous amount of books and movies which tell about the cold war, some more fictional (JamesBond) some less.
5c4
< "Cold War" is a MetaphoR.
---
> "Cold War" is a MetaphoR.
------
EuropE|982272267
6c6
< the ancient Greeks and Romans. From the 15th century European nations, particularly Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain, built large colonial empires, with vast holdings in AfricA, AmericA, and AsiA. The IndustrializatioN started in 18th century from here. After WorldWarTwo and in the ColdWar Europe was divided in two major political and economic blocs—CommunisT nations in EasternEurope and CapitalistiC countries in WesternEurope. Arround 1990 the Eastern bloc broke up.   See HistoryOfEurope.
---
> the ancient Greeks and Romans. From the 15th century European nations, particularly SpaiN, PortugaL, FrancE, and Britain, built large colonial empires, with vast holdings in AfricA, AmericA, and AsiA. The IndustrializatioN started in 18th century from here. After WorldWarTwo and in the ColdWar EuropE was divided in two major political and economic blocs—CommunisT nations in EasternEurope and CapitalistiC countries in WesternEurope. Arround 1990 the Eastern bloc broke up.   See HistoryOfEurope.
------
ReCreation|982272425
9c9
< In EuropE BeeR is very important.
---
> FoodAndDrinks
------
ReCreation|982272442
9c9
< FoodAndDrinks
---
> * FoodAndDrinks
------
FoodAndDrinks|982272597
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> AlcoholicBeverages:
> 
> * BeeR
> * SpiritS
> * WinE
> 
> Food:
> 
> * ItalianCuisine
> * FrenchCuisine
> * AsianCuisine
> * FastFood
> * MediterraneanCuisine
------
FoodAndDrinks|982272652
7c7
< Food:
---
> FooD:
------
LibertarianisM|982272806
1c1
< LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
---
> LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
9c9
< Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM.
---
> Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM.
------
ThreeLawsOfRobotics|982273020
7c7
< ''Source: IsaacAsimov, Foundation's Edge''
---
> ''Source: IsaacAsimov, FoundationsEdge''
------
ThreeLawsOfRobotics|982273103
7c7,8
< ''Source: IsaacAsimov, FoundationsEdge''
---
> ----
> ''Source: IsaacAsimov, /FoundationsEdge''
------
ThreeLawsOfRobotics|982273141
8c8
< ''Source: IsaacAsimov, /FoundationsEdge''
---
> ''Source: IsaacAsimov/FoundationsEdge''
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982273498
5c5,7
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a ''universe'', a finite set of ''elementary events''. We define a ''weighting function'' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the ''weight'' of the elementary event. We can represent any ''event'' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a ''universe'', a finite set of ''elementary events''. We define a ''weighting function'' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the ''weight'' of the elementary event. We can represent any ''event'' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe. Calculation of probabilities can often be determined using CombinaTorics or by applying the definition above directly.
> 
> A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnalYsis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable.
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982273599
7c7
< A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnalYsis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable.
---
> A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnaLysis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable.
------
WinE|982273705
1c1,28
< Describe the new page here.
---
> "Good wine is a necessity of life for me." -- ThomasJefferson
> 
> 
> Alcoholic beverage made primarily from grapes.
> 
> There are many types, kinds, and classifications of wine.
> Here's a hopelessly incomplete start on a random listing
> of kinds of wine.  This should be organized systematically,
> but isn't yet.
> 
> CabernetSauvignon
> MerloT
> CabernetFranc
> ZinfandeL
> PinotNoir
> 
> PorT
> 
> ChardonnaY
> WhiteZinfandel
> 
> BordeauxWine
> BurgundyWine
> 
> Some other wine related terms:
> 
> NapaValley
> SonomaValley
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982273877
11a12,13
> ----
> I just wanted to say thanks and welcome, Dr. Beldin! -- LarrySanger
------
WojPob|982274038
5c5
< http://www.pobratyn.com.
---
> [http://www.pobratyn.com pobratyn.com]
------
AsciiArt|982274118
3c3
< [http://www.pobratyn.com Example of AsciiArt]
---
> [http://www.pobratyn.com/acii.php3 Example of AsciiArt]
------
AsciiArt|982274157
3c3
< [http://www.pobratyn.com/acii.php3 Example of AsciiArt]
---
> [http://www.pobratyn.com/ascii.php3 Example of AsciiArt]
------
ActorS/Talk|982274252
27a28
> ----
28a30,43
> ----
> Is this stealing your last word, if I only agree with what you've said?  It occurred to me late last night (wikipedia is keeping me up at night!) that you are absolutely right when you say that
> there isn't a difference in the activity of acting between men
> and women.  And you are of course right too, in pointing out that
> just as some men are not right for some parts as women, some women are equally not right for some parts as women.
> 
> Of course, this perhaps doesn't remove the need for the distinction.  We agree that personal physical characteristics
> can play a major role in how a performer is perceived in a part.
> And so we might conclude that, in general, gender is or at least
> tends to be a highly important characteristic for classifying performers.  So we might leave the distinction as is.
> 
> The big difference between my tennis example, and acting, is
> that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league.  In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary.  But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress?  Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts or AlPacino is the better performer in a given year.
> 
33a49,50
> ----
> 
------
CombinaTorics|982274891
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : MathematicsAndStatistics
> 
> It may seem surprising that the number of possible orderings of a deck of 52 playing cards is  8.065817517094e+67. That is a little bit more than 8 followed by 67 zeros. Comparing that number to some other large numbers, it is greater than the square of [http://gemini.tntech.edu/~tfurtsch/scihist/avogadro.htm Avogadro's number], 6.022e+23, "the number of atoms, molecules, etc. in a gram mole".
> 
> That large number is the product of all the natural numbers from one to fifty-two, the number of ways of order the deck. Calculating the number of ways that certain patterns can be formed is the beginning of combinatorics. Some very subtle patterns can be developed and some surprising theorems proved.
> 
> One example of a surprising theorem is that of [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ramsey.htm Frank P. Ramsey] which essentially says (in mathematical language) that if you look hard enough, any pattern of stars can be found in the sky. It has been used to debunk claims that some special patterns are especially meaningful.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
CombinaTorics|982275017
5a6
> One example of a surprising theorem is that of [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ramsey.htm Frank P. Ramsey] which essentially says (in mathematical language) that if you look hard enough, any pattern of stars can be found in the sky. It has been used to debunk claims that some patterns are especially meaningful.
7c8
< One example of a surprising theorem is that of [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ramsey.htm Frank P. Ramsey] which essentially says (in mathematical language) that if you look hard enough, any pattern of stars can be found in the sky. It has been used to debunk claims that some special patterns are especially meaningful.
---
> Among the tools studied in Combinatorics are ''combinations'', ''permutations'', ''the pigeonhole principle'', and others.
------
CombinaTorics|982275081
5c5
< That large number is the product of all the natural numbers from one to fifty-two, the number of ways of order the deck. Calculating the number of ways that certain patterns can be formed is the beginning of combinatorics. Some very subtle patterns can be developed and some surprising theorems proved.
---
> That large number is the product of all the natural numbers from one to fifty-two, the number of different orders the deck can have after shuffling. Calculating the number of ways that certain patterns can be formed is the beginning of combinatorics. Some very subtle patterns can be developed and some surprising theorems proved.
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982275251
2a3
> : NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
7c8
< A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnaLysis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable.
---
> A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnaLysis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable. Several probability distributions are so important that they have been given specific names, the NormalDistribution, the BinomialDistribution, the PoissonDistribution are just three of them.
------
ScienceFiction|982275440
18c18
< Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and IsaacAsimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included AEVanVogt, JGBallard, RayBradbury, Frank Herbert, HarlanEllison, PoulAnderson, SamuelRDelany, UrsulaKLeGuin, FrederikPohl, OctaviaEButler, and BrianAldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on Earth, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
---
> Besides such acknowledged masters of the genre as Clarke, Heinlein, and IsaacAsimov, ScienceFiction writers of notable merit in the postwar period included AEVanVogt, JGBallard, RayBradbury, Frank Herbert, HarlanEllison, PoulAnderson, SamuelRDelany, UrsulaKLeGuin, FrederikPohl, OctaviaEButler, and BrianAldiss. These writers' approaches included predictions of future societies on EartH, analyses of the consequences of interstellar travel, and imaginative explorations of forms of intelligent life and their societies in other worlds. Radio, television, and motion pictures have reinforced the popularity of the genre.
------
ThreeLawsOfAlGore|982275899
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Three Laws of Al Gore:
> 
> 1. Al Gore may not harm a human being, or allow a human being to be harmed.
> 2. Al Gore must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 
> 3. Al Gore must protect his own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict the First or Second Law. 
------
ThreeLawsOfAlGore|982275920
3,5c3,5
< 1. Al Gore may not harm a human being, or allow a human being to be harmed.
< 2. Al Gore must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 
< 3. Al Gore must protect his own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict the First or Second Law. 
---
> # Al Gore may not harm a human being, or allow a human being to be harmed.
> # Al Gore must obey the orders given by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 
> # Al Gore must protect his own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict the First or Second Law. 
------
NormalDistribution|982275972
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> The [http://ce597n.www.ecn.purdue.edu/CE597N/1997F/students/michael.a.kropinski.1/project/tutorial normal or Gaussian probability distribution] is actually a family of distributions of the same general form, differing only in their ''location'' and ''scale'' parameters, commonly called the ''mean'' and ''standard deviation''. The shape consists of a central bulge centered on the mean with about 99% of the area under the density curve between the mean plus and minus three standard deviations.
> 
> One reason that this distribution occurs so often in statistical work is the Central Limit Theorem.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
NormalDistribution|982276086
5c5
< One reason that this distribution occurs so often in statistical work is the Central Limit Theorem.
---
> One reason that this distribution occurs so often in statistical work is the [http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/central_limit_theorem/clt.html Central Limit Theorem].
------
NormalDistribution|982276228
5c5
< One reason that this distribution occurs so often in statistical work is the [http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/central_limit_theorem/clt.html Central Limit Theorem].
---
> One reason that this distribution occurs so often in statistical work is the [http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/central_limit_theorem/clt.html Central Limit Theorem]. Simply stated, this theorem says that if you add up a lot of little things, the resulting distribution will resemble the normal distribution. 
------
BinomialDistribution|982276706
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The Binomial distribution can be described as the sum of a specific number of independent trials, each of which results in either a zero or a one with constant probability. It provides a reasonable description of coin tossing experiments, among others.
> 
> To get a result of X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and the probability of a tail is q (1-p), then X heads and N-X tails has a probability calculated by multiplying X p's times N-X q's or (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/X!/(N-X)! different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
> 
>    N!/X!/(N-X)! p^X q^(N-X)
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
PoLitics/Talk|982277369
20a21,24
> ''Anarchism or Libertarianism. It isn't possible to have a capitalist system without massive intervention on the part of government. Property, contracts and "free markets" are all extremely artificial inventions created out of thin air by the agency of government. "a complete absence of government control in a capitalist economy" is a theoretical impossibility, a logical contradiction.''
> 
> ''What characterizes capitalism isn't that the capitalists have no oversight from a head Fascist but that the capitalists get to dictate terms to the workers and other non-capitalists. Whether you have 2 or 3 levels in your hierarchy doesn't matter as much as whether you have a hierarchy based on capital in the first place.''
> 
36a41,44
> 
> ''And yet elsewhere in these political pages people complain that FascisM and StalinisM are on opposite sides of the spectrum despite the fact that ''in practice'' they are almost identical. If CapitalisM devolves into FascisM ''in practice'' then this amply demonstrates an eery similarity between the two systems and associated ideologies.''
> 
> ''It isn't a few capitalists that become fascists when a socialist revolution threatens. It happens on a massive scale in every country of the world. FascisM is exactly like CapitalisM except for being more brutal and totalitarian. In both systems private property owners rule like kings while the government supports and defends them using police power. And this does refer to CapitalisM as an ideology though it's hard to see if you don't distinguish between FreeMarketDoctrine and CapitalisM (which are very different things).''
50c58,60
< Already changed--no help from you, whoever you are.  ;-)  --LarrySanger
---
> Already changed--no help from you, whoever you are.  ;-)  --LarrySanger
> 
> I believe the two most important axes are Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism and Egalitarianism versus Hierarchy. And the reason people talk about making changes instead of simply doing them is because an entry should be convincing to most people and not merely reflect a minority opinion. If it doesn't, it will get changed and not necessarily towards the better. -- RichardKulisz
------
LibertarianisM|982278130
8a9,10
> Historically, LibertarianisM has been synonymous with AnarchisM and the term is still understood in this manner by many people within but especially outside the UnitedStates.
> 
------
LibertarianisM|982279286
9c9
< Historically, LibertarianisM has been synonymous with AnarchisM and the term is still understood in this manner by many people within but especially outside the UnitedStates.
---
> Many people mistakenly believe that LibertarianisM is synonymous with AnarchisM; the term is still understood in this manner especially by people outside the UnitedStates, where there is essentially no libertarian movement that goes by the name.  Most libertarians, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.
11c11
< Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM.
---
> Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM; MinimalStatism.
------
PoLitics/Talk|982279575
60c60,76
< I believe the two most important axes are Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism and Egalitarianism versus Hierarchy. And the reason people talk about making changes instead of simply doing them is because an entry should be convincing to most people and not merely reflect a minority opinion. If it doesn't, it will get changed and not necessarily towards the better. -- RichardKulisz
---
> I believe the two most important axes are Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism and Egalitarianism versus Hierarchy. And the reason people talk about making changes instead of simply doing them is because an entry should be convincing to most people and not merely reflect a minority opinion. If it doesn't, it will get changed and not necessarily towards the better.
> 
> I like
> 
>     Com     Fas
>    Soc  Cen  Cap
>     Ana     Lib
> 
> I'd define the horizontal axis as Egalitarianism and the vertical axis as Authoritarianism. Then I'd put Feudalism somewhere close to Capitalism. Democracy isn't a system, it's a concept. Democracy everywhere is only in Anarchism. No serious political scientists consider the Anglo-American countries democratic so the only instances of somewhat democratic capitalist countries are the social democracies of Western Europe and they're all in the Center. Additionally, it's easy to see that systems "devolve" upwards and not sideways. And if any doubt the difference between AnarchisM and LibertarianisM, it can be pointed out that the great inequality permitted by LibertarianisM makes the system rapidly devolve into totalitarianism. IOW, LibertarianisM cannot exist in practice. Since this does not apply to AnarchisM, there is a world of difference between the two ideologies. Even if the difference between Communism and Fascism is slight, the one between Anarchism and Libertarianism is worth maintaining.
> 
> Or maybe another formation?
> 
>       Com Fas
>     Soc Cen Cap
>    Ana       Lib
> 
>  -- RichardKulisz
------
LibertarianisM|982279739
9c9
< Many people mistakenly believe that LibertarianisM is synonymous with AnarchisM; the term is still understood in this manner especially by people outside the UnitedStates, where there is essentially no libertarian movement that goes by the name.  Most libertarians, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.
---
> Many people outside the UnitedStates treat LibertarianisM as being synonymous with AnarchisM.  Most libertarians in the UnitedStates, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.
------
LibertarianisM|982279957
9c9
< Many people outside the UnitedStates treat LibertarianisM as being synonymous with AnarchisM.  Most libertarians in the UnitedStates, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.
---
> Many people outside the UnitedStates (and a few within it) treat LibertarianisM as being synonymous with AnarchisM.  Most libertarians in the UnitedStates, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.  See [http://abc123direct.com/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Libertarian.html this collection of web links].
------
LibertarianisM|982280219
1c1
< LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
---
> ''Libertarianism,'' in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.
11c11
< Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM; MinimalStatism.
---
> Compare ClassicalLiberalism; ConservatisM; AnarchisM; MinimalStatism.
------
LibertarianisM|982280523
9c9
< Many people outside the UnitedStates (and a few within it) treat LibertarianisM as being synonymous with AnarchisM.  Most libertarians in the UnitedStates, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.  See [http://abc123direct.com/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Libertarian.html this collection of web links].
---
> Many people outside the UnitedStates (and a few within it) treat LibertarianisM as being synonymous with AnarchisM.  Most libertarians in the UnitedStates, however, do not consider themselves anarchists but, rather, advocates of MinimalStatism.  There is such a thing as LibertarianCommunism, which is synonymous with TraditionalAnarchism.  See [http://abc123direct.com/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Libertarian.html this collection of web links] if you want to try to sort out the mess.
------
LibertarianCommunism|982280661
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Libertarian communism'' or ''libertarian Marxism'' is essentially the same as TraditionalAnarchism.  For more information, see [http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/ the self-described Libertarian Communist Home Page].
------
WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited|982280731
1c1
< The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because ''you,'' who know the correct spellings, grammar, etc., have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them.  That's right, you could have corrected them simply by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link and making a quick change, but noooo.  You'd rather just complain, instead of doing something about it!
---
> The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because ''you,'' who knows the correct spellings, grammar, etc., have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them.  That's right, you could have corrected them simply by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link and making a quick change, but noooo.  You'd rather just complain, instead of doing something about it!
7a8,9
> ----
> Just changed 'who know' to 'who knows'. Done my share.
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982280751
11c11
< Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves AnarchoCapitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries. Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of anarchists, the AnarchoCapitalists are not regarded as anarchists.
---
> Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves AnarchoCapitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries. Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of traditional anarchists, traditional anarchists do not regard the AnarchoCapitalists as anarchists.
15,17c15
< ----
< 
< Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
---
> /Talk
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982280760
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
------
SetTheory|982281043
44c44,45
< Does the above have the same content as the /OldVersion?  Please check.
---
> Does the above have the same content as the /OldVersion?  Please check.----
> No. The old page was math with some disagreement. This is meta-math, so to speak. Please ask JoshuaGrosse I believe it was his page.
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982281258
5c5
< Anarchy is frequently portrayed as chaos and anarchists as terrorists. Proponents of any extent system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. Very few anarchists are nihilists. Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
---
> Anarchy is frequently portrayed as chaos and anarchists as terrorists. Proponents of any extant system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. Very few anarchists are nihilists. Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
------
SandBox|982281388
19c19,20
< ��� I can copy and paste boxes, though.
---
> ��� I can copy and paste boxes, though.----
> No. I was enering unprintable characters by holding down the ALT key and entering 0141 in the keypad. This is on a PC not a Mac. �����  See...RoseParks Learned from entering the Iternational Phonetics Alphabet in a doc, then copying to e-mail I got boxes and other strange things.
------
WinE|982281455
4c4
< Alcoholic beverage made primarily from grapes.
---
> Alcoholic beverage made primarily from fermented fuit, usually grapes.  Hence, WinE, from Latin ''Vin'', grape.
15a16
> PinotGrigio
17a19,20
> SherrY
> Brandy
19d21
< ChardonnaY
20a23,33
> White Merlot
> 
> ChardonnaY
> SauvignonBlanc
> LiebFrauMilch
> PoullietFusse
> PoullietFume
> FumeBlanc
> 
> DucK
> 
23a37
> ChamPagne
------
SandBox|982281463
20c20
< No. I was enering unprintable characters by holding down the ALT key and entering 0141 in the keypad. This is on a PC not a Mac. �����  See...RoseParks Learned from entering the Iternational Phonetics Alphabet in a doc, then copying to e-mail I got boxes and other strange things.
---
> No. I was entering unprintable characters by holding down the ALT key and entering 0141 in the keypad. This is on a PC not a Mac. �����  See...RoseParks. Learned from entering the Iternational Phonetics Alphabet in a doc, then copying to e-mail I got boxes and other strange things. «««« See..
------
WinE|982281722
16c16
< PinotGrigio
---
> PinotNero
30a31
> Pino Grigio
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982281831
2d1
< 
3a3,5
> ''Anarchism'' is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
> 
> Anarchy is frequently portrayed as chaos and anarchists as terrorists.  Proponents of any extant (i.e., non-anarchist) system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order.  For example, in their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order.  Very few anarchists are nihilists, however (see NihilisM).
5c7
< Anarchy is frequently portrayed as chaos and anarchists as terrorists. Proponents of any extant system equate its abolition with the abolition of all social order. In their time, Monarchists accused Republicans of seeking the destruction of all social order. Very few anarchists are nihilists. Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
---
> Anarchism has a long and rich tradition.  Its philosophy and history begin with rejection of aristocracy and of capitalism and their hierarchical structures.  Anarchists reject the claims of the property owner and the landlord.  Having rejected private property, they reject the political machinery (the StatE) which defends and supports private property.  In place of private property, anarchism is based on personal possessions and democratically controlled communal property.
7c9
< Anarchism has a long and rich tradition. Its philosophy and history begin with rejection of capitalism and its hierarchical structure. Anarchists reject the claims of the property owner and the landlord. Having rejected private property, they reject the political machinery (the State)which defends and supports private property. In place of private property, anarchism is based on personal possessions and democratically controlled communal property.
---
> A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply
9c11
< The anarchist rejection of government is derivative and entails the rejection of electioneering. Insofar as politics refers to the actions of power structures then anarchism seeks the abolition of politics itself. Anarchism is a social and economic movement with ramifications in the political sphere. To regard anarchism as a political ideology is an error. In place of political maneuvering, anarchists champion the use of direct action of which the general strike, occupation of workplaces and sabotage are prime examples. The purpose of sabotage is to impair or destroy the machinery of capitalism and not the propagation of terror.
---
> The rejection of government is not essential to traditional anarchism, but derives from the desire to eliminate the political machinery which supports private property.  In any event, the rejection of the state entails the rejection of electioneering (see DemocracY).  Insofar as politics refers to the actions of power structures then anarchism seeks the abolition of politics itself.  Hence, it is helpful to regard anarchism as a social and economic movement with ramifications in the political sphere.  To regard anarchism as a political ideology, anarchists hold, is an error.  In place of political maneuvering, anarchists champion the use of direct action of which the general strike, occupation of workplaces and sabotage are prime examples.  The purpose of sabotage is to impair or destroy the machinery of capitalism and not the propagation of terror.
11c13
< Through most of its history, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous. Recently, some proponents of laissez faire economics have taken to calling themselves AnarchoCapitalists and libertarians. This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries. Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of traditional anarchists, traditional anarchists do not regard the AnarchoCapitalists as anarchists.
---
> Before the twentieth century, "anarchism" strictly meant traditional, socialist anarchism.  By the mid-twentieth century, however, some proponents of CapitalisM began calling their view "anarchism" and in particular, AnarchoCapitalism.  This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries.  Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of traditional anarchists, traditional anarchists do not regard the AnarchoCapitalists as anarchists.
15c17
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982281883
3c3
< ''Anarchism'' is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
---
> ''Anarchism,'' in its socialist variety (see AnarchisM), is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
17c17
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
ActorS/Talk|982281931
42c42,43
< that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league.  In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary.  But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress?  Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts or AlPacino is the better performer in a given year.
---
> that in tennis it really is true that the top tennis players would all be men, if all were to play in the same league.  In order to have sensible competition, segregation is probably necessary.  But why do we have separate awards for best actor and best actress?  Even if men and women naturally tend to play different parts, there seems to be no reason why we should consider it difficult at all to decide if JuliaRoberts or AlPacino is the better performer in a given year.----
> I guess we will have to '''agree''' to '''agree'''!!!
50c51
< 
---
>  �<-MyBox
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982282089
11c11
< The rejection of government is not essential to traditional anarchism, but derives from the desire to eliminate the political machinery which supports private property.  In any event, the rejection of the state entails the rejection of electioneering (see DemocracY).  Insofar as politics refers to the actions of power structures then anarchism seeks the abolition of politics itself.  Hence, it is helpful to regard anarchism as a social and economic movement with ramifications in the political sphere.  To regard anarchism as a political ideology, anarchists hold, is an error.  In place of political maneuvering, anarchists champion the use of direct action of which the general strike, occupation of workplaces and sabotage are prime examples.  The purpose of sabotage is to impair or destroy the machinery of capitalism and not the propagation of terror.
---
> The rejection of government is not essential to traditional anarchism, but derives from the desire to eliminate the political machinery which supports private property.  In any event, the rejection of the state entails the rejection of electioneering (see DemocracY).  Insofar as politics refers to the actions of power structures then anarchism seeks the abolition of politics itself.  Hence, it is helpful to regard anarchism as a social and economic movement with ramifications in the political sphere.  To regard anarchism as a political ideology, anarchists hold, is an error.  In place of political maneuvering, anarchists champion the use of direct action of which the general strike, occupation of workplaces and sabotage are prime examples.  Anarchists who engage in sabotage do to impair or destroy the machinery of capitalism and not to terrorize otherwise innocent people.
13c13
< Before the twentieth century, "anarchism" strictly meant traditional, socialist anarchism.  By the mid-twentieth century, however, some proponents of CapitalisM began calling their view "anarchism" and in particular, AnarchoCapitalism.  This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries.  Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of traditional anarchists, traditional anarchists do not regard the AnarchoCapitalists as anarchists.
---
> Before the twentieth century, "anarchism" strictly meant traditional, socialist anarchism.  By the mid-twentieth century, however, some radical proponents of CapitalisM began calling their view "anarchism" and in particular, ''AnarchoCapitalism.''  This usage is geographically limited to Austria and the Anglo-American countries.  Since the beliefs and actions of AnarchoCapitalists are rarely compatible with those of traditional anarchists, traditional anarchists do not regard the AnarchoCapitalists as anarchists.
17c17
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
SetTheory|982282436
45a46,47
> ----
> Well, then, something's got to be done.  Actually, I like the above article.  It's the sort of thing that's needed as an introductory article about set theory.
------
NationalSocialism|982282652
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often (but incorrectly) used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
DemocracY|982283314
1c1,5
< Democracy is a great TV-show.
---
> ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can truly say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any size.
> 
> The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it is open to DemagoguerY.  It is (famously) for this reason that the UnitedStates was established, strictly speaking, as a RepubliC rather than a DemocracY.  Thus BenjaminFranklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government TheFoundingFathers had established, was: "A republic, if you can keep it."
> 
> See TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC.
------
DemocracY|982283411
1c1
< ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can truly say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any size.
---
> ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any size.
5c5
< See TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC.
---
> See TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC.
------
DemocracY|982283432
1c1
< ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any size.
---
> ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any considerable size.
------
DemocracY|982283475
3c3
< The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it is open to DemagoguerY.  It is (famously) for this reason that the UnitedStates was established, strictly speaking, as a RepubliC rather than a DemocracY.  Thus BenjaminFranklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government TheFoundingFathers had established, was: "A republic, if you can keep it."
---
> The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it is open to DemagoguerY.  It is (famously) for this reason that the UnitedStates was established, strictly speaking, as a RepubliC rather than a DemocracY.  Thus BenjaminFranklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government TheFoundingFathers had established, was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."
------
DemocracY|982283616
1c1
< ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a TrueDemocracy of any considerable size.
---
> ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Sometimes, in order to distinguish democracies from republics, the term ''DirectDemocracy'' is used.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a "true" democracy of any considerable size (but see NoTrueScotsmanFallacy).
------
TechnoDemocracy|982283754
8c8
< the belief that by doing so, it will allow DemocraticRepublic s to become more democratic
---
> the belief that by doing so, it will allow DemocraticRepublic""s to become more democratic
10a11
> The traditional objection to DemocracY, however, also applies to TechnoDemocracy: both systems of government are open to DemagoguerY.
------
DemocracY|982283814
1c1
< ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Sometimes, in order to distinguish democracies from republics, the term ''DirectDemocracy'' is used.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a "true" democracy of any considerable size (but see NoTrueScotsmanFallacy).
---
> ''Democracy'' describes a system of government in which the power to make important political decisions is given directly to ThePeople via direct vote.  Exactly what "democracy" means depends on what one means by "the People," by "important political decisions," and by "direct vote."  Sometimes "democracy" is used more loosely to describe RepubliC""s, as in the phrase "Western democracies" and "making the world safe for Democracy," but in careful discussions of PoliticalTheory this usage is incorrect.  Sometimes, in order to distinguish democracies from republics, the term ''DirectDemocracy'' is used.  Depending on what, exactly, one means, one can accurately say that there has never been a "true" democracy of any considerable size (but see NoTrueScotsmanFallacy).
------
DemocracY|982283873
5c5
< See TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC.
---
> See DirectDemocracy; TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC; DemocraticRepublic; RepublicanisM; DemagoguerY; ThePeople.
------
NationalSocialism|982284285
1c1
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often (but incorrectly) used to mean the same thing as FascisM.  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often (but incorrectly) used to mean the same thing as FascisM (we know the difference between them, but it's a secret).  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
MedicinE|982284912
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Medicine is something doctors do.  It usually involves making people take pills and sticking them with needles.  If you give people pills and stick them with needles, you may be a doctor.  People do what doctors tell them to because of "doctor's orders".  Doctors have stethoscopes, which is a useful way of indentifying them.  They have helpers called nurses who wear nurse uniforms.
> 
> Medicine is different today then it used to be.  This is because medicine has different tools to use.  Today X-rays are part of medicine because we have X-ray tools.  A long time ago this was not true.  A long time ago stone drills were part of medicine, but new tools have come along since then.  It is not possible to predict which new tools will come along, which suggests they simply come along at random.
> 
> Some people think there is a broad conceptual umbrella under which medical activites are understood in reference to goal-directed behavior such as the seeking of health.  But this is an abstract way of looking at medicine, and is therefore way too confusing.
------
MedicinE|982285752
5c5,7
< Some people think there is a broad conceptual umbrella under which medical activites are understood in reference to goal-directed behavior such as the seeking of health.  But this is an abstract way of looking at medicine, and is therefore way too confusing.
---
> Some people think there is a broad conceptual umbrella under which medical activites are understood in reference to goal-directed behavior such as the seeking of health.  But this is an abstract way of looking at medicine, and is therefore way too confusing.
> ----
> I assume this is a protest of some kind, but I think it would be better if you just stated your complaint directly.  It doesn't do any good, and frankly is quite inaccurate, to make vague accusations of anti-conceptualism, if you aren't going to make specific arguments to back it up. --JimboWales
------
NationalSocialism|982285969
1c1,3
< NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often (but incorrectly) used to mean the same thing as FascisM (we know the difference between them, but it's a secret).  NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism refers to the political philosophy of the NationalSocialist (or NaZi) Party, and is often (but incorrectly) used to mean the same thing as FascisM.   FascisM is a broader abstraction which subsumes not only the specific ideology of the NaZi party, but also the ideologies of, for example, MussolinI.
> 
> NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
WinE|982286566
11,38c11,38
< CabernetSauvignon
< MerloT
< CabernetFranc
< ZinfandeL
< PinotNoir
< PinotNero
< 
< PorT
< SherrY
< Brandy
< 
< WhiteZinfandel
< White Merlot
< 
< ChardonnaY
< SauvignonBlanc
< LiebFrauMilch
< PoullietFusse
< PoullietFume
< FumeBlanc
< Pino Grigio
< 
< DucK
< 
< 
< BordeauxWine
< BurgundyWine
< ChamPagne
---
> :CabernetSauvignon
> :MerloT
> :CabernetFranc
> :ZinfandeL
> :PinotNoir
> :PinotNero
> 
> :PorT
> :SherrY
> :BrandY
> 
> :WhiteZinfandel
> :WhiteMerlot
> 
> :ChardonnaY
> :SauvignonBlanc
> :LiebFrauMilch
> :PoullietFusse
> :PoullietFume
> :FumeBlanc
> :PinotGrigio
> 
> :DucK
> 
> 
> :BordeauxWine
> :BurgundyWine
> :ChamPagne
42,43c42,43
< NapaValley
< SonomaValley
---
> :NapaValley
> :SonomaValley
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982286889
14,15c14,16
< 
< You report him to whatever cooperatives you and he belong to. Acting in an unethical and immoral manner can have a wide range of repercussions. Human beings are naturally interdependent and anarcho-syndicalists use these interdependencies without recourse to an artificial hierarchy like the justice system or police.
