text:
Problem of induction

The problem of induction is a philosophical problem that questions the rationality of predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. These inferences from the observed to the unobserved are known as "inductive inferences". David Hume, who first formulated the problem in 1739, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences.

The traditional inductivist view is that all claimed empirical laws, either in everyday life or through the scientific method, can be justified through some form of reasoning. The problem is that many philosophers tried to find such a justification but their proposals were not accepted by others. Identifying the inductivist view as the scientific view, C. D. Broad once said that induction is "the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy". In contrast, Karl Popper's critical rationalism claimed that inductive justifications are never used in science and proposed instead that science is based on the procedure of conjecturing hypotheses, deductively calculating consequences, and then empirically attempting to falsify them.

Formulation of the problem
In inductive reasoning, one makes a series of observations and infers a claim based on them. For instance, from a series of observations that a woman walks her dog by the market at 8 am on Monday, it seems valid to infer that next Monday she will do the same, or that, in general, the woman walks her dog by the market every Monday. That next Monday the woman walks by the market merely adds to the series of observations, but it does not prove she will walk by the market every Monday. First of all, it is not certain, regardless of the number of observations, that the woman always walks by the market at 8 am on Monday. In fact, David Hume even argued that we cannot claim it is "more probable", since this still requires the assumption that the past predicts the future.

Second, the observations themselves do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except inductively. Bertrand Russell illustrated this point in The Problems of Philosophy:

"Domestic animals expect food when they see the person who usually feeds them. We know that all these rather crude expectations of uniformity are liable to be misleading. The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken."

Pyrrhonism
The works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus contain the oldest surviving questioning of the validity of inductive reasoning. He wrote: "It is also easy, I consider, to set aside the method of induction. For, when they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review either of all or of some of the particular instances. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite. Thus on both grounds, as I think, the consequence is that induction is invalidated."

The focus upon the gap between the premises and conclusion present in the above passage appears different from Hume's focus upon the circular reasoning of induction. However, Weintraub claims in The Philosophical Quarterly that although Sextus's approach to the problem appears different, Hume's approach was actually an application of another argument raised by Sextus: "Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum."

Although the criterion argument applies to both deduction and induction, Weintraub believes that Sextus's argument "is precisely the strategy Hume invokes against induction: it cannot be justified, because the purported justification, being inductive, is circular." She concludes that "Hume's most important legacy is the supposition that the justification of induction is not analogous to that of deduction." She ends with a discussion of Hume's implicit sanction of the validity of deduction, which Hume describes as intuitive in a manner analogous to modern foundationalism.

Indian philosophy
The Cārvāka, a materialist and skeptic school of Indian philosophy, used the problem of induction to point out the flaws in using inference as a way to gain valid knowledge. They held that since inference needed an invariable connection between the middle term and the predicate, and further, that since there was no way to establish this invariable connection, that the efficacy of inference as a means of valid knowledge could never be stated.

The 9th century Indian skeptic, Jayarasi Bhatta, also made an attack on inference, along with all means of knowledge, and showed by a type of reductio argument that there was no way to conclude universal relations from the observation of particular instances.

Medieval philosophy
Medieval writers such as al-Ghazali and William of Ockham connected the problem with God's absolute power, asking how we can be certain that the world will continue behaving as expected when God could at any moment miraculously cause the opposite. Duns Scotus, however, argued that inductive inference from a finite number of particulars to a universal generalization was justified by "a proposition reposing in the soul, 'Whatever occurs in a great many instances by a cause that is not free, is the natural effect of that cause. Some 17th-century Jesuits argued that although God could create the end of the world at any moment, it was necessarily a rare event and hence our confidence that it would not happen very soon was largely justified.

David Hume
David Hume, a Scottish thinker of the Enlightenment era, is the philosopher most often associated with induction. His formulation of the problem of induction can be found in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, §4. Here, Hume introduces his famous distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact." Relations of ideas are propositions which can be derived from deductive logic, which can be found in fields such as geometry and algebra. Matters of fact, meanwhile, are not verified through the workings of deductive logic but by experience. Specifically, matters of fact are established by making an inference about causes and effects from repeatedly observed experience. While relations of ideas are supported by reason alone, matters of fact must rely on the connection of a cause and effect through experience. Causes of effects cannot be linked through a priori reasoning, but by positing a "necessary connection" that depends on the "uniformity of nature."

Hume situates his introduction to the problem of induction in A Treatise of Human Nature within his larger discussion on the nature of causes and effects (Book I, Part III, Section VI). He writes that reasoning alone cannot establish the grounds of causation. Instead, the human mind imputes causation to phenomena after repeatedly observing a connection between two objects. For Hume, establishing the link between causes and effects relies not on reasoning alone, but the observation of "constant conjunction" throughout one's sensory experience. From this discussion, Hume goes on to present his formulation of the problem of induction in A Treatise of Human Nature, writing "there can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience."

In other words, the problem of induction can be framed in the following way: we cannot apply a conclusion about a particular set of observations to a more general set of observations. While deductive logic allows one to arrive at a conclusion with certainty, inductive logic can only provide a conclusion that is probably true. It is mistaken to frame the difference between deductive and inductive logic as one between general to specific reasoning and specific to general reasoning. This is a common misperception about the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. According to the literal standards of logic, deductive reasoning arrives at certain conclusions while inductive reasoning arrives at probable conclusions. Hume's treatment of induction helps to establish the grounds for probability, as he writes in A Treatise of Human Nature that "probability is founded on the presumption of a resemblance betwixt those objects, of which we have had experience, and those, of which we have had none" (Book I, Part III, Section VI).

Therefore, Hume establishes induction as the very grounds for attributing causation. There might be many effects which stem from a single cause. Over repeated observation, one establishes that a certain set of effects are linked to a certain set of causes. However, the future resemblance of these connections to connections observed in the past depends on induction. Induction allows one to conclude that "Effect A2" was caused by "Cause A2" because a connection between "Effect A1" and "Cause A1" was observed repeatedly in the past. Given that reason alone can not be sufficient to establish the grounds of induction, Hume implies that induction must be accomplished through imagination. One does not make an inductive reference through a priori reasoning, but through an imaginative step automatically taken by the mind.

Hume does not challenge that induction is performed by the human mind automatically, but rather hopes to show more clearly how much human inference depends on inductive—not a priori—reasoning. He does not deny future uses of induction, but shows that it is distinct from deductive reasoning, helps to ground causation, and wants to inquire more deeply into its validity. Hume offers no solution to the problem of induction himself. He prompts other thinkers and logicians to argue for the validity of induction as an ongoing dilemma for philosophy. A key issue with establishing the validity of induction is that one is tempted to use an inductive inference as a form of justification itself. This is because people commonly justify the validity of induction by pointing to the many instances in the past when induction proved to be accurate. For example, one might argue that it is valid to use inductive inference in the future because this type of reasoning has yielded accurate results in the past. However, this argument relies on an inductive premise itself—that past observations of induction being valid will mean that future observations of induction will also be valid. Thus, many solutions to the problem of induction tend to be circular.

Nelson Goodman's new riddle of induction
Nelson Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (1955) presented a different description of the problem of induction in the chapter entitled "The New Riddle of Induction". Goodman proposed the new predicate "grue". Something is grue if and only if it has been (or will be, according to a scientific, general hypothesis ) observed to be green before a certain time t, and blue if observed after that time. The "new" problem of induction is, since all emeralds we have ever seen are both green and grue, why do we suppose that after time t we will find green but not grue emeralds? The problem here raised is that two different inductions will be true and false under the same conditions. In other words:

 * Given the observations of a lot of green emeralds, someone using a common language will inductively infer that all emeralds are green (therefore, he will believe that any emerald he will ever find will be green, even after time t).
 * Given the same set of observations of green emeralds, someone using the predicate "grue" will inductively infer that all emeralds, which will be observed after t, will be blue, despite the fact that he observed only green emeralds so far.

One could argue, using Occam's Razor, that greenness is more likely than grueness because the concept of grueness is more complex than that of greenness. Goodman, however, points out that the predicate "grue" only appears more complex than the predicate "green" because we have defined grue in terms of blue and green. If we had always been brought up to think in terms of "grue" and "bleen" (where bleen is blue before time t, and green thereafter), we would intuitively consider "green" to be a crazy and complicated predicate. Goodman believed that which scientific hypotheses we favour depend on which predicates are "entrenched" in our language.