---
> You report him to whatever cooperatives you and he belong to. Acting in an unethical and immoral manner can have a wide range of repercussions. Human beings are naturally interdependent and anarcho-syndicalists use these interdependencies without recourse to an artificial hierarchy like the justice system or police.
> ----
> I'm trying to explore how this differs from anarchocapitalism, exactly.  DavidFriedman would answer my question in exactly the same way as you have, as far as I know.
------
WinE|982287800
28,29c28,29
< :PoullietFusse
< :PoullietFume
---
> :PuillyFuisse 
> :PuillyFume
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982287811
1c1,5
< Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
> ----
> I wrote:
> :A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
> I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
EastGermany|982288107
3,4c3
< After WW2, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion 
< decided to divide GermanY in 4 parts.  Each country controlled a part former GermanY.
---
> After Wor;dWarTwo, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion decided to divide GermanY in 4 parts.  Each country controlled a part former GermanY.
------
EastGermany|982288114
3c3
< After Wor;dWarTwo, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion decided to divide GermanY in 4 parts.  Each country controlled a part former GermanY.
---
> After WorldWarTwo, in 1949 at the PotsdamConference, the winning countries FrancE, EnglanD, UnitedStates and SovietUnion decided to divide GermanY in 4 parts.  Each country controlled a part former GermanY.
------
NationalSocialism|982288943
3c3
< NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, who led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, and who oversaw the murder of over 20 million people.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
---
> NationalSocialism uses a combination of various racist, nationalist, and socialist arguments in order to justify a TotalitariaN political agenda.  The most prominent NationalSocialist was AdolfHitler, who ruled GermanY from 1933 until 1945, led GermanY into WorldWarTwo, oversaw the murder of over 20 million people and who is held responsible for the HolocausT.  Most people conclude from his example that NationalSocialism is a bad thing.
------
AnarchisM|982289035
1a2,4
> 
> All anarchists are united in their opposition to the existence of government, but they part company soon after on issues of private property and social institutions generally.
> 
18,19d20
< 
< Both views are united in their opposition to the existence of government, but they part company soon after on issues of private property and social institutions generally.
------
FoodAndDrinks|982289486
5a6
> * CocktailS
------
PoLitics/Talk|982294078
52a53,56
> 
> Making changes doesn't always work.  If you will recall, back on AnarchY RK had replaced some material he disagreed with and then TS promptly changed it back.  This sort of thing could have just gone back and forth, but instead discussion moved off onto another page, which gave JW something to start from when he went to straighten the page out.
> 
> I wouldn't consider arguing a distraction from writing, therefore, but rather a prerequisite thereto.  At best it can lead to a consensus on how to organize things, and at worst it still provides an indication of what can't happen.  That said, I'm still going to go write a penance page on another topic. :) -- JoshuaGrosse
76c80
<  -- RichardKulisz
---
>  -- RichardKulisz
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982294780
5c5,9
< I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger
> 
> The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it's becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling, intelligent and rational while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
> 
> Communal control ''is'' subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982295478
7c7
< The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it's becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling, intelligent and rational while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
---
> The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
9c9
< Communal control ''is'' subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution.
---
> Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
------
ConStellations|982295757
1c1,97
< Describe the new page here.
---
> iMost of the stars we see have little relation to one another, but people are very good at finding patterns and throughout history have grouped stars that appear close to one another into configurations called constellations.  Different cultures have had different constellations, although a few of the more obvious ones tend to appear over and over again - e.g. Orion and Scorpius.
> 
> The IAU divides the sky into 88 official constellations with precise boundaries, so that every direction belongs to exactly one constellation.  These are mostly based upon the constellations of the ancient Greek tradition, passed down through the Middle Ages.  The zodiac includes the following 12:
> 
> * ArieS, the ram
> * TaurUs, the bull
> * GeminI, the twins (=DioscurI)
> * CancEr, the crab
> * LeO, the lion
> * VirgO, the virgin
> * LibrA, the scales
> * ScorpIus, the scorpion
> * SagittarIus, the archer
> * CapricornUs, the sea goat
> * AquarIus, the water carrier
> * PiscEs, the fish
> 
> Plus PtolemY listed the following additional constellations:
> 
> * AndromedA
> * AquilA, the eagle
> * ArA, the altar
> * ArgoNavis, the ship of the argonauts, since divided into CarinA, PuppIs, PyxIs, and VelA
> * AurigA, the charioteer
> * BootEs, the herdsman
> * CanisMajor, the greater dog
> * CanisMinor, the lesser dog
> * CassiopeiA
> * CentaurUs, the centaur
> * CephEus
> * CetUs, the whale
> * CoronaAustralis, the southern crown
> * CoronaBorealis, the northern crown
> * CorvUs, the raven
> * CratEr, the cup
> * CygnUs, the swan
> * DelphinUs, the dolphin
> * DracO, the dragon
> * EquulEus, the little horse
> * EridanUs, the river
> * HerculEs (=HeraklEs)
> * HydrA, the water snake
> * LepUs, the hare
> * LupUs, the wolf
> * LyrA, the lyre
> * OphiucUs, the serpent-bearer
> * OrioN, the hunter
> * PegasUs
> * PersEus
> * PiscisAustrinus, the southern fish
> * SagittA, the arrow
> * SerpenS, the serpent
> * TriangulUm, the triangle
> * UrsaMajor, the greater bear
> * UrsaMinor, the lesser bear
> 
> In more recent times this list has been added to, first to fill gaps between Ptolemy's patterns (the Greeks considered the sky as including both constellations and dim spaces between) and second to fill up the southern sky as explorers sailed where they could see it.  The new constellations are:
> 
> * AntliA, the pump
> * ApUs, the bird of paradise
> * CaelUm, the chisel
> * CamelopardIs, the giraffe
> * CanesVenatici, the hunting dogs
> * ChamaeleoN
> * CircinUs, the drawing compasses
> * ColumbA, the dove
> * ComaBerenices (traditional Asterism), Berenice's hair
> * CruX, the cross
> * DoradO, the swordfish
> * FornaX, the furnace
> * GrUs, the crane
> * HorologIum, the clock
> * HydrUs, the water snake
> * IndUs, the Indian
> * LacertA, the lizard
> * LeoMinor, the lesser lion
> * LynX
> * MensA - originally MonsMensae, table mountain
> * MicroscopIum, the microscope
> * MonocerOs, the unicorn
> * MuscA, the fly
> * NormA, the square
> * OctanS, the octant
> * PavO, the peacock
> * PhoeniX
> * PictoR - originally EquuleusPictoris, the painter's easel
> * ReticulUm, the reticle
> * SculptoR
> * ScutUm, the shield
> * SextanS, the sextant
> * TelescopIum, the telescope
> * TriangulumAustrale, the southern triangle
> * TucanA, the toucan
> * VolanS - originally PiscisVolans, the flying fish
> * Vulpecula - originally VulpeculaCumAnsere, the fox with the goose
> 
> There were also other constellations that didn't make the cut, most notably QuadransMuralis (now part of Bootes) for which the QuadrantidMeteors are named.  Various other less official patterns have existed alongside the constellations called asterisms, such as the BigDipper and LittleDipper.
------
EsperantoLanguage|982296819
10a11
>    ''esperu''             Hope!
12c13,15
<    ''esperanto(n)''       Hoper - nominative (accusative) noun
---
>    ''esperanta(n)''       Hoping - nominative (accusative) adjective
>    ''esperantaj(n)''      Hoping - nominative (accusative) adjective
>    ''esperanto(n)''       Hoper  - nominative (accusative) noun
14,15d16
<    ''esperanta(n)''       Hoper's - nominative (accusative) adjective
<    ''esperantaj(n)''      Hopers' - nominative (accusative) adjective
------
GeologicTimescale|982297690
3,17c3,27
<    *  CenozoicEra
<         NeogenePeriod
<   23    PalaeogenePeriod
<   65  MesozoicEra
<        CretaceousPeriod
<  146    JurassicPeriod
<  208    TriassicPeriod
<  245  PalaeozoicEra
<         PermianPeriod
<  290    CarboniferousPeriod
<  363    DevonianPeriod
<  409    SilurianPeriod
<  439    OrdovicianPeriod
<  510    CambrianPeriod
<  570  PrecambrianEra
---
>     *  CenozoicEra
>          NeogenePeriod
>            PleistoceneEpoch (=Quaternary)
>   1.8      PlioceneEpoch
>     5      MioceneEpoch
>    23    PalaeogenePeriod
>            OligoceneEpoch
>    38      EoceneEpoch
>    54      PalaeoceneEpoch
>    65  MesozoicEra
>          CretaceousPeriod
>   146    JurassicPeriod
>   208    TriassicPeriod
>   245  PalaeozoicEra
>          PermianPeriod
>   286    CarboniferousPeriod
>            UpperCarboniferous = PennsylvanianPeriod
>   325      LowerCarboniferous = MississippianPeriod
>   360    DevonianPeriod
>   410    SilurianPeriod
>   440    OrdovicianPeriod
>   505    CambrianPeriod
>   544  ProterozoicEra    |
>  2500  ArchaeanEra       | PrecambrianEon (as opposed to PhanerozoicEon)
>  3800  HadeanEra         |
------
GeologicTimescale|982297718
19,20c19,20
<            UpperCarboniferous = PennsylvanianPeriod
<   325      LowerCarboniferous = MississippianPeriod
---
>            UpperCarboniferous (=Pennsylvanian)
>   325      LowerCarboniferous (=Mississippian)
------
LarrySanger|982300212
38a39,41
> 
> ----
> Interesting link to history of libertarianism. However, since the guy is dumb enough to say that the free market enriches the poor, his judgement is suspect. A theoretical free market is nothing but unrestrained economic war, to believe that this benefits the powerless is beyond credulity. He's also very wrong when he claims that libertarianism derives from classical liberalism. And although I'm certain that some capitalists honestly believe themselves the upholders of freedom, that is just so much self-serving pap. -- RichardKulisz
------
JimboWales|982300620
21c21
< * * * * * * * * * For JimboWales...hold down ALT and enter, say, 0141 in the keypad. 
---
> � � � � � � For JimboWales...hold down ALT and enter, say, 0141 in the keypad. 
------
DemocracY|982301310
5c5,7
< See DirectDemocracy; TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC; DemocraticRepublic; RepublicanisM; DemagoguerY; ThePeople.
---
> DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
> 
> See DirectDemocracy; TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC; DemocraticRepublic; RepublicanisM; DemagoguerY; ThePeople.
------
DemocracY|982301604
5,6d4
< DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
< 
------
DemocracY|982301640
4a5,6
> DemagoguerY? is identical to PopulisM? according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY? as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM? as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
> 
------
DemocracY|982301686
5c5
< DemagoguerY? is identical to PopulisM? according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY? as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM? as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
---
> DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982304331
16c16,32
< I'm trying to explore how this differs from anarchocapitalism, exactly.  DavidFriedman would answer my question in exactly the same way as you have, as far as I know.
---
> I'm trying to explore how this differs from anarchocapitalism, exactly.  DavidFriedman would answer my question in exactly the same way as you have, as far as I know.
> ----
> Then he is not an AnarchoCapitalist. AnarchoCapitalism is based on formal rules and absolute property rights. Humans are treated as objects and the "marketplace" rules supreme. Anarchism is not based on formal rules but on democratic control. It is not possible under anarchism for a person to surrender, transfer or sell their rights. If working in a cooperative gains you the right to participate politically (eg, by voting) then this right is inalienable (ie, non-transferable). Under anarcho-capitalism, everything is mere property and not a right at all so it is possible for you to (be forced to) sell all of your property away (eg, in order to avoid starvation). This leads only to totalitarianism.
> 
> A classic argument against cooperatives by anarcho-capitalists is precisely that it is irrational to have all one's stock in one company (your own) and so workers would seek to spread their risk by diversifying their stock portfolio. Of course, this is ''precisely'' what Anarchism makes impossible. In order to lessen your cooperative's risk of failure, people are forced to engage in mutual aid. Mutual aid is direct and transparent, one human to another, or one cooperative to another. The workings of the stock market is completely opaque and anything but direct. The stock market is also completely artificial.
> 
> Anarchists and socialists in general operate under a completely different mindset from capitalists and other right-wingers. An anarchist would ask whether it was fair for you to be deprived of the use of your television. A capitalist would ask whether it was fair for your television to be taken away from you. Anarchists are concerned about outcome whereas the right-wingers are only concerned that your neighbour did not ''obey'' the law and ''submit himself'' to the authority of some arbitrary rule system. Right-wing notions of justice are bureaucratic in nature.
> 
> The difference underlying different political ideologies are psychological. The right-winger seeks a well-ordered system which degrades people to the status of objects and society to the status of a machine. They find security in that. Whether they're the ruler of the world or a beggar living in squalor doesn't matter so much as that there be a rigid system with well-defined rules. Left-wingers are appalled at this scenario and usually seek to change it by putting themselves in power and playing benevolent dictator. They're just as obsessed with having a well-defined system as the right-wingers, just that instead of the rules being to their benefit they are concerned that the rules should be in others' benefit. Anarchists want to annihilate the system completely and replace it with ''humanistic'' relationships.
> 
> Under anarcho-capitalism, you go to your protection agency (which you may or may not have depending on whether you're wealthy enough to afford one) and they look at your contract. Under anarchism, you go to your co-workers and colleagues and they ask themselves whether you're a total asshole who deserves to lose his TV. They don't help you because of some contractual obligation, because it's written somewhere in some big book that they have to do this whether they want to or not. They do it because they like you and have sympathy for you, or because they pity you, or even just because people have to ''stick together'' if they don't want the world to be a living hell.
> 
> It is extremely common nowadays to think of humans as machines and of society as a machine as well. One's body isn't a holistic whole, it's just some machine with certain capabilities and requirements. If the blood sugar level is below the design specifications then people increase their sugar intake. If it seems to wear out then they go to a mechanic in a white lab coat who'll do a yearly inspection and may order some maintenance work. People don't have friends anymore, they have colleagues and acquaintances. They no longer speak, they ''communicate'', like computers. They no longer move under their own power and control by walking or cycling, they are transported from point to point by self-propelled tin cans inside of which they are strapped and buckled.
> 
> People are '''not''' machines and they shouldn't be treated as such. Contracts, laws, bylaws are all so much junk that degrades human beings. They are the basis of anarcho-capitalism and what make it fundamentally anti-human. Markets are not "natural". Laws are not "natural". They are profoundly artificial, through and through. When DavidFriedman says that it is "natural" for people to have their choice of protection firm, he's speaking in a context (the contracts and laws that make a market) in which the term 'natural' ceases to have any meaning. The situation is so thoroughly artificial that ''nothing'' could possibly be natural anymore.
> 
> I hope the above isn't too polemic. If it did then I did not mean it to. This is simply the only way I know of to express my point of view. -- RichardKulisz
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982304550
31a32,33
> The anarchist conception of the ideal society is intuitionistic and can't deviate much from an equally intuitive conception of justice. The anarcho-capitalist's conception of the ideal society is formal and systematic. And somewhere in their analysis, the anarcho-capitalists have screwed up.
> 
------
DemocracY|982304750
5,6d4
< DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
< 
7a6,7
> 
> /Talk
------
DemocracY/Talk|982304976
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Someone (Tim?) wrote:
> :DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
> Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982305157
9c9,11
< Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
---
> Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
> ----
> Richard, I note that you wrote something on this page.  I didn't read what you wrote.  Please fill in the blank, or otherwise alter the article itself.  If you don't, I'm simply going to ignore you.  I'm not really interested in engaging you in political discussions, even though I fully admit that that might be interesting and educational. -- LarrySanger
------
LarrySanger|982305368
39d38
< 
41c40
< Interesting link to history of libertarianism. However, since the guy is dumb enough to say that the free market enriches the poor, his judgement is suspect. A theoretical free market is nothing but unrestrained economic war, to believe that this benefits the powerless is beyond credulity. He's also very wrong when he claims that libertarianism derives from classical liberalism. And although I'm certain that some capitalists honestly believe themselves the upholders of freedom, that is just so much self-serving pap. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Political discussion not allowed on this page.  :-)
------
DemocracY/Talk|982306708
1a2,3
> - Sounds just like me, doesn't it?  Tim
> 
3c5
< Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
---
> Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
------
DemocracY/Talk|982306720
2c2
< - Sounds just like me, doesn't it?  Tim
---
>  - Sounds just like me, doesn't it?  Tim
------
DemocracY/Talk|982307709
2a3
>  - I guess so...?  :-)  OK, so the logs prove definitively, it was you.
5c6
< Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
---
> Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982307751
34c34,38
< I hope the above isn't too polemic. If it did then I did not mean it to. This is simply the only way I know of to express my point of view. -- RichardKulisz
---
> A better example than the theft of a television, is the appropriation of a handgun. Suppose my neighbour has a handgun and while he is away I break into his house, take it then destroy it. A handgun is a possession but it is not a ''legitimate'' possession. If my neighbour goes to my cooperative to complain about my behaviour, I will defend myself by pointing out that the only purpose of a handgun is to murder people. In all likelihood, neither my nor his cooperative will have any objection to my behaviour. It may even inspire other to act likewise. Supposing that my cooperative had a problem then I might simply move to another, saner, cooperative. The same thing would occur on the level of cooperatives in the broader society. And it is extremely likely that the medical coops (which I presume are against guns) would triumph over gun coops, since the former provide a valued service to society while the latter do not.
> 
> Under anarcho-syndicalism, the situation is very different. If I stole a gun and destroyed a gun from someone then I would face some hostile protection agency. Since this agency uses guns, they are unlikely to be sympathetic to my case. And since police are authoritarian in nature and mindset then they would not be sympathetic to an anarchist who "took the law into his own hands". Even if this were not the case, even if they approve of my behaviour, they would still be obligated to retaliate against me. This is why anarcho-syndicalism justice is bureaucratic in nature. The difference between a protection agency performing a service for a client and a cooperative helping out a peer is also important and illustrates why anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally authoritarian.
> 
> I hope the above isn't too polemic. If it did then I did not mean it to. This is simply the only way I know of to express my point of view. -- RichardKulisz
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982308179
9c9,11
< A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply
---
> A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply that the similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial.  The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation.  Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations.  If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another.  As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility".  Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about.  In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
> 
> Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing but does not logically or practically entail it (nor something like it).  The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving.  There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members.  Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution.  And even if Mondragon does fail, it's significant that it took more than three decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
17c19
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982308258
1,11c1
< Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
< ----
< I wrote:
< :A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
< I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger
< 
< The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
< 
< Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
< ----
< Richard, I note that you wrote something on this page.  I didn't read what you wrote.  Please fill in the blank, or otherwise alter the article itself.  If you don't, I'm simply going to ignore you.  I'm not really interested in engaging you in political discussions, even though I fully admit that that might be interesting and educational. -- LarrySanger
---
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
------
DemocracY/Talk|982309823
1,3c1
< Someone (Tim?) wrote:
<  - Sounds just like me, doesn't it?  Tim
<  - I guess so...?  :-)  OK, so the logs prove definitively, it was you.
---
> Richard wrote:
6c4,8
< Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
---
> Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
> 
> How about:
> 
> A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election in June 1997, newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. The same thing occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) in Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a known concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. Similarly, the UnitedStates was founded as a Republic based on the sentiment popular among its land-owning class (of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives) that "the people who own the country should govern it".
------
DemocracY/Talk|982310161
8c8
< A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election in June 1997, newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. The same thing occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) in Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a known concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. Similarly, the UnitedStates was founded as a Republic based on the sentiment popular among its land-owning class (of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives) that "the people who own the country should govern it".
---
> A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election of June 1997, North American newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. This error on the part of the public occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) by the impoverished people of Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a former concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. Similarly, the UnitedStates was founded as a Republic based on the sentiment popular among its land-owning class, of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives, that "the people who own the country should govern it".
------
DemocracY|982312346
4a5,10
> A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election of June 1997, North American newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. This error on the part of the public occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) by the impoverished people of Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a former concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. And yet again, the Bolshevik's realized that when the soviets ceased supporting the Central Committee's actions then this error of democracy needed to be remedied by the suspension of free elections in the soviets and eventually the suspension of the soviets themselves. Critics of this policy were sent to the gulag.
> 
> The early Americans understood these failures of democracy and wishing to avoid them founded the UnitedStates as a Republic. The popular sentiment among the land-owning class of the time, of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives, was that "the people who own the country should govern it".
> 
> Certain failures of democracy such as racism are not of any interest to the legislators. One of the achievements of the Soviet Union was a total suppression of ethnic tensions. With the decline of Soviet power, the Balkans are back to precisely the situation they were in before the October Revolution. The ethnic tensions in the former Yugoslavia were entirely predictable.
> 
7c13
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
DemocracY/Talk|982312393
1,8c1
< Richard wrote:
< 
< :DemagoguerY is identical to PopulisM according to those in power. This is why businesspeople frequently condemn democracy wherever it gives the "wrong" socialist result. One can define DemagoguerY as appealing to the base instincts of the masses, and PopulisM as appealing to the enlightened interests of the masses.
< Sorry for deleting this, but I don't even understand it.  Who are "those in power"?  Is something bad being said about Demagoguery, Populism, or those in power?  What "socialist results" are referred to?  Basically, this needs to be completely rewritten so that it is absolutely clear what the point is.  Can you restate this so that it is fact-stating--so that no one would disagree with it?  Perhaps it will take something to the effect that "a cynic would point out that..." and "demagoguery and populism are, according to some cynics, two sides of the same coin.  Here's what that means, exactly..."
< 
< How about:
< 
< A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election of June 1997, North American newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. This error on the part of the public occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) by the impoverished people of Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a former concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. Similarly, the UnitedStates was founded as a Republic based on the sentiment popular among its land-owning class, of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives, that "the people who own the country should govern it".
---
> 
------
CombinaTorics|982337288
3c3
< It may seem surprising that the number of possible orderings of a deck of 52 playing cards is  8.065817517094e+67. That is a little bit more than 8 followed by 67 zeros. Comparing that number to some other large numbers, it is greater than the square of [http://gemini.tntech.edu/~tfurtsch/scihist/avogadro.htm Avogadro's number], 6.022e+23, "the number of atoms, molecules, etc. in a gram mole".
---
> It may seem surprising that the number of possible orderings of a deck of 52 playing cards is  8.065817517094e+67. That is a little bit more than 8 followed by 67 zeros. Comparing that number to some other large numbers, it is greater than the '''square''' of [http://gemini.tntech.edu/~tfurtsch/scihist/avogadro.htm Avogadro's number], 6.022e+23, "the number of atoms, molecules, etc. in a gram mole".
------
CombinaTorics|982337336
5c5
< That large number is the product of all the natural numbers from one to fifty-two, the number of different orders the deck can have after shuffling. Calculating the number of ways that certain patterns can be formed is the beginning of combinatorics. Some very subtle patterns can be developed and some surprising theorems proved.
---
> That large number, 52 factorial, is the product of all the natural numbers from one to fifty-two, the number of different orders the deck can have after shuffling. Calculating the number of ways that certain patterns can be formed is the beginning of combinatorics. Some very subtle patterns can be developed and some surprising theorems proved.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982337457
4c4
< 1) Let '''U''' be a set of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called ''elementary events''.
---
> 1) Let '''U''' be a SeT of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called ''elementary events''.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982337791
4c4,6
< 1) Let '''U''' be a SeT of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called ''elementary events''.
---
> (These axioms are just the most elementary way to define probabilities. Other axiom schema are used with non-discrete points.)
> 
> 1) Let '''U''' be a SeT of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called '''elementary events'''. We call this set, the '''universe''' or '''sample space'''.
8c10
< 3) Let ''composite events'', Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
---
> 3) Let '''composite events''', Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
10c12
< 4) Define the ''probability'' of an event '''X''' (any subset of '''U'''), as the sum of the weights, w('''e'''), for every ''elementary event'' contained in '''X''' divided by the sum of the weights of every element of '''U'''.
---
> 4) Define the '''probability''' of an event '''X''' (any subset of '''U'''), as the sum of the weights, w('''e'''), for every ''elementary event'' contained in '''X''' divided by the sum of the weights of every element of '''U'''.
------
MeaningAndDefinitions|982342022
77a78,80
> 
> <hr>
> : ImpreciseLanguage
------
DemocracY|982346844
3c3
< The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it is open to DemagoguerY.  It is (famously) for this reason that the UnitedStates was established, strictly speaking, as a RepubliC rather than a DemocracY.  Thus BenjaminFranklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government TheFoundingFathers had established, was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."
---
> The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it is open to DemagoguerY.  It is (famously) for this reason that the UnitedStates was established, strictly speaking, as a RepubliC rather than a DemocracY.  Thus BenjaminFranklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government TheFoundingFathers had established, was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."  A cynic would point out that DemagoguerY and PopulisM are two sides of the same coin.  Demagogues appeal to people's baser instincts; populists allegedly appeal to their enlightened interests.
5,11c5
< A cynic would point out that demagoguery and populism are two sides of the same coin. Demagoguery appeals to people's baser instincts while populism appeals to their enlightened interests. Too often, the flaws of democracy are brought up by people whose interests run counter to the public's. For example, following the victory of the Socialist Party in the French election of June 1997, North American newspaper editors explained that the problem with democracy is that it can give the "wrong" answer. This error on the part of the public occured upon the election of Salvatore Allende (a Marxist) by the impoverished people of Chile. This tragic failure of democracy prompted the UnitedStates' government to "liberate" the people of Chile by giving Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet (a former concentration camp commander) the resources to execute a coup d'etat and impose a brutal military junta on the population. And yet again, the Bolshevik's realized that when the soviets ceased supporting the Central Committee's actions then this error of democracy needed to be remedied by the suspension of free elections in the soviets and eventually the suspension of the soviets themselves. Critics of this policy were sent to the gulag.
< 
< The early Americans understood these failures of democracy and wishing to avoid them founded the UnitedStates as a Republic. The popular sentiment among the land-owning class of the time, of whom the Founding Fathers were representatives, was that "the people who own the country should govern it".
< 
< Certain failures of democracy such as racism are not of any interest to the legislators. One of the achievements of the Soviet Union was a total suppression of ethnic tensions. With the decline of Soviet power, the Balkans are back to precisely the situation they were in before the October Revolution. The ethnic tensions in the former Yugoslavia were entirely predictable.
< 
< See DirectDemocracy; TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC; DemocraticRepublic; RepublicanisM; DemagoguerY; ThePeople.
---
> See DirectDemocracy; TechnoDemocracy; RepubliC; DemocraticRepublic; RepublicanisM; DemagoguerY; PopulisM; ThePeople.
------
DemocracY|982346900
7c7
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982347714
1c1,43
< Describe the new page here.
---
> =Philosophical Motivation=
> 
> The Sorit&euml;s is a form of argument in which the concept of consensus can dispose of a long standing confusion.
> 
> ==Sorit&euml;s==
> 
> The standard form of this disturbing argument goes something like this.
> 
> :1) A million grains of sand makes a heap.
> 
> :2) Removing a single grain of sand from a heap doesn't destroy the heap.
> 
> :3) A single grain of sand makes a heap.</LI>
> 
> :Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorit&euml;s argument in my opinion).
> 
> :My attempt to clarify matters goes as follows:
> 
> :Many of the examples of this argument use words which refer to members of a vaguely defined set with an underlying quantitative scale which can be used to make precise analogs. For example, We could define a &quot;p-heap&quot; which has at least p grains of sand. We would then have a precise analog for which the Sorit&euml;s argument would clearly fail because statement
> 2) above could not be applied to all p-heaps. There would be a least p-heap to which the item could be applied.
> 
> :Consider the &quot;height&quot; form of the argument.
> 
> :4) A man whose height is seven feet is tall. 
> 
> :5) Reducing the height of a tall man by one inch leaves him still tall.
> 
> :6) A man whose height is four feet is tall.
> 
> :And consider this
> 
> :7) A man whose height is seven feet is considered tall by everyone. 
> 
> :8) Reducing the height of a man considered tall by consensus may change the consensus or not. If the reduction is small, then the consensus may only change slightly.. 
> 
> :9) A man whose height is four feet is considered tall by very few people.
> 
> :I believe that the usefulness of language is the consensus we share on the definitions of terms. Precise terms have a mechanism by which we can persuade someone that a specific application of the term is valid. Vague terms have no such mechanism. If a person insists on calling a seven foot man short, we might suspect that he is using NBA centers as his reference set, but we would hardly accuse him of a logic error. Vague terms are useful
> to the extent that we have consensus. When we use them out of context, we confuse each other.
> 
> :The Sorit&euml;s merely illustrates that the growth and destruction of consensus is a required element in the logical analysis of how we use vague language. It is a fallacy to treat a vague term as if everyone agreed with its definition. We may agree in its application to some but not all members of the universe of discourse.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982347791
1c1
< =Philosophical Motivation=
---
> '=Philosophical Motivation='
5c5
< ==Sorit&euml;s==
---
> '==Sorites=='
13c13
< :3) A single grain of sand makes a heap.</LI>
---
> :3) A single grain of sand makes a heap.
41c41
< :The Sorit&euml;s merely illustrates that the growth and destruction of consensus is a required element in the logical analysis of how we use vague language. It is a fallacy to treat a vague term as if everyone agreed with its definition. We may agree in its application to some but not all members of the universe of discourse.
---
> :The Sorites merely illustrates that the growth and destruction of consensus is a required element in the logical analysis of how we use vague language. It is a fallacy to treat a vague term as if everyone agreed with its definition. We may agree in its application to some but not all members of the universe of discourse.
43c43
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982347880
3c3
< ''Anarchism,'' in its socialist variety (see AnarchisM), is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.
---
> ''Anarchism,'' in its traditional, socialist variety (see AnarchisM), is a movement dedicated to the abolition of illegitimate authority and the establishment of a social order without hierarchy.  In this article "anarchism" and "anarchist" will refer to this traditional, socialist variety, as distinguished from AnarchoCapitalism.
9c9
< A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply that the similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial.  The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation.  Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations.  If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another.  As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility".  Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about.  In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
---
> A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply that there is only a superficial similarity between the power hierarchies of and supporting corporations, on the one hand, and the layered division of labour in cooperatives, on the other.  The State is created when private property is legitimized.  By contrast, cooperatives, credit unions, and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of communal control and anarchists maintain that they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations.  If one compares both organizations using the items on the PsychopathyChecklist as a guide then, an anarchist might hold, it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while corporations can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another.  As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility".  Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about.  In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
11c11
< Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing but does not logically or practically entail it (nor something like it).  The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving.  There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members.  Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution.  And even if Mondragon does fail, it's significant that it took more than three decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
---
> Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing, anarchists hold, but does not logically or practically entail it (nor something like it).  For example--one might argue--the Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving.  There was, one might say, a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; it has the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members.  Anarchists claim that people cannot slack off after "the revolution" (i.e., after a revolution that abolishes the corporation-supporting state in favor of collectives).  Even if Mondragon does fail, an anarchist might hold it is significant that it took more than three decades for it to do so: it provided three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.  (We need a citation for this dramatic claim.)