W. V. O. Quine offers a practical solution to this problem by making the metaphysical claim that only predicates that identify a "natural kind" (i.e. a real property of real things) can be legitimately used in a scientific hypothesis. R. Bhaskar also offers a practical solution to the problem. He argues that the problem of induction only arises if we deny the possibility of a reason for the predicate, located in the enduring nature of something. For example, we know that all emeralds are green, not because we have only ever seen green emeralds, but because the chemical make-up of emeralds insists that they must be green. If we were to change that structure, they would not be green. For instance, emeralds are a kind of green beryl, made green by trace amounts of chromium and sometimes vanadium. Without these trace elements, the gems would be colourless.

Hume
Although induction is not made by reason, Hume observes that we nonetheless perform it and improve from it. He proposes a descriptive explanation for the nature of induction in §5 of the Enquiry, titled "Skeptical solution of these doubts". It is by custom or habit that one draws the inductive connection described above, and "without the influence of custom we would be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses". The result of custom is belief, which is instinctual and much stronger than imagination alone.

John Maynard Keynes
In his Treatise on Probability, John Maynard Keynes notes: "An inductive argument affirms, not that a certain matter of fact is so, but that relative to certain evidence there is a probability in its favour. The validity of the induction, relative to the original evidence, is not upset, therefore, if, as a fact, the truth turns out to be otherwise." This approach was endorsed by Bertrand Russell.

David Stove and Donald Williams
David Stove's argument for induction, based on the statistical syllogism, was presented in the Rationality of Induction and was developed from an argument put forward by one of Stove's heroes, the late Donald Cary Williams (formerly Professor at Harvard) in his book The Ground of Induction. Stove argued that it is a statistical truth that the great majority of the possible subsets of specified size (as long as this size is not too small) are similar to the larger population to which they belong. For example, the majority of the subsets which contain 3000 ravens which you can form from the raven population are similar to the population itself (and this applies no matter how large the raven population is, as long as it is not infinite). Consequently, Stove argued that if you find yourself with such a subset then the chances are that this subset is one of the ones that are similar to the population, and so you are justified in concluding that it is likely that this subset "matches" the population reasonably closely. The situation would be analogous to drawing a ball out of a barrel of balls, 99% of which are red. In such a case you have a 99% chance of drawing a red ball. Similarly, when getting a sample of ravens the probability is very high that the sample is one of the matching or "representative" ones. So as long as you have no reason to think that your sample is an unrepresentative one, you are justified in thinking that probably (although not certainly) that it is.

Biting the bullet: Keith Campbell and Claudio Costa
An intuitive answer to Hume would be to say that a world inaccessible to any inductive procedure would simply not be conceivable. This intuition was taken into account by Keith Campbell by considering that, to be built, a concept must be reapplied, which demands a certain continuity in its object of application and consequently some openness to induction. Recently, Claudio Costa has noted that a future can only be a future of its own past if it holds some identity with it. Moreover, the nearer a future is to the point of junction with its past, the greater are the similarities tendentially involved. Consequently, – contra Hume – some form of principle of homogeneity (causal or structural) between future and past must be warranted, which would make some inductive procedure always possible.

Karl Popper
Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, sought to solve the problem of induction. He argued that science does not use induction, and induction is in fact a myth. Instead, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. The main role of observations and experiments in science, he argued, is in attempts to criticize and refute existing theories.

According to Popper, the problem of induction as usually conceived is asking the wrong question: it is asking how to justify theories given they cannot be justified by induction. Popper argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs for an authoritarian answer". Instead, Popper said, what should be done is to look to find and correct errors. Popper regarded theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true. Popper held that seeking for theories with a high probability of being true was a false goal that is in conflict with the search for knowledge. Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are many ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated).

Wesley C. Salmon criticizes Popper on the grounds that predictions need to be made both for practical purposes and in order to test theories. That means Popperians need to make a selection from the number of unfalsified theories available to them, which is generally more than one. Popperians would wish to choose well-corroborated theories, in their sense of corroboration, but face a dilemma: either they are making the essentially inductive claim that a theory's having survived criticism in the past means it will be a reliable predictor in the future; or Popperian corroboration is no indicator of predictive power at all, so there is no rational motivation for their preferred selection principle.

David Miller has criticized this kind of criticism by Salmon and others because it makes inductivist assumptions. Popper does not say that corroboration is an indicator of predictive power. The predictive power is in the theory itself, not in its corroboration. The rational motivation for choosing a well-corroborated theory is that it is simply easier to falsify: Well-corroborated means that at least one kind of experiment (already conducted at least once) could have falsified (but did not actually falsify) the one theory, while the same kind of experiment, regardless of its outcome, could not have falsified the other. So it is rational to choose the well-corroborated theory: It may not be more likely to be true, but if it is actually false, it is easier to get rid of when confronted with the conflicting evidence that will eventually turn up. Accordingly, it is wrong to consider corroboration as a reason, a justification for believing in a theory or as an argument in favor of a theory to convince someone who objects to it.

title: Problem of induction


text:
Adam–God doctrine

The Adam–God doctrine (or Adam–God theory) was a theological idea taught in mid-19th century Mormonism by Brigham Young, a president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although the doctrine is rejected by the LDS Church today, it is still an accepted part of the modern theology of some Mormon fundamentalists.

According to Young, he was taught by Joseph Smith that Adam is "our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

According to the doctrine, Adam was once a mortal man who became resurrected and exalted. From another planet, he then came as Michael to form Earth. Adam then was given a physical body and a spouse, Eve, where they became mortal by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. After bearing mortal children and establishing the human race, Adam and Eve returned to their heavenly thrones, where Adam serves as God and is the Heavenly Father of humankind. Later, Adam returned to the Earth to the ancient prophets and to become the literal father of Jesus.

During the 19th century and the early 20th century, the Adam–God doctrine was featured as part of the church's endowment ceremony. However, the notion was startling to many people when it was introduced and remained controversial, even within the Church. Many Mormons and some breakoff groups, the most notable being apostle Orson Pratt, rejected the doctrine in favor of more traditional understanding of Adam and Eve. Both he and other members, such as the Bunker family, would face the prospect of ecclesiastical punishment for their public opposition. Despite the objection of many, the doctrine persisted even after the administration of Brigham Young. His successor, John Taylor privately affirmed his belief in the idea prior to his death in 1887. It wasn’t until about 1905 that the Adam-God doctrine was fully removed from the endowment ceremony. By this time, the doctrine fell out of favor within the LDS Church and was replaced by a theology more similar to Orson Pratt's, as expounded by turn-of-the century Mormon theologians James E. Talmage, B. H. Roberts, and John A. Widtsoe. In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated the LDS Church does not support the doctrine. Most Mormons accept Adam as "the Ancient of Days," "father of all," and Michael the Archangel but do not recognize him as being God the Father. In the contrary, many Mormon Fundamentalists retain this doctrine as a chief principle of their faith. Several Fundamentalist authors, such as Ogden Kraut and Joseph W. Musser have written books on the subject highlighting the prominent role of Adam continues to play.

Background
Though Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, never used the term "Adam–God" in any of his recorded public statements, he provided several teachings from which the doctrine's adherents draw support. For example, Smith taught in an 1839 sermon that Adam was actually the archangel Michael, who held the First Presidency in the premortal life. In the same sermon, Smith taught that Adam holds "the keys of the universe," and so it is through his authority that all priesthood "keys," the abilities to unlock particular priesthood powers, are revealed from heaven. In 1840, Smith taught that Adam is the one "through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth." Finally, Smith taught in his 1844 King Follett discourse that God was once a man "like one of us."

Young and other adherents of the doctrine claim that Smith was its originator and that Smith privately taught it to them before his death, in 1844. However, the prevailing academic view is that the doctrine taught by Young and others was an elaboration of Smith's vague references to Adam's unique role in Mormon doctrine. Although Young is generally credited with originating the doctrine, the original source may also have been Young's counselor in the First Presidency, Heber C. Kimball.

Description
The Adam–God doctrine teaches that Adam is the father of both the spirits and physical bodies of all humans born on Earth, including Jesus.

Under the doctrine, Adam had a number of roles. First, he was a creator god. He and his wife, Eve, had become gods by living a mortal life, becoming resurrected, and receiving their exaltation. As a god before the creation of the Earth, he was known as Michael, or the "Ancient of Days." Michael was not the only creator god, however, as he was a member of a council of Earth's creator gods, which also included the gods "Elohim" and "Jehovah." In Smith's original endowment ceremony, the gods involved in the creation were called "Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael," but unlike in modern Mormon theology, "Jehovah" was not identified as Jesus. Rather, it was explained by Joseph F. Smith that "Elohim, Jehovah and Michael are Father, Son, and Grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam." Within the council, Jehovah and Michael were subordinate to Elohim and created the Earth, under the direction of Elohim. Michael was selected by the heads of this council of gods to be the Father of this Earth.

Also, the doctrine teaches that Michael was the father of the spirits in heaven who are associated with this Earth. With Eve, and possibly his other wives, Michael had fathered the spirits of spirit offspring in the preexistence.

Next, the doctrine teaches that Michael came to the Earth with one of his wives, where they became known as Adam and Eve, and became the progenitor of the human race and the father of mortal bodies of all his spirit offspring so that they could progress and achieve godhood like themselves. The names "Adam" and "Eve" are titles that reflect their roles as the parents of humanity, Adam meaning man or "[father] of mankind" and Eve meaning the "mother[s] of all living."The privilege of peopling the Earth was part of Adam and Eve's eternal purpose as exalted beings and eternal parents of their spirit children. To bear mortal children, Adam and Eve had to take on mortal bodies. The bodies of Adam and Eve fell to a mortal state when they ate the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.

Then, the doctrine teaches that after his mortal existence, Adam returned to his throne and reigned as the immortal God of this Earth. He is thus considered to be the Biblical God of Israel. Smith stated that Adam's ascension to godhood took place at or after a gathering at a holy place of the same name. Smith taught that a similar gathering is to prelude the second coming of Christ.

Finally, the doctrine teaches that Michael/Adam was the literal, biological father of the mortal body of Jesus.

Brigham Young's 1852 explanation
Whether or not Smith had taught the doctrine, the first recorded explanation of the doctrine using the term "Adam–God" was by Young, who first taught the doctrine at the church's spring general conference on April 9, 1852. This sermon was recorded stenographically by George D. Watt, Young's private secretary, who was an expert in Pitman shorthand. Watt published the sermon in 1854 in the British periodical Journal of Discourses, which was endorsed by Young and his counselors in the church's First Presidency.

In Watt's transcript of the sermon, Young said he intended to discuss "who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary," a subject which he said "has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day." The transcript reads: "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

The transcript then reads: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family." Young explained that Adam "was begotten by his Father in heaven" in the same way that Adam begat his own sons and daughters, and that there were "three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael."a Then, reiterating, he said that "Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."

Young concluded, "I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and overrighteous mankind. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation."

Further development by Young
In a special conference on August 28, 1852, Young explained in greater detail the mechanism by which celestial beings like Adam and Eve could give birth to mortal offspring. According to Young, when a couple first become gods and goddesses, they first begin to create spiritual offspring. Then, they begin creating "mortal tabernacles" in which those spirits can dwell, by going to a newly created world, where they: "eat and drink of the fruits of the corporal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies, to enable them according to the established laws to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children." This is what Adam and Eve did, Young said, and "Adam is my Father."

On February 19, 1854, Young reiterated the doctrine in a sermon. He also reiterated the doctrine at the October 1854 general conference, in a sermon that was reported to have "held the vast audience as it were spellbound." In the October conference, Young is reported as clarifying that Adam and Eve were "natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father."

When Young discussed the doctrine again in early 1857, he emphasized again that "to become acquainted with our Father and our God" was "one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation", and that "no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge." Nevertheless, he later said: "Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species."

Initial reactions to the doctrine
The reaction within the Mormon community to Young's Adam–God teachings was mixed. While many accepted the doctrine, others regarded it as misguided, or interpreted it to adhere to their prior understanding.

Young's initial 1852 announcement of the doctrine was greeted by some as prophetic. For example, the clerk of the conference, Thomas Bullock, recorded that during Young's sermon, "the Holy Ghost rest[ed] upon him with great power." In a session of general conference the next day, Heber C. Kimball stated his agreement that "the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam." Another apostle, Franklin D. Richards, accepted the doctrine "that Adam is our Father and our God" as well, stating in a conference held in June 1854 that "the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord."

Kimball readily adopted Young's views, and preached on June 29, 1856, that "I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world."

A number of hymns acknowledging this doctrine were sung in local congregations of the LDS Church. One published in 1856, entitled "We Believe in Our God", stated: "We believe in our God the great Prince of His race, / The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days, / Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain." This hymn was not found in subsequent editions.

The first line of a poem published in 1861, titled "Sons of Michael", stated: "Sons of Michael, he approaches! / Rise; the Eternal Father greet." The poem is included as a hymn in the current LDS Church hymnal, but the wording has been altered from "Eternal Father" to "ancient father".

Acceptance of the doctrine by the LDS Church continued through the 19th century. George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, when asked by his son about the conception of Jesus by Mary, asked "What was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus[?]"

Resistance to the doctrine
However, some prominent members of the church took issue with the doctrine. Most significantly, apostle and philosopher Orson Pratt disagreed with the doctrine, and expressed that disagreement publicly and in private meetings with other apostles. Pratt also published his disagreement in his publication The Seer for which he was censured.

Pratt did, however, teach similar doctrines in the same publication. For example, he stated that on the way to exaltation, one would have to "pass by" and "pay tribute to" various apostles and prophets, then Jesus, and "at length ... Father Adam." He said many would be surprised and humiliated, after passing by Jesus, to find "Father Adam" standing there; however, he said, "those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible—'This is eternal life, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.'"

Pratt continued to debate the issue in public forums for months, despite being rebuked privately and publicly by Young on more than one occasion, until 1860, when faced with possible disfellowshipment from the church for teaching false doctrine, Pratt agreed to the language of a public confession affirming the doctrine as "the doctrine of the church." This confession was negotiated during a series of meetings among the church hierarchy.

A less open opposition to the doctrine may have been carried out by Mormon editors Samuel W. Richards and Franklin D. Richards who, according to one researcher, interpreted the idea of Adam being "our God" or "our Father" as meaning merely that Adam, as the first mortal man, stands at the head of the human family. For instance, "the Lord made Moses a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1) and as Paul was "as Christ Jesus" to the Galatians (4:14). In this way, Adam as our great progenitor, will preside over the human family as "father and God."

Adam–God in Young's later administration
After the public debates between Young and Pratt subsided in 1860, Young continued to maintain his belief in the doctrine, but may have been disappointed that the people did not give the doctrine universal acceptance. In 1861, he stated: "Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from [sic] the dead instead [of] Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day [sic?]. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass."

Nevertheless, Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles continued to discuss the doctrine. In 1873, Young again taught the doctrine publicly, and indicated that when Adam came to the Earth, he left behind many wives other than Eve at the place from which Adam came; however, he said he was "not disposed to give any farther knowledge concerning ... the great and glorious doctrine that pertains to this." "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God .... Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth."

Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God doctrine was taught in the church's temples as part of the endowment ceremony. In 1877, while he was standardizing the endowment for use in the St. George Temple, Young introduced as part of the endowment the "lecture at the veil." The final draft of the lecture is today kept private in the St. George Temple. L. John Nuttall, Young's secretary, recorded in his journal a transcription of Young's temple lecture regarding the Adam-God doctrine. A portion of that journal entry reads as follows:

"Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours … and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world .... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. They did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came."

After Young's death
There is some controversy as to whether or not Young considered Adam–God to be official church doctrine. At the end of his 1852 sermon, he stated, "Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." Nevertheless, in 1854, after a great deal of controversy concerning the doctrine, Young minimized the importance of the doctrine, stating that the "subject ... does not immediately concern yours or my welfare ... I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know."

After Young's death, church leaders began to cast the various interpretations of this teaching as mere speculation and denied that any particular interpretation was binding on the church. In 1897, Joseph F. Smith, then an apostle and counselor in the First Presidency, wrote a private letter concerning Young's teachings on Adam, stating:

"The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's 'bare mention' was 'without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.' Only the scripture, the 'accepted word of God,' is the Church's standard."

Beginning around 1892, church leaders privately decided to no longer publicly teach the doctrine. In a private meeting held on April 4, 1897, church president Wilford Woodruff said. "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with [the] Josephites [Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] or any one else."

In 1892, the doctrine was publicly opposed in St. George, Utah, by Edward Bunker. The First Presidency—Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith—traveled to St. George to address the issue. Records of the meeting state that Bunker was corrected: "Pres Woodruff and Cannon showed ... that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made." "The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present."

After the start of the 20th century, church leaders openly took the position that the doctrine should no longer to be taught publicly.

As early as 1902, apostle Charles W. Penrose claimed, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam."

Current position of the LDS Church
Eventually, the doctrine was publicly denounced as false by LDS Church leaders. In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before." they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen stated:

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel.

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.

If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

Acceptance by Mormon fundamentalists
Today, few Mormon denominations still believe in the Adam-God Doctrine because it has been repudiated by many leaders and theologians. However, adherents of Mormon fundamentalism generally accept the Adam–God doctrine.

The mainstream LDS Church's disavowal of the doctrine contributes to what fundamentalists perceive to be a general intellectual or spiritual retreat from important principles that were rejected due to unpopularity. Along with the practice of plural marriage, belief in the Adam–God doctrine became a defining aspect of the Mormon fundamentalist movement. The main belief of the Mormon fundamentalist (FLDS) is plural marriage. Mormon fundamentalists generally believe they are adhering to original church doctrines.