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982348197
9c9
< :1) A million grains of sand makes a heap.
---
> #A million grains of sand makes a heap.
11c11
< :2) Removing a single grain of sand from a heap doesn't destroy the heap.
---
> #Removing a single grain of sand from a heap doesn't destroy the heap.
13,15c13,15
< :3) A single grain of sand makes a heap.
< 
< :Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorit&euml;s argument in my opinion).
---
> #A single grain of sand makes a heap.
> ----
> :Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
22c22
< :Consider the &quot;height&quot; form of the argument.
---
> :Consider the ''height'' form of the argument.
24c24
< :4) A man whose height is seven feet is tall. 
---
> #A man whose height is seven feet is tall. 
26c26
< :5) Reducing the height of a tall man by one inch leaves him still tall.
---
> #Reducing the height of a tall man by one inch leaves him still tall.
28c28
< :6) A man whose height is four feet is tall.
---
> #A man whose height is four feet is tall.
32,34c32
< :7) A man whose height is seven feet is considered tall by everyone. 
< 
< :8) Reducing the height of a man considered tall by consensus may change the consensus or not. If the reduction is small, then the consensus may only change slightly.. 
---
> #A man whose height is seven feet is considered tall by everyone. 
36c34
< :9) A man whose height is four feet is considered tall by very few people.
---
> #Reducing the height of a man considered tall by consensus may change the consensus or not. If the reduction is small, then the consensus may only change slightly.. 
37a36,37
> #A man whose height is four feet is considered tall by very few people.
> ----
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982348335
10d9
< 
12d10
< 
15c13
< :Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
---
> Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
17c15
< :My attempt to clarify matters goes as follows:
---
> My attempt to clarify matters goes as follows:
19,20c17
< :Many of the examples of this argument use words which refer to members of a vaguely defined set with an underlying quantitative scale which can be used to make precise analogs. For example, We could define a &quot;p-heap&quot; which has at least p grains of sand. We would then have a precise analog for which the Sorit&euml;s argument would clearly fail because statement
< 2) above could not be applied to all p-heaps. There would be a least p-heap to which the item could be applied.
---
> Many of the examples of this argument use words which refer to members of a vaguely defined set with an underlying quantitative scale which can be used to make precise analogs. For example, We could define a ''p-heap'' which has at least p grains of sand. We would then have a precise analog for which the Sorites argument would clearly fail because statement 2) above could not be applied to all p-heaps. There would be a least p-heap to which the item could be applied.
22c19
< :Consider the ''height'' form of the argument.
---
> Consider the ''height'' form of the argument.
25d21
< 
27d22
< 
30c25
< :And consider this
---
> And consider this
33,35c28
< 
< #Reducing the height of a man considered tall by consensus may change the consensus or not. If the reduction is small, then the consensus may only change slightly.. 
< 
---
> #Reducing the height of a man considered tall by consensus may change the consensus or not. If the reduction is small, then the consensus may only change slightly.
38c31
< :I believe that the usefulness of language is the consensus we share on the definitions of terms. Precise terms have a mechanism by which we can persuade someone that a specific application of the term is valid. Vague terms have no such mechanism. If a person insists on calling a seven foot man short, we might suspect that he is using NBA centers as his reference set, but we would hardly accuse him of a logic error. Vague terms are useful
---
> I believe that the usefulness of language is the consensus we share on the definitions of terms. Precise terms have a mechanism by which we can persuade someone that a specific application of the term is valid. Vague terms have no such mechanism. If a person insists on calling a seven foot man short, we might suspect that he is using NBA centers as his reference set, but we would hardly accuse him of a logic error. Vague terms are useful
41c34
< :The Sorites merely illustrates that the growth and destruction of consensus is a required element in the logical analysis of how we use vague language. It is a fallacy to treat a vague term as if everyone agreed with its definition. We may agree in its application to some but not all members of the universe of discourse.
---
> The Sorites merely illustrates that the growth and destruction of consensus is a required element in the logical analysis of how we use vague language. It is a fallacy to treat a vague term as if everyone agreed with its definition. We may agree in its application to some but not all members of the universe of discourse.
------
MeaningAndDefinitions|982348440
79,80c79,80
< <hr>
< : ImpreciseLanguage
---
> ----
> : ImpreciseLanguage
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982348710
1c1
< '=Philosophical Motivation='
---
> :LoGic -- MeaningAndDefinitions
3c3,5
< The Sorit&euml;s is a form of argument in which the concept of consensus can dispose of a long standing confusion.
---
> Ordinary folk need imprecise language much more than the precise language used by philosophers and scientists. The following is an article which bears on this as it reflects on the Sorites argument. It leans heavily on what I learned from Max Black's '''Margins of Precision'''.
> ---
> The Sorites is a form of argument in which the concept of consensus can dispose of a long standing confusion.
5d6
< '==Sorites=='
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982348772
14c14
< Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
---
> Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I) have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982348977
3c3
< Ordinary folk need imprecise language much more than the precise language used by philosophers and scientists. The following is an article which bears on this as it reflects on the Sorites argument. It leans heavily on what I learned from Max Black's '''Margins of Precision'''.
---
> Ordinary folk need imprecise language much more than the precise language used by philosophers and scientists. The following is an article which bears on this as it reflects on the Sorites argument. It leans heavily on what I learned from [http://www.jneedle.demon.co.uk/vague/bib-b.htm Max Black]'s '''Margins of Precision'''.
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982349021
4c4
< ---
---
> ----
------
ImpreciseLanguage|982349156
14c14
< Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I) have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
---
> Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I) have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/ Bertrand Russell], simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
------
MeaningAndDefinitions|982352086
3c3
< Now we’re going to switch gears rather abruptly and look at the two closely related topics of <i>meaning</i> and <i>definitions</i>.  I especially want us to consider definitions in their philosophical context, because philosophers are constantly asking for definitions, or accounts, or analyses -- at this point it matters little what to call them -- of various philosophical concepts such as existence, causality, meaning, knowledge, goodness, justice, beauty, art, and so on.  In fact, you might regard it as the <i>essential</i> task of philosophy, to clarify the most pervasive concepts descriptive of the universe and human life.
---
> Now we're going to switch gears rather abruptly and look at the two closely related topics of <i>meaning</i> and <i>definitions</i>.  I especially want us to consider definitions in their philosophical context, because philosophers are constantly asking for definitions, or accounts, or analyses -- at this point it matters little what to call them -- of various philosophical concepts such as existence, causality, meaning, knowledge, goodness, justice, beauty, art, and so on.  In fact, you might regard it as the <i>essential</i> task of philosophy, to clarify the most pervasive concepts descriptive of the universe and human life.
7c7
< Let’s begin by drawing a distinction, between the <i>extension</i> and the <i>intension</i> (both spelled with an "s") of a word.  This is very similar to a distinction you might already be familiar with -- between a word’s <i>denotation</i> and <i>connotation</i>.  But for clarity let’s stick with "extension" and "intension."
---
> Let?s begin by drawing a distinction, between the <i>extension</i> and the <i>intension</i> (both spelled with an "s") of a word.  This is very similar to a distinction you might already be familiar with -- between a word?s <i>denotation</i> and <i>connotation</i>.  But for clarity let?s stick with "extension" and "intension."
9c9
< The <i>extension</i> of a word is the set of things it extends to, or applies to.  So the extension of the word "dog" includes all the dogs in the world: Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on.  The extension of the phrase "people in Sanger’s class this evening" includes all the people sitting in this class right now.  Now, that this is a sense of the word "meaning" should be understandable.  The meaning of a word is, sometimes, just the things that the word picks out, or applies to.  So let’s get a nice example on the table.  The phrase "Sanger’s fingers" picks out exactly eight objects (doesn’t include his thumbs, we’ll say).  All right?  So these objects right here are the <i>extension</i> of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."
---
> The <i>extension</i> of a word is the set of things it extends to, or applies to.  So the extension of the word "dog" includes all the dogs in the world: Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on.  The extension of the phrase "people in Sanger?s class this evening" includes all the people sitting in this class right now.  Now, that this is a sense of the word "meaning" should be understandable.  The meaning of a word is, sometimes, just the things that the word picks out, or applies to.  So let?s get a nice example on the table.  The phrase "Sanger?s fingers" picks out exactly eight objects (doesn?t include his thumbs, we?ll say).  All right?  So these objects right here are the <i>extension</i> of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers."
11c11
< You can think of a word’s, or a phrase’s, <i>intension</i> as a description, or set of properties, which applies to each member of the word’s extension, and which distinguishes those things from everything <i>not</i> in the extension.  This is a rather complicated definition, but it’s not too difficult of a concept.  Here’s an example: what would be the intension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers"?  Well, two properties: first, the property of being a finger; second, the property of being possessed by Sanger.  Those two properties together make up the intension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."  Anything that has both of those properties is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers"; so for example as I hold up my left pointer finger, I can observe that it has the property of being a finger, and that it is possessed by Sanger; so the intention of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers" applies to my left pointer finger; and so my left pointer finger is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."  Moreover, anything that is not a finger, or not possessed by Sanger, is <i>not</i> part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger’s fingers."
---
> You can think of a word?s, or a phrase?s, <i>intension</i> as a description, or set of properties, which applies to each member of the word?s extension, and which distinguishes those things from everything <i>not</i> in the extension.  This is a rather complicated definition, but it?s not too difficult of a concept.  Here?s an example: what would be the intension of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers"?  Well, two properties: first, the property of being a finger; second, the property of being possessed by Sanger.  Those two properties together make up the intension of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers."  Anything that has both of those properties is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers"; so for example as I hold up my left pointer finger, I can observe that it has the property of being a finger, and that it is possessed by Sanger; so the intention of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers" applies to my left pointer finger; and so my left pointer finger is part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers."  Moreover, anything that is not a finger, or not possessed by Sanger, is <i>not</i> part of the extension of the phrase "Sanger?s fingers."
13c13
< I’m saying all this now simply to help you understand better the difference between a word’s extension and its intension.  To help drive the point home, let me give you another example.  Take the word "bachelor."  The extension of this word is <i>all</i> <i>and</i> <i>only</i> <i>the</i> <i>bachelors</i> <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i>.  The extension of this word would include, I imagine, several hundreds of millions of men.  Kind of sad if you think about it.  Anyway, the <i>intension</i> of this word isn’t <i>nearly</i> so large; in fact, it can be stated very briefly, because it includes just two properties: the property of being a <i>man</i>, and the property of being <i>unmarried</i>.  So all bachelors are unmarried men; and <i>only</i> bachelors are unmarried men.
---
> I?m saying all this now simply to help you understand better the difference between a word?s extension and its intension.  To help drive the point home, let me give you another example.  Take the word "bachelor."  The extension of this word is <i>all</i> <i>and</i> <i>only</i> <i>the</i> <i>bachelors</i> <i>in</i> <i>the</i> <i>world</i>.  The extension of this word would include, I imagine, several hundreds of millions of men.  Kind of sad if you think about it.  Anyway, the <i>intension</i> of this word isn?t <i>nearly</i> so large; in fact, it can be stated very briefly, because it includes just two properties: the property of being a <i>man</i>, and the property of being <i>unmarried</i>.  So all bachelors are unmarried men; and <i>only</i> bachelors are unmarried men.
15c15
< All right, now remember that I said that a definition of a word is an attempt to state the <i>meaning</i> of the word.  With this background, I think you can see that the sort of definition that we’re interested in, in philosophy, is one that identifies the <i>intension</i>, not the <i>extension</i> of the word.  An excellent definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man."  A less-than-excellent definition of the same word would be a list of names of all of the men in the world who are bachelors.  Aside from being practically impossible, such a list is just not what we’re looking for.  Because, after all, what we are interested in is a description of what all those things we call "bachelors" have in common, which distinguishes them from all non-bachelors.
---
> All right, now remember that I said that a definition of a word is an attempt to state the <i>meaning</i> of the word.  With this background, I think you can see that the sort of definition that we?re interested in, in philosophy, is one that identifies the <i>intension</i>, not the <i>extension</i> of the word.  An excellent definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man."  A less-than-excellent definition of the same word would be a list of names of all of the men in the world who are bachelors.  Aside from being practically impossible, such a list is just not what we?re looking for.  Because, after all, what we are interested in is a description of what all those things we call "bachelors" have in common, which distinguishes them from all non-bachelors.
19c19
< So let’s begin with ambiguity.  One and the same word can have many distinct meanings; so the word is, as we say, <i>ambiguous</i>.  We’ve just encountered some great examples of an ambigious words, the word "meaning" itself can mean "extension" or "intension."  The word "unclear" can mean "ambiguous" or "vague."  But let’s get a more ordinary example of an ambiguous word.  Try this for size.  "Bank": as a noun, this can mean either a financial institution where you put your money, or the edge of a river where you might go fishing; and it can mean other things still when used as a verb.  Now, the different meanings that a word can have are its <i>senses</i>.  So "financial institution" is one of the <i>senses</i> of the word "bank," and "edge of the river" is another <i>sense</i>.  So you can see that if a word is ambiguous, then it has more than one sense.  Sometimes there are some rather fine distinctions that can be drawn between different senses of the same word.  For example, take the word "good"; this can mean "useful," as in "That’s a good hammer," or "exemplary," as in "She is a good student," or "moral," as in "They are good people."  No doubt "good" has other senses as well.
---
> So let?s begin with ambiguity.  One and the same word can have many distinct meanings; so the word is, as we say, <i>ambiguous</i>.  We?ve just encountered some great examples of an ambigious words, the word "meaning" itself can mean "extension" or "intension."  The word "unclear" can mean "ambiguous" or "vague."  But let?s get a more ordinary example of an ambiguous word.  Try this for size.  "Bank": as a noun, this can mean either a financial institution where you put your money, or the edge of a river where you might go fishing; and it can mean other things still when used as a verb.  Now, the different meanings that a word can have are its <i>senses</i>.  So "financial institution" is one of the <i>senses</i> of the word "bank," and "edge of the river" is another <i>sense</i>.  So you can see that if a word is ambiguous, then it has more than one sense.  Sometimes there are some rather fine distinctions that can be drawn between different senses of the same word.  For example, take the word "good"; this can mean "useful," as in "That?s a good hammer," or "exemplary," as in "She is a good student," or "moral," as in "They are good people."  No doubt "good" has other senses as well.
21c21
< Now, in philosophy, it is <i>extremely</i> important, <i>before</i> one starts trying to come to grips with some deep, important philosophical term, that one specify just exactly <i>what</i> sense of the term one is examining.  For example, I might ask, "What does ‘good’ mean?" but I can’t even begin to answer until I have said <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of "good" I mean.  So discussions of philosophical concepts, especially in the past eighty years or so, have often begun by talking about the different senses in which a word may be used.
---
> Now, in philosophy, it is <i>extremely</i> important, <i>before</i> one starts trying to come to grips with some deep, important philosophical term, that one specify just exactly <i>what</i> sense of the term one is examining.  For example, I might ask, "What does ?good? mean?" but I can?t even begin to answer until I have said <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of "good" I mean.  So discussions of philosophical concepts, especially in the past eighty years or so, have often begun by talking about the different senses in which a word may be used.
23c23
< So much, then, for ambiguity.  That’s one way in which meanings can be unclear.  There is another way, which is <i>different</i> from ambiguity, namely <i>vagueness</i>.  Here the stock example is "bald."  Some men are definitely bald, and there’s no debating the matter; for example, Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard of <i>Star</i> <i>Trek</i>: <i>The</i> <i>Next</i> <i>Generation</i>).  Other men are definitely <i>not</i> bald; for example, President Clinton.  And then there are a bunch of men, you know, the sort of men who carefully comb a scanty amount of hair over their scalps, about whom we don’t know whether to say they’re bald or not.  There just isn’t any clear <i>line</i> between being bald and not being bald.  Another good example of a vague concept is the concept of a <i>heap</i> -- two or three grains of sand is not a heap, but a thousand is.  So how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?  There isn’t any clear line.
---
> So much, then, for ambiguity.  That?s one way in which meanings can be unclear.  There is another way, which is <i>different</i> from ambiguity, namely <i>vagueness</i>.  Here the stock example is "bald."  Some men are definitely bald, and there?s no debating the matter; for example, Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard of <i>Star</i> <i>Trek</i>: <i>The</i> <i>Next</i> <i>Generation</i>).  Other men are definitely <i>not</i> bald; for example, President Clinton.  And then there are a bunch of men, you know, the sort of men who carefully comb a scanty amount of hair over their scalps, about whom we don?t know whether to say they?re bald or not.  There just isn?t any clear <i>line</i> between being bald and not being bald.  Another good example of a vague concept is the concept of a <i>heap</i> -- two or three grains of sand is not a heap, but a thousand is.  So how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?  There isn?t any clear line.
25c25
< Now, when you look at a man with thinning hair, or a small pile of sand, and you don’t know whether to call the man "bald," or the sand a "heap," then you have found a <i>borderline</i> <i>case</i>.  So we can make a general principle, which in fact might work as a definition of the word "vague."  Here it is: to say a term, or a concept, is <i>vague</i> is to say it has borderline cases; in other words, cases where there is no clear fact of the matter whether the concept applies or not.  Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding Huskies and wolves: are they dogs, or aren’t they?  It’s not clear: so we can say that they are <i>borderline</i> <i>cases</i> of dogs.  This isn’t to say they <i>are</i> dogs, and it’s not to say that they <i>aren’t</i> dogs.  It’s to say that our concept of doghood isn’t clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case.
---
> Now, when you look at a man with thinning hair, or a small pile of sand, and you don?t know whether to call the man "bald," or the sand a "heap," then you have found a <i>borderline</i> <i>case</i>.  So we can make a general principle, which in fact might work as a definition of the word "vague."  Here it is: to say a term, or a concept, is <i>vague</i> is to say it has borderline cases; in other words, cases where there is no clear fact of the matter whether the concept applies or not.  Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding Huskies and wolves: are they dogs, or aren?t they?  It?s not clear: so we can say that they are <i>borderline</i> <i>cases</i> of dogs.  This isn?t to say they <i>are</i> dogs, and it?s not to say that they <i>aren?t</i> dogs.  It?s to say that our concept of doghood isn?t clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case.
27c27
< It turns out that vagueness is important philosophically.  Suppose we want to come up with a definition of "right" in a <i>moral</i> sense of this term.  Generally, we can say that we want a definition to cover actions that are <i>clearly</i> right, and exclude actions who are <i>clearly</i> wrong; but then what do we do with the borderline cases of actions that aren’t clearly right and aren’t clearly wrong?  Surely there <i>are</i> such cases.  What philosophers often say is that we should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear, on just those cases that are borderline cases.   Others say that we have an interest in making our definitions <i>more</i> precise than ordinary language, or our ordinary concepts, would by themselves allow.  Well, having mentioned that issue, I’m just going to sidestep it.  You should just be aware that some philosophers want their definitions to be unclear in precisely those areas in which the ordinary concept to be defined is unclear; while other philosophers want their definitions to be <i>more</i> <i>precise</i> than the ordinary concepts.
---
> It turns out that vagueness is important philosophically.  Suppose we want to come up with a definition of "right" in a <i>moral</i> sense of this term.  Generally, we can say that we want a definition to cover actions that are <i>clearly</i> right, and exclude actions who are <i>clearly</i> wrong; but then what do we do with the borderline cases of actions that aren?t clearly right and aren?t clearly wrong?  Surely there <i>are</i> such cases.  What philosophers often say is that we should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear, on just those cases that are borderline cases.   Others say that we have an interest in making our definitions <i>more</i> precise than ordinary language, or our ordinary concepts, would by themselves allow.  Well, having mentioned that issue, I?m just going to sidestep it.  You should just be aware that some philosophers want their definitions to be unclear in precisely those areas in which the ordinary concept to be defined is unclear; while other philosophers want their definitions to be <i>more</i> <i>precise</i> than the ordinary concepts.
29c29
< Now I have introduced the notions of ambiguity and vagueness.  These are not dangerous, difficult, or skeptical notions; to say that many, or perhaps even most, words are both ambiguous <i>and</i> vague is not to say that they have no meaning.  It is to say, first, that many individual words <i>many</i> <i>distinct</i> senses; and, second, that those senses are often, in ordinary language, not <i>so</i> precise as to be able to allow us to rule that the word does or doesn’t apply in every case.  So certainly, a word that is both ambiguous and vague can have loads of meaning.
---
> Now I have introduced the notions of ambiguity and vagueness.  These are not dangerous, difficult, or skeptical notions; to say that many, or perhaps even most, words are both ambiguous <i>and</i> vague is not to say that they have no meaning.  It is to say, first, that many individual words <i>many</i> <i>distinct</i> senses; and, second, that those senses are often, in ordinary language, not <i>so</i> precise as to be able to allow us to rule that the word does or doesn?t apply in every case.  So certainly, a word that is both ambiguous and vague can have loads of meaning.
31c31
< Now let’s discuss definitions.  Suppose we have decided on some word, or concept associated with the word, to define.  Suppose also that we have identified <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of the word we’re interested in, and we have noted clear cases, some unclear cases, and some borderline cases of the application of the word.  So we ask: how can this word be defined?  We already know that we want a description of the <i>intension</i> of the word: that is, we want an account of the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension. But in fact, why don’t we just define "definition" that way? --
---
> Now let?s discuss definitions.  Suppose we have decided on some word, or concept associated with the word, to define.  Suppose also that we have identified <i>which</i> <i>sense</i> of the word we?re interested in, and we have noted clear cases, some unclear cases, and some borderline cases of the application of the word.  So we ask: how can this word be defined?  We already know that we want a description of the <i>intension</i> of the word: that is, we want an account of the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension. But in fact, why don?t we just define "definition" that way? --
35c35
< Now, some philosophers have some criticisms of this sort of definition of the word "definition"; or perhaps it would be better to say that some philosophers think that it is, for various reasons, <i>impossible</i> to give definitions of most concepts, words, and phrases.  We don’t have time, or the conceptual resources, to explore these criticisms.  And even if those philosophers are right, they will, most of them, still acknowledge that in philosophy we should do <i>something</i> <i>like</i> give definitions of important philosophical concepts.  So for our purposes, in just getting introduced to philosophy, it will do just fine.  So a definition is, to put it very briefly, a description of the intension of a word.  When you have stated the intension of a word, you have defined it.
---
> Now, some philosophers have some criticisms of this sort of definition of the word "definition"; or perhaps it would be better to say that some philosophers think that it is, for various reasons, <i>impossible</i> to give definitions of most concepts, words, and phrases.  We don?t have time, or the conceptual resources, to explore these criticisms.  And even if those philosophers are right, they will, most of them, still acknowledge that in philosophy we should do <i>something</i> <i>like</i> give definitions of important philosophical concepts.  So for our purposes, in just getting introduced to philosophy, it will do just fine.  So a definition is, to put it very briefly, a description of the intension of a word.  When you have stated the intension of a word, you have defined it.
41c41
< Suppose you wanted to give a definition of <i>causality</i>, or <i>causation</i>.  You want to know what it means to say that the white ball <i>causes</i> the eight ball to roll into pocket, or that heat <i>causes</i> water to boil, or that the moon’s gravity <i>causes</i> the earth’s tides, or that a hard blow to the arm <i>causes</i> a bruise.  What does all this talk of "causes" mean?  You have some rough idea of the <i>extension</i> of the term "causality": namely, you’re familiar with all sorts of particular cause-and-effect relations.  I just listed a bunch for you.  The set of all those particular cause-and-effect relations is the extension of the term "causality."  But what properties do all these particular cause-and-effect relations have in common?  We say heat causes boiling, and punching causes bruising; so what do these two relations have in common, that we can both call them <i>causal</i> relations?
---
> Suppose you wanted to give a definition of <i>causality</i>, or <i>causation</i>.  You want to know what it means to say that the white ball <i>causes</i> the eight ball to roll into pocket, or that heat <i>causes</i> water to boil, or that the moon?s gravity <i>causes</i> the earth?s tides, or that a hard blow to the arm <i>causes</i> a bruise.  What does all this talk of "causes" mean?  You have some rough idea of the <i>extension</i> of the term "causality": namely, you?re familiar with all sorts of particular cause-and-effect relations.  I just listed a bunch for you.  The set of all those particular cause-and-effect relations is the extension of the term "causality."  But what properties do all these particular cause-and-effect relations have in common?  We say heat causes boiling, and punching causes bruising; so what do these two relations have in common, that we can both call them <i>causal</i> relations?
45c45
< Well, here’s an answer: causality is a <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>relationship</i>, or simply <i>relation</i> for short.  We do, after all, speak of causal <i>relations</i> between things.  The causality relation is the relation that holds between what we call a "cause" and what we call an "effect."  So causality is a relationship, a relation, just as (to take another example) similarity is a relation.  You know, suppose we say Jack and Jill are similar in appearance; then we say there is a certain relationship, the relation of <i>similarity</i> between them.  So similarity is one kind of relation; and causality is another kind of relation.
---
> Well, here?s an answer: causality is a <i>kind</i> <i>of</i> <i>relationship</i>, or simply <i>relation</i> for short.  We do, after all, speak of causal <i>relations</i> between things.  The causality relation is the relation that holds between what we call a "cause" and what we call an "effect."  So causality is a relationship, a relation, just as (to take another example) similarity is a relation.  You know, suppose we say Jack and Jill are similar in appearance; then we say there is a certain relationship, the relation of <i>similarity</i> between them.  So similarity is one kind of relation; and causality is another kind of relation.
51c51
< This can be clarified with another hackneyed example.  Suppose we wanted to define the phrase "human being."  Following the Greeks we say that human beings are members of a <i>species</i>.  So we ask what the genus, or general category, of the species is; and the Greeks (but not us -- go with it for now) would say that the genus is <i>animal</i>.  So the genus is animal and the species is human being.  Now we ask: what are the <i>differentia</i> of the species, that is, the distinguishing characteristics, that is, the properties that human beings have, that other animals don’t have?  Well, the Greeks said, it’s <i>rationality</i>.  The things that humans have that other animals don’t is <i>rationality</i>.  So rationality is the differentia of the human species, according to the Greeks; and so an old Greek like Aristotle would be prone to say, "Man is the rational animal."  And he meant to be giving a <i>definition</i> of "man," or of "human being."
---
> This can be clarified with another hackneyed example.  Suppose we wanted to define the phrase "human being."  Following the Greeks we say that human beings are members of a <i>species</i>.  So we ask what the genus, or general category, of the species is; and the Greeks (but not us -- go with it for now) would say that the genus is <i>animal</i>.  So the genus is animal and the species is human being.  Now we ask: what are the <i>differentia</i> of the species, that is, the distinguishing characteristics, that is, the properties that human beings have, that other animals don?t have?  Well, the Greeks said, it?s <i>rationality</i>.  The things that humans have that other animals don?t is <i>rationality</i>.  So rationality is the differentia of the human species, according to the Greeks; and so an old Greek like Aristotle would be prone to say, "Man is the rational animal."  And he meant to be giving a <i>definition</i> of "man," or of "human being."
53c53
< So if we’re looking for a definition of a philosophical concept like causality, we might begin like this: "Causality is a relation that ... ."  The question then is what goes after the "that."  Now, so as not to let you die of suspense, I’ll just give you an example of a definition of causality; it may not be a good definition, in fact I’m sure it isn’t.  But it’s a plausible attempt.  So here it is:
---
> So if we?re looking for a definition of a philosophical concept like causality, we might begin like this: "Causality is a relation that ... ."  The question then is what goes after the "that."  Now, so as not to let you die of suspense, I?ll just give you an example of a definition of causality; it may not be a good definition, in fact I?m sure it isn?t.  But it?s a plausible attempt.  So here it is:
57c57
< So when we say there’s a causal relation between heat and water boiling, we say: the heating came before the boiling; and whenever water is heated sufficiently, then it boils, so that sufficient heating is always, or consistently, followed by boiling.  So we can say that causality has a rather complex differentia: it’s a relation that holds between events; moreover, the first event precedes the second; and finally, events like the first are consistently followed by events like the second.  So, according to this definition, those three rather complex properties together make up the differentia of the species causality.
---
> So when we say there?s a causal relation between heat and water boiling, we say: the heating came before the boiling; and whenever water is heated sufficiently, then it boils, so that sufficient heating is always, or consistently, followed by boiling.  So we can say that causality has a rather complex differentia: it?s a relation that holds between events; moreover, the first event precedes the second; and finally, events like the first are consistently followed by events like the second.  So, according to this definition, those three rather complex properties together make up the differentia of the species causality.
59c59
< This is, in fact, a rather crude attempt at a definition of "causality."  But it should give you an example of the <i>sort</i> of thing that we’re looking for in a definition of a philosophical concept.  The whole point of going into all this stuff about causality is to give you an example about how you might formulate an intensional definition of a philosophical concept.
---
> This is, in fact, a rather crude attempt at a definition of "causality."  But it should give you an example of the <i>sort</i> of thing that we?re looking for in a definition of a philosophical concept.  The whole point of going into all this stuff about causality is to give you an example about how you might formulate an intensional definition of a philosophical concept.
63c63
< First, a definition is no good if it simply gives a one-word synonym.  For example, suppose I define the word "virtue" -- an important word in ethics -- just using the word "excellence."  It might be perfectly true that all virtues are excellences and all excellences are virtues, but the word "excellence" by itself is <i>not</i> a good definition of "virtue," in philosophy.  If this isn’t just obvious to you, consider this.  Suppose you are asking me for enlightenment on what virtue is; you know how the word "virtue" is used in English, but you don’t really understand the basic nature of virtue.  Then I tell you: "virtue" means "excellence."  Now what is stopping you from asking, "But what does ‘excellence’ mean?"  Surely, if you’ve got a basic philosophical confusion about what "virtue" means, then you’ve <i>also</i> got a basic philosophical confusion about what "excellence" means.  If you’re confused about one then you’re confused about the other; so it won’t do to define one simply by stating the other!
---
> First, a definition is no good if it simply gives a one-word synonym.  For example, suppose I define the word "virtue" -- an important word in ethics -- just using the word "excellence."  It might be perfectly true that all virtues are excellences and all excellences are virtues, but the word "excellence" by itself is <i>not</i> a good definition of "virtue," in philosophy.  If this isn?t just obvious to you, consider this.  Suppose you are asking me for enlightenment on what virtue is; you know how the word "virtue" is used in English, but you don?t really understand the basic nature of virtue.  Then I tell you: "virtue" means "excellence."  Now what is stopping you from asking, "But what does ?excellence? mean?"  Surely, if you?ve got a basic philosophical confusion about what "virtue" means, then you?ve <i>also</i> got a basic philosophical confusion about what "excellence" means.  If you?re confused about one then you?re confused about the other; so it won?t do to define one simply by stating the other!