Apostolic United Brethren
The Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), a fundamentalist Mormon group, accepts the Adam–God teaching. Their leader Joseph W. Musser wrote a book on the topic the 1930s, titled Michael, Our Father and Our God. In the book, Musser contended that the rejection of the doctrine by the LDS Church can be linked to its rejection of plural marriage, which occurred around the same time:

"And let us here remind the reader that as long as belief in the Patriarchal order of marriage and other advanced principles of the Gospel was maintained, the minds of the Saints were open and receptive. ... But with the surrender of the glorious principle of Celestial Marriage—a union for time and eternity—came darkness, mental drowsiness, a detour from the Gospel path, until all sorts of speculation pertaining to the plan of Salvation was indulged in."

School of the Prophets
The School of the Prophets a small branch led by Robert Crossfield and headquartered in Salem, Utah, claims revelation showing that Young was inaccurate in some points of his Adam–God teachings, but otherwise he was correct. The understanding from these revelations is that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son in the flesh of the Savior of the previous Earth where the father of all Spirits, Michael/Adam, had his mortal probation. The lineage of Michael/Adam, which includes all but Jesus on this Earth, will never become saviors of worlds. Thus the Adam–God doctrine of Young is simply a fuller understanding of the New Testament doctrine of joint-heirs with Christ. The Crossfield denomination was described in the book Under the Banner of Heaven, among other works.

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

title: Adam–God doctrine


text:
T.A.T.u.

t.A.T.u. (Тату, ) are a Russian pop duo consisting of Lena Katina and Julia Volkova. The two started out as part of the children's musical group Neposedy before being managed by producer and director Ivan Shapovalov and signing with Russian record label Neformat. t.A.T.u.'s debut album 200 Po Vstrechnoy (2001) was a commercial success in Eastern Europe, and that resulted in the duo signing with Interscope Records to release its English-language counterpart, 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane (2002). The album was certified platinum by the IFPI for one million copies sold in Europe and became the first album by a foreign group to reach number one in Japan. It was also certified gold in the United States and included the international hits "All the Things She Said" and "Not Gonna Get Us". The duo represented Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003 with the song "Ne ver', ne boysia", finishing third.

t.A.T.u. released the albums Dangerous and Moving with the Lyudi Invalidy in 2005 to moderate success after parting ways with Shapovalov. The former was promoted with the international hit "All About Us". The duo ventured into other projects, such as creating their own production company T.A. Music and promoting the film inspired by their story, You and I (2008). Their last pair of albums, Vesyolye Ulybki and Waste Management, followed between 2008 and 2009, respectively. t.A.T.u. officially broke up in 2011, with Katina and Volkova pursuing solo careers. They reunited to perform at special occasions, such as the opening ceremony of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, in subsequent years.

1999: Formation
Before production of t.A.T.u. began, the pair were in a group named Neposedi. Both Lena Katina and Julia Volkova were part of the band, along with members Sergey Lazarev and Vlad Topalov. Katina was also in a band named "Avenue" between 1994 and 1997. It was reported that Volkova was banned from being in Neposedi, amid claims she was misbehaving and disrupting other members in the group, along with being accused of smoking, swearing and drinking. However, Neposedi denied the claims and said that Volkova aged out of the group.

t.A.T.u. were formed in 1999 by Ivan Shapovalov and his friend/business partner Alexander Voitinskiy, who developed plans to create a musical project in Russia. With this idea in mind, Shapovalov and Voitinskiy organized auditions in Moscow in early 1999 for teenage female vocalists. By the end of auditioning, the partners narrowed their search down to ten girls, including the members that finally became t.A.T.u., Lena Katina and Julia Volkova. Lena and Julia knew each other before the auditions. Both girls stood out among the others because of their appearance and vocal experience, but the producers decided to start with 14-year-old Katina, who sang "It Must Have Been Love" by Roxette. Katina began recording demos, including "Yugoslavia", a protest song about NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. After the demos were cut, Shapovalov insisted that another girl be added to the project. Thus, in late 1999, 14-year-old Julia Volkova was added to the group to complete the duo. She also started recording not long after Lena's "Yugoslavia" demo was finished.

According to Katina, Shapovalov was inspired to create the duo after the release of the Swedish film Show Me Love which focused on the romance between two school girls. After completing the duo, the producers decided on the name "Тату" (Tatu). Sounding like the English word "tattoo", it is also a shortened version of the Russian phrase "Та любит ту" (ta lyubit tu), meaning "This [girl] loves that [girl]". For the release of their first English-language album, they decided to go by t.A.T.u., using uppercase letters and periods to distinguish themselves from an already existing Australian band, Tatu.

2000–2001: 200 Po Vstrechnoy
Over the next year, Katina and Volkova recorded songs with their producers. Voitinskij left the project, and Shapovalov signed Elena Kiper as co-producer and co-writer for their debut album.

The first single was completed in 2000, titled "Ya Soshla S Uma" (later released in English as "All the Things She Said"). The song describes the turmoil in a girl's soul because she is in love with another girl, but is afraid, as society frowns upon this. She asks her parents for forgiveness. Elena Kiper has been credited with the song, explaining that the idea came to her when she fell asleep at her dentist's office and had a dream in which she kissed another woman. She woke up saying out loud, "Я сошла с ума!" (Ya soshla s uma, meaning "I've lost my mind"). Ivan Shapovalov is said to have added the second phrase of the chorus, "Мне нужна она" (Mne nuzhna ona, meaning "I need her").

Their first album, 200 Po Vstrechnoy was released on 21 May 2001. Their second single, "Nas Ne Dogonyat", which was only released in music video form rather than as an official CD single, although a promotional conjoined "Ya Soshla s Uma/Nas Ne Dagonyat" was released in Poland. This was followed by the third single "30 Minut", only available as a music video. The album was eventually released in Japan, where it was certified gold by RIAJ. The group went on tour in 2001, where their routines were described as "precise" and featured routines where the girls had to strip. The tour appeared in countries including Germany, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Israel.

2002–2003: 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane and Eurovision
The American music executive Jimmy Iovine asked the English producer Trevor Horn to create English-language versions of Tatu's songs. Horn wrote new lyrics for "All the Things She Said" and "Not Gonna Get Us" and coached t.A.T.u. to sing them in English. He also rerecorded the instruments, as he did not have access to the original multitracks. He described Shapovalov as "awful" and removed him from the sessions after he made the girls cry. Horn said later: "There's no shortcut, you can't bully people." The group was "controlled" by Shapovalov and it was reported that he was "strict" during the process of making the album.

The English version of the album was released in December 2002 as 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane. The first single from the album was "All the Things She Said" which was released in October 2002. The song peaked at the top spot in Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The music video caused controversy worldwide, due to the members, who were both 17 at the time of the video's production, kissing behind a fence. Some believed the video promoted lesbianism and pedophilia and some branded the group's music as "paedophilic pop".

The group announced their "Show Me Love Tour", which was to commence in the United Kingdom. However, both of their proposed concerts in the UK were cancelled due to poor ticket sales. In July 2002, Blender praised the group by saying "We have seen the future of rock & roll ... to say you've never seen or heard anything quite like it is a colossal understatement." t.A.T.u. were then heralded by The Face magazine as "The hottest popstars in the world right now." On 25 February 2003 the women mocked NBC's insistence that they neither kiss nor comment on the Iraq war by performing "All the Things She Said" in white "T-shirts that bore the Russian language message Khuy Voyne! (Fuck the war!) across the front, and by blocking their faces with their hands as they kissed during a break in their performance."

The "Fuck the War!" T-shirts were banned on the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show and replaced with T-shirts that said "Censored". They still wrote the term on Jimmy Kimmel's hand.

The next single "Not Gonna Get Us" was released in May 2003. Though not as popular as their debut single, it managed to have success in most record charts. Also in May 2003, Shapovalov was arrested after arranging filming for the group's music video "Show Me Love" in Moscow's Red Square despite his application for filming being refused. Shapovalov also attempted to film near London's Big Ben and various other locations. The footage that was recorded was later used for a music video for the song "Show Me Love", despite the song not being released in any country other than Poland. The group then released their third single "30 Minutes". It was released as an official single in the UK. A music video followed after the release. The fourth single, "How Soon Is Now?", was a cover of the song by the Smiths.

In May 2003, t.A.T.u. represented Russia at Eurovision Song Contest 2003, where they placed third. After the contest, Russia's Channel One complained that Irish broadcaster RTÉ (Ireland's national television broadcaster) had used a back-up jury, and that it had cost them victory; RTÉ did not use the televoting results after some network problems. A statement by Channel One suggested that there were grounds to believe that the contest results could be much different for Russia. RTÉ responded by publishing the unused results of the Irish televote, which showed that had the jury not been used, Turkey, whose entry was also overlooked by the Irish Jury, would still have won. The group's record label, Universal Music Russia, were originally against the group's participation saying that the Eurovision contest was for "young artists" and said "artists of Tatu's level will not get much out of the participation in it, We [Universal] would much rather prefer the group to work on their new album, and not to participate in contests for rising stars [...]"

The same month, the group postponed their German promo tour due to a late invitation to the 2003 MTV Movie Awards, where they performed. The following month they also cancelled their Riga concert and Japan concert in June, which led to a lawsuit from Pasadena Group Promotion, asking for $180,000 in damages.

2004–2006: Dangerous and Moving and Lyudi Invalidy
On 26 September 2003, the group released a remix compilation, titled Remixes. In November 2003, the CD was released in Russia, with two new tracks and videos. The two new tracks were "Prostiye Dvizheniya" and "Ne Ver, Ne Boisya." Both of the tracks were released as singles, however "Prostye Dvizheniya" did not broadcast well in Russia, due to the promotion for "Ne Ver, Ne Boisya" in the Eurovision Song Contest. The DVD compilation Screaming for More was released on 24 November 2003, featuring music videos and behind-the-scenes. Anatomy of t. A. T. u. aired on Russian television on 12 December 2003. The documentary revealed that the girls were not lesbians and chronicled the group as they took part in Eurovision earlier in the year.

In early 2004, t.A.T.u. legally broke their contract with Ivan Shapovalov and Neformat. In the months before the split, t.A.T.u. and Shapovalov were being filmed for a reality show on STS in Russia titled Podnebesnaya. The show followed the group as they were recording their second album, to little success, with their producer Ivan Shapovalov. The documentary aired on Russian television from January to March 2004.

There were many rumors around the split until the show aired, which depicted the group leaving due to a lack of interest and care from their producer. They also claimed the quality of the music being produced was too low, and that Shapovalov was only interested in creating scandals. Volkova stated, "He [Ivan] spends his time thinking up scandals instead of planning our artistic work. I'm sure our fans would rather hear new songs and new albums than new scandals." Katina then stated, "He made us out to BE lesbians when we were just singing FOR lesbians. We wanted people to understand them and not judge them. That they are as free as anyone else." In one of the final episodes, Volkova mentioned returning to the United States in spring of 2004 to record with new producers. However, she became pregnant soon thereafter, and recording was delayed.

Volkova soon joined Katina and previous producer Sergio Galoyan in the studio. The group was backed by their record label, Universal Music International, in finding adequate songs and production to release a new album. In August 2005, "All About Us" and "Lyudi Invalidy" were announced to be the first singles from the English and Russian albums, respectively. "All About Us" was a worldwide hit, charting in the top ten in the majority of European charts. The group released their second English album on 5 October 2005 titled Dangerous and Moving. Its Russian counterpart was released on 19 October, titled Lyudi Invalidy. The second single was "Friend or Foe". Soon after the video was released, the group's management replaced drummer Roman Ratej with Steve "Boomstick" Wilson, and appointed a new bassist, Domen Vajevec. On 25 March 2006, t.A.T.u. received the award for Best Group at the first edition of the TRL Awards.

On 17 April 2006, t.A.T.u. returned to reality TV in Russia with t.A.T.u. Expedition, which was broadcast on the Russian music channel Muz TV. It chronicled the release of their second album, and the recording of the video for their third single, "Gomenasai", which was released during the airing of the show. The video, as well as the actual song, is quite a departure from t.A.T.u.'s usual style and leaves many of their fans cold. t.A.T.u. performed in Saint Petersburg, Russia on 28 April kicking off their Dangerous and Moving Tour. On 30 August 2006, the official website announced that the girls had left their record company, Universal/Interscope.

On 21 November 2006, the region of the Komi Republic in Russia filed a lawsuit against t.A.T.u. over the album and song "Lyudi Invalidy" due to the title translating to "disabled people". Leonid Vakuev, a human rights representative for the Komi Republic, interpreted the song as being directed towards disabled people and cited words written in the booklet for the album, which said: "[Lyudi Invalidy] do not know what it means to be a human being. They are fakes inside the human form. They do not live, but — function". Katina said, "Of course, we meant moral invalids, people who do not have [a] soul and human feelings." When asked if they had anything against disabled people, she stated that she finds it offensive to refer to people by that term, and added, "We take pictures together and make sure they have priority seats [at concerts]."

In 2006, Russian politician Aleksey Mitrofanov proposed t.A.T.u. to be awarded the Order of Friendship, but the State Duma vetoed his idea. Mitrofanov came to write a novel inspired by the duo, t.A.T.u. Come Back (Russian: ТАТУ КАМ БЭК), which was also adapted into the film You and I.

2007–2010: Vesyolye Ulybki and Waste Management
On 17 May 2007, t.A.T.u. issued a statement directed to their gay fans: "When t.A.T.u.'s second album came out, many of our fans of alternative sexual orientation thought that we lied and betrayed them. This is not true! We’ve never done that and we’ve always advocated love without boundaries." On 26 May, they flew out to Moscow to take part in the Moscow Gay Pride demonstration.

On 12 September 2007, the group released the concert DVD "Truth". It was the group's first release since leaving Universal. In late 2007, "Белый Плащик", "Beliy Plaschik", the lead single from their upcoming Russian-language album, was released. The project was then known as "Управление Отбросами", "Upravleniye Otbrosami", which translates to "Waste Management". The second single, "220" ("Двести Двадцать", Dvesti Dvadtsat'), made its radio premiere in May 2008 and the music video was released on their official YouTube channel on 5 June 2008. "Beliy Plaschik" and "220" were the main attractions on a special release known as "Hyperion-Plate", the first-ever EP from the duo. The EP was released on 8 May 2008 and featured multimedia content including music, video, ringtones and wallpapers.

At the time of the "Hyperion-Plate" release, "Upravleniye Otbrosami / Управление отбросами" was scheduled to hit the stores in June 2008. The EP featured a poster which advertised that date, as well as a coupon redeemable for a discount on the album that expired on 30 June 2008. However, the release schedule abruptly stalled on 5 June 2008, when t.A.T.u.'s manager Boris Renski announced that Julia Volkova was seriously ill. Volkova's illness forced the cancellation of a concert in Santa Clara, CA, and the singer was not seen in public until the wedding of producer Sergey Konov on 5 July 2008. The duo returned to work in late August, when it was reported that t.A.T.u. would be the face of fashion designer Marc Jacobs's fall and winter campaigns in Russia.

On 9 September 2008, a press release appeared on the duo's official website that declared that the forthcoming album would be titled "Веселые Улыбки", "Vesyolye Ulybki" ("Happy Smiles") instead of "Upravleniye Otbrosami" ("Waste Management"). The name change reflected sarcastic comments about the state of the Russian music business made by Volkova and Katina in an interview with Moscow's Time Out Magazine. The press release also provided the track list of the album and an early version of its cover art, but still no confirmed release date was given. On 12 September, the album's third single, "You and I" made its debut on Love Radio. The press release disappeared from the site shortly afterward, only to re-appear on 8 October with a change made to the cover art --- where there was once the face of a smiling astronaut on the original design, a black square now appeared.

On 15 October, t. A. T. u.'s website announced that "Vesyolye Ulybki" would be released on 21 October 2008, beginning with a special event at two Soyuz record stores in Moscow where fans could meet the girls and get their autographs. The album also went on pre-sale at the official t. A. T. u. web shop on 18 October, with a small number of buyers receiving a limited-edition postcard set as a prize. The songs were also made available internationally through the iTunes digital music store. Upon its release, it became apparent that the album essentially had two covers --- the astronaut cover was a slipcase, while the original design used for "Upravleniye Otbrosami" appeared inside. The black square from the press release had been hiding a Mars scene.

On 23 October, t.A.T.u. appeared on Vladimir Polupanov's "The 7 Premieres" to promote their new album. They were also the subjects of an ongoing mini-reality series on the website Russia.ru. On 21 October 2008 "Vesyolye Ulybki" was released internationally on online music stores. On 28 November t.A.T.u were awarded the Legend of MTV at the MTV Russia Music Awards 2008.

In March 2009, a statement was released on the duo's site and MySpace stating that the duo will no longer be a "full-time" project and that Katina and Volkova were working on solo projects. They also mentioned that the third video will be released on 17 April on MTV Russia. The album's single "Snegopady" was eventually released, along with its music video.

The girls performed a special concert at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 on 10 May. They were also included as an interval act on the 12th at the first semifinals, performing Not Gonna Get Us with the Russian Army Choir.