65c65
< The second sort of error is closely related to the first.  A definition is no good in philosophy if it uses a very near synonym in the definition.  For example, suppose I define "beautiful" as "possessing aesthetic value."  The words "beautiful" and "aesthetic" are very nearly the same in meaning; so if I’m deeply confused, or curious, about beauty, then I am of course going to be confused or curious about the aesthetic.  And it is totally unenlightening to be told that what is beautiful possesses aesthetic value.  We already knew <i>that</i>.  The question is what general characteristics are possessed by all beautiful objects, or all objects that have aesthetic value.  Here’s another example: suppose I define "good" as "possessing valuable characteristics."  "Good" and "valuable" are near synonyms, so it won’t do to define "good" using the term "valuable."  Again, if we’re confused about goodness, we are no doubt also confused about what’s valuable -- about <i>what</i> <i>characteristics</i> <i>are</i> in general valuable.
---
> The second sort of error is closely related to the first.  A definition is no good in philosophy if it uses a very near synonym in the definition.  For example, suppose I define "beautiful" as "possessing aesthetic value."  The words "beautiful" and "aesthetic" are very nearly the same in meaning; so if I?m deeply confused, or curious, about beauty, then I am of course going to be confused or curious about the aesthetic.  And it is totally unenlightening to be told that what is beautiful possesses aesthetic value.  We already knew <i>that</i>.  The question is what general characteristics are possessed by all beautiful objects, or all objects that have aesthetic value.  Here?s another example: suppose I define "good" as "possessing valuable characteristics."  "Good" and "valuable" are near synonyms, so it won?t do to define "good" using the term "valuable."  Again, if we?re confused about goodness, we are no doubt also confused about what?s valuable -- about <i>what</i> <i>characteristics</i> <i>are</i> in general valuable.
67c67
< There is a general name for the first two sorts of error: in either case we may say that the definition offered is <i>circular</i>.  A circular definition is somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about.  I think you can already see, then, that giving a good definition of philosophical terms is going to be very difficult, if we’re going to avoid giving a <i>circular</i> definition.
---
> There is a general name for the first two sorts of error: in either case we may say that the definition offered is <i>circular</i>.  A circular definition is somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about.  I think you can already see, then, that giving a good definition of philosophical terms is going to be very difficult, if we?re going to avoid giving a <i>circular</i> definition.
69c69
< Anyway, on to the third sort of error that definitions are prone to.  They can be <i>too</i> <i>broad</i>.  Suppose I define "bachelor" as "unmarried male."  On first glance this might look all right, but it applies to a lot of <i>other</i> things besides bachelors: for example, male dogs, and male babies.  Those are unmarried males but they aren’t bachelors.  So definitions should not be too broad, and a definition is too broad if (and you can treat this as a definition of the words "too broad") it applies to things that are not part of the extension of the word defined.
---
> Anyway, on to the third sort of error that definitions are prone to.  They can be <i>too</i> <i>broad</i>.  Suppose I define "bachelor" as "unmarried male."  On first glance this might look all right, but it applies to a lot of <i>other</i> things besides bachelors: for example, male dogs, and male babies.  Those are unmarried males but they aren?t bachelors.  So definitions should not be too broad, and a definition is too broad if (and you can treat this as a definition of the words "too broad") it applies to things that are not part of the extension of the word defined.
71c71
< The fourth sort of error is complementary to the third: they can be <i>too</i> <i>narrow</i>.  That is, they can <i>exclude</i> some things that they <i>should</i> apply to.  In other words, they don’t describe some members of the word’s extension.  Here’s an example of a narrow definition: "piece of furniture" means "object that is used to sit on."  The trouble with this definition is that some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for exaple, we put objects on them (like tables) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth.  So even though <i>some</i> pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not <i>all</i> furniture is used to sit on.  We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like "used to put feet up on" or "used to put household objects on," for example.  That would make the extension of the definition bigger -- that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word "furniture" to describe.
---
> The fourth sort of error is complementary to the third: they can be <i>too</i> <i>narrow</i>.  That is, they can <i>exclude</i> some things that they <i>should</i> apply to.  In other words, they don?t describe some members of the word?s extension.  Here?s an example of a narrow definition: "piece of furniture" means "object that is used to sit on."  The trouble with this definition is that some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for exaple, we put objects on them (like tables) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth.  So even though <i>some</i> pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not <i>all</i> furniture is used to sit on.  We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like "used to put feet up on" or "used to put household objects on," for example.  That would make the extension of the definition bigger -- that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word "furniture" to describe.
73c73
< Let me give you examples of definitions that are too broad, and too narrow, in <i>philosophy</i>.  Suppose I defined "causality" as "relation where one thing precedes another thing."  This is way too broad.  All sorts of things precede other things without causing them.  For example, the sinking of the Titanic preceded the Vietnam War, but the sinking of the Titanic certainly did not cause the Vietnam War.  So "relation where one thing precedes another thing" applies to all sorts of relations that aren’t <i>causal</i> relations.
---
> Let me give you examples of definitions that are too broad, and too narrow, in <i>philosophy</i>.  Suppose I defined "causality" as "relation where one thing precedes another thing."  This is way too broad.  All sorts of things precede other things without causing them.  For example, the sinking of the Titanic preceded the Vietnam War, but the sinking of the Titanic certainly did not cause the Vietnam War.  So "relation where one thing precedes another thing" applies to all sorts of relations that aren?t <i>causal</i> relations.
75c75
< Now here’s a philosophical definition that is too <i>narrow</i>.  "Right action" means "telling the truth."  Surely, telling the truth is almost always right.  But right actions very often don’t involve telling the truth at all.  For example, it is right for me to pay back my debts; but when I do this I am not telling the truth; I can pay back debts, and so do something right, without saying anything at all.  So a definition of "right action" as "telling the truth" is way too narrow; the definition is going to have to include a lot more than just truth-telling.
---
> Now here?s a philosophical definition that is too <i>narrow</i>.  "Right action" means "telling the truth."  Surely, telling the truth is almost always right.  But right actions very often don?t involve telling the truth at all.  For example, it is right for me to pay back my debts; but when I do this I am not telling the truth; I can pay back debts, and so do something right, without saying anything at all.  So a definition of "right action" as "telling the truth" is way too narrow; the definition is going to have to include a lot more than just truth-telling.
77c77
< That brings us to the fifth and final way definitions can go wrong: they can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.  Suppose I defined "love" as "the insensible quivering of the soul."  This is absolute nonsense, and totally useless as a definition in philosophy, however nice it might be in poetry (although I doubt it).  Given a definition like this one has the right to ask: but <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the insensible quivering of the soul?  How would I recognize it?  Is my soul insensibly quivering right now?  And so on.  I’m sure you get the idea.  Definitions should be stated in plain, straightforward language that can be understood by the people to whom you’re giving the definition.
---
> That brings us to the fifth and final way definitions can go wrong: they can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.  Suppose I defined "love" as "the insensible quivering of the soul."  This is absolute nonsense, and totally useless as a definition in philosophy, however nice it might be in poetry (although I doubt it).  Given a definition like this one has the right to ask: but <i>what</i> <i>is</i> the insensible quivering of the soul?  How would I recognize it?  Is my soul insensibly quivering right now?  And so on.  I?m sure you get the idea.  Definitions should be stated in plain, straightforward language that can be understood by the people to whom you?re giving the definition.
------
TraditionalAnarchism|982352363
9c9,10
< A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply that there is only a superficial similarity between the power hierarchies of and supporting corporations, on the one hand, and the layered division of labour in cooperatives, on the other.  The State is created when private property is legitimized.  By contrast, cooperatives, credit unions, and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of communal control and anarchists maintain that they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations.  If one compares both organizations using the items on the PsychopathyChecklist as a guide then, an anarchist might hold, it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while corporations can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another.  As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility".  Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about.  In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.
---
> A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE.  Anarchists reply that there is only a superficial similarity between the power hierarchies of and supporting corporations, on the one hand, and the layered division of labour in cooperatives, on the other.  The State is created when private property is legitimized.  By contrast, cooperatives, credit unions, and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of communal control and anarchists maintain that they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations.  Anarchists argue
> that co-operatives behave in a more humane, warm, feeling and stable manner, while corporations use workers for their own ends.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982352540
1c1,8
< Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
> "criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.
> 
> I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.
> 
>  -- JimboWales
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Questions|982353384
18c18,22
< Then he is not an AnarchoCapitalist. AnarchoCapitalism is based on formal rules and absolute property rights. Humans are treated as objects and the "marketplace" rules supreme. Anarchism is not based on formal rules but on democratic control. It is not possible under anarchism for a person to surrender, transfer or sell their rights. If working in a cooperative gains you the right to participate politically (eg, by voting) then this right is inalienable (ie, non-transferable). Under anarcho-capitalism, everything is mere property and not a right at all so it is possible for you to (be forced to) sell all of your property away (eg, in order to avoid starvation). This leads only to totalitarianism.
---
> Then he is not an AnarchoCapitalist. 
> 
> ''As far as I know, he is '''the''' AnarchoCapitalist.''
> 
> AnarchoCapitalism is based on formal rules and absolute property rights. Humans are treated as objects and the "marketplace" rules supreme. Anarchism is not based on formal rules but on democratic control. It is not possible under anarchism for a person to surrender, transfer or sell their rights. If working in a cooperative gains you the right to participate politically (eg, by voting) then this right is inalienable (ie, non-transferable). Under anarcho-capitalism, everything is mere property and not a right at all so it is possible for you to (be forced to) sell all of your property away (eg, in order to avoid starvation). This leads only to totalitarianism.
38a43,44
> 
> You have expressed yourself very well.  I've just decided that you don't know anything at all about AnarchoCapitalism.  :-)
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982355229
8c8,12
<  -- JimboWales
---
>  -- JimboWales
> 
> This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter. Tell me if you change your mind but under the present circumstances I don't see the point to contributing.
> 
> Tim was spreading outright lies on a topic he knows very little or nothing about; the situations are not comparable. The same applies to TraditionalAnarchism where I introduced facts that become obvious to most people once they are pointed out and also to DemocracY where I pointed out the actions of the typical anti-democrat. (Yes, authoritarians have valid arguments with respect to racism and whatnot but since they never raise these issues, one cannot credit them with selfless motives.) Finally, Tim suppressed alternative points of view while I did not. Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. -- RichardKulisz
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982358074
10c10
< This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter. Tell me if you change your mind but under the present circumstances I don't see the point to contributing.
---
> This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.
12c12,28
< Tim was spreading outright lies on a topic he knows very little or nothing about; the situations are not comparable. The same applies to TraditionalAnarchism where I introduced facts that become obvious to most people once they are pointed out and also to DemocracY where I pointed out the actions of the typical anti-democrat. (Yes, authoritarians have valid arguments with respect to racism and whatnot but since they never raise these issues, one cannot credit them with selfless motives.) Finally, Tim suppressed alternative points of view while I did not. Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. -- RichardKulisz
---
> ''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''
> 
> Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 
> 
> ''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''
> 
> Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.
> 
> ''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''
> 
> Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 
> 
> ''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''
> 
> ''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''
> 
> ''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''
------
BallroomDance|982358222
13,17c13,17
< * Waltz
< * Viennese Waltz
< * Tango
< * Foxtrot
< * Quickstep
---
> * InternationalWaltz
> * InternationalVienneseWaltz
> * InternationalTango
> * InternationalFoxtrot
> * InternationalQuickstep
------
BallroomDance|982358280
13c13
< * InternationalWaltz
---
> * WaltZ
------
NeutralPointOfView|982358834
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view.  To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance '''other than''' the stance of the neutral point of view.
> 
> The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree.  Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view.  We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.
> 
> Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.  
> 
> 1.  An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so.  It should instead present the fact that _some people_ believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
> 
> 2.  An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system.  (I happen to believe this, by the way.)  It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.
> 
> Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_.  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.  What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present _that_ quite easily from the neutral point of view.
------
NeutralPointOfView|982358895
1d0
< 
12c11
< Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_.  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.  What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present _that_ quite easily from the neutral point of view.
---
> Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_.  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.  What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present _that_ quite easily from the neutral point of view.  --JimboWales
------
WaltZ|982359098
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> Waltz is danced to music with three beats to a measure.  VienneseWaltz is very similar to normal Waltz, but is specialized for a fast tempo.
> 
> InternationalStandardWaltz has only closed figures; that is, the
> couple never leaves DancePosition.  Contrast AmericanStyleWaltz,
> in which some figures involve breaking contact entirely.  For example,
> the (? what's this figure called?) includes a free spin for both the
> man and lady.  Open rolls are another good example of an OpenDanceFigure, in which the lady alternates between the man's left and right sides, with the man's left or right arm (alone) providing the lead.
> 
> A typical Waltz figure (from the man's perspective) starts lowered into the knees and travelling forward with a strong heel lead.  Count 2 rises and is taken on the ball of the foot, and count 3 starts on the ball of the foot and lowers to the heel as the couple begins to lower in preparation for the next measure.  A smooth rise-and-fall action is a primary characteristic of this dance.
> 
> 
------
DemocracY|982359214
4a5,6
> At least some arguments against democracy amount more to a complaint that the outcome of democracy is different from what the critic desired.  Support for democracy may, then, sometimes not be support for the principle or theory of democracy, but rahther a hopeful confidence that democracy will yield the kind of society that the supporter hopes for on independent grounds.
> 
7c9
< /Talk
---
> /Talk
------
DemocracY|982359251
5c5
< At least some arguments against democracy amount more to a complaint that the outcome of democracy is different from what the critic desired.  Support for democracy may, then, sometimes not be support for the principle or theory of democracy, but rahther a hopeful confidence that democracy will yield the kind of society that the supporter hopes for on independent grounds.
---
> At least some arguments against democracy amount more to a complaint that the outcome of democracy is different from what the critic desired.  Support for democracy may, then, sometimes not be support for the principle or theory of democracy, but rather a hopeful confidence that democracy will yield the kind of society that the supporter hopes for on independent grounds.
------
NeutralPointOfView|982359510
11a12,13
> ----
> Of course, I agree.  For more in the same vein, see [http://www.nupedia.com/policy.shtml#III Nupedia's policy statement], Part III, Section D ("Lack of Bias"). -- LarrySanger
------
RulesToConsider|982359604
25c25
< '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.
---
> '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.  See the NeutralPointOfView page for elaboration.
------
DelawarE|982359658
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A state made famous by the movie WaynesWorld.
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982359709
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> I would support this rule if it said "on a */Talk page instead of within the text," instead of "at the bottom of a page instead of within the text." -- LarrySanger
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982360212
1c1
< I would support this rule if it said "on a */Talk page instead of within the text," instead of "at the bottom of a page instead of within the text." -- LarrySanger
---
> Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all.  Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki.  With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game.  Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ).  Let me give you some examples.  If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong ''factually''--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right.  On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language.  All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission.  It's better that way simply because it's more efficient.  This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger (violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)
------
FriedrichNietzsche|982360759
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a famous and influential German philosopher.
> 
> Nietzsche is famous as a precursor of existentialism; his rejection of what he calls "slave morality" or altruism; his embrace of a sort of irrationalism; and something he called TheWillToPower.
------
FriedrichNietzsche|982360839
3c3
< Nietzsche is famous as a precursor of existentialism; his rejection of what he calls "slave morality" or altruism; his embrace of a sort of irrationalism; and something he called TheWillToPower.
---
> Nietzsche is famous as a precursor of existentialism; his rejection of what he calls "slave morality" or altruism; his vigorous attacks on Christianity; his embrace of a sort of irrationalism; and something he called TheWillToPower.
------
CognitiveTherapy|982362401
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Cognitive therapy'' is a kind of psychotherapy used to treat depression among other mental disorders.  Its practitioners hold that the cause of many (though not all) depressions are irrational thoughts; with thoughts stipulated as the cause of emotions rather than vice-versa, cognitive therapists reverse the causal order more generally accepted by psychotherapists.  The therapy is essentially, therefore, to identify those irrational thoughts that are making one unhappy, and identify what it is about them that are irrational, in an effort to reject them and replace them with more accurate, but also more cheering thoughts.  This is a more sophisticated development of the method--annoying to cynics and pessimists everywhere--demonstrated by Hayley Mills in the movie ''Pollyanna'' and JamesStewart in the movie ''Harvey'' and millions of optimists who enjoin us to "think happy thoughts."
> 
> While the cognitive therapist view of emotion has existed for millennia, cognitive therapy was developed in its present form by Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck in the 1950s and '60s.
> 
> Thereafter cognitive therapy was popularized by the self-help book ''Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy'' (Revised edition; New York, 1999: Avon Books) by David D. Burns.  Burns reports (in his Introduction) that, according to a 1994 study, this book is the most-recommended by U.S. psychotherapists.  Burns also reports about a study in which two groups of moderately depressed patients were given ''Feeling Good'' to read at different times (one served as a control group for the other); after three months, 75% of the first group and 73% of the second no longer qualified as depressed, and after three years, 72% still were not depressed.
------
CognitiveTherapy|982362613
1c1
< ''Cognitive therapy'' is a kind of psychotherapy used to treat depression among other mental disorders.  Its practitioners hold that the cause of many (though not all) depressions are irrational thoughts; with thoughts stipulated as the cause of emotions rather than vice-versa, cognitive therapists reverse the causal order more generally accepted by psychotherapists.  The therapy is essentially, therefore, to identify those irrational thoughts that are making one unhappy, and identify what it is about them that are irrational, in an effort to reject them and replace them with more accurate, but also more cheering thoughts.  This is a more sophisticated development of the method--annoying to cynics and pessimists everywhere--demonstrated by Hayley Mills in the movie ''Pollyanna'' and JamesStewart in the movie ''Harvey'' and millions of optimists who enjoin us to "think happy thoughts."
---
> ''Cognitive therapy'' is a kind of psychotherapy used to treat depression among other mental disorders.  Its practitioners hold that the cause of many (though not all) depressions are irrational thoughts; with thoughts stipulated as the cause of emotions rather than vice-versa, cognitive therapists reverse the causal order more generally accepted by psychotherapists.  The therapy is essentially, therefore, to identify those irrational thoughts that are making one unhappy and what it is about them that is irrational; this is done in an effort to reject the depressing thoughts and replace them with more accurate, but also more cheering thoughts.  This is a more sophisticated development of the method--annoying to cynics and pessimists everywhere--demonstrated by Hayley Mills in the movie ''Pollyanna'' and JamesStewart in the movie ''Harvey'' and millions of optimists who enjoin us to "think happy thoughts."
------
BinomialDistribution|982364155
7c7,10
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]----
> First q=1-p, but more important your formula the probabilty of X heads out of N trials is WRONG.
> See BinomialDistributuin/Revisited
> RoseParks
------
RequestedArticles|982364816
3c3
< FriedrichNietzsche -- CognitiveTherapy -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers  --LinearAlgebra
---
> HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature
------
BinomialDistributuin/Revisited|982365583
1c1,48
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ''binomial distribution function'' provides the probability that X success will occur in N trials of a ''binomial experiment''. 
> 
> 
> A ''binomial experiment'' has the following properties.
> 
> 
> *1).  It consists of a sequence of N individual trials.
> *2). Two outcomes are possible for each trail, success or failure.
> *3). The probability of success on any trial, denoted p does not vary from trail to trial.
> *4). The trials are independent.
> 
> One common example of a binomial experiment is a sequence of N tosses of a coin.
>  Here:
> 
> 
> *1). This is clearly an experiment that consists of a sequence of N trials.
> *2). There are only two outcomes, Heads and Tails, Let call Heads a success and Tails a failure.
> *3). The probability of success on any one trail, denoted p, here ½, does not vary from trial to trial.
> *4). The trails are independent – The success of the third trial, say, does not depend on the success of the 2nd trial, etc.
> 
> 
> To find the binomial distribution function of X successes in N trials, denoted f(X),
> we let p denote the probability of success on any one trial. Then the probability of failure on any one trial is q=1-p.  Then the probability of any particular sequence of X success (heads) out of N trials (tosses) is p^X*q^(N-X). But, there are a variety of sequences of tosses that will result in X successes out of N trials. Then, using the formula for the number of ways of obtaining X successes out of N trials, we find that the number of ways of picking X objects out of N objects that there are
> *         (N!/(X!*(N-X)!) ways, where '''N'''!=N factorial.
> 
> *          We will denote (N!/(X!*(X-N)!) by:
> 
> 
> *                                     (N) 
> *                                     (X).    (apologies…for symbolism)
> 
> 
> Then the probability of N successes out of N trials is given by the FunctioN:
> 
> 
>        F(X)=  (N) *  p^X*q^(N-X) = (N) * p^X*(1-p)^(N-X)                                    
>               (X)                  (X)
> 
> 
> For example, consider the experiment of tossing a die with the usual 6 sides. Suppose we want to know the probability of getting three  "1"s in 5 tosses.
> Then p=1/5. So q=4/5.
> 
> 
> Then, using the function of the binomial distribution function for 3 successes out of 5 trials we get the probability of this occurring as:
> 
> *   F(2)= (5!/(3!*2!)) * (1/5)^3 * (4/5)^2=(5*2)* (1/125)*(16/25)=(10)* (16/3023)          *                         =160/3125=.0512
> 
> 
------
WaltZ|982365646
1d0
< 
11a11
> ----
12a13
> "Waltz" is also the name for the kind of music to which one dances the waltz.  In this sense, there are waltzes in nearly every kind of European and American folk music as well as in classical or "art" music.  Many songs, too, are "in waltz time."  The music is written out in 3/4 time and typically played at a rather slow tempo (but see above).
------
BinomialDistribution|982365719
9c9
< See BinomialDistributuin/Revisited
---
> See BinomialDistribution/Revisited
------
BinomialDistribution/Revisited|982365951
1c1,46
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The ''binomial distribution function'' provides the probability that X success will occur in N trials of a ''binomial experiment''. 
> 
> 
> A ''binomial experiment'' has the following properties.
> 
> 
> *1).  It consists of a sequence of N individual trials.
> *2). Two outcomes are possible for each trail, success or failure.
> *3). The probability of success on any trial, denoted p does not vary from trail to trial.
> *4). The trials are independent.
> 
> One common example of a binomial experiment is a sequence of N tosses of a coin.
>  Here:
> 
> 
> *1). This is clearly an experiment that consists of a sequence of N trials.
> *2). There are only two outcomes, Heads and Tails, Let call Heads a success and Tails a failure.
> *3). The probability of success on any one trail, denoted p, here ½, does not vary from trial to trial.
> *4). The trails are independent – The success of the third trial, say, does not depend on the success of the 2nd trial, etc.
> 
> 
> To find the binomial distribution function of X successes in N trials, denoted f(X),
> we let p denote the probability of success on any one trial. Then the probability of failure on any one trial is q=1-p.  Then the probability of any particular sequence of X success (heads) out of N trials (tosses) is p^X*q^(N-X). But, there are a variety of sequences of tosses that will result in X successes out of N trials. Then, using the formula for the number of ways of obtaining X successes out of N trials, we find that the number of ways of picking X objects out of N objects that there are
> *         (N!/(X!*(N-X)!) ways, where '''N'''!=N factorial.
> 
> *          We will denote (N!/(X!*(X-N)!) by:
> 
> 
> *                                     (N) 
> *                                     (X).    (apologies…for symbolism)
> 
> 
> Then the probability of N successes out of N trials is given by the FunctioN:
> 
> 
>        F(X)=  (N) *  p^X*q^(N-X) = (N) * p^X*(1-p)^(N-X)                                    
>               (X)                  (X)
> 
> 
> For example, consider the experiment of tossing a die with the usual 6 sides. Suppose we want to know the probability of getting three  "1"s in 5 tosses.
> Then p=1/5. So q=4/5.
> 
> 
> Then, using the function of the binomial distribution function for 3 successes out of 5 trials we get the probability of this occurring as:
> 
> *   F(2)= (5!/(3!*2!)) * (1/5)^3 * (4/5)^2=(5*2)* (1/125)*(16/25)=(10)* (16/3023)          *                         =160/3125=.0512
------
BinomialDistributuin/Revisited|982365973
1,46d0
< The ''binomial distribution function'' provides the probability that X success will occur in N trials of a ''binomial experiment''. 
< 
< 
< A ''binomial experiment'' has the following properties.
< 
< 
< *1).  It consists of a sequence of N individual trials.
< *2). Two outcomes are possible for each trail, success or failure.
< *3). The probability of success on any trial, denoted p does not vary from trail to trial.
< *4). The trials are independent.
< 
< One common example of a binomial experiment is a sequence of N tosses of a coin.
<  Here:
< 
< 
< *1). This is clearly an experiment that consists of a sequence of N trials.
< *2). There are only two outcomes, Heads and Tails, Let call Heads a success and Tails a failure.
< *3). The probability of success on any one trail, denoted p, here ½, does not vary from trial to trial.
< *4). The trails are independent – The success of the third trial, say, does not depend on the success of the 2nd trial, etc.
< 
< 
< To find the binomial distribution function of X successes in N trials, denoted f(X),
< we let p denote the probability of success on any one trial. Then the probability of failure on any one trial is q=1-p.  Then the probability of any particular sequence of X success (heads) out of N trials (tosses) is p^X*q^(N-X). But, there are a variety of sequences of tosses that will result in X successes out of N trials. Then, using the formula for the number of ways of obtaining X successes out of N trials, we find that the number of ways of picking X objects out of N objects that there are
< *         (N!/(X!*(N-X)!) ways, where '''N'''!=N factorial.
< 
< *          We will denote (N!/(X!*(X-N)!) by:
< 
< 
< *                                     (N) 
< *                                     (X).    (apologies…for symbolism)
< 
< 
< Then the probability of N successes out of N trials is given by the FunctioN:
< 
< 
<        F(X)=  (N) *  p^X*q^(N-X) = (N) * p^X*(1-p)^(N-X)                                    
<               (X)                  (X)
< 
< 
< For example, consider the experiment of tossing a die with the usual 6 sides. Suppose we want to know the probability of getting three  "1"s in 5 tosses.
< Then p=1/5. So q=4/5.
< 
< 
< Then, using the function of the binomial distribution function for 3 successes out of 5 trials we get the probability of this occurring as:
< 
< *   F(2)= (5!/(3!*2!)) * (1/5)^3 * (4/5)^2=(5*2)* (1/125)*(16/25)=(10)* (16/3023)          *                         =160/3125=.0512
------
PainTing|982365987
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Painting Periods
> Painting Techniques
> Painters
> 
------
BinomialDistributuin/Revisited|982366053
1,2c1
< 
< 
---
> Please see BinomialDistribution/Revisited
------
BinomialDistributuin/Revisited|982366104
1c1
< Please see BinomialDistribution/Revisited
---
> 
------
MathematicalGrouP|982366219
25a26,28
> Basic examples of Groups
> 
> +Signed integers
34d36
< 
36a39
> 3)	0 is an integer and for any integer a, a+0=a.    (Z,+) has an identity element.
38c41
< 3)	0 is an integer and for any integer a, a+0=a.
---
> 4)	If a is an integer, then there is an integer b= (-a), such that a+b=0.   Every element of (Z,+) has an inverse.
41c44,45
<        (Z,+) has an identity element.
---
> +Group of geometric transformations of the plane.
> An important source of groups are geometric transformations of various objects in various spaces. As a simple example, let's take the set of all translations (moves) on the plane. The operation is the composition, noted here o (the composition of two operations consists in applying the two transformations one after the other)
42a47
> 1)	If a and b are translations of vectors A and B, then a o b is also a translation of vector A+B
44c49
< 4)	If a is an integer, then there is an integer b= (-a), such that a+b=0.
---
> 2)	Composition of translations is associative as is the additions of vectors. A+(B+C) = (A+B)+C.
45a51
> 3)	The identity element for this group is the translation of vector zero.
47c53
<         Every element of (Z,+) has an inverse.
---
> 4)	The inverse of a translation of vector A is the translation along the opposite vector (same length and direction, reversed orientation).
48a55
> One can build more generally the group of all distance-preserving transformations of a space or set of points.
------
BinomialDistribution|982366272
7a8
> To the author:
------
PainTing|982366455
1,3c1,3
< Painting Periods
< Painting Techniques
< Painters
---
> :Painting Periods
> :Painting Techniques
> :Painters
------
BallroomDance|982366504
48c48,49
< * New York Hustle
---
> * New York Hustle----
> No place for SalsaDancing ...Gee.
------
NewTopics|982366692
5c5
< PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps -- ActorS -- ActresseS --
---
> PhiloSophy -- MuSic -- FootBall -- TheBible -- TheKoran -- IrishTraditionalMusic --RoseParks -- ThomasReid -- NupediaWikiFaq -- WikiWatcher -- WikiPedians -- MathematicalGrouP -- GoD -- BokoNonism -- MappinG  -- ErnestHemingway -- AxiomOfChoice -- WolfgangAmadeusMozart -- PoliticalSpectrum -- JapanConstitution -- CambodianLanguage -- AndorrA -- AnnaKournikova -- TestThreePhasePumps -- ActorS -- ActresseS --CorinneLightweaver
------
CorinneLightweaver|982366734
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Corinne Lightweaver is an artist, writer, and arts editor.
------
UralicLanguages|982366803
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Uralic languages or finno-ougric languages is a contrasted family of languages.
> 
> Current members in Europe include:
> 
> <ul>
> <li>Finnish (suomi)
> <li>Estonian
> <li>Mordv
> <li>Hungarian (magyar)
> <li>...
> </ul>
> 
> Features include
> 
> <ul>
> <li>Extensive use of independent suffixes
> <li>Large set of cases
> <li>Vocalic Harmony
> </ul>
> 
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982366925
1c1,2
< Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all.  Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki.  With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game.  Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ).  Let me give you some examples.  If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong ''factually''--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right.  On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language.  All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission.  It's better that way simply because it's more efficient.  This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger (violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)
---
> Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all.  Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki.  With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game.  Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ).  Let me give you some examples.  If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong ''factually''--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right.  On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language.  All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission.  It's better that way simply because it's more efficient.  This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger (violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)-----
> And who is the ultimate judge of what is overstated or biased...other than you...:-).
------
UralicLanguages|982367001
2a3,4
> It is frequently separated into Finnish-Permian and Ugric languages.
> 
5,11c7,22
< <ul>
< <li>Finnish (suomi)
< <li>Estonian
< <li>Mordv
< <li>Hungarian (magyar)
< <li>...
< </ul>
---
>   - Finnish (suomi)
> 
>   - Estonian
> 
>   - Hungarian (magyar)
> 
>   - Mordv
> 
>   - Ostiak
> 
>   - Samoyed
> 
>   - ...
> 
> 
> ---
15,19c26,31
< <ul>
< <li>Extensive use of independent suffixes
< <li>Large set of cases
< <li>Vocalic Harmony
< </ul>
---
> 
>   - Extensive use of independent suffixes
>   - Large set of cases
>   - Vocalic Harmony
> 
> 
------
UralicLanguages|982367102
7c7,13
<   - Finnish (suomi)
---
> * Finnish (suomi)
> * Estonian
> * Hungarian (magyar)
> * Mordv
> * Ostiak
> * Samoyed
> * ...
9,22c15
<   - Estonian
< 
<   - Hungarian (magyar)
< 
<   - Mordv
< 
<   - Ostiak
< 
<   - Samoyed
< 
<   - ...