On 13 July, the group released their single "Snowfalls". The song was released digitally worldwide, along with its music video. The group's second single for the album, "White Robe", was released by Coqueiro Verde Records online and premiered on t.A.T.u's YouTube account. t.A.T.u's official website announced that the video was up for voting on MTV Brazil on 10 November 2009. On 3 December, the "White Robe" video reached the number one position on MTV Brazil. It was announced via Twitter that Coqueiro Verde Records would release the album in Brazil on 25 January 2010. The album was eventually released worldwide digitally, and received favorable reception from critics. The album did not sell very well and was reported to have only sold over 1000 copies in the United States, as of December 2010.

The third single off the album was "Sparks", which was the English version of "220". It was released in Brazil and on t.A.T.u.'s official YouTube account on 13 April 2010. On 31 March 2010, a contest was to be launched in which fans will be able to remix their favorite t.A.T.u songs from the new album. The winning mixes would be included on an upcoming remix album.

Julia made headlines in Russia with an interview where she expressed her opinion on Lena's solo career, "She has the right to [sing t. A. T. u. songs], but it's so stupid, absolutely stupid. If you do a solo career, it means that you do your own work. Her stuff, that she makes, I think, is silly and very soon her career will wither away and disappear." Lena responded to this interview via her YouTube Page, "I saw Julia's interview. Of course I got upset. But I want to tell everybody that I have a completely opposite attitude towards the whole situation, Julia's project included. I believe she's a very talented person and I sincerely hope that she'll be successful in all the things she plans."

In July, Lena made an appearance on a radio station where she was asked about the future of the duo. Lena responded by saying, "Life has changed a lot. Julia and I are working on our projects now. I, for one, will be traveling to Los Angeles this Saturday, where I will keep working on my album. And I'm preparing a big show in San Francisco in September, so now we are not planning to reform t.A.T.u., certainly not in the near future. Now we really want to concentrate only on our own projects." Lena Katina and her full band performed her first live major solo show in San Francisco on 17 September 2010.

2011: Disbandment
At the end of March 2011, t.A.T.u. management released a press release on their official website declaring t.A.T.u. over. Due to conflicts between the two women, and them both wanting to pursue solo careers, the duo was officially announced as disbanded. They finalised the duo's discography with a double remix album for Waste Management. The management thanked fans for their loyalty over the past twelve years of the duo's history.

After the split, the group decided to focus on their solo careers, both musically and in film. In August 2011, Lena revealed her debut solo single "Never Forget" which eventually charted at number one on the US Hot Dance Club Songs for a sole week. Volkova was also working on her studio album and released two singles; "All Because of You" and "Didn't Wanna Do It", but failed to generate interest on the music charts. The following year she confirmed she would be starring in the dark comedy zombie film 9 1/2 Zombies.

2012–2021: Aftermath with Volkova and Katina arguments
On 2 October 2012, Cherrytree Records/Universal Russia announced that they would be issuing a special re-release of t.A.T.u's 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane. The "10th Year Anniversary Gold Edition" featured all new artwork, a never-before-released song from the 2002 sessions, "A Simple Motion", a brand new remix of "All the Things She Said" from producer Fernando Garibay, in addition to newly mastered songs. On 24 October 2012, Cherrytree Records released the official track listing for the album; it was a note addressed to fans handwritten and signed by Julia and Lena themselves. The album was released on 12 November 2012.

On 11 December 2012, Lena and Julia reunited to appear as musical guests on The Voice of Romania. It was their first performance together in three years. The duo t.A.T.u performed "All About Us" and "All the Things She Said" during the show. They also appeared in radio and on another television show before.

After the re-release, the group were interviewed by Bradley Stern on MuuMuse, and was asked about a reunion and relationship together. Volkova stated "We don't keep in touch", while Katina stated "Only when we see each other. We have very different lives in different countries now. We are not in a fight though." As for a reunion, Katina said "I believe that there is always a chance for anything in this life. Maybe…." Volkova stated that, while she is not "ready for it", she said "But this won't stop us from reuniting for joint performances. We’ll see what happens!"

In April 2013, the group announced they would perform one live show at a Russian VIP Club. Lena also stated that "The t.A.T.u. comeback is very possible, we are talking about that right now." After Volkova had her second surgery for her ligaments, she officially confirmed that she and Katina were planning to reunite t.A.T.u. However, soon Volkova told an interviewer that they were not reuniting after all. Katina also stated that her solo career was the number one goal at that time and if t.A.T.u. was going to reunite, it would only be for small things like commercials and concerts.

On 27 September 2013, t.A.T.u. performed a concert in Kyiv, Ukraine. Shortly thereafter they wore their schoolgirls outfits from their first album again for a Snickers Japanese advertisement. Whilst in Japan they also performed "All the Things She Said" live in Tokyo.

The duo performed before the opening ceremony of the 2014 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony in Sochi, along with piano virtuoso Denis Matsuev and opera soprano Anna Netrebko, who also performed the Olympic anthem. Media reports expressed confusion at this performance, given that there is a lack of LGBT rights in Russia, especially since the much politicized Russian law banning gay propaganda aimed at minors that is being used to promote family values. The ceremony's director, Konstantin Ernst, said t.A.T.u.'s "Not Gonna Get Us" was chosen because it's one of the few Russian pop songs that international viewers might recognize.

On 17 February 2014, Katina posted a video message on her official YouTube channel stating that she would no longer be working with Julia and that t.A.T.u. was once again no longer a group. However, on 20 February, Volkova posted a video message saying that there is "no big reunion" but t.A.T.u. were having "joint projects". She also criticized Katina's "meaning" behind the video and confirmed that they would be shooting the video for the new single. On 5 March 2014, Volkova posted another video message on her official YouTube channel in response to Katina's video. She stated that despite "reasons of severe trepidation on the part of Lena about [Volkova] and [her] behavior," collaboration between the two was possible, referring to the release of their new single as well as their music video.

On 6 April 2014, the music video to "Love in Every Moment" was released to the Cornetto Ru page on YouTube, in which Katina and Volkova filmed their scenes apart. Towards the end of the video, Volkova is shown interacting with a body double of Katina, with the latter's face obscured. The song is part of the "A Sight of Cupid" project which contains several short films about love. In the short film "Together Apart" the duo were portrayed as cupids. On 22 May 2014, both singers introduced the film at the Cannes Film Festival. Due to their conflict and in keeping with Katina's wishes to not interact with Volkova, both singers had separate interviews with reporters. Volkova announced during an interview with the Italian press that the film would be the last collaborative work between her and Katina. Despite tensions, a petition dubbed "#tATuComeback" was circulated throughout popular social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, in the hopes that the former duo would resolve their conflicts and return with their long-awaited comeback as they had originally planned.

On 16 May 2016, the duo met publicly again at the 25th anniversary celebration of the children's musical group Neposedy, which both were a part of before the formation of t.A.T.u. There, together with the children, Lena sang her song "All Around the World" and together with Julia, everybody sang "Nas Ne Dogonyat” ("Not Gonna Get Us").

On 7 August 2016, for the 15th anniversary of "Ya Soshla S Uma" being released, a remix video of "Ya Soshla S Uma" was uploaded to the official YouTube channel. The audio was a remix by Fly_Dream, and the video contained 'rare footage' of "Ya Soshla S Uma" in HD.

In October 2017, the official community of t.A.T.u. in VKontakte received a proposal to create a remix contest for rare a cappella demo, which was intended for the third studio album t.A.T.u. «Waste Management». For 2 months, different authors from around the world sent their works. On 13 August 2018 the video "НАВСЕГДА (Best Remixes) [AUDIO]" was uploaded to the official YouTube channel with 6 remixes: MZ Remix, Fly_Dream Remix, Alexander Davidov Remix, Niko Palonen Щели Remix, Niko Palonen Remix and Niko Palonen Remix instrumental.

On 8 June 2021, a lengthy interview and documentary about t.A.T.u.'s story titled "ТАТУ: 20 лет спустя! Главная российская группа в мире" was published on YouTube on journalist Ksenia Sobchak's channel. The documentary discussed the formation of the group, its past controversies and Katina's and Volkova's personal and career developments after t.A.T.u. It also included interviews of former t.A.T.u. producer Ivan Shapovalov and Lena Katina's mother. Katina and Volkova were interviewed separately, as Katina rejected a common interview. The interview/documentary was the most trending video on Russian YouTube the day after it was published.

2022–present: t.A.T.u. reunion
Katina announced that t.A.T.u. would return to the stage in 2022. They had participated in the t.A.T.u. tribute concert which was originally supposed to be in 2021. However, due to persistent issues with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they decided to postpone until spring 2022. In September 2022, Katina and Volkova performed together under the name t.A.T.u. at the Dinamo Stadium in Minsk as part of the Ovion Show event. This was followed by another performance at a sporting event at the Gazprom Stadium in Saint-Petersburg in May 2023.