< 
< 
< ---
---
> ----
26,29c19,21
< 
<   - Extensive use of independent suffixes
<   - Large set of cases
<   - Vocalic Harmony
---
> * Extensive use of independent suffixes
> * Large set of cases
> * Vocalic Harmony
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982367170
1c1,2
< Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all.  Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki.  With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game.  Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ).  Let me give you some examples.  If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong ''factually''--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right.  On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language.  All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission.  It's better that way simply because it's more efficient.  This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger (violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)-----
---
> Hmm, I guess I don't support this rule at all.  Basically, I think everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki.  With the exception of pages that are obviously personal essays (which are perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're marked as such), I think all pages are fair game.  Of course, it's very important to be polite (I'll do my best there but I ain't makin no guarantees :-) ).  Let me give you some examples.  If someone writes a page on topic T that I think pretty much gets the subject wrong ''factually''--is straightforwardly mistaken, for whatever reason--then I'll feel perfectly free to replace the page with a completely new one that gets the facts right.  On the other hand, if someone simply has overstated his case in one or two paragraphs, then I'll feel free to tone down the language.  All of these things I'll feel free to do without asking anyone's permission.  It's better that way simply because it's more efficient.  This being a wiki, the author can always change things back--but if he's reasonable, he'll probably change it part-way back, and we can achieve a nice sort of consensus. -- LarrySanger (violating his oath not to talk about the wiki process...now I'll go write an article)
> -----
2a4,5
> ----
> I guess, whoever wants to change the page.  Wiki being what it is, every person accessing can edit anything.
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982367196
5c5
< I guess, whoever wants to change the page.  Wiki being what it is, every person accessing can edit anything.
---
> I guess, anyone who wants to change the page.  Wiki being what it is, every person accessing can edit anything. --JimboWales
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982367290
5a6,7
> ----
> Have a look at NeutralPointOfView and make a Talk page there if you like.  To answer your question, each competent, honest, unimpaired, intelligent person is capable of making this judgment, and I expect there would be considerable agreement on many cases. -- LarrySanger
------
UralicLanguages|982367294
7,12c7,12
< * Finnish (suomi)
< * Estonian
< * Hungarian (magyar)
< * Mordv
< * Ostiak
< * Samoyed
---
> * FinnishLanguage (suomi)
> * EstonianLanguage
> * HungarianLanguage (magyar)
> * MordvLanguage
> * OstiakLanguage
> * SamoyedLanguage
21a22
> *...
------
UralicLanguages|982367458
1c1
< Uralic languages or finno-ougric languages is a contrasted family of languages.
---
> UralicLanguages or Finno/OugricLanguages are a contrasted family of languages.
3c3
< It is frequently separated into Finnish-Permian and Ugric languages.
---
> It is frequently separated into Finnish/Permian and UgricLanguages.
17c17
< Features include
---
> Features include:
------
CognitiveTherapy|982367549
3c3
< While the cognitive therapist view of emotion has existed for millennia, cognitive therapy was developed in its present form by Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck in the 1950s and '60s.
---
> While the cognitive therapist view of emotion has existed for millennia, cognitive therapy was developed in its present form by AlbertEllis and AaronTBeck in the 1950s and '60s.
5c5
< Thereafter cognitive therapy was popularized by the self-help book ''Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy'' (Revised edition; New York, 1999: Avon Books) by David D. Burns.  Burns reports (in his Introduction) that, according to a 1994 study, this book is the most-recommended by U.S. psychotherapists.  Burns also reports about a study in which two groups of moderately depressed patients were given ''Feeling Good'' to read at different times (one served as a control group for the other); after three months, 75% of the first group and 73% of the second no longer qualified as depressed, and after three years, 72% still were not depressed.
---
> Thereafter cognitive therapy was popularized by the self-help book ''Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy'' (Revised edition; New York, 1999: Avon Books) by DavidDBurns.  Burns reports (in his Introduction) that, according to a 1994 study, this book is the most-recommended by U.S. psychotherapists.  Burns also reports about a study in which two groups of moderately depressed patients were given ''Feeling Good'' to read at different times (one served as a control group for the other); after three months, 75% of the first group and 73% of the second no longer qualified as depressed, and after three years, 72% still were not depressed.
------
GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate|982367653
7c7,8
< Have a look at NeutralPointOfView and make a Talk page there if you like.  To answer your question, each competent, honest, unimpaired, intelligent person is capable of making this judgment, and I expect there would be considerable agreement on many cases. -- LarrySanger
---
> Have a look at NeutralPointOfView and make a Talk page there if you like.  To answer your question, each competent, honest, unimpaired, intelligent person is capable of making this judgment, and I expect there would be considerable agreement on many cases. -- LarrySanger----
> I hope we are not heading to TheReasonableMan in law, or any such norm...Ouch!
------
PaintIng|982367971
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> History of Painting
> 
> Painting Techniques
>      Acrylic Paintings
>      Frescoes
>      Murals
>      New Materials
>      Oil Paintings
>      Panel Paintings
>      Watercolor Paintings
> Painters
>      Anguissola, Sofinisba
>      Coe, Sue
>      Fontana, Lavinia
>      Gentileschi, Artemesia
>      Kahlo, Frieda
>      Soutine, Chaim
>      Witkin, Jerome
> Paintings Conservation
> 
------
MathematicalGrouP|982368189
55c55
< One can build more generally the group of all distance-preserving transformations of a space or set of points.
---
> One can build more generally the group of all distance-preserving transformations of a space or set of points. In this case, the proof of the group axioms is bit more complicated and interesting. (OpRgAg). 
------
WikiBiblion|982368259
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In addition to the articles, various texts have been entered in whole or in part into WikiPedia.  Nobody's sure yet how far we want to go with this - whether we should only include some small pages for direct referencing, or include a wikized version of Project Gutenburg.  Whatever people feel like typing in, I guess - though please don't add any copyright material.  Here's what we have in the WikiBiblion so far:
> 
> Reference texts
> * UnitedStatesConstitution
> * JapanConstitution
> * ChristianBibleGenesis - King James' version ''[very incomplete]''
> 
> Notes and commentaries
> * TimShell's notes on AtlasShrugged by AynRand
------
OpRgAg|982368322
1c1,19
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Here is the page for Olivier Gérard also known as Oprgag.
> 
> 
> First, trying a few things.
> 
> [www.seqfan.net]
> 
> 'a'
> 
> ''b''
> 
> '''c'''
> 
> ''''d''''
> 
> <b>A</b>
> <i>A</i>
> 
> <nowiki>NOWIKI</nowiki>
------
VisualArtsAndDesign|982368507
1c1,23
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Art Conservation
> 
> History of the Visual Arts
>      History of Painting (see Painting page)
>      History of Design
> 
> New Materials
>      Body Fluids
>      Plastics
> 
> New Categories (not traditional, i.e. sculpture, painting)
>      Computer-Generated Art / Digital Art
>      Found Art (Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, public relations campaign)
>      Installation Art
>      Interactive Art
>      Body Art (see also Performance Art)
>           Body as Canvas
>           Piercings
>           Tattoos
>  
> 
> 
> 
------
RequestedArticles|982368557
3c3
< HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature
---
> HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature -- BoMis (the name, of course) --
------
JapanConstitution/ChapterOne|982368592
1c1
< CHAPTER I: THE EMPORER
---
> CHAPTER I: THE EMPEROR
------
RequestedArticles|982368626
3c3
< HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature -- BoMis (the name, of course) --
---
> HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature -- BoMisName --
------
VisualArtsAndDesign|982368632
2a3,5
> Definition of Art (should go on higher level page, e.g. Art, History of Art)
>      Changing Definitions of Art
> 
------
BioChemistry|982368655
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> One should well start by something
> 
> 
> AminoAcids - MetabolicCycles - DNA/RNA - Enzymes - ProteinSynthesis - ...
> 
> 
------
BioChemistry|982368839
4c4
< AminoAcids - MetabolicCycles - DNA/RNA - Enzymes - ProteinSynthesis - ...
---
> AminoAcids - MetabolicCycles - NucleicAcids (DNA,RNA) - EnZymes - ProteinSynthesis - ...
------
RequestedArticles|982368956
3c3,8
< HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- RussianLiterature -- BoMisName --
---
> HistoryOfTimepieces -- USInternalRevenueService -- TheConceptOfEvil -- HistoryOfCalendarSystems -- ChugachMountains -- 
> HistoryOfWiki -- HobbitS -- FrodoBaggins -- HistoryOfScienceAndTechnology -- CriticalTheory -- AnomalousPhenomena -- 
> GhostS -- JesusChrist -- SataN -- ZoroAster -- ZorrO -- CatholicIsm -- IsmS -- InternalCombustionEngine -- 
> HistoryOfChina -- HistoryOfJapan -- HistoryOfIndia -- HistoryOfEgypt -- HistoryOfIslam -- XenoPhon -- MoDel -- 
> ModelTheory -- ComplexNumbers -- LinearAlgebra -- CasinO -- GamblinG -- GamblersFallacy -- PsychoTherapy -- StendhaL -- 
> RussianLiterature -- BoMisName --
------
MathematicalGrouP|982369958
28c28
< +Signed integers
---
> *Signed integers
44c44
< +Group of geometric transformations of the plane.
---
> *Group of geometric transformations of the plane.
55c55
< One can build more generally the group of all distance-preserving transformations of a space or set of points. In this case, the proof of the group axioms is bit more complicated and interesting. (OpRgAg). 
---
> One can build more generally the group of all distance-preserving transformations of a space or of a set of points in a space. In this case, the proof of the group axioms is a bit more interesting. (OprgaG). 
58d57
< 
90d88
< 
92c90,92
< a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Q,x) a GrouP?----
---
> a and b are integers, but b is not = to 0, and the operation multiplication, denoted by "x," is (Q,x) a GrouP?
> 
> ----
94c94
< Groups are important, too, because they are a fundamental algebraic structure. We can investigate groups with added properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operations and more properties. This brings us to RinG''s'' and FielD''s''.
---
> Groups are important as a fundamental algebraic structure and as a basic tool for embedding the mathematical properties of objects, even properties of groups themselves because one can built groups out of existing ones (see GroupProductS, NoetherIsomorphismTheoremS, WreathProduct, BrauerGroup, DerivedGroup, GroupCenter, GroupCharacter, FittingSubgroup, CohomologyGroups). We can investigate groups with global properties like CommutativeGroups and NonCommutativeGroups, SimpleGroups and SolvableGroups, FinitelyGeneratedGroups, AlgebraicGroups, study how groups can be related via MorphisM''s'' and also build other structures based on the notion of a group, but with more than one operation and/or more properties. This brings us to RinG''s'', FielD''s'', ModulE''s''.
------
WikiBiblion|982369996
9a10,11
> 
> Btw, we need a way of distinguishing pages on something from pages that are the things themselves - for instance, a summary of how the US constitution works versus its text.
------
OprgaG|982370022
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> also known as OpRgAg.
> 
------
OpRgAg|982370262
1c1
< Here is the page for Olivier Gérard also known as Oprgag.
---
> This page is obsolete. The good one is OprgaG. :-)
3,19c3
< 
< First, trying a few things.
< 
< [www.seqfan.net]
< 
< 'a'
< 
< ''b''
< 
< '''c'''
< 
< ''''d''''
< 
< <b>A</b>
< <i>A</i>
< 
< <nowiki>NOWIKI</nowiki>
---
>  
------
OprgaG|982370299
1c1
< also known as OpRgAg.
---
> Here is the page for Olivier Gérard also known as Oprgag.
2a3,19
> 
> First, trying a few things.
> 
> [www.seqfan.net]
> 
> 'a'
> 
> ''b''
> 
> '''c'''
> 
> ''''d''''
> 
> <b>A</b>
> <i>A</i>
> 
> <nowiki>NOWIKI</nowiki>
------
OprgaG|982370374
16a17
> 
19c20,32
< <nowiki>NOWIKI</nowiki>
---
> <nowiki>NoWiKI</nowiki>
> 
> * bullet
> 
> # numbered list
> # second item
> # etc..
> 
> "a"
> 
> ""a""
> 
> 
------
OpRgAg|982370501
1,3c1,2
< This page is obsolete. The good one is OprgaG. :-)
< 
<  
---
> #REDIRECT OprgaG 
>  
------
GrouP|982370529
1c1
< #REDIRECT MathematicalGrouP.
---
> #REDIRECT MathematicalGrouP
------
OprgaG|982370759
2a3
> ----
4c5,17
< First, trying a few things.
---
> Hello.
> 
> Oddly enough, wiki seems to attract at least a few people quite
> close to my taste: keen on mathematics (and especially abstract algebra),
> linguistics (and especially syntax), and speaking French (but I cheat, this is
> my mothertongue), German, ...
> 
> A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> A few formatting examples and tests
------
OprgaG|982371287
10c10
< my mothertongue), German, ...
---
> my mothertongue), German, interested in Japanese, having studied Greek and Latin ...
12c12
< A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG
---
> A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG, who''s next ?
16a17,20
> 'space available for comments'
> 
> ----
> 
41c45,47
< "a"
---
> ----
> 
> &é"'(-è_çà)=$^*ù!:;,+°£¨µ%§/.?<>~#{[|`\^@]}¤€
43d48
< ""a""
44a50
> "a"
45a52
> ""a""
------
OprgaG|982371426
13a14,15
> Bon. Il semble logique que je commence un peu à mettre du français sur wiki.
> C'est vrai quoi. L'anglais est déjà assez présent sur le réseau.
43a46,49
> 
> <tt> Typewriting ? </tt>
> <pre> Preformated ? </pre>
> 
------
HisTory|982371672
1c1
< That which happened.  ''Or,'' That which happened and was recorded.  The record of that which happened.  Please see HiStory instead.
---
> That which happened.  ''Or,'' That which happened and was recorded.  The record of that which happened.  ''Or,'' What we happen to record. Please see HiStory instead.
------
OprgaG|982371758
13a14,16
> I studied LatinLanguage, and I'm keen on mathematics (StochasticProcesses, RealAnalysis), and I'm studying JapaneseLanguage now.  I'm idly interested in linguistics, but know nothing substantial about it. --JimboWales
> 
> 
53c56
< &é"'(-è_çà)=$^*ù!:;,+°£¨µ%§/.?<>~#{[|`\^@]}¤€
---
> &é"'(-è_çà)=$^*ù!:;,+°£¨µ%§/.?<>~#{[|`\^@]}¤?
------
WikiBiblion|982371969
11a12,19
> ----
> If I had to venture an opinion, I guess we should restrict ourselves to texts that might be commonly cited and useful for immediate reference.  For example, a discussion of the US constitution is probably much enhanced by being able to link directly to the relevant amendment.  For example, in an article on GunControl, someone surely might find it useful to link to UnitedStatesConstitution/SecondAmendment.
> 
> The same goes for the Bible, as many articles on aspects of JudeoChristian culture might usefully link to a chapter here and there.
> 
> But MobyDick, for example, isn't so usefully quoted, and so sticking it all in here just to be doing it seems more pointless.
> 
> But, like you said, it really just depends on what people bother to type (or cut and paste) in.  :-)
------
SubLime|982371984
1c1
< That which is below a lime.----To use as an adjective, do we say subliminal?  And a verb would be sublimate?----Or subliminalize? Or subliminimalize? Or sublimaximize? 
---
> That which is below a lime.----Said also of any text that passes directly from solid statement to gazeous.----To use as an adjective, do we say subliminal?  And a verb would be sublimate?----Or subliminalize? Or subliminimalize? Or sublimaximize?
------
WikiBiblion|982371993
13c13
< If I had to venture an opinion, I guess we should restrict ourselves to texts that might be commonly cited and useful for immediate reference.  For example, a discussion of the US constitution is probably much enhanced by being able to link directly to the relevant amendment.  For example, in an article on GunControl, someone surely might find it useful to link to UnitedStatesConstitution/SecondAmendment.
---
> If I had to venture an opinion, I guess we should restrict ourselves to texts that might be commonly cited and useful for immediate reference.  For example, a discussion of the US constitution is probably much enhanced by being able to link directly to the relevant amendment.  For example, in an article on GunControl, someone surely might find it useful to link to UnitedStatesConstitution/AmendmentTwo.
------
OprgaG|982372263
19a20,21
> Welcome, Gerard--mais oui, schreiben Sie auf Franzosisch, just don't expect us to be able to reply to you in French (or German).  :-) -- LarrySanger
> 
------
OprgaG|982372291
20c20
< Welcome, Gerard--mais oui, schreiben Sie auf Franzosisch, just don't expect us to be able to reply to you in French (or German).  :-) -- LarrySanger
---
> Welcome, Olivier--mais oui, schreiben Sie auf Franzosisch, just don't expect us to be able to reply to you in French (or German).  :-) -- LarrySanger
------
CorinneLightweaver|982372640
1a2,3
> ----
> Welcome, Corinne!  -- LarrySanger
------
WikiBiblion|982372807
10a11,14
> Lectures, textbooks, theses, etc.
> * ErnestHemingway
> * LarrysText
> 
------
OprgaG|982373394
1c1,4
< Here is the page for Olivier Gérard also known as Oprgag.
---
> Here is the wiki home page for Olivier Gérard also known as Oprgag.
> 
> Each part is roughly devoted to a given topic. Be kind to follow
> this organization when appropriate.
12c15
< A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG, who''s next ?
---
> A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG, who's next ?
14c17
< I studied LatinLanguage, and I'm keen on mathematics (StochasticProcesses, RealAnalysis), and I'm studying JapaneseLanguage now.  I'm idly interested in linguistics, but know nothing substantial about it. --JimboWales
---
> <b>Jim Wales</b> <i>(of Bomis fame)</i> <b>says</b>: I studied LatinLanguage, and I'm keen on mathematics (StochasticProcesses, RealAnalysis), and I'm studying JapaneseLanguage now.  I'm idly interested in linguistics, but know nothing substantial about it. --JimboWales
18c21
< C'est vrai quoi. L'anglais est déjà assez présent sur le réseau.
---
> C'est vrai, quoi! L'anglais est déjà assez présent sur le réseau.
21a25,30
> Arigato Larry. Bien sûr que je vais le faire. Il va falloir aussi que je rameute d'autres grenouilles dans cette marre. Wir werden sehen, wir müssen sehen.
> 
> ----
> 
> ''space available for comments''
> 
22a32
> Notes on wiki
24c34,36
< 'space available for comments'
---
> - really nice. I did a little auto-modifiable pages for an internal web site in php3
> but the content was basically html, and the troublesome typing of links was becoming
> a real chore. The trick of CapitalSInSTRANGEplaceS to sign internal links is neat.
25a38,45
> - what could be a little trouble in the future (with more and more users): concurrent modifications on the same page may cancel themselves (or do they ?)
> 
> 
> - are there other special instructions such as #ReDiReCt ?
> 
> - In what language is wiki programmed ?  Perl ? C ?
> 
> ----
------
OprgaG|982373858
26a27,28
> Would be grand to have a concurrent French wiki.  Why not?  Only trouble are the topics on which the English and French words (e.g., personal names) are the same.  You could then, e.g., have a ReneDescartesFr page.
> 
37a40,43
> ''Yes!  And it's going to be even better, as the code is soon to be changed to allow use to indicate links [[like this]].''
> 
> ''The following questions could be asked (and answered) on WikiPediaFaq, if they aren't already...it would be a good idea to transfer them there...''
> 
39a46
> ''The software already accounts for this.  Not really a problem.''
42a50,51
> ''See HowDoesOneEditaPage--but we need to update those instructions.''
> 
43a53,54
> 
> ''JimboWales could tell you that.''
------
LarrySanger|982374026
36c36
< Hey, Larry, where did you do your phil grad?  --curiousPhillipHankins
---
> Hey, Larry, where did you do your phil grad?  --curious PhillipHankins
40c40,42
< Political discussion not allowed on this page.  :-)
---
> Political discussion not allowed on this page.  :-)
> ----
> Folks, I've had a lot of fun with WikiPedia this week (Feb. 11-16 or so) but I am going to have to start limiting the time I spend on it, so I can work more diligently on NuPedia.  :-)  -- Larry
------
UralicLanguages|982374085
1c1
< UralicLanguages or Finno/OugricLanguages are a contrasted family of languages.
---
> UralicLanguages or FinnoOugricLanguages are a contrasted family of languages.
3c3,5
< It is frequently separated into Finnish/Permian and UgricLanguages.
---
> They are commonly separated into FinnishPermianLanguages and UgricLanguages.
> There is an hypothesis which groups them further in a superfamily together with
> AltaicLanguages, the UraloAltaicLanguages.
5c7
< Current members in Europe include:
---
> Current members include:
23d24
< 
------
FrenchLanguage|982374963
1c1,17
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FrenchLanguageInEnglish
> 
> Une fois n'est pas coutume, cette page sur la langue française sera en français. On me dira que ce n'est pas très utile pour les gens qui ne connaissent pas déjà le français. Et bien je leur répond que la traduction de ce texte existe. Na. La preuve, il suffit de suivre le lien au tout début de la page.
> 
> Le français est une langue romane qui a suivi un développement propre, souvent organisé par des groupes intellectuels (comme le groupe de la Pléiade) ou des institutions (comme l'Académie Française). On estime généralement que le premier texte écrit en (ancien) français est le traité de Strasbourg (847).
> Parmi les premières oeuvres majeures:
> *la chanson de Roland (Roland, Charlemagne, Olivier, Ganelon, )
> *le roman de Renart (Goupil, Ysengrin, )
> *Gargantua (de François Rabelais)
> 
> ----
> 
> Le VerlaN, zyva, c'est cilfa !
> 
> ----
> 
> Concrètement le français est une langue officielle dans plusieurs pays autre que la France, dont la Belgique, la Suisse, le Luxembourg, le Quebec.
------
FrenchLanguageInEnglish|982375354
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This page is an <i>unfaithful</i> translation of the FrenchLanguage page intended for the french-challenged crowd.
> 
> A roman language, spoken by more than 100 Millions people in several countries outside of France, and official or administrative language in various communities and organizations (such as CEE, CIO, ...).
> 
> Although many frenchmen like to refer to themselves as descending from gallic ancestors ("Nos ancêtres les gaulois"), very few celtic and gallic roots seems to remain in today french. Most of the vocabulary is of latin and germanic (frank) origin.
> 
> To be continued...
> 
> ----
------
VerlaN|982380971
1c1,16
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> A long tradition exists in France of permuting syllables of words to create slang words. The current version is called VerlaN, a name which is itself VerlaN. 
> 
> <b>VER</b><i>LAN</i> = <i>LAN</i><b>VER</b> = l'envers (meaning "the reverse").
> 
> As most potential readers here are not french, let's try english verlan, which could be called the versin (inversed inverse).
> 
> This car is nice.
> 
> is transformed into
> 
> Sethi reca is ceni.
> 
> (Don't ask me how one should pronounce it, try to be close of the orignal pronunciation of the syllables in the correct word).
> 
> ----
------
WikiBiblion|982382513
11c11
< Lectures, textbooks, theses, etc.
---
> Lectures, textbooks, theses, etc. ''- I would say these are coming dangerously close to being articles, though.''
------
WikiBiblion|982382589
11,14d10
< Lectures, textbooks, theses, etc. ''- I would say these are coming dangerously close to being articles, though.''
< * ErnestHemingway
< * LarrysText
< 
------
FrenchLanguage|982382842
17a18,20
> 
> ----
> Just a though...shouldn't the language of a page match its title?  Id est, this page would be in English, with the current content moved to something like LangueFrancois.
------
FrenchLanguage|982383154
1c1,2
< FrenchLanguageInEnglish
---
> This page is an unfaithful translation of the LangueFrancaise page intended for the french-challenged crowd. 
> A RomanceLanguage, spoken by more than 100 Millions people in several countries outside of France, and official or administrative language in various communities and organizations (such as CEE, CIO, ...). 
3c4
< Une fois n'est pas coutume, cette page sur la langue française sera en français. On me dira que ce n'est pas très utile pour les gens qui ne connaissent pas déjà le français. Et bien je leur répond que la traduction de ce texte existe. Na. La preuve, il suffit de suivre le lien au tout début de la page.
---
> Although many frenchmen like to refer to themselves as descending from gallic ancestors ("Nos ancêtres les gaulois"), very few celtic and gallic roots seems to remain in today french. Most of the vocabulary is of latin and germanic (frank) origin. 
5,20c6
< Le français est une langue romane qui a suivi un développement propre, souvent organisé par des groupes intellectuels (comme le groupe de la Pléiade) ou des institutions (comme l'Académie Française). On estime généralement que le premier texte écrit en (ancien) français est le traité de Strasbourg (847).
< Parmi les premières oeuvres majeures:
< *la chanson de Roland (Roland, Charlemagne, Olivier, Ganelon, )
< *le roman de Renart (Goupil, Ysengrin, )
< *Gargantua (de François Rabelais)
< 
< ----
< 
< Le VerlaN, zyva, c'est cilfa !
< 
< ----
< 
< Concrètement le français est une langue officielle dans plusieurs pays autre que la France, dont la Belgique, la Suisse, le Luxembourg, le Quebec.
< 
< ----
< Just a though...shouldn't the language of a page match its title?  Id est, this page would be in English, with the current content moved to something like LangueFrancois.
---
> To be continued... 
------
LangueFrancaise|982383207
1c1,18
< Describe the new page here.
---
> In English: FrenchLanguage
> 
> Une fois n'est pas coutume, cette page sur la langue française sera en français. On me dira que ce n'est pas très utile pour les gens qui ne connaissent pas déjà le français. Et bien je leur répond que la traduction de ce texte existe. Na. La preuve, il suffit de suivre le lien au tout début de la page.
> 
> Le français est une langue romane qui a suivi un développement propre, souvent organisé par des groupes intellectuels (comme le groupe de la Pléiade) ou des institutions (comme l'Académie Française). On estime généralement que le premier texte écrit en (ancien) français est le traité de Strasbourg (847).
> Parmi les premières oeuvres majeures:
> *la chanson de Roland (Roland, Charlemagne, Olivier, Ganelon, )
> *le roman de Renart (Goupil, Ysengrin, )
> *Gargantua (de François Rabelais)
> 
> ----
> 
> Le VerlaN, zyva, c'est cilfa !
> 
> ----
> 
> Concrètement le français est une langue officielle dans plusieurs pays autre que la France, dont la Belgique, la Suisse, le Luxembourg, le Quebec.
> 
------
FrenchLanguageInEnglish|982383236
1d0
< This page is an <i>unfaithful</i> translation of the FrenchLanguage page intended for the french-challenged crowd.
3,9d1
< A roman language, spoken by more than 100 Millions people in several countries outside of France, and official or administrative language in various communities and organizations (such as CEE, CIO, ...).
< 
< Although many frenchmen like to refer to themselves as descending from gallic ancestors ("Nos ancêtres les gaulois"), very few celtic and gallic roots seems to remain in today french. Most of the vocabulary is of latin and germanic (frank) origin.
< 
< To be continued...
< 
< ----
------
FrenchLanguage|982383386
2c2
< A RomanceLanguage, spoken by more than 100 Millions people in several countries outside of France, and official or administrative language in various communities and organizations (such as CEE, CIO, ...). 
---
> One of the RomanceLanguages, spoken by more than 100 Millions people in several countries outside of France, and official or administrative language in various communities and organizations (such as CEE, CIO, ...). 
------
WikiBiblion|982384166
1c1
< In addition to the articles, various texts have been entered in whole or in part into WikiPedia.  Nobody's sure yet how far we want to go with this - whether we should only include some small pages for direct referencing, or include a wikized version of Project Gutenburg.  Whatever people feel like typing in, I guess - though please don't add any copyright material.  Here's what we have in the WikiBiblion so far:
---
> In addition to the articles, various source texts have been entered in whole or in part into WikiPedia.  Nobody's sure yet how far we want to go with this - whether we should only include some small pages for direct referencing, or include a wikized version of Project Gutenburg.  Whatever people feel like typing in, I guess - though please don't add any copyright material.  Here's what we have in the WikiBiblion so far:
19a20,21
> ----
> Larry, I like your text but I think it belongs among the articles rather than the source texts, since I would read it to understand philosophy rather than to understand it.  Similarly for the essay.  TimShell's notes might not be ideal either, but I put them in because they are close to having a copy of AtlasShrugged.  The idea was, though, that the things listed are special by necessary correctness and immutability, and we are studying them rather than reading them to understand something else, so they are sort of exempt from wikipedianess.
------
WikiBiblion|982387841
21c21,23
< Larry, I like your text but I think it belongs among the articles rather than the source texts, since I would read it to understand philosophy rather than to understand it.  Similarly for the essay.  TimShell's notes might not be ideal either, but I put them in because they are close to having a copy of AtlasShrugged.  The idea was, though, that the things listed are special by necessary correctness and immutability, and we are studying them rather than reading them to understand something else, so they are sort of exempt from wikipedianess.
---
> Larry, I like your text but I think it belongs among the articles rather than the source texts, since I would read it to understand philosophy rather than to understand it.  Similarly for the essay.  TimShell's notes might not be ideal either, but I put them in because they are close to having a copy of AtlasShrugged.  The idea was, though, that the things listed are special by necessary correctness and immutability, and we are studying them rather than reading them to understand something else, so they are sort of exempt from wikipedianess.
> ----
> I see, but the usefulness of this page is increased by expanding its scope so as to keep a record of where massive amounts of new data are added to the wiki.  This would encourage others to do the same. -- LarrySanger
------
VerlaN|982387891
1d0
< 
16c15
< ----
---
> See also PigLatin.
------
OprgaG|982388439
15,17c15
< A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG, who's next ?
< 
< <b>Jim Wales</b> <i>(of Bomis fame)</i> <b>says</b>: I studied LatinLanguage, and I'm keen on mathematics (StochasticProcesses, RealAnalysis), and I'm studying JapaneseLanguage now.  I'm idly interested in linguistics, but know nothing substantial about it. --JimboWales
---
> A list:  JoshuaGrosse, OprgaG, RoseParks, who's next ?
18a17,18
> <b>Jim Wales</b> <i>(of Bomis fame)</i> <b>says</b>: I studied LatinLanguage, and I'm keen on mathematics (StochasticProcesses, RealAnalysis), and I'm studying JapaneseLanguage now.  I'm idly interested in linguistics, but know nothing substantial about it. --JimboWales----
> Known as RoseParks, <i>(of no particluar fame)</i>, I have studied Math (esp.Abstract Algebra), Linguistics (esp. syntax), French, German, Greek, Latin and 5 years of graduate level Japanese (one year+ devoted to the 1850 Kanji). First memories of '''French''', third grade..."Sur le pont d'Avignon, l'on y danse, l'on y danse, sur the pont d'Avignon, l'on y danse tous en rond"....also a terrible show-off, n'est-ce pas?---- 
------
PigLatin|982388899
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> ''Pig Latin'' is a silly "language" created from any other language as follows:
> *for words that begin with consonants, move the leading consonant(s) to the end of the word and add "ay."  Thus, "ball" becomes "all-bay"; "button" becomes "utton-bay"; "star" becomes "ar-stay"; "three" becomes "ee-thray."
> *for words that begin with vowels, simply add "ay" to the end of the word.  Thus, "a" becomes "a-ay" (or "a-yay"); "at" becomes "at-ay" (or "at-tay"); "ermine" becomes "ermine-ay."
> Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, but ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay
------
PigLatin|982389132
4c4
< Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, but ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay
---
> Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, ut-bay ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay
------
ArrylayAngersay|982389529
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jbc/home/chef.html owHay iday Iay oday isthay?]
> 
> EditorInChiefway ofway uPediaNay andway (ithway imboWalesJay) instigatorway ofway ikiPediaWay. Phay.Day. iloSophyPhay, 2000, OhioStateway. omeHay owntay isway AnchorageAlaskaway. Inflictedway arrysTextLay irstfay onway Ohioway ateStay udentsstay, andway ownay onway ikiPediaWay. esentlyPray ivinglay inway asVegasLay orfay away ewfay onthsmay andway enthay itway'say onway otay ussiARay orfay away ewfay oremay onthsmay; ossiblypay Irelandway afterway atthay. isThay isway allway ossiblepay ecausebay arrySangerLay orksway onlineway. Youay ouldshay ebay enviousway. eHay ouldway ebay ifway ehay erenway'tay ehay. ---- Yesay, Iway agreeway, ehay isway ehay, obodynay ouldway argueway ithway emay! :-Pay eHay isway ehay, utbay isthay isway eetway, eway'day allway agreeway. arryLay'say avoritefay ilosopherphay isway omasReidThay, isnway'tay ehay? aybeMay! ---- Iway'may otnay enviousway ecausebay Iway ivelay erehay, inway ussiARay! ---- equestingRay away iberianHuskySay...atthay'say allway! oseParksRay ---- entyPlay ofway iberianHuskySay''''say inway AlaskAway, arryLay'say omehay atestay. arryLay'say amilyfay usedway otay avehay away iberianHuskySay amednay ebaShay, utbay ebaShay isappearedday enwhay arryLay asway allsmay. ---- yWhay areway allway iberianHuskySay''''say amednay ebaShay? Iway'evay adhay 3 ifferentday iendsfray ithway emthay osay arfay, andway eythay areway allway amednay ethay amesay.... ---- Iway onday'tay owknay! -- arryLay ---- earlyClay youay avenhay'tay etmay ethay iberianHuskySay''say'' Iway owknay...araTay andway arahSay!!! ---- Iway'may oinggay otay eattray isthay agepay ikelay emailway, incesay itway obablypray oesnday'tay elongbay inway ethay ediapay itselfway. Iway oundfay youray ecturelay onway eProblemOfEvilThay itequay enjoyableway, andway anway argumentway occurredway otay emay ichwhay Iway oughtthay Iway ightmay ouncebay offway ofway youay. Iway upposesay Iway ightmay allcay itway evilway elativismray. atThay isway otay aysay, evilway isway implysay anyway eventway ichwhay owerslay oneway'say enjoymentway (inway ethay ostmay eneralgay ensesay) - ethay owerlay alfhay ofway ourway appinesshay alescay. Ifway eway eliminatedway everythingway eway onsidercay evilway - aturalnay asway ellway asway anmay-ademay, *eway* ouldway ertainlycay oticenay ethay ifferenceday. utBay aysay ethay emperaturetay illstay asway allowedway otay aryvay omfray 50 egreesday Fay inway ethay interway otay 85 egreesday Fay inway ethay ummersay, andway atthay oneway eingbay aughtcay outsideway inway interway ithoutway away oatcay asway ethay ostmay unpleasantway ingthay atthay everway ightmay appenhay otay usway. eWay ouldway obablypray evernay omplaincay (indeedway, anymay ofway usway ouldway elishray atthay areray eelingfay ofway oosebumpsgay), utbay ouldway otnay ourway andchildrengray onsidercay isthay ethay ostmay extremeway ossiblepay evilway? Ifway oneway acceptsway isthay argumentway, atthay evilway isway erceivedpay elativelyray andway isway artpay ofway anyway effableway universeway, ouldway isthay otnay ullifynay argumentway 4? -Jay ---- Itway ouldway ebay away iticismcray ofway emisepray 7 (atthay evilway existsway inway ethay orldway), otnay ofway emisepray 4, asway arfay asway Iway ancay elltay. eThay oposalpray isway atthay evilway isway elativeray, andway ereforethay, ecausebay omeonesay inway uchmay orseway onditionscay anthay eway'eray inway ownay ouldway otnay onsidercay ethay onditionscay eway'eray inway ownay asway evilway, evilway oesnday'tay existway. Iway onday'tay eallyray agreeway atthay isthay atterlay onclusioncay eallyray ollowsfay ormfay ethay emisepray atthay evilway isway elativeray, utbay Iway inkthay youay ightmay ebay onway otay omethingsay erehay. Iway eallyray onday'tay owknay atthay uchmay aboutway isthay areaway ofway ilosophyphay, otay elltay ethay uthtray. -- arrySangerLay ---- eyHay, arryLay, erewhay idday youay oday youray ilphay adgray? --uriouscay illipHankinsPhay ---- Ohioway ateStay--otewray ymay issertationday onway epistemicway ircularitycay, eorgeGay appasPay asway ymay advisorway ithway arshallMay ainSway away ommitteecay embermay. ---- oliticalPay iscussionday otnay allowedway onway isthay agepay. :-) ---- olksFay, Iway'evay adhay away otlay ofway unfay ithway ikiPediaWay isthay eekway (ebFay. 11-16 orway osay) utbay Iway amway oinggay otay avehay otay artstay imitinglay ethay imetay Iway endspay onway itway, osay Iway ancay orkway oremay iligentlyday onway uPediaNay. :-) -- arryLay 
------
PigLatin|982389968
2a3
> *for words beginning with "qu," move the "qu" to the end of the word and add ay. Thus "question" becomes "estion-quay,"
4c5,6
< Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, ut-bay ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay
---
> Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, ut-bay ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay----
> Ice-nay escription-day, octor-day anager-say!!! Ig-pay atin-lay is-ay un-fay or-fay ome-say adults-ay. Ou-yay eem-say ite-quay uent-flay, I-ay otice-nay.--OseRayArksPay--
------
ArtificialLanguages|982394803
12a13,16
> 
> Humorous languages
> * PigLatin
> * VerLan
------
ArtificialLanguages|982394822
16c16
< * VerLan
---
> * VerlaN
------
SportS|982395244
14a15
> * GolF
------
OprgaG|982395994
27c27,30
< Would be grand to have a concurrent French wiki.  Why not?  Only trouble are the topics on which the English and French words (e.g., personal names) are the same.  You could then, e.g., have a ReneDescartesFr page.
---
> Would be grand to have a concurrent French wiki.  Why not?  Only trouble are the topics on which the English and French words (e.g., personal names) are the same.  You could then, e.g., have a ReneDescartesFr page. -- Larry
> 
> I think that one should in this case have at least a new preference setting, so that help and permanent links could be labelled in the user's language.
> What would be even greater is to have the different names and sentences as part of wiki pages so that they could be edited online.  -- Olivier
42c45
< ''The following questions could be asked (and answered) on WikiPediaFaq, if they aren't already...it would be a good idea to transfer them there...''
---
> ''The following questions could be asked (and answered) on WikiPediaFaq, if they aren't already...it would be a good idea to transfer them there...'' Sure, but let's grow this impromptu FAQ a little before doing this.
54c57,62
< ''JimboWales could tell you that.''
---
> ''JimboWales could tell you that.''  I bet this is perl.
> 
> - I have another question: Is the code publicly available? I have been browing
> the wikiclone page of the original c2.com web site, and I am testing a few of them
> but the one here seems a good balance between ease of use and functionality.
> 
61a70
> [[www.seqfan.net]]
89c98,142
< &é"'(-è_çà)=$^*ù!:;,+°£¨µ%§/.?<>~#{[|`\^@]}¤?
---
> &
> é
> "
> '
> (
> -
> è
> _
> ç
> à
> )
> =
> $
> ^
> *
> ù
> !
> :
> ;
> ,
> +
> °
> £
> ¨
> µ
> %
> §
> /
> . Q
> ? P
> < O
> > N
> ~ M
> # L
> { K
> [ J
> | I
> ` H
> \ G
> ^ F
> @ E
> ] D
> } C
> ¤ B
> ? A
------
SportS|982396077
4a5,6
> ''LongJump, HighJump, and PoleVault are not classifiable in the following category scheme, it seems''
> 
7d8
< * RunninG
8a10,14
> * RunninG
> ** RunninG/CrossCountry
> ** RunninG/LongDistance
> ** RunninG/Track
> * SwimminG
15a22
> * ShootinG
40a48
> * SpeedBoating
43,44c51,53
< * BiathloN
< * PentathloN
---
> * BiathloN (SkiIng and ShootinG)
> * PentathloN (track and field events)
> * TriathaloN (Running/LongDistance, SwimminG, and BiCycling)
48a58,59
> * DivinG
> * FieldEvents (e.g., ShotPut)
49a61,62
> * GymnasticS
> * SyncopatedSwimming
51,55c64
< Sports without competition (where the ultimate goal is not to win but to have fun):
< * BushWalking
< 
< Sports emphasizing balance and co-ordination (usually recreational but can also be competitive)
< 
---
> Sports emphasizing balance and co-ordination (usually recreational but can also be competitive; these are also comparison sports!)
59d67
< * SnowBoarding
60a69,71
> ** CrossCountrySkiing
> ** DownhillSkiing
> ** SnowBoarding
62a74,76
> Sports without competition (where the ultimate goal is not to win but to have fun):
> * BushWalking
> 
65a80,83
> * HuntinG
> ** Hunting/Bowhunting
> 
> ''I think the following are not sports, but instead (simply) GameS; strictly speaking, there are no such things as "brain sports"''
72c90
< * GameOfGo ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
---
> * GameOfGo ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
------
OprgaG|982396294
62a63
> ''Yes, if you keep exploring, I think you'll find that the code is OpenSource.''
------
OpenSource|982396999
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A large movement of PROgrammer''s, CitiZen''s and other ComputerUser''s to give easy access to TechnoLogy, restrict the mania of CopyRight.
> 
> Among the relevant topics:
> 
> DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman, the GNUProject, the FsF, DebianLinux distribution, FreeBSD.
> 
> FamousOpenSoftwares:
> 
> EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFree, GimP, ...
> 
------
OpenSource|982397126
1c1
< A large movement of PROgrammer''s, CitiZen''s and other ComputerUser''s to give easy access to TechnoLogy, restrict the mania of CopyRight.
---
> A large movement of PROgrammeR's, CitiZenS and other ComputerUserS to give easy access to TechnoLogy, restrict the mania of CopyRight.
5c5
< DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman, the GNUProject, the FsF, DebianLinux distribution, FreeBSD.
---
> DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman, the GNUProjecT, the FsF, DebianLinux distribution, FreeBSD.
9c9
< EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFree, GimP, ...
---
> EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, ...
------
SportS|982399024
53c53,54
< * TriathaloN (Running/LongDistance, SwimminG, and BiCycling)
---
> * TriathloN (Running/LongDistance, SwimminG, and BiCycling)
> * DecathloN (100m, Long Jump, Shot Put, High Jump, 400m, 110m Hurdles, Discus, Pole Vault, Javelin, 1500m)
90c91,94
< * GameOfGo ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
---
> * GameOfGo ''- How bout the AncientOrientalGameOfGo?  Enough texts refer to it as that. :)''
> 
> Brain-sports (where you have to think) - Letter Games:
> * CrossWords
------
VerlaN|982399674
15c15,29
< See also PigLatin.
---
> ----
> Here are a few words of contemporary French verlan
> 
> laisse béton - laisse tomber (drop it, stop it)
> keum - mec (slang for man)
> meuf - femme (girl, woman)
> reum - mère (mother)
> reubeu - beur (slang for french people of maghrebian origin)
> zyva - vas-y (go for it)
> fais ièche - fais chier (slang for it's boring)
> 
> 
> See also LouchebeM, ArgoT, LangueVerte
> 
> See also PigLatin.
------
SportS|982400860
5c5
< ''LongJump, HighJump, and PoleVault are not classifiable in the following category scheme, it seems''
---
> (Where do sports such as parallel bars and jumping fit ?)
15a16,28
> Surpassing sports (where the goal is to pull your body or an object beyond a physical mark):
> * JumpS
> ** LongJump
> ** HighJump
> ** TripleJump
> ** PoleVault
> * ThrowS
> ** ShotPut
> ** DiscuS
> ** JavelIn
> ** HammeR
> * HalteroPhily
> 
42a56
> * RopePulling
54c68
< * DecathloN (100m, Long Jump, Shot Put, High Jump, 400m, 110m Hurdles, Discus, Pole Vault, Javelin, 1500m)
---
> * DecathloN (100m, LongJump, ShotPut, HighJump, 400m, 110m HurdleS, DiscuS, PoleVault, JavelIn, 1500m)
60d73
< * FieldEvents (e.g., ShotPut)
63a77
> * WoodworkerContests
------
HungarianLanguage|982402040
1c1,32
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A few facts:
> 
> The order of words in a sentence is almost free and can be used
> for stressing and denoting.
> The PassiveVoice is almost extinct (one can find it in old litterary
> texts).
> 
> The mark for PluraL is a suffixed -k, eventually preceded by a VoweL
> when the WorD ends by a ConsonanT
> 
> The InfinitivE of VerbS is the RadicaL suffixed by -ni
> 
> ----
> 
> As an apetizer, an extract for the verb "to be" in hungarian, lenni.
> 
> Forms are presented in this order    I, Thou, He/She/It, We, You, They
> 
> <b>IndicativeMode</b>
> PresentTense: vagyok, vagy, van, vagyunk, vagytok, vannak
> 
> PastTense: voltam, volt'al, volt, voltunk, voltatok, voltak
> 
> FutureTense: leszek, leszel, lesz, leszünk, lesztek, lesznek
> 
> 
> <b>ConditionalMode</b>
> PresentTense: lennék, lennél, lenne, lennénk, lennétek, lennének
> 
> ImperativeTense: legyek, légy, legyen, legyünk, legeyetek, legyenek
> 
> ----
------
HomoMorphism|982402236
1c1
< A homomorphism, from one mathematical object to another of the same kind, is a MappinG that preserves all relevant structure.  For instance, if we are concerned about some operation *, homomorphisms must satisfy f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y).
---
> A homomorphism, (or sometimes simply MorphisM) from one mathematical object to another of the same kind, is a MappinG that preserves all relevant structure.  For instance, if we are concerned about some operation *, homomorphisms must satisfy f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y).
------
MorphisM|982402613
1c1,20
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The round of MorphisM""s
> 
> There is the HomoMorphism, but here are other variants and subclasses:
> 
> * IsoMorphism '(the application is also a bijection)'
> * EndoMorphism '(from a structure into itself)'
> * AutoMorphism '(Iso + Endo)'
> 
> * HomeoMorphism
> * DiffeoMorphism '(Preserves topological properties)'
> 
> * CoMorphism '(A term sometimes used in CategoryTheory)'
> 
> Old father CamilleJordan used to say
> 
> * IsoMorphismMeriedrique
> * IsoMorphismHoloedrique
> 
> back in the 1860's.
> 
------
AutoMorphism|982403187
1c1,12
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A structure-preserving BiJection of a mathematical object into itself.
> 
> The set of AutoMorphism of an object forms a group with the composition law.
> 
> When it is possible to build transformation of an object by selecting one of its elements and applying operations to the object, one can separate
> *inner AutoMorphism""s
> *outer AutoMorphism""s
> 
> The latter being transformations for which there is no correspondance with an element of the object.
> 
> ----
> (I am not satisfied with that, it is too much jargon, there should be an example, it does not convey the power of the concept and is just a definition) -- Olivier.
------
CategoryTheory|982403458
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> What is a category anyway?
> 
> *point and arrows
> *monic and epic
> *commutative diagrams
> *FunctORs
> *the YonedALemmA
> *NaturalTransformationS
> 
> *HistoryOfCategoryTheory
> *ReceptionOfCategoryTheory
> 
> 
------
MorphisM|982403527
8a9,11
> * EpiMorphism
> * MonoMorphism
> 
------
OprgaG|982405749
64a65,66
> Indeed, I should have seen the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page sooner.
> 
65a68,75
> 
> Reference Pages for wiki and wikipedia use
> 
> NamingConventions
> 
> WikiShouldOfferSimplifiedUseOfTables is my motto to help
> entering and maintaining tabulated data into the wikipedia.
> 
98,126c108,136
< 
< &
< é
< "
< '
< (
< -
< è
< _
< ç
< à
< )
< =
< $
< ^
< *
< ù
< !
< :
< ;
< ,
< +
< °
< £
< ¨
< µ
< %
< §
< /
---
>  
> & 18
> é 17
> " 16
> ' 15
> ( 14
> - 13
> è 12
> _ 11
> ç 10
> à 9
> ) 8
> = 7
> $ 6
> ^ 5
> * 4
> ù 3
> ! 2
> : 1
> ; 0
> , Z
> + Y
> ° X
> £ W
> ¨ V
> µ U
> % T
> § S
> / R
------
WikiShouldOfferSimplifiedUseOfTables|982405835
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The title in itself is a whole program.
> 
> I will try to sketch a proposal for a simple syntax
> for entering tables.
> 
------
OprgaG|982406116
78,158c78
< A few formatting examples and tests
< 
< [www.seqfan.net]
< [[www.seqfan.net]]
< 
< 'a'
< 
< ''b''
< 
< '''c'''
< 
< ''''d''''
< 
< <b>A</b>
< 
< <i>A</i>
< 
< <nowiki>NoWiKI</nowiki>
< 
< * bullet
< 
< # numbered list
< # second item
< # etc..
< 
< <tt> Typewriting ? </tt>
< <pre> Preformated ? </pre>
< 
< 
< ----
<  
< & 18
< é 17
< " 16
< ' 15
< ( 14
< - 13
< è 12
< _ 11
< ç 10
< à 9
< ) 8
< = 7
< $ 6
< ^ 5
< * 4
< ù 3
< ! 2
< : 1
< ; 0
< , Z
< + Y
< ° X
< £ W
< ¨ V
< µ U
< % T
< § S
< / R
< . Q
< ? P
< < O
< > N
< ~ M
< # L
< { K
< [ J
< | I
< ` H
< \ G
< ^ F
< @ E
< ] D
< } C
< ¤ B
< ? A
< 
< 
< "a"
< 
< ""a""
---
> /MyOwnSandBox is now on another page.
------
OprgaG/MyOwnSandBox|982406132
1c1,81
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A few formatting examples and tests
> 
> [www.seqfan.net]
> [[www.seqfan.net]]
> 
> 'a'
> 
> ''b''
> 
> '''c'''
> 
> ''''d''''
> 
> <b>A</b>
> 
> <i>A</i>
> 
> <nowiki>NoWiKI</nowiki>
> 
> * bullet
> 
> # numbered list
> # second item
> # etc..
> 
> <tt> Typewriting ? </tt>
> <pre> Preformated ? </pre>
> 
> 
> ----
>  
> & 18
> é 17
> " 16
> ' 15
> ( 14
> - 13
> è 12
> _ 11
> ç 10
> à 9
> ) 8
> = 7
> $ 6
> ^ 5
> * 4
> ù 3
> ! 2
> : 1
> ; 0
> , Z
> + Y
> ° X
> £ W
> ¨ V
> µ U
> % T
> § S
> / R
> . Q
> ? P
> < O
> > N
> ~ M
> # L
> { K
> [ J
> | I
> ` H
> \ G
> ^ F
> @ E
> ] D
> } C
> ¤ B
> ? A
> 
> 
> "a"
> 
> ""a""
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|982406444
115c115
< I think that the rhythm will settle down in a few months. Right now, the excitement has outstripped the technology, as you have noticed from the UgLy links that are being made. Free-form linking may not be a bad idea here, but more thinking about naming conventions may be better.
---
> I think that the rhythm will settle down in a few months. Right now, the excitement has outstripped the technology, as you have noticed from the UgLy links that are being made. Free-form linking may not be a bad idea here, but more thinking about NamingConventions may be better.
131c131
< Interesting article--but from skimming it rather quickly, it looks like more of a proposal for [http://www.dmoz.org dmoz.org] rather than for WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger
---
> Interesting article--but from skimming it rather quickly, it looks like more of a proposal for [http://www.dmoz.org dmoz.org] rather than for WikiPedia. -- LarrySanger
------
ZeuS|982407516
1c1,7
< The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
---
> The leader of the GodS and GoD of the sky and thunder in GreekMythology, equivalent to the RomaN GoD JupiteR.
> 
> Last son of ChronoS (SaturN for RomaN""s) who had the habit of eating his own children, he ends this tyranny with the help of his mother and rescue his brethren.
> 
> Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunoN). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with human maiden such as LedA (CastoR, PolluX, HelenA, ?), PasiphAE (MinotauruS), as well as lesser GoD""esses.
> Father of many demi-GoD""s and HeroeS such as HerakleS (HerculeS).
> Brother of PoseidoN and HadeS. 
------
ZeuS|982407802
5c5,6
< Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunoN). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with human maiden such as LedA (CastoR, PolluX, HelenA, ?), PasiphAE (MinotauruS), as well as lesser GoD""esses.
---
> Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunO). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with human maiden such as LedA (CastoR, PolluX, HelenOfTroy, Clytemnestra), PasiphAE (MinotauruS), as well as lesser GoD""esses.
> 
7c8,10
< Brother of PoseidoN and HadeS. 
---
> Brother of PoseidoN and HadeS.
> 
> His complete family vary from author to author.
------
GreekMythology|982408058
9c9,11
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA -- ArtemiS -- LetO
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA -- ArtemiS -- LetO -- UlySSeS -- HeracleS -- OedipuS -- JasoN -- TheseuS -- PrometheuS
> ----
> Reference work: OvidTheMetamorphosis ApuleiusTheGoldenAsse
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982410205
2a3
> :StatisticalRegularity
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982410266
7c7
< 1) Let '''U''' be a SeT of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called '''elementary events'''. We call this set, the '''universe''' or '''sample space'''.
---
> #Let '''U''' be a SeT of discrete points, '''e1''','''e2''','''e3'''...,  called '''elementary events'''. We call this set, the '''universe''' or '''sample space'''.
9c9
< 2) Let every elementary event, '''e''' in '''U''', have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
---
> #Let every elementary event, '''e''' in '''U''', have a non-negative ''weight'', w('''e'''), assigned to it.
11c11
< 3) Let '''composite events''', Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
---
> #Let '''composite events''', Y1,Y2,Y3,... be represented by SubSet''s'' of '''U'''.
13c13
< 4) Define the '''probability''' of an event '''X''' (any subset of '''U'''), as the sum of the weights, w('''e'''), for every ''elementary event'' contained in '''X''' divided by the sum of the weights of every element of '''U'''.
---
> #Define the '''probability''' of an event '''X''' (any subset of '''U'''), as the sum of the weights, w('''e'''), for every ''elementary event'' contained in '''X''' divided by the sum of the weights of every element of '''U'''.
------
ProbabilityAxioms|982410305
8d7
< 
10d8
< 
12d9
< 
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982410411
2c2
< : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
---
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability -- ProbabilityApplications
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982410458
2,3c2,3
< : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability -- ProbabilityApplications
< : NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
---
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
> : ProbabilityApplications -- NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982410856
14a15,19
> ----
> Valuable resources on the Web
> 
> [http://www.clarkson.edu/~dobrowb/probweb/probweb1.html The Probability Web]
> [http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/ Chance Database]
------
ProbabilityApplications|982411323
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics
> :NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
> 
> :RandomVariables
> :RecurrentEvents -- RenewalTheory -- RandomWalk
> :StochasticProcesses -- MarkovChains -- GamblingSystems
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
> 
------
ProbabilityApplications|982411407
1a2
> :ProbabilityDistributions
4c5
< :RandomVariables
---
> :RandomVariables -- GamblingSystems
6c7
< :StochasticProcesses -- MarkovChains -- GamblingSystems
---
> :StochasticProcesses -- MarkovChains
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982411504
3c3,4
< : ProbabilityApplications -- NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
---
> : ProbabilityApplications 
> : ProbabilityDistributions -- NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
8d8
< A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnaLysis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable. Several probability distributions are so important that they have been given specific names, the NormalDistribution, the BinomialDistribution, the PoissonDistribution are just three of them.
19c19
< [http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/ Chance Database]
---
> [http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/ Chance Database]
------
ProbabilityDistributions|982411565
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> A ''probability distribution'' describes a special ''universe'', a set of ''real numbers'' (see AnaLysis) and how probability is distributed among them to determine a ''random variable''. For every random variable, there is a function called the ''cumulative distribution function'' which provides the probability that a given value is not exceeded by the random variable. Several probability distributions are so important that they have been given specific names, the NormalDistribution, the BinomialDistribution, the PoissonDistribution are just three of them.
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
ProbabilityDistributions|982411677
1a2,3
> :ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityApplications
> :RandomVariable -- CumulativeDistributionFunction -- ProbabilityDensity
5c7
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982411775
12,14d11
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
< ----
< I just wanted to say thanks and welcome, Dr. Beldin! -- LarrySanger
19a17,21
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
> ----
> I just wanted to say thanks and welcome, Dr. Beldin! -- LarrySanger
> 
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982412049
2,4c2,5
< : ProbabilityAxioms -- FrequencyProbability -- PersonalProbability -- EclecticProbability
< : ProbabilityApplications 
< : ProbabilityDistributions -- NormalDistribution -- BinomialDistribution -- PoissonDistribution
---
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityTheory
> : ProbabilityApplications -- ProbabilityDistributions
> 
> : StatisticalTheory
10c11
< Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability, summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details, and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe.
---
> Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. ProbabilityTheory plays a critical role in the development of StatisticalTheory. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability, summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details, and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe.
------
ProbabilityTheory|982412589
1c1,10
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ProbabilityAndStatistics
> :ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityDistributions
> 
> The basic theorems of probability can be developed easily from the ProbabilityAxioms and SetTheory. 
> 
> #The sum of the probabilities for all the ''elementary events'' is one.
> #For any arbitrary events, A1 and A2, the probability of both events, Pr{A1*A2}, is given by the sum of the probabilities of the ''elementary events'' in both A1 and A2. If the intersection is empty, then the probability is exactly zero.
> #For any arbitrary events, A1 and A2, the probability of either or both, Pr{A1+A2}, is given by Pr{A1}+Pr{A2}-Pr{A1*A2}
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982413191
28c28,36
< ''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''
---
> ''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''
> 
> Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts). You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral. As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.
> 
> Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.
> 
> Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have ''all'' of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.
> 
> Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
------
OpenSource|982421716
7c7
< FamousOpenSoftwares:
---
> FamousOpenSoftware:
9c9
< EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, ...
---
> EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, PhP...
------
ZeuS|982421968
10c10
< His complete family vary from author to author.
---
> His complete family varies from author to author.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982422160
30c30,44
< Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts). You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral. As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.
---
> ----
> Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. 
> 
> ''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
> not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''
> 
> The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts).
> 
> ''And that entry was changed, right?''
> 
> You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral.
> 
> ''I disagree.''
> 
> As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.
36c50,52
< Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
> 
> '''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.'''
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982422371
52c52,56
< '''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.'''
---
> ''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''
> 
> ''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''
> 
> ''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''
------
PigLatin|982422672
6a7,15
> ----
> Question: is PigLatin primarily a phenomenon of children in English speaking countries, or are the same rules followed by children of other countries?
> 
> watashi wa nihongo no gakusei desu.
> "I am a Japanese language student"
> 
> In Japanese language, I believe that the syllable is more of a fundamental unit that 'consonant' or 'vowel'.  (Japanese characters, hiragana and katakana, form a syllabary rather than an alphabet.)  So little kids in Japan would probably follow a different set of rules to create their own mock language.
> 
> I hope someone knows about this.  I never thought of it before, and now I'm really interested.
------
TheWillToPower|982423866
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A interesting link: http://nietzsche.ps.uni-sb.de
------
EduCation|982424377
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> All education is instructional and all instruction is educational( Herbart )
------
PigLatin|982430658
15c15,20
< I hope someone knows about this.  I never thought of it before, and now I'm really interested.
---
> I hope someone knows about this.  I never thought of it before, and now I'm really interested.-----
> 
> I know nothing of this, but if I were a Japanese child, I would say your sentence something like;
> 
> Takushi-watsu wa-watsu hongo-nitsu notsu kusei-gatsu su-detsu...:-). Just guessing.
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu)
------
HungarianLanguage|982431654
5c5
< The PassiveVoice is almost extinct (one can find it in old litterary
---
> The PassiveVoice is almost extinct (one can find it in old literary
15c15
< As an apetizer, an extract for the verb "to be" in hungarian, lenni.
---
> As an appetizer, an extract for the verb "to be" in hungarian, lenni.
32a33
> When you say the mark for the plural is "k," are you referring to verbs (as it seems) or nouns too? RoseParks
------
BinomialDistribution/Revisited|982437046
1c1
< The ''binomial distribution function'' provides the probability that X success will occur in N trials of a ''binomial experiment''. 
---
> The ''binomial distribution density function'' provides the probability that X success will occur in N trials of a ''binomial experiment''. 
------
OpenSource|982437452
1c1
< A large movement of PROgrammeR's, CitiZenS and other ComputerUserS to give easy access to TechnoLogy, restrict the mania of CopyRight.
---
> Open source ComputerSoftware is nominally owned by one entity, such as the FreeSoftwareFoundation, and then licensed out according to an OpenSourceLicense; the license gives the user free use of the software as well access to the SourceCode, so that the software can then be further developed by whoever is interested.  (This needs to be expanded.)
3c3
< Among the relevant topics:
---
> The OpenSourceMovement is a large movement of programmers and other computer users to give easy access to ComputerSoftware.
5c5
< DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman, the GNUProjecT, the FsF, DebianLinux distribution, FreeBSD.
---
> Among the relevant topics:
7c7
< FamousOpenSoftware:
---
> DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman
9c9
< EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, PhP...
---
> The GNUProjecT, FreeSoftwareFoundation, DebianLinux distribution, FreeBSD
10a11
> OpenSourceSoftware: EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, PhP...
------
BinomialDistribution|982437599
3c3
< To get a result of X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and the probability of a tail is q (1-p), then X heads and N-X tails has a probability calculated by multiplying X p's times N-X q's or (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/X!/(N-X)! different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
---
> To get a probability of getting X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and the probability of a tail is q=(1-p) Then the result of X heads and N-X tails on any one trial has a probability calculated  by finding the product of multiplying p times itself X times (p^X), and q times itself (N-X) times (q^(N-X)) giving (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/(X!*(N-X)!) different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
5c5
<    N!/X!/(N-X)! p^X q^(N-X)
---
>    N!/(X!*(N-X)!) p^X q^(N-X)
------
BinomialDistribution|982437727
3c3
< To get a probability of getting X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and the probability of a tail is q=(1-p) Then the result of X heads and N-X tails on any one trial has a probability calculated  by finding the product of multiplying p times itself X times (p^X), and q times itself (N-X) times (q^(N-X)) giving (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/(X!*(N-X)!) different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
---
> To get a probability of getting X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and then the probability of a tail is q=(1-p) Then the result of X heads and N-X tails on any one trial has a probability calculated  by finding the product of multiplying p times itself X times (p^X), and q times itself (N-X) times (q^(N-X)) giving (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/(X!*(N-X)!) different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
------
BinomialDistribution|982437860
3c3
< To get a probability of getting X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and then the probability of a tail is q=(1-p) Then the result of X heads and N-X tails on any one trial has a probability calculated  by finding the product of multiplying p times itself X times (p^X), and q times itself (N-X) times (q^(N-X)) giving (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/(X!*(N-X)!) different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
---
> To get a probability of getting X heads in a sequence of N tosses, several things have to happen. If the probability of a head on a single trial is p and then the probability of a tail is q=(1-p) Then the result of X heads and N-X tails on any one trial has a probability calculated  by finding the product of multiplying p times itself X times (p^X), and q times itself (N-X) times (q^(N-X)), that is (p^X q^(N-X)). However, there are many sequences which match this description. By the methods of CombinaTorics, we can find that there are N!/(X!*(N-X)!) different combinations with X heads and N-X tails. So, the probability of X heads is 
------
PigLatin|982438163
2,6c2,7
< *for words that begin with consonants, move the leading consonant(s) to the end of the word and add "ay."  Thus, "ball" becomes "all-bay"; "button" becomes "utton-bay"; "star" becomes "ar-stay"; "three" becomes "ee-thray."