Public image
Throughout their career, the group received criticism, particularly after the release of "All the Things She Said". In his AllMusic review of 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane, Stephen Thomas Erlewine labelled the band as an "exceptionally tawdry gimmick". In 2003, after the release of their video of "All the Things She Said", some UK presenters campaigned to ban the video worldwide. Despite subsequent reports that the BBC had banned the video from their pre-watershed programme Top of the Pops, the BBC quickly denied the ban, stating only that they had better footage to show.

Just before the recording of their third studio album Dangerous and Moving, it was announced that Volkova was pregnant. This led to critics accusing the girls of being "fake" lesbians, although Katina and Volkova had said in the past they were not "together" or "in a relationship".

The group have appeared on Forbes's Top 50 Richest Stars of Russia twice, ranking at number six in 2006 with estimates of 1.4. million dollars and thirty-six in 2007, dropping thirty places. The group received the FHM Special Award for being the Top 100 Sexiest Woman. Both Katina and Volkova have been ranked on Maxim Russia's Top 100 Sexiest Girls, with Katina at fifty-three and Volkova at fifteen. The group also appeared on the cover of Maxim.

Cancellations of concerts controversy
Between the years of 2002 and 2004, t.A.T.u. caused controversy for cancelling several concerts and tours around the world. In March 2003, the group announced dates for their "Show Me Love Promo Tour" in the United Kingdom. However the next month, just days before they were due to perform, the group dropped the dates and did not perform at the concert, due to poor ticket sales. BBC News stated that only a fraction of the tickets were sold for the concert and said the stadiums (held in London and Manchester) had capacities of around 10,000. A spokesman from their label, Interscope, did not understand why the cancellation took place.

In May 2003, t.A.T.u.'s management were sued by the promoters EEM Group for the cancellations of the concerts. EEM sued their management for £300,000, claiming they put "unachievable and numerous obstacles" in the way of ticket sales for the shows. They also claimed that Julia's illness was a reason for the cancellation, however due to the lack of evidence, the lawsuit was discarded. After the lawsuit, the group also cancelled their Asian promo tour for Japan and China, due to Julia's sickness, with the excuse that Julia needed urgent surgery. The same month, the group postponed their German Promo tour, due to a late invitation to the 2003 MTV Movie Awards, where they performed. The following month they also cancelled their Riga concert and Japan concert in June, which led to a lawsuit from Pasadena Group Promotion, asking $180,000 in damages, as they did not receive any official letters regarding the cancellation.

While promoting their studio album Dangerous and Moving, the group cancelled their appearances in Chile due to poor ticket sales and the withdrawal of one of the Chilean sponsors. One month later, the group cancelled their tour at the last minute, due to inadequate stage preparation and poor ticket sales. In September 2009, several dates in Russia were cancelled due to the 22 July Tupolev Tu-154 plane crash.

Legacy
"All the Things She Said" was ranked at number 452 in Blender magazine's "The 500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born". The song was listed at number 8 on the AOL's Top 100 Pop Songs of the Decade. Rebecca Bary from The New Zealand Herald listed the song at number five on their Top Ten Best Singles of 2003. Bill Lamb from About.com listed the song on his Top 100 Pop Songs of 2003 at number 31 and on his Top 10 Contemporary Girl Group Songs at number ten.

In 2008, the group received the MTV Legend award by MTV Russia. The group is the most successful Russian musical export of all time. Katina stated to Billboard Magazine; "People will remember us for great songs, being free, taking life as it is and not being afraid of anything, [There were] provocative images of two girls kissing each other, but the second thing was the really great music." In 2006, both Lena and Julia were awarded "Woman of the Year" by GQ's Person of the Year Awards, but were not awarded under the band name.

Productions and T.A. Music
When t.A.T.u. was first formed by Shapovalov, Neformat was created as the group's production company, with Shapovalov and Renski at the head. In 2004, the company was dissolved when t.A.T.u. left Shapovalov.

Since 2005, T.A. Music has been the Moscow-based production company of t.A.T.u. The liner notes that accompanied the release of Dangerous and Moving said that the company was composed of t.A.T.u., Boris Renski, Dasha Mischenko, and Andrey Artischev. After t.A.T.u. broke ties with Universal Music in 2006, it was announced in 2008 that T.A. Music would become the duo's record label, although only currently in the Russian market. Vesyolye Ulybki was released internationally on iTunes through the T.A. Music label. T.A. Music also now acts as the label and management company for Lena Katina's solo project.

Members

 * Lena Katina – vocals (1999–2011/2022)
 * Julia Volkova – vocals (1999–2011/2022)

Backing band members
 * Sven Martin – keyboards, synthesizer, programming, piano, backing vocals, musical director (2002–2011)
 * Troy MacCubbin – guitars, backing vocals (2002–2010)
 * Matthew Venslauskas – guitars (2010–2011)
 * Roman Ratej – drums (2003–2006)
 * Steve "Boomstick" Wilson – drums (2006–2011)
 * Domen Vajevec – bass, keyboard (2006–2011)

Discography

 * 200 Po Vstrechnoy (2001)
 * 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane (2002)
 * Dangerous and Moving (2005)
 * Lyudi Invalidy (2005)
 * Vesyolye Ulybki (2008)
 * Waste Management (2009)

Tours

 * 200 Po Vstrechnoy Tour (2001–2002)
 * Show Me Love Tour (2003)
 * Dangerous and Moving Tour (2005–2007)

title: T.A.T.u.


text:
User:J'raxis

J’raxis 270145 is a former Wikipedia editor.

Current information about J’raxis can be found on J’raxis·Com.

This page will no longer be updated.

Selected contributions

 * All contributions are listed here.

Articles

 * Bina Nusantara University (with redirects Binus and UBiNus)
 * Bold type and Italic type
 * Bourgeois (as redirect to Bourgeoisie)
 * Damascus (disambiguation)
 * David G. Mugar
 * Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization
 * Gun Owners of New Hampshire
 * HE 1523-0901
 * Human communication (originally Anthroposemiotics)
 * IRCle
 * Julian
 * Lincoln Almond (with redirect Lincoln C. Almond)
 * Murad Wilfried Hofmann (with redirects Murad Hofmann and Wilfried Hofmann)
 * Mugar
 * Romanization of Arabic
 * SOP
 * UTC+5
 * UTC+6
 * Xiao

Categories

 * 1801 in law
 * Orders of magnitude (U.S. money)
 * Soviet Air Force officers
 * War crimes
 * Birth-year categories: 27 40 314 335
 * Death-year categories: 10s 20s 30s 60s | 24 93 100 335 363 394 724

Templates

 * Lang-ar
 * LangWithName
 * Userpage mini

NPOV and “reliable sources”
My general understanding of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy has always been that information is supposed to be presented neutrally and fairly. The NPOV article bears this out:

 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

And the reliable sources article goes on to say:

 * Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Several people here seem to be arguing that the manner in which reliable sources present something is how Wikipedia should present it—meaning, if said sources present something in a biased manner, even outright ridiculing the topic, then such ridicule can be copied directly into Wikipedia, suddenly becoming “neutral” simply because it came from “reliable sources” demanded by Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

That is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the NPOV policy: It sounds like the kind of convoluted lawyering someone would engage in in order to find a way to inject their own biases into an article. NPOV requires both neutrality in Wikipedia and neutrality in the reliable sources one cites. If your reliable source ridicules a topic, find a better reliable source.

From the NPOV article on article naming:

 * Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.

Using a pejorative name that the opponents of a theory use to label said theory, no matter the fringe nature of the theory, cannot possibly be justified as “representing fairly” a topic. There is absolutely no way someone can claim the word denialist is non-biased. It’s an ad hominem designed to make someone draw conclusions about a topic before they even start reading about it.

I can’t find an exact policy on this, but to me, the most intuitive policy for naming an article would be to use the name a group uses for themselves, with redirects in place for alternative names, including biased ones as used by their opponents. Some people have recommended using the word dissidents in this article title, but such terminology often has a positive connotation to people: Political dissidents are often portrayed as people who are brave enough to stand up against the status quo. So that’s not NPOV either. I would recommend renaming the article simply Alternative AIDS theories, which is the most neutral term I can think of.

And, if it’s true that these alternative AIDS theories are not “significant views” or are “fringe theories,” then the Wikipedia NPOV policy seems to lead to the conclusion that there should be no article at all on this topic, not one that ridicules the topic with a title of “AIDS denialism.”

— J’raxis ✆✍  06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I came to this article looking for information, having clicked the link on another AIDS article, and have little foreknowledge of this topic other than a vague understanding that some people question the HIV–AIDS connection. I don’t have a dog in this fight on one side or another, other than to improve Wikipedia. I only looked at the title and the first paragraph before dismissing the entire article as so biased as to be useless for learning anything about this topic.

 * Actually, the way reliable sources present a subject is the neutral way to present a subject. "Neutrality" does not equate being kind to all viewpoints. To water down the only scientifically accepted viewpoint on the topic would be introducing an editorial bias against the reliable sources. Further, there is absolutely no person, no source, nothing of human creation, that is without bias. To assume that we mere editors can fashion an unbiased article, or even an unbiased title for this article, is simply...wrong. And that's why NPOV tells us to go with reliable sources. It prevents us from having to worry about the bias issue. If the reliable sources are biased, then so be it. A little further down the naming section of NPOV that you cite you'll find "Wikipedia article names should use the most neutral term that is widely used in reliable sources." It's been shown several times in the archives that "AIDS denialism" is precisely that term. The NPOV policy itself gives a two examples of articles that have have very loaded titles, and they do so because those are the most commonly used terms by reliable sources.

 * Another way you can think about this is to try and imaging the course of discussion that would take placed, depending on the understanding of NPOV. If editors were supposed to weed out the bias in reliable sources, the debate would have no end - no logical conclusion. No matter the arguments presented, there would always been accusations of bias from somewhere. But if neutrality is simply going along with reliable sources, the debate can actually end. It only gets complicated when multiple reliable sources are in opposition with one another, and this is certainly not such a case. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 * And that explanation completely ignores the “fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints” part of the NPOV policy.

 * Of course you can’t get rid of bias. But you can present something in as fair a manner as possible. Propagating overt biases from sources, reliable or not, is not presenting something fairly, and any intelligent person can understand that calling something “denialism,” no matter how many times that term appears in sources, and no matter if that conforms to the letter of some Wikipedia policy, is not fairly representing the topic. Any intelligent person not with a vested interest in either side of the debate can look at the terminology both sides uses, and try to find some middle ground. So the mainstream calls the fringe “denialists,” a word most commonly associated with fascists and anti-semites nowadays—which I’d be willing to bet is why they’ve chosen such a term. And the fringe seems to label themselves “dissidents,” most likely in an effort to evoke a positive image of a brave minority standing up to an oppressive majority. Both terms are biased. Neither term is neutral. So in order to avoid looking like Wikipedia is taking sides, one finds a middle ground, a neutral term to describe the fringe: Alternative theories, minority theories, or similar.

 * But, your explanation is pretty much what I expected. There’s a policy or guideline or rule to regulate and justify every imaginable editorial decision in this project nowadays. People can argue endlessly about what these policies are supposed to mean, like lawyers, and whoever has the most time and energy to devote to it wins. People can dig through policies and find arcane points to justify their positions, no matter how overtly biased or against the spirit of an open encyclopedia they are. And they can mindlessly apply policies, as you said, to end debates.

 * I seem to remember a time when “wikilawyering” was considered against the spirit of the project. Now we have book-length talk pages debating a Wikipedia article, citing policy after policy after policy to get our way. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sum total of Wikipedia policies is longer than the tax code nowadays—or the entire U.S. Code itself. So be it.

 * This proliferation of rules and regulations is one of the major reasons I’ve stopped bothering to edit Wikipedia over the past few years. That, combined with the growing hierarchical nature of Wikipedia, has made me completely lose any faith that this project is a free or open encyclopedia anymore. Hmm, where to start. Page creation denied to anonymous users. “Semi-protection.” “Office actions” stepping in and stomping on community consensus. Veteran editors, many with admin privileges, obsessively patrolling pages and reverting changes made by newbies merely out of a sense of protectionism and ego. “Notability” guidelines being wielded by deletionist editors to justify demanding the deletion of pretty much anything. Articles being put up for deletion, over and over again, until the band of editors demanding deletion gets their way. (What’s the record now? Eighteen times for a single article?) Wikipedia is now the pet project of a few hundred people who have slowly manipulated the rules of the game to ensure that they get their way.

 * It’s especially interesting to watch how, much like in the real world, nearly every move toward more control has been predicated upon high-profile incidents. The Seigenthaler controversy justified denying anonymous users page creation and semi-protection of articles. “Office actions” were justified due to similar privacy complaints. “Vandalism” is held up more and more as a pretext for ever-increasing security.

 * Amusingly, right when I was in the middle of writing this post, I noticed the message about a “global sysops” proposal at the top of Wikipedia. “Because of … the continued abuse of our wikis, a new global user group is proposed: global sysops. These people would be highly trusted users with a strong track record of cross-wiki contributions.” Just what Wikipedia needs: another class of élite contributors with special powers, justified by the the “continued abuse of our wikis.” The timing of this couldn’t have been more appropriate.

 * Never has there been a high-profile incident that moves Wikipedia in a more free direction. Each incident only adds more controls, more regulation, and more bureaucracy.

 * And so, we end up with a policy that says if the sources are hopelessly biased, Wikipedia must be hopelessly biased, too. (Goes right along with those notability guidelines that basically say, if something hasn’t been reported on by mainstream media, it basically doesn’t exist.) Someone brought up the term African American vs. the N word earlier. It wouldn’t surprise me if, had Wikipedia been written two centuries ago and in the American South, we’d be debating whether or not an article on the anti-slavery movement ought to be called Abolitionism or N——— lovers. And the second term would probably win.

 * Of course, I don’t expect anything to change. It’s too far gone. People have long been criticizing Wikipedia about these problems, and they just keep slowly expanding. Wikipedia Watch and Wikipedia Review have existed for years. Encyclopedia Dramatica (which I can’t link to—because of some ridiculous “blacklist”) catalogues some of the more absurd examples of editorial excess. At this point, I see Wikipedia sort of how I look at the ancient Roman Republic: When Caesar and Augustus were first trying to destroy the republic and replace it with a monarchy, that was when it was appropriate to get angry, resist, and try to pull things back in the right direction. By the time Diocletian was wrecking the entire Roman economy with currency debasement and price controls, and lunatics like Commodus were renaming every damn thing in sight after themselves merely to stroke their own ego, all one could do was sit back, laugh at the stupidity of it all, and wait for it to collapse—and maybe build something better from the pieces.

 * Enjoy your encyclopedia, guys. I think I’m outta here. — J’raxis  ✆✍  23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

0DF9CFB5-9FE0-44A9-BFDD-D653FF286BC0 (July 29, 2024)

& es:Usuario:J'raxis id:Pengguna:J'raxis la:Usor:J'raxis

title: User:J'raxis


text:
Professional student

The term professional student has two uses in the university setting:

 * In the United States and Canada, if not elsewhere, a professional student is a student majoring in what are considered the professional degrees. These include Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), Law (J.D. or LL.B.), Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), Medicine (M.D. or D.O.), Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), Engineering, Business Administration (M.B.A.), Nursing (B.Sc.N.), and Pharmacy (Pharm.D. or B.Sc.Phm.), as well as many others.
 * "Professional student" is a slang term commonly used in colleges to describe a student who stays in school for many years rather than embarking on a career. To avoid these types, some four-year colleges have imposed limits on the length of time students can be enrolled in order to open up their limited slots to new students. However, those colleges allow for demonstrated exceptions (e.g., a student who holds down a full-time occupation or has a family to raise, who is clearly demonstrating progress toward a degree). See: perpetual student.
 * A less common meaning for "professional student" is an individual who makes a living writing papers and doing college work in exchange for pay from other people.

title: Professional student


text:
Barbee

Barbee may refer to:

Given name or nickname

 * Barbee (singer) (born 1989), Jamaican singer

Surname

 * Andrew Russell Barbee Jr. (1827–1903), American surgeon
 * Anita Barbee, American social psychologist
 * Bud Barbee (1914–2000), American baseball player
 * Carol Barbee (born 1959), American television writer, actress and producer
 * Dave Barbee (1905–1968), American baseball player
 * George Barbee (1850–1939), English-born American jockey
 * Herbert Barbee (1848–1936), American sculptor
 * John Barbee (1815—1888), the tenth Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky
 * John Henry Barbee (1905–1964), American blues singer and guitarist
 * Lamb Barbee (1916–1986), American baseball player
 * Lloyd Barbee (1925—2002), American politician
 * Rankin Barbee (1874–1958), American journalist and writer on Southern history
 * Tony Barbee (born 1971), American basketball coach
 * William Randolph Barbee (1818–1868), American sculptor

Middle name

 * Ransom B. Moore (1827–1904), California pioneer and Arizona Territory legislator

Places

 * United States
 * Barbee, Indiana, a town
 * Barbee Lake, a lake in Indiana

title: Barbee