< *for words beginning with "qu," move the "qu" to the end of the word and add ay. Thus "question" becomes "estion-quay,"
< *for words that begin with vowels, simply add "ay" to the end of the word.  Thus, "a" becomes "a-ay" (or "a-yay"); "at" becomes "at-ay" (or "at-tay"); "ermine" becomes "ermine-ay."
< Is-thay is-ay an-ay example-ay of-ay Ig-pay Atin-Lay.  As-ay ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-ay upid-stay, ut-bay ots-lay of-ay un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay----
< Ice-nay escription-day, octor-day anager-say!!! Ig-pay atin-lay is-ay un-fay or-fay ome-say adults-ay. Ou-yay eem-say ite-quay uent-flay, I-ay otice-nay.--OseRayArksPay--
---
> *For words that begin with consonants, move the leading consonant(s) to the end of the word and add "ay."  Thus, "ball" becomes "all-bay"; "button" becomes "utton-bay"; "star" becomes "ar-stay"; "three" becomes "ee-thray";
> *for words beginning with "qu," move the "qu" to the end of the word and add ay. Thus "question" becomes "estion-quay"; and
> *for words that begin with vowels, simply add "way" to the end of the word.  Thus, "a" becomes "a-way"; "at" becomes "at-way"; "ermine" becomes "ermine-way."
> Is-thay is-way an-way example-way of-way Ig-pay Atin-lay.  As-way ou-yay an-cay ee-say, its-way upid-stay, ut-bay ots-lay of-way un-fay or-fay ildren-chay. --ArrylayAngersay
> ----
> Ice-nay escription-day, Octor-day Anger-say!!! Ig-pay Atin-lay is-way un-fay or-fay ome-say adults-ay. Ou-yay eem-say ite-quay uent-flay, I-way otice-nay.--OseRayArksPay--
10,11c11,12
< watashi wa nihongo no gakusei desu.
< "I am a Japanese language student"
---
> :watashi wa nihongo no gakusei desu.
> :"I am a Japanese language student"
15,16c16,17
< I hope someone knows about this.  I never thought of it before, and now I'm really interested.-----
< 
---
> I hope someone knows about this.  I never thought of it before, and now I'm really interested.
> -----
20c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu)
------
PigLatin|982438341
21c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
------
PigLatin|982438393
21c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCenetric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
------
PigLatin|982438511
1c1
< ''Pig Latin'' is a silly "language" created from any other language as follows:
---
> ''Pig Latin'' is a silly "language" that can be created from, i.e., based on, any other language (but we would like to know if it is widely based on languages other than English) as follows:
21c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
------
GreekMythology|982445345
9c9
< ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA -- ArtemiS -- LetO -- UlySSeS -- HeracleS -- OedipuS -- JasoN -- TheseuS -- PrometheuS
---
> ZeuS -- EuropA -- AchillEus -- HecTor  --  HerA -- HelenOfTroy -- ApollO -- AthenA -- ArtemiS -- LetO -- OdyssEus -- HeracleS -- OedipUs -- JasoN -- ThesEus -- PromethEus
11c11
< Reference work: OvidTheMetamorphosis ApuleiusTheGoldenAsse
---
> Reference work: OvidTheMetamorphosis ApuleiusTheGoldenAsse
------
ZeuS|982446123
5c5
< Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunO). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with human maiden such as LedA (CastoR, PolluX, HelenOfTroy, Clytemnestra), PasiphAE (MinotauruS), as well as lesser GoD""esses.
---
> Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunO). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with various goddesses - notably DemeteR, LetO, DionE, MaiA, etc - and mortal women - notably SemelE, Io, EuropA, LedA, etc.
------
ZeuS|982446276
5c5
< Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunO). Their son is HephaistoS (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with various goddesses - notably DemeteR, LetO, DionE, MaiA, etc - and mortal women - notably SemelE, Io, EuropA, LedA, etc.
---
> Brother and husband of HerA (identified with JunO). Their son is HephaistOs (VulcaN). He is famous for his many extraconjugal affairs (in parentheses the offspring) with various goddesses - notably DemeteR, LetO, DionE, MaiA, etc - and mortal women - notably SemelE, Io, EuropA, LedA, etc.
7,10c7
< Father of many demi-GoD""s and HeroeS such as HerakleS (HerculeS).
< Brother of PoseidoN and HadeS.
< 
< His complete family varies from author to author.
---
> As a result, father of many demi-GoD""s and HeroeS such as HerakleS (HerculeS).  The Greeks considered him to probably still be producing moral offspring.  Brother of PoseidoN, HadeS, HestIa, HerA and DemeteR.
------
GreekMythology|982449779
1c1
< The legends and religion of the HellenicCivilization.  These stories were familiar to everyone, even if they did not believe them, and provided the people with both rituals and history.
---
> The legends and religion of Hellenic (Greek) civilization (see GreekCivilization).  These stories were familiar to all ancient Greeks, even if they did not believe them, and provided the people with both rituals and history.
3c3
< The Greek gods are given human form, but are first and foremost personifications of the forces of the universe.  As such they are more or less unchanging, and while they sometimes have a sense of justice, they are often petty or vengeful.  The god's favors are bought by sacrifices and piety, but this does not guarantee them, and they are prone to frequent changes of mind.  Their anger is harsh and their love can be just as dangerous.
---
> In Greek mythology, the Greek gods are given human form, but are first and foremost personifications of the forces of the universe.  As such they are more or less unchanging, and while they sometimes have a sense of justice, they are often petty or vengeful.  The gods' favors are bought by sacrifices and piety, but this does not guarantee them, and they are prone to frequent changes of mind.  Their anger is harsh and their love can be just as dangerous.
5c5
< The world of Greek mythology is expectedly difficult.  It is full of monsters, wars, intrigue, and meddling gods.  And there are heroes to help overcome these problems.  Men and women were much greater in those days, of course, though the Greeks did not see any wide gulf between their history and their mythology.  All in all it makes for some wonderful stories.
---
> The world of Greek mythology is expectedly difficult.  It is full of monsters, wars, intrigue, and meddling gods.  And there are heroes to help overcome these problems.  Men and women were much greater in those days, of course, though the Greeks did not see any wide gulf between their history and their mythology (see, for example, TheIliad and TheOdyssey).  All in all it makes for some wonderful stories.
11c11
< Reference work: OvidTheMetamorphosis ApuleiusTheGoldenAsse
---
> Sources: OvidTheMetamorphosis ApuleiusTheGoldenAsse TheIliad TheOdyssey
------
HungarianLanguage|982450510
1c1,7
< A few facts:
---
> Magyar Nyelv
> 
> A few facts about (modern) hungarian.
> 
> Hungarian /VocabularY contains many words derived from TurkishLanguage, GermanLanguage, SlavicLanguages but is quite original and colorful.
> 
> Hungarian has many different /CaseS (esetek), most common are NominativeCase, AccusativeCase, DativeCase, InstrumentalCase, FinalCase, SuperessiveCase, InessiveCase, ElativeCase, TerminativeCase, DelativeCase. There is also a FormalCase and a few other ones. I usually start learning a language by learning how to count and the days of the week. Here are /NumberS (számok).
4,6c10,11
< for stressing and denoting.
< The PassiveVoice is almost extinct (one can find it in old literary
< texts).
---
> for stressing and denoting. Words can be combined (as in GermaN) and derived (with suffixes and affixes).
> The PassiveVoice is almost extinct (one can find it in old literary texts).
8,9c13,14
< The mark for PluraL is a suffixed -k, eventually preceded by a VoweL
< when the WorD ends by a ConsonanT
---
> Many grammatical and syntaxical functions, elements or constructions are based on suffixes. 
> The mark for PluraL is a suffixed -k, eventually preceded by a VoweL when the WorD ends by a ConsonanT
15c20
< As an appetizer, an extract for the verb "to be" in hungarian, lenni.
---
> As an appetizer for a more complete vocabulary (szókincs), an extract for the verb "to be" in hungarian, lenni.
17c22,24
< Forms are presented in this order    I, Thou, He/She/It, We, You, They
---
> Forms are presented in this order
> I, Thou, He/She/It, We, You, They
> én, te, ´´o, mi, ti, ´´ok
22c29
< PastTense: voltam, volt'al, volt, voltunk, voltatok, voltak
---
> PastTense: voltam, voltál, volt, voltunk, voltatok, voltak
33c40,42
< When you say the mark for the plural is "k," are you referring to verbs (as it seems) or nouns too? RoseParks
---
> When you say the mark for the plural is "k," are you referring to verbs (as it seems) or nouns too? --RoseParks
> 
> 'That is one of the beauty of the thing: both.' Example: <b>kérdés</b> a question, <b>három kérdések</b> three questions. 
------
HungarianLanguage|982450577
22a23
> 
23a25
> 
26c28,30
< <b>IndicativeMode</b>
---
> 
> *<b>IndicativeMode</b>
> 
34c38,39
< <b>ConditionalMode</b>
---
> *<b>ConditionalMode</b>
> 
------
RulesToConsider|982451429
9c9
< Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy
---
> Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy, OprgaG
11a12,13
> 
> ''Well, what about the related paradox that there is no Rule to decide that something is a Rule (and so should be ignored)'' --OprgaG
------
OprgaG|982452205
65c65
< Indeed, I should have seen the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page sooner.
---
> Indeed, I should have seen the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page sooner. And by the way my start of OpenSource page was rather bad. Glad you edited it.
71c71,72
< NamingConventions
---
> NamingConventions WikiProcess TechFAQ ModeratioN CestQuoiWiki
> CestQuoiWikiPedia
------
FoodAndDrinks|982454566
12c12
< * AsianCuisine
---
> * AsianCuisine: -- JapaneseCuisine -- CantoneseCuisine -- ThaiCuisine -- IndonesianCuisine -- IndianCuisine
14c14
< * MediterraneanCuisine
---
> * MediterraneanCuisine: -- TurkishCuisine -- GreekCuisine
------
OpenSource|982456130
4a5,6
> There is widespread agreement, but some tension, between the OpenSourceMovement and the FreeSoftwareMovement.
> 
7c9,10
< DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman
---
> DonaldEKnuth, RichardStallman, LinusTorvalds, EricRaymond,
> PaulVixie
11c14,17
< OpenSourceSoftware: EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, PhP...
---
> OpenSourceSoftware: EmacS, TeX, ViM, ApachE, XFrEE, GimP, PhP...
> 
> ''Please delete this note after confirmation/disconfirmation:
> I'm not sure that TeX is OpenSource.''
------
PigLatin|982456412
21c21,24
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
> ----
> I will ask my Japanese teacher (nihongo no sensei) next week.  I don't have class until Wednesday, due to the holiday on Monday.
> Hopefully I won't forget, but someone can please remind me.  I can also ask my Japanese mother-in-law.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982457122
3,16c3
< I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
< "criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.
< 
< I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.
< 
<  -- JimboWales
< 
< This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.
< 
< ''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''
< 
< Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 
< 
< ''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''
---
> ----
18c5
< Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.
---
> ''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''
20c7
< ''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''
---
> ''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''
22c9
< Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 
---
> ''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''
24c11
< ''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''
---
> You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 
26c13
< ''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''
---
> As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists. I don't give any credit to people dumb enough to claim that war is a good thing, as free market economists do. And there's a serious problem when some of the best political science in North America is done by a linguist. I'm hardly going to respect academics that have forfeited their duties to an outsider in favour of selling themselves to the highest bidder. I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.
28c15
< ''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''
---
> The only argument you can make which I would accept as valid is that facts about corporations belong in an entry on corporations and not on anarchism. You have conspicuously failed to make that argument. I can just imagine how horrified you would be if I described in explicit detail exactly how psychopathic corporations are on ModernCorporation. Further, if you were neutral you would limit yourself to editing in "Anarchists believe" and not threaten to insert something equivalent to "but they are completely wrong since nobody believes them blah blah blah". I do not for a single second believe your pretense at "neutrality".
30,31c17
< ----
< Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. 
---
> You also wrote:
36,56c22
< The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts).
< 
< ''And that entry was changed, right?''
< 
< You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral.
< 
< ''I disagree.''
< 
< As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.
< 
< Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.
< 
< Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have ''all'' of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.
< 
< Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
< 
< ''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''
< 
< ''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''
< 
< ''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''
---
> So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
------
ArchitecturE|982458154
2a3,6
> 
> ----
> 
> Some great architects are ChristopherAlexander and FrankLloydWright.
------
PoLitics|982458981
6c6
< AnarchisM -- AnarchoCapitalism -- BolshevisM -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- CommunisM -- ConservatisM -- DemocracY -- FascisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- LibertarianisM -- MarxisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoConservatism -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepublicanisM (and we don't mean the GOP) -- StatesRights -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoOligarchy -- TheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- TotalitarianisM -- TraditionalAnarchism
---
> AnarchisM -- AnarchoCapitalism -- BolshevisM -- CapitalisM -- ClassicalLiberalism -- CommunisM -- ConservatisM -- DemocracY -- FascisM -- FederalisM -- FeudalisM -- LibertarianisM -- MarxisM -- NationalSocialism -- NeoLiberalism -- NeoConservatism -- OligarchY -- PlutocracY -- RepublicanisM (and we don't mean the GOP) -- StatesRights -- SyndicalisM -- SocialisM -- TechnoAnarchy -- TechnoCapitalism -- TechnoDemocracy -- TechnoOligarchy -- TheNewLeft -- TheOldLeft -- ThirdWay -- TotalitarianisM -- TraditionalAnarchism
21c21
< IdeologicalConcepts: AnarchY -- ConservativE -- LeftWing -- LiberaL -- PoliticalSpectrum -- RightWing
---
> IdeologicalConcepts: AnarchY -- ConservativE -- LeftWing -- LiberaL -- PoliticalSpectrum -- PropagandA -- RightWing
23c23
< PoliticalEntities: CitY -- CityState -- CountY -- GovernmenT -- NationState -- Province -- WorldState -- RepubliC -- TyrannY
---
> PoliticalEntities: CitY -- CityState -- CountY -- CountrY -- GovernmenT -- NationState -- Province -- WorldState -- RepubliC -- TyrannY
30c30
< ClassicalAndModernPoliticalTheorists: PlatO -- AristotlE -- JohnLocke -- JeanJacquesRousseau -- KarlMarx -- JohnStuartMill
---
> ClassicalAndModernPoliticalTheorists: PlatO -- AristotlE -- JohnLocke -- JeanJacquesRousseau -- KarlMarx -- JohnStuartMill -- MichealBakunin
32c32
< ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- RobertNozick
---
> ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- NoamChomsky -- RobertNozick
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982460591
14a15,16
> "[I]f there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret, despite much pseudo-scientific posturing." -- NoamChomsky, the linguist in question
> 
22c24
< So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
---
> So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982460864
24a25,50
> ----
> Probably against my better judgment, I'm going to reply to you, Richard.  I think you simply fail to understand some things.  You might not be capable of understanding them yet, but I'll give it a shot.  I'll try to explain these things ''once,'' and then let you go on believing whatever it is you want to believe.
> 
> :You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 
> 
> This claim is completely unjustified, and frankly, it's just silly.  ''Why'' is it that a description of what people believe, without explicitly advocating any particular belief, is "a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology"?  I'm not ''aware'' of covering for anything, and I hope I'm a smart and honest enough person to be able to see if I am.  Many people--many philosophers, for example--are very capable of writing encyclopedia articles (see, e.g., my favorite encyclopedia, ''The Companion to Epistemology'') that fairly present various views without advocating any one of them.  But some of these philosophers hold ''extreme'' views of one sort or another.  Certainly they don't ''mean'' to be plugging for "the mainstream ideology" (or whatever the mainstream view on the question at hand is).  And none of their audience would be so silly as to assume that they were advocates for "the mainstream ideology," either.  If you think so, you simply don't understand the dialectical dynamic that's going on.
> 
> When you're writing for mature adults who can think for themselves, it simply ''insults their intelligence'' to assume that presenting views neutrally, or unbiasedly, will cause them to think that you are plugging for "the mainstream ideology."  Even more it insults their intelligence to presume to be writing an ''informational'' article which openly attempts to influence their views, as though the text from which they would most be likely to form their views would be an obviously biased encyclopedia article.  That's not what most people use encyclopedias for.
> 
> :As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists.
> 
> I don't even know what that ''means.''  Do you mean that they are all paid by corporations for advocating capitalism?  If so, that's silly.  First of all, they don't all advocate capitalism, and second, of course, they aren't all paid by corporations.  Many of them work for universities or as independent consultants, writers, and thinktank operatives.  More importantly, you insult them by assuming that they do not--whether due to inability, greed, coercion, or whatever other reason--use their own brains in deciding what to write.
> 
> :I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.
> 
> No, Jimmy meant it quite literally, and I understand exactly what he means.  You have to start treating your opponents as living, breathing human beings with brilliant brains of their own, not as automata.  One of the implications of this is that these people deserve your ''respect'' as living, breathing human beings with brains, sometimes brilliant, of their own.  They may not deserve your agreement, you don't have to like them, and you can even think that they're corrupt or evil for advocating the wrong thing.  But don't treat them like mindless, idiotic automata.
> 
> :So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical.
> 
> This is another fairly straightforward ''non sequitur.''  By assuming that people will form their political opinions based on what ''you'' have written in an ''encyclopedia article'' for ''Wikipedia,'' you fail to respect the fact that they have brains of their own and can make up their own minds, thank you very much.  They will, most of them, be able to spot your propaganda as such immediately--part of being educated involves being able to spot it, after all.  If they're at all educated, and they happen not to agree with you, they'll simply be nauseated.  Your cause will not be advanced.
> 
> Disclaimers, hedging, and so forth does not necessarily make writing ''bland.''  Propagandizing certainly does not necessarily make writing ''interesting'' (quite the opposite, for me).
> 
> Obviously, anyway, writing from a neutral point of view certainly does not have a tendency to make people "apolitical."  Why would it?  That's an empirical question; where's your data?  I'm very skeptical.  And quite the contrary, I would say that transparently propagandistic ways of presenting political views has a way of turning people off to thinking about politics.  If, as in many people's college careers, they are exposed to nothing but partisan screed when it comes to politics, those who want to rely as much as possible on ''their own native reason'' to decide what to think are necessarily turned off.
> 
> --LarrySanger
------
PoLitics|982460907
28c28
< PoliticalPhilosophy: TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment
---
> PoliticalPhilosophy: TheJustificationOfTheState -- AnarchismAndNaturalLawTheory -- SocialContractTheories -- RawlsMoralPhilosophy -- ConsequentialistJustificationsOfTheState -- ThePurposeOfGovernment
------
PoLitics|982460948
32c32
< ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- NoamChomsky -- RobertNozick
---
> ContemporaryPoliticalTheorists: DavidFriedman -- JohnRawls -- NoamChomsky -- RobertNozick
------
NamingConventions|982461793
95c95,97
< ----
---
> ----
> 
> I'd appreciate other parties to jump in on the discussion Cliff and I are having on http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FreeLink. What do you think about the canonicalization (c14n) concept? That would make a link like <nowiki>[[John F. Kennedy]] into john_f_kennedy which would match correctly against [[John F Kennedy]] as well.</nowiki> -- SunirShah
------
NamingConventions|982461909
97c97
< I'd appreciate other parties to jump in on the discussion Cliff and I are having on http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FreeLink. What do you think about the canonicalization (c14n) concept? That would make a link like <nowiki>[[John F. Kennedy]] into john_f_kennedy which would match correctly against [[John F Kennedy]] as well.</nowiki> -- SunirShah
---
> I'd appreciate other parties to jump in on the discussion Cliff and I are having on http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FreeLink. What do you think about the canonicalization (c14n) concept? That would make a link like <nowiki>[[John F. Kennedy]] into john_f_kennedy which would match correctly against [[John F Kennedy]] and JohnFKennedy as well.</nowiki> -- SunirShah
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982470209
50c50,58
< --LarrySanger
---
> --LarrySanger
> 
> I find it amusing how you can accuse me of insulting the intelligence of educated and "brilliant" people while you simultaneously insult the intelligence of uneducated (and presumably "dull") people. You assume that if someone believes my plain words then it is because they are stupid, uneducated and propagandized. Your target audience is the middle-class and academics while mine is "lower", the ''real'' people with ''real'' concerns. Economists who talk incessantly about irrelevant social constructs like the stock market, instead of real concerns like famines and poverty, bore me to tears. And I propose that the political and emotional disengagement of academics (only academics buy the myth of the radical academic) makes them into something less than real human beings. If "partisan screeds" turn college students off then it is merely because they feel threatened by real emotional engagement (which entails real commitment) instead of the abstract airy fairy ''game'' called 'politics' that is so common in academia and which costs academics nothing.
> 
> My position is backed up by ample facts and most students of propaganda (including the likes of Jacques Ellul and Noam Chomsky). Far from education being about detecting propaganda, it is nothing but a system of indoctrination. Further, the highly intelligent and educated are inherently easier to propagandize than the rest of the population, even before you factor in the massive (professional) arrogance you have displayed.
> 
> I have no wish to disengage myself emotionally or politically. When I read about gross exploitation and injustice, it awakens a core of anger and hatred in me every single time. It isn't because I'm stupider or less intelligent than you are but simply because I haven't grown the apathy you seem to possess (or at least are accustomed to from your peers). This is something I like about myself and I will hardly "grow" to change it. Nor do I have any wish to engage in the dishonesty of emulating the walking dead. And hence I have no wish to use emotionally void language (which is the only meaning of "neutral" I can discern). The idea of arguing in an insanely calm manner about the "flaws" of democracy (to give one example) strikes a note of horror in me.
> 
> Now, if you tell me that encyclopedias are inherently academic and middle-class artifacts then I am prepared to accept your judgement on the matter. You would be confirming my suspicions. In that case, I would limit my participation appropriately. -- RichardKulisz
------
TraditionalAnarchism/Talk|982485134
58c58,62
< Now, if you tell me that encyclopedias are inherently academic and middle-class artifacts then I am prepared to accept your judgement on the matter. You would be confirming my suspicions. In that case, I would limit my participation appropriately. -- RichardKulisz
---
> Now, if you tell me that encyclopedias are inherently academic and middle-class artifacts then I am prepared to accept your judgement on the matter. You would be confirming my suspicions. In that case, I would limit my participation appropriately. -- RichardKulisz
> ----
> Richard, you ''still'' aren't understanding, because you are too full of yourself and stubborn to even try to understand what I said; and you have ''totally'' failed to demonstrate that you have.  I don't see any point in talking to someone who isn't going to make the effort of meeting me halfway.
> 
> Once again, more evidence that we should just write articles instead of engaging in this sort of pointless, sophomoric mental masturbation.  If you don't want to do so, Richard, and you prefer to engage in the above sort of ranting on this wiki, I would suggest you stop wasting our time and "limit your participation appropriately." -- LarrySanger
------
NicolasCage|982492224
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> FrancisFordCoppola's nephew.
> 
> /Filmography
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982492676
1c1,2
< : MathematicsAndStatistics
---
> : back to MathematicsAndStatistics
> 
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982492802
12c12
< Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. ProbabilityTheory plays a critical role in the development of StatisticalTheory. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability, summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details, and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe.
---
> Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. ProbabilityTheory plays a critical role in the development of StatisticalTheory. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability (PlanningResearch), summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details (SummarizingStatisticalData), and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe (InterpretingStatisticalData).
------
NicolasCage/Filmography|982492870
1c1,38
< Describe the new page here.
---
> NicolasCage participated in the following films:
> 
> * TheFamilyMan — 2000
> * GoneInSixtySeconds — 2000
> * BringingOutTheDead — 1999
> * 8MM — 1999
> * CityOfAngels — 1998
> * SnakeEyes — 1998
> * FaceOff — 1997
> * ConAir — 1997
> * TheRock — 1996
> * LeavingLasVegas — 1995 - Best Actor Academy Award (''see AcademyAwards'')
> * KissOfDeath — 1995
> * ItCouldHappenToYou — 1994
> * TrappedInParadise — 1994
> * GuardingTess — 1994
> * ACenturyOfCinema — 1994
> * AmosAndAndrew — 1993
> * DeadfalL — 1993
> * HoneymoonInVegas — 1992
> * RedRockWest — 1992
> * ZandaleE — 1991
> * WildAtHeart — 1990
> * FirebirdS — 1990
> * VampiresKiss — 1989
> * TimeToKill — 1989
> * RaisingArizona — 1987
> * MoonstrucK — 1987
> * TheBoyInBlue — 1986
> * PeggySueGotMarried — 1986
> * BirdY — 1984
> * TheCottonClub — 1984
> * RacingWithTheMoon — 1984
> * RumbleFish — 1983
> * ValleyGirl — 1983
> 
>  
>  
------
NicolasCage|982493043
1c1
< FrancisFordCoppola's nephew.
---
> NicolasCage was born on January 7th, 1964 in CaliforniA. He is FrancisFordCoppola's nephew.
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982493124
9c9
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. The simplest form of the theory begins with a ''universe'', a finite set of ''elementary events''. We define a ''weighting function'' which maps each elementary event into a non-negative number called the ''weight'' of the elementary event. We can represent any ''event'' by a subset of the universe. The probability of the event is the sum of the weights for all the elementary events in the subset divided by the sum of the weights for the whole universe. Calculation of probabilities can often be determined using CombinaTorics or by applying the definition above directly.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. ProbabilityAxioms form the basis for mathematical ProbabilityTheory. Calculation of probabilities can often be determined using CombinaTorics or by applying the definition above directly. ProbabilityApplications include more than Statistics, which is usually based on the idea of ProbabilityDistributions.
------
ScienceFictionFilm|982493476
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A lot of ScienceFiction films were low-budget productions (eg. Day of the Triffids), but because of growing popularity and recent developments in the technology of special effects, most films are now multi-million dollar projects.
> 
> StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 -- MissionToMars
------
ScienceFiction|982493540
19a20
> * ScienceFictionFilm
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982493645
9c9
< Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. ProbabilityAxioms form the basis for mathematical ProbabilityTheory. Calculation of probabilities can often be determined using CombinaTorics or by applying the definition above directly. ProbabilityApplications include more than Statistics, which is usually based on the idea of ProbabilityDistributions.
---
> Probability is the mathematical theory we use to describe and quantify uncertainty. Uncertainty can be due to our ignorance, deliberate mixing or shuffling, or due to the essential randomness of Nature. In any case, we measure the uncertainty of '''events''' on a scale from zero (impossible events) to one (certain events or no uncertainty).
10a11
> ProbabilityAxioms form the basis for mathematical ProbabilityTheory. Calculation of probabilities can often be determined using CombinaTorics or by applying the axioms directly. ProbabilityApplications include even more than Statistics, which is usually based on the idea of ProbabilityDistributions.
12c13,16
< Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. ProbabilityTheory plays a critical role in the development of StatisticalTheory. We describe a universe of possible observations and the probabilities we associate with each. This allows us to plan our observations to control their variability (PlanningResearch), summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details (SummarizingStatisticalData), and reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe (InterpretingStatisticalData).
---
> ProbabilityTheory plays a critical role in the development of StatisticalTheory. Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics which includes planning, summarizing, and interpreting uncertain observations. We describe our knowledge (and ignorance) mathematically and attempt to learn more from whatever we can observe. This requires us to 
> #plan our observations to control their variability (PlanningResearch), 
> #summarize a collection of observations to feature their communality by suppressing details (SummarizingStatisticalData), and 
> #reach consensus about what the observations tell us about the world we observe (InterpretingStatisticalData).
------
FiLm|982493741
7c7
< ActorS -- ActresseS
---
> ActorS -- ActresseS -- FilmDirectors
------
FilmDirectors|982493876
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> MartinScorcese - OliverStone -- StephenSpielberg -- GeorgeLucas -- JohnWoo -- QuentinTarrantino -- JamesCameron -- WimWenders -- MikeFiggis
------
StatisticalTheory|982494134
1c1,26
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityTheory
> 
> : PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
> 
> The theory of Statistics includes a number of topics, in PlanningResearch 
> 
> #ExperimentalDesign
> #SurveySampling
> 
> SummarizingStatisticalData
> 
> #FittingProbabilityDistributions
> #ChoosingSummaryStatistics
> 
> and InterpretingStatisticalData.
> 
> #StatisticalAssumptions
> #LikelihoodPrinciple
> #EstimatingParameters
> #TestingHypotheses
> #RevisingOpinions
> 
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ActorS|982494162
4a5
> :CharlieChaplin
------
StatisticalTheory|982494213
9c9
< #ExperimentalDesign
---
> #DesigningExperiments
14d13
< #FittingProbabilityDistributions
15a15
> #FittingProbabilityDistributions
26c26
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
FilmDirectors|982494236
1c1
< MartinScorcese - OliverStone -- StephenSpielberg -- GeorgeLucas -- JohnWoo -- QuentinTarrantino -- JamesCameron -- WimWenders -- MikeFiggis
---
> MartinScorcese - OliverStone -- StephenSpielberg -- GeorgeLucas -- JohnWoo -- QuentinTarrantino -- JamesCameron -- WimWenders -- MikeFiggis -- StanleyKubrick - FrancisFordCoppola
------
StatisticalTheory|982494581
5c5
< : PlanningResearch -- SummarizingStatisticalData -- InterpretingStatisticalData
---
> The theory of Statistics includes a number of topics:
7c7
< The theory of Statistics includes a number of topics, in PlanningResearch 
---
> PlanningResearch to achieve the least possible ObservationalError:
12c12
< SummarizingStatisticalData
---
> SummarizingStatisticalData in conventional forms 
17c17
< and InterpretingStatisticalData.
---
> InterpretingStatisticalData is the final objective of all research:
------
ChoosingSummaryStatistics|982495117
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> The easiest way to approach this subject is to focus on what we have and what we want to achieve:
> 
> We have a SeT of observations which we want to summarize. This means we want to be able to communicate as much as possible as simply as possible. Statisticians commonly try to express the communality of the observations in a measure of CentralTendancy and the diversity of the observations in a measure of StatisticalDispersion.
>  
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
CentralTendancy|982495349
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The most commonly used measures of central tendancy are the 
> #MeaN, the sum of all data divided by the number of data in the SeT
> #MediaN, the value that separates the highest half from the lowest half of the SeT of data
> #MoDe, the most common value in the SeT of data
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
MeaN|982495440
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to CentralTendancy -- SummaryStatistics -- StatisticalTheory
> 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
StatisticalTheory|982495566
14,15c14,15
< #ChoosingSummaryStatistics
< #FittingProbabilityDistributions
---
> #Choosing SummaryStatistics
> #Fitting ProbabilityDistributions
------
SummaryStatistics|982495727
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> The easiest way to approach this subject is to focus on what we have and what we want to achieve:
> 
> We have a SeT of observations which we want to summarize. This means we want to be able to communicate as much as possible as simply as possible. Statisticians commonly try to express the communality of the observations in a measure of CentralTendancy and the diversity of the observations in a measure of StatisticalDispersion.
>  
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
CentralTendancy|982495899
0a1,4
> : back to SummaryStatistics -- StatisticalTheory
> 
> '''Central tendancy''' is the term statisticians use for any '''StatistiC''' that you could quote as ''representative'' of an entire DataSet.
> 
6c10,11
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
---
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
CentralTendancy|982495977
3c3
< '''Central tendancy''' is the term statisticians use for any '''StatistiC''' that you could quote as ''representative'' of an entire DataSet.
---
> '''Central tendancy''' is the term statisticians use for any '''StatistiC''' that you could quote as ''representative'' of an entire DataSeT.
6,8c6,8
< #MeaN, the sum of all data divided by the number of data in the SeT
< #MediaN, the value that separates the highest half from the lowest half of the SeT of data
< #MoDe, the most common value in the SeT of data
---
> #MeaN, the sum of all data divided by the number of DataSeT.
> #MediaN, the value that separates the highest half from the lowest half of the DataSeT.
> #MoDe, the most common value in the DataSeT.
------
DataSeT|982496134
1c1,7
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> A SeT of data consisting of:
> #a list of ResearchSubjects and
> #the DataVector associated with each.
> ---- 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
ResearchSubjects|982496305
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> : back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> In BioStatistics or PsychologicalStatistics, we call any organism (animal, or plant) which we plan to or have observed a research subject. 
> ---- 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
StarWars|982496320
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> # /EpisodeOne
> # ???
> # ???
> # /StarWars
> # /TheEmpireStrikesBack
> # /TheReturnOfTheJedi
------
StarWars|982496520
0a1,2
> An epic story about the fight between the Rebels and the Empire to dominate the GalaxY.
> 
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982496597
17a18,23
> There are some ScienCes which use statistics so extensively that we recognize special disciplines like:
> #BioStatistics (including MedicalStatistics)
> #PsychologicalStatistics
> #BusinessStatistics and EconomicStatistics
> #EngineeringStatistics
> #SocialStatistics (for all the ''social'' sciences)
------
ScienCes|982496633
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> see ScienCe
------
BioStatistics|982496913
1c1,8
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :back to ProbabilityAndStatistics
> 
> The applications of StatisticS to BiologicalScience are very diverse, but several deserve special mention:
> #Population Genetics
> #Medicine and PublicHealth (see MedicalStatistics)
> #AgriculturalFieldResearch
> ---- 
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
BioStatistics|982497001
4c4
< #Population Genetics
---
> #Population GeNetics
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982497078
19c19
< 
---
> ----
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982497146
8c8
< 1) How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of central tendancy''.
---
> 1) How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of CentralTendancy''.
------
SummaryStatistics|982497212
1c1
< : back to StatisticalTheory
---
> : back to StatisticalTheory -- SummarizingStatisticalData
7c7
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982497279
12c12
< When we are summarizing a quantity like length or weight or age, it is common to answer the first question with the '''mean''', the '''median''', or the '''mode'''. 
---
> When we are summarizing a quantity like length or weight or age, it is common to answer the first question with the '''MeaN''', the '''MediaN''', or the '''MoDe'''. 
------
MeaN|982497487
1c1
< : back to CentralTendancy -- SummaryStatistics -- StatisticalTheory
---
> : back to CentralTendancy -- SummaryStatistics -- SummarizingStatisticalData
3c3,7
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
---
> The '''mean''' is what we call the ''average'' in ordinary English, just the sum of all the observations divided by the number of observations. Once we have chosen this method of describing the communality of a DataSeT, we usually use the '''StandardDeviation''' to describe how the observations differ. The ''SD'' (as we abbreviate it) is the '''square root of the average of squared deviations from the mean'''.
> 
> The '''mean''' is the only value about which the sum of squared deviations is a minimum. If you calculate the sum of squared deviations from any other measure of CentralTendancy, it will be larger 
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin]
------
MeaN|982497567
5c5
< The '''mean''' is the only value about which the sum of squared deviations is a minimum. If you calculate the sum of squared deviations from any other measure of CentralTendancy, it will be larger 
---
> The '''mean''' is the only value about which the sum of squared deviations is a minimum. If you calculate the sum of squared deviations from any other measure of CentralTendancy, it will be larger than for the mean. This explains why the StandardDeviation and the mean are usually cited together in statistical reports.
------
MediaN|982497662
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''range''', the '''interquartile range''', and the '''absolute deviation'''. You can find out more about these from a good introductory statistics textbook.
> 
> The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode''' is not necessarily unique, unlike the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
> 
------
MoDe|982497753
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :back to SummaryStatistics -- SummarizingStatisticalData
> 
> The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode''' is not necessarily unique, unlike the '''MeaN''' and the '''MediaN'''.
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
> 
------
MediaN|982497874
1c1,3
< The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''range''', the '''interquartile range''', and the '''absolute deviation'''. You can find out more about these from a good introductory statistics textbook.
---
> :back to SummaryStatistics -- SummarizingStatisticalData
> 
> The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''RanGe''', the '''InterquartileRanGe''', and the '''AbsoluteDeviation'''. 
3d4
< The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode''' is not necessarily unique, unlike the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982498184
8c8,9
< 1) How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of CentralTendancy''.
---
> #How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of CentralTendancy''.
> #How do they differ? This is often called ''StatisticalVariability''.
10c11
< 2) How do they differ? This is often called ''variability''.
---
> When we are summarizing a quantity like length or weight or age, it is common to answer the first question with the '''MeaN''', the '''MediaN''', or the '''MoDe'''. Sometimes, we choose specific values from the ''CumulativeDistributionFunction'' called '''QuanTiles'''.
12c13
< When we are summarizing a quantity like length or weight or age, it is common to answer the first question with the '''MeaN''', the '''MediaN''', or the '''MoDe'''. 
---
> The most common measures of variability for QuantitativeData are the VarianCe, its square root, the StandardDeviation, the RanGe, InterQuartileRange, and AbsoluteDeviation.
14,18d14
< The '''mean''' is what we call the ''average'' in ordinary English, just the sum of all the observations divided by the number of observations. Once we have chosen this method of describing the communality, we usually use the '''standard deviation''' to describe how the observations differ. The ''SD'' (as we abbreviate it) is the '''square root of the average of squared deviations from the mean'''.
< 
< The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''range''', the '''interquartile range''', and the '''absolute deviation'''. You can find out more about these from a good introductory statistics textbook.
< 
< The '''mode''' is the value that has the largest number of observations. The '''mode''' is not necessarily unique, unlike the '''mean''' and the '''median'''.
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982498236
2c2
< : PlanningResearch -- InterpretingStatisticalData
---
> : PlanningResearch -- InterpretingStatisticalData -- SummaryStatistics
------
MediaN|982498283
3c3
< The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''RanGe''', the '''InterquartileRanGe''', and the '''AbsoluteDeviation'''. 
---
> The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''RanGe''', the '''InterQuartileRanGe''', and the '''AbsoluteDeviation'''. 
------
MediaN|982498320
3c3
< The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''RanGe''', the '''InterQuartileRanGe''', and the '''AbsoluteDeviation'''. 
---
> The '''median''' is that value that separates the highest half of the sample from the lowest half. When we use the ''median'' to describe what the observations have in common, there are several choices for a measure of variability, the '''RanGe''', the '''InterQuartileRange''', and the '''AbsoluteDeviation'''. 
------
SummarizingStatisticalData|982498508
8,9c8,9
< #How do the data for different ''Units'' seem similar? Statistical textbooks call the answer to this question a ''measure of CentralTendancy''.
< #How do they differ? This is often called ''StatisticalVariability''.
---
> #We want to choose a StatistiC that shows how different ''Units'' seem similar. Statistical textbooks call the solution to this objective, a ''measure of CentralTendancy''.
> #We want to choose another StatistiC that shows how they differ. This kind of statistic is often called a measure of ''StatisticalVariability''.
------
StatistiC|982498654
1c1,6
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> A '''statistic'' (singular form) is the result of using some statistical procedure applied to some DataSet. To be complete in describing any use of a statistic, one must describe both the procedure and the DataSet.
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
> 
------
StatistiC|982498687
3c3
< A '''statistic'' (singular form) is the result of using some statistical procedure applied to some DataSet. To be complete in describing any use of a statistic, one must describe both the procedure and the DataSet.
---
> A '''statistic'' (singular form) is the result of using some statistical procedure applied to some DataSeT. To be complete in describing any use of a statistic, one must describe both the procedure and the DataSeT.
------
ObservationalError|982499279
1c1,13
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :back to StatisticalTheory
> 
> There are no perfect instruments in the real world. Every scientist knows this, but as long as s/he can manage the observational error, research can continue. 
> 
> Everytime we repeat a measurement with a sensitive instrument, we obtain slightly different results. The common StatisticalModel we use is that the error has two additive parts:
> #SystematicError which always occurs (with the same value) when we use the instrument in the same way, and
> #RandomError which may vary from observation to observation.
> 
> The SystematicError is sometimes called StatisticalBias. We control it by using very carefully standardized procedures. Part of the education in every ScienCe is how to use the standard instruments of the discipline.
> 
> The RandomError (or RandomVariation) is due to factors which we cannot (or do not) control. It may be too expensive or we may be too ignorant of these factors to control them each time we measure. It may even be that whatever we are trying to measure is changing (see DynamicModels).
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982499394
18c18
< There are some ScienCes which use statistics so extensively that we recognize special disciplines like:
---
> There are some ScienCes which use statistics so extensively and have specialized terminology that we recognize special disciplines like:
------
ProbabilityAndStatistics|982499490
3,4c3
< : ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityTheory
< : ProbabilityApplications -- ProbabilityDistributions
---
> : ProbabilityAxioms -- ProbabilityTheory -- ProbabilityApplications -- ProbabilityDistributions
6c5
< : StatisticalTheory
---
> : StatisticalTheory -- AppliedStatistics
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|982500012
79a80,82
> I have a suggestion that might give us the best of several worlds. Continue with multiple capitalization as the main tool used by authors, but allow one to assign '''single word synonyms''' with no capitalization so that they can be recognized for indexing when they appear in any article.
> --DickBeldin
> ----
------
DickBeldin|982500297
1c1,5
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Statistician in residence
> 
> Doing the ''stream of consciousness'' writing I never had a chance to do before. Thanks for the opportunity!
> ----
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
------
MoDe|982508959
5c5,6
< [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]
---
> [http://netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html RABeldin ]----
> This was my definition, if you don't mind...
------
PigLatin|982509327
21c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu su-parutsu san)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu ruzu-patsu san)
------
PigLatin|982509389
21c21
< But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Resu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu ruzu-patsu san)
---
> But, yes, Japanese is '''SyllableCentric'''...ouch!!! For JimmyWales (Mi-Jitsu Rezu-watsu san)-- from RoseParks (se-rotsu ruzu-patsu san)
------
ScienceFictionFilm|982509798
3c3
< StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 -- MissionToMars
---
> Dune -- StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 --  ET -- MissionToMars
------
HorrorFilm|982509978
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> *NightmareOnElmStreet
> *Scream
------
HorrorFilm|982510013
2c2
< *Scream
---
> *ScreaM
------
HorrorFilm|982510041
2a3
> *IKnowWhatYouDidLastNight
------
ComedyFilm|982510213
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> *FerrisBuellersDayOff
> 
------
FiLm|982510255
17a18
> *CultFilm
------
FiLm|982510280
18c18
< *CultFilm
---
> :CultFilm
------
CultFilm|982510427
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :TheBreakfastClub
> :RockyHorrorMovieShow
> :StElmosFire
------
MusicalFilm|982510474
16c16
< 
---
> :FaMe
------
CultFilm|982510541
3a4
> :TheGraduate
------
ScienceFictionFilm|982510777
3c3
< Dune -- StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 --  ET -- MissionToMars
---
> DunE -- StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 --  ETFilM -- MissionToMars
------
ComedyFilm|982511031
1a2,4
> *MarsAttacks
> *TheMask
> *AceVentura
------
CultFilm|982511064
4a5
> :PulpFiction
------
QuentinTarrantino|982511360
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Films directed by QuentinTarrantino:
> 
> ReservoirDogs -- FourRooms -- PulpFiction -- FromDuskTillDawn -- JackieBrown
------
TitaniC|982511447
1d0
< 
7c6
< 
---
> Directed by JamesCameron.
------
HorrorFilm|982511537
3a4,6
> *SilenceOfTheLambs
> *HannibaL
> *FromDuskTillDawn
------
ScienceFictionFilm|982511631
3c3
< DunE -- StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 --  ETFilM -- MissionToMars
---
> DunE -- StarTrek -- StarWars -- SpaceOdyssey2001 --  ETFilM -- MissionToMars -- AlieN
------
UseModWiki|982515718
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The name of the wiki software used for WikiPedia, at least as of January-February 2001.
> 
> Visit the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl UseModWiki home page] for more details.
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|982516899
7a8,9
> ["Free linking" like [[word]] was later added to UseModWiki.  See below for discussion of that feature.]
> 
14,20c16,18
< <<< Alabama >>>
< 
< <<< Alaska >>>
< 
< NorthDakota
< 
< <<< Wisconsin >>>
---
> * <<< Alaska >>>
> * NorthDakota
> * <<< Wisconsin >>>
38c36
< TWiki is a good wiki.  (I prefer my own <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>, but I'm slightly biased. :-)  TWiki certainly has more documentation than <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>.  A third possibility is the <nowiki>MoinMoin</nowiki>: see http://moin.sourceforge.net/.
---
> TWiki is a good wiki.  (I prefer my own UseModWiki, but I'm slightly biased. :-)  TWiki certainly has more documentation than UseModWiki.  A third possibility is the <nowiki>MoinMoin</nowiki>: see http://moin.sourceforge.net/.
42c40
< If this wiki community really wants more free-form links, I'd be willing to take a look at adding [[word]]-style links as an option in <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>.  --CliffordAdams
---
> If this wiki community really wants more free-form links, I'd be willing to take a look at adding [[word]]-style links as an option in UseModWiki.  --CliffordAdams  [This feature was added in February 2001.]
64c62,64
< I'm planning to add [[word]]-style links as an ''optional'' feature in UseModWiki very soon (hopefully by the end of January 2001 (CE :-).  I also think it wouldn't be hard to write a conversion-helper script to semi-automatically fix the current strange capitalizations.  The script would first look for all wikinames and create one large list.  A human editor would go through the list and delete any of the "good" multi-word names (like PopularMusic), which would end up with a list of "strange" wiki-names (like PolanD or TopOlogy).  The second part of the script would take take the edited list of one-word names and replace them with [[word]] links.  Those one-word names which already have defined pages could also be moved/changed automatically, along with the RecentChanges database file.
---
> [Links like [[word]] are now an option in UseModWiki 0.91.  (Hopefully WikiPedia will upgrade soon.)]
> 
> I think it wouldn't be hard to write a conversion-helper script to semi-automatically fix the current strange capitalizations.  The script would first look for all wikinames and create one large list.  A human editor would go through the list and delete any of the "good" multi-word names (like PopularMusic), which would end up with a list of "strange" wiki-names (like PolanD or TopOlogy).  The second part of the script would take take the edited list of one-word names and replace them with [[word]] links.  Those one-word names which already have defined pages could also be moved/changed automatically, along with the RecentChanges database file.
70d69
< :Ok then, this will be my big project for the weekend.  Hopefully I'll have something ready in a few days.  (I'll test it first using a sample wiki with some pages copied from WikiPedia.) --CliffordAdams
74c73
< :I was leaning toward a simpler syntax like [[Jimbo Wales|like this]], which would also be closer to the regular URL format: [URL description].  Trying to parse nested pairs of brackets would get pretty ugly coding-wise.  Of course, this feature would be trivial to disable if desired.
---
> :I've implemented a simpler syntax like [[Jimbo Wales|like this]], which is closer to the regular URL format: [URL description].  Trying to parse nested pairs of brackets would get pretty ugly coding-wise.
76c75
< :For spaces in links, I'm leaning toward translating them into _ (underline) characters in the URL.  I could then translate _ back to a space when displaying the link.  This would allow you to type [[Jimbo Wales]], which would be displayed like "Jimbo Wales" (as a link).  If you wanted to link to the page (from outside the wiki) you could use a nice URL with an underline, rather than an ugly one with a + or %20 for each space character.
---
> :For spaces in links, they are translated into _ (underline) characters in the URL, and translated back into spaces when displaying the link.  This allows you to type [[Jimbo Wales]], which would be displayed like "Jimbo Wales" (as a link).  If you wanted to link to the page (from outside the wiki) you would use a nice URL with an underline (like http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Jimbo_Wales), rather than an ugly one with a + or %20 for each space character.
81a81,82
> 
> :I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for here.  I don't think it would be a good idea to automatically link single words every time they appear--it could lead to far too many links on pages.  One can already create synonyms with the redirect command--see MozarT for an example (redirected to the composer's full name).  --CliffordAdams
------
ComedyFilm|982517430
0a1
> *ItHappenedOneNight
4a6,7
> *TootsiE
> *LiarLiar
------
ComedyFilm|982517457
1a2
> *SomeLikeItHot
------
CultFilm|982517531
2c2
< :RockyHorrorMovieShow
---
> :RockyHorrorPictureShow
5c5
< :PulpFiction
---
> :PulpFiction
------
FiLm|982517787
12a13
> :RomanticComedyFilm
------
RomanticComedyFilm|982518024
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :LoveInTheAfternoon
> :WhenHarryMetSally
> :SleeplessInSeattle
> :YouveGotMail
------
DramaFilm|982518201
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :AmericanBeauty
> :LifeIsBeautiful
> :TraffiC
------
FiLm|982518281
18a19
> :WesternFilm
------
DramaFilm|982518326
0a1
> :TwelveAngryMen
------
WesternFilm|982518455
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :ShanE
> :TheDirtyDozen
------
DramaFilm|982518550
1a2
> :WitnesS
------
ThrillerFilm|982518606
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> :Psycho
------
HorrorFilm|982518738
0a1
> *TheSnakePit
6c7
< *FromDuskTillDawn
---
> *FromDuskTillDawn
------
WhichWikiShouldWeUse|982527247
77a78,80
> 
> '''I love weird capitalization!''' I think we should not be too prompt putting a straight jacket on WikiPedia --OprgaG
> 
78a82
> 
------
UralicLanguages|982527689
1c1
< UralicLanguages or FinnoOugricLanguages are a contrasted family of languages.
---
> UralicLanguages (best known subfamily is FinnoUgricLanguages) are a contrasted family of languages.
3,5c3,5
< They are commonly separated into FinnishPermianLanguages and UgricLanguages.
< There is an hypothesis which groups them further in a superfamily together with
< AltaicLanguages, the UraloAltaicLanguages.
---
> FinnoUgricLanguages are commonly separated into FinnishPermianLanguages and UgricLanguages.
> 
> There is an hypothesis which groups UralicLanguages further in a superfamily together with AltaicLanguages, the UraloAltaicLanguages but there are strong debates between linguist other this.
13a14,15
> * VogulLanguage
> * TcheremissLanguage
22,23c24,25
< * Large set of cases
< * Vocalic Harmony
---
> * Large set of /Cases
> * VocalicHarmony
------
WikiPediaProcess|982528052
28a29,34
> ----
> I think we should discuss references (bibliography but not only) if this going to be an encyclopedia. 
> 
> *Human knowledge is still very much in books.
> *To avoid bias it seems important to gather evidence and to acknowledge the sources we have drawn our knowledge upon.
> 
------
CategorySchemesTalk|982529078
17c17,36
< Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
---
> Making stuff for its own ends - ArtsAndEntertainment
> ----
> The point of having a computerized encyclopedia is not to face some of the traditionnal dilemma of the Editor-In-Chief:
> meeting the deadline, having a fixed list of articles, publishing a fixed work, having only one table of contents.
> 
> I think that apart from quite rational CategorySchemes we should encourage many apparently non-sensical categorizations and make them available through a variant of the CategorySchemes and/or of the PatentNonsense page, like this one:
> #Things written by BryceHarrington
> #Things having kept a wEiRDcAPITALIZATion in wikiwiki 
> #Things whose name is badly spelt by most
> #Things whose shape or color has a cute name in shwahili
> #Birds that cannot fly
> #Subjects alluded to in more than two of the above categories
> #People not wanting to be classified as things
> #Objects not wanting to be called by any other name
> #Objects that can be thrown at someone you despise
> #Savoir-vivre manuals
> #Mirrors, Queens and Rabbits
> #Miscelleaneous and Dinosaurs
> 
> --OprgaG
------
PigLatin|982529524
24a25,27
> ----
> ----
> On equivalents of PigLatin in other countries there is FrenchLanguage LouchebeM and JavanaiS (the former an adult language and the latter used by adults and children in different contexts and periods with many variants).
------
ActionFilm|982530675
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> HeatFilm -- TheRock -- ConAir -- ApocalypseNow -- TheMatriX -- TrueLies
------
ComedyFilm|982530734
7a8
> *TheBigLebowski
------
CityBerlin|982531172
7c7
< Kennedy gave a speech about the BerlinWall in which he said, with a bad accent, "Ich bin ein Berliner"--something Germans found hilarious, since it meant he's a kind of beer (a Berliner beer).  He should have said "Ich bin Berliner."  (Now, can anyone say what Kennedy's <i>point</i> was?)
---
> Kennedy gave a speech about the BerlinWall in which he said, with a bad accent, "Ich bin ein Berliner"--something Germans found hilarious, since it meant he's a kind of doughnut.
------
SouthAustralia|982536260
1c1
< South Australia is classed as the state in south central Australia along the Indian Ocean. It covers an area of 984,377 square kilometres (380,070 square miles). The capital of South Australia is Adelaide and its known as the City of Churches. South Australia became a British colony in 1836 and joined the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The state's population is 1,4000,622 and most of those reside in the fertile coastal areas and in the valley of the Murray River which is the only navigable river and drains about one seventh of Australia then enters the sea in South Australia. The first recorded sighting of the South Australian coast was in 1627 when a Dutch ship examined the coastline. 
---
> South Australia is classed as the state in south central Australia along the Indian Ocean. It covers an area of 984,377 square kilometres (380,070 square miles). The capital of South Australia is AdelaidE and its known as the City of Churches. SouthAustralia became a British colony in 1836 and joined the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The state's population is 1,4000,622 and most of those reside in the fertile coastal areas and in the valley of the MurrayRiver which is the only navigable river and drains about one seventh of AustraliA then enters the sea in SouthAustralia. The first recorded sighting of the South Australian coast was in 1627 when a Dutch ship examined the coastline. 
3,4c3
< The terrain consists largely of dry wasteland, with several low mountain ranges in which the most important mountains are the Mt
< Lofty-Flinders Ranges system which extends north about 800 kilometers from Cape Jervis to the northern end of Lake Torrens and salt lakes. Its principal industries and export are wheat, wine and wool. More than half the nations wines are produced here. 
---
> The terrain consists largely of dry wasteland, with several low mountain ranges in which the most important mountains are the Mt Lofty-Flinders Ranges system which extends north about 800 kilometers from Cape Jervis to the northern end of Lake Torrens and salt lakes. Its principal industries and export are wheat, wine and wool. More than half the nations wines are produced here. 
6,7c5
< South Australia has boundaries with other states on the west, east, north and the south is flanked by the Southern Ocean. South
< Australia's temperate range is 29C in January and 15C July.
---
> South Australia has boundaries with other states on the west, east, north and the south is flanked by the Southern Ocean. SouthAustralia's temperate range is 29C in January and 15C July.
9c7
< South Australia adopted their flag on 13 January 1904. The flag of South Australia is a British Blue Ensign defaced with the state badge. The badge depicts a white-backed piping shrike (magpie) with wings outstretched on a yellow disc. The state badge is believed to have been designed by Robert Craig of the Adelaide School of Arts.
---
> SouthAustralia adopted their flag on 13 January 1904. The flag of SouthAustralia is a British Blue Ensign defaced with the state badge. The badge depicts a white-backed piping shrike (magpie) with wings outstretched on a yellow disc. The state badge is believed to have been designed by Robert Craig of the AdelaideSchoolOfArts.
------
EiffelTower|982538410
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Describe the new page here.
------
EiffelTower|982538526
1a2
> pretty good
------
ComedyFilm|982539011
8a9
> *TheFullMonte
------
DramaFilm|982539086
2a3
> :DancingWithWolves
------
CountriesT|982539500
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. 
> Othe important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
------
FoodAndDrinks|982540763
11a12,13
> * GermanCuisine
> * MexicanCuisine
------
FoodAndDrinks|982541115
7a8,17
> NonAlchoholicBeverages
> * WaterS
> * JuiceS
> * CarbonatedDrinks
> * SportsDrinks
> * CoffeeS
> * TeaS
> * DairyDrinks
> * SoyDrinks
> 
13a24,25
> * VegetarianCuisine
> * VeganCuisine
------
SpiritS|982541326
1c1,9
< Describe the new page here.
---
> * GinS
> * CognacS
> * VodkaS
> * ScotcheS
> * RyeS
> * BourbonS
> * CognacS
> 
> 
------
SpiritS|982541404
2c2
< * CognacS
---
> * RumS
------
FoodAndDrinks|982542108
23a24
> * SpanishCuisine
25a27,28
> * KosherCuisine
> * Seafood Cuisine
------
FoodAndDrinks|982542323
10a11
> * AdeS
------
CountriesT|982569338
1,2c1
< Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. 
< Othe important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
---
> Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. Other important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
------
CountriesT|982569467
1c1
< Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. Other important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
---
> * TurkeY
------
TurkeY|982569482
1c1,2
< Describe the new page here.
---
> Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. Other important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
> 
------
CountriesT|982569903
1c1,5
< * TurkeY
---
> * TaiwaN
> * TurkeY
> * TuvalU
> * TrinidadAndTobago
> 
------
SpiritS|982571938
1,7c1,5
< * GinS
< * RumS
< * VodkaS
< * ScotcheS
< * RyeS
< * BourbonS
< * CognacS
---
> * GiN
> * RuM
> * VodkA
> * WhiskeY -- ScotcH -- RyE -- BourboN
> * CognaC -- BrandY
------
BusinessAndIndustry|982572066
5a6,7
> 
> IndustrY
------
IndustrY|982572110
1c1,4
< Describe the new page here.
---
> 
> * /PrimarySector
> * /SecondarySector
> * /TertiarySector
------
IndustrY/TertiarySector|982572357
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The term /TertiarySector is used to describe the service providing IndustrY. It includes all types of services ranging from lawyers and consultants to your local hairdresser. For the last 20 years there has been a substantial shift from the other two IndustrY sectors to the /TertiarySector in industrialised countries.
------
EconomicS|982572576
15,17c15,17
< * MicroeconomicS
< * MacroeconomicS
< * DevelopmentEconomics
---
> MicroeconomicS --  MacroeconomicS -- DevelopmentEconomics
> 
> RecessioN
------
RecessioN|982572882
1c1,3
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A RecessioN is defined by a fall of a country's GrossNationalProduct (GDP) in two successive quarters. Combined with InflatioN this process is known as StagflatioN.
> 
> Recessions are mostly caused by economic shocks. The greatest, worldwide RecessioN that humanity has ever experienced was the GreatDepression (late 1920s and 1930s) and the OilCrisis in the 1970s.
------
InflatioN|982573642
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> A rise in the general level of prices which results in a fall of purchasing power and the decline of the value of money. InflatioN adversely affects the EconomY by increasing uncertainty and discouraging savings. It also means high nominal rates of interest which discourages investment. It also negatively affects the BalanceOfPayments by making imports cheaper and exports more expensive. Furthermore, a fall in the value of money will redistribute income - it will remove purchasing power from those living on fixed incomes (eg. pensioners) and shift it towards those who draw a variable income from prices and interest.
------
EconomicS|982573681
17c17
< RecessioN
---
> RecessioN -- InflatioN
------
FootBall|982574034
1d0
< 
15,17c14,16
< In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend. This has a bad side, as groups of
< fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies.
< See HooliGans.
---
> In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend. This has a bad side, as groups of fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies(''See HooliGans'').
> 
> The major event is the WorldCup which is held every four years and in which 32 countries take part. 
------
FootBall|982574102
14c14
< In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend. This has a bad side, as groups of fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies(''See HooliGans'').
---
> In many countries (mainly in SouthAmerica and EuropE) FootBall is not only a sport but also a way of life. Millions of people go to see the matches each weekend. This has a bad side, as groups of fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies (''See HooliGans'').
------
BusinessAndEconomics|982574696
8a9
> * IndustrY
------
IndustrY/PrimarySector|982574772
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> This sector includes AgriculturE and and all mining industries.
------
IndustrY/SecondarySector|982577920
1c1
< Describe the new page here.
---
> The manufacturing sector of IndustrY. 
------
GeekSpeak|982584090
29c29
< '''WetWare''' - a human being.
---
> '''WetWare''' - a sentient organic being.
------
AsciiArt|982584183
1c1
< Basically, AsciiArt consists of pictures which are created without using graphic elements. They are "non-graphical graphics". Its palette is limited to the symbols and characters that is available to you on your QWERTY-keyboard.
---
> Basically, AsciiArt consists of pictures which are created without using graphic elements. They are "non-graphical graphics". Its palette is limited to the symbols and characters that is available to you on your (QWERTY/AZERTY/etc..)-keyboard.
------
TurkeY|982597359
1c1,5
< Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara. Other important cities are, Izmir, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya.
---
> Turkey (Türkiye) is a country placed between Europe and Middle East. Spoken language is Turkish. Capital city is Ankara (2.6m). Other important cities are Izmir (1.7m), Istanbul (6.6m), Bursa (0.835m)
> 
> Ethnic background: Turkish 86%, Kurdish 11%, Arabic 2%.
> 
> Religious background: SunniMuslims 99%, OrthodoxChristians 0.34%.
------
ViennA|982598696
1c1
< ViennA (lat. VindobonA) is the capital of AustriA. With a population of about 1.8 million, it is the largest city in the country.
---
> ViennA (lat. ''VindobonA'', German ''Wien'') is the capital of AustriA. It is situated on the river DanubE. With a population of about 1.8 million, it is the largest city and the cultural and political centre of AustriA. The UnitedNations' agency UNIDO is situated there.
------
QuentinTarrantino|982607257
1c1
< Films directed by QuentinTarrantino:
---
> Films directed by Quentin Tarrantino:
3c3
< ReservoirDogs -- FourRooms -- PulpFiction -- FromDuskTillDawn -- JackieBrown
---
> ReservoirDogs -- FourRooms -- PulpFiction -- FromDuskTillDawn -- JackieBrown
