text:
Talk:God/Archive 4

In what society is the word "god" applied to influential teachers?
Q. In what society is the word "god" applied to influential teachers? I have heard it applied to parents but never just teachers. - Tεx τ urε 16:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose that parents teach, right? I tried to find the source of your phrase "influential teacher" but couldn't find it in the article.  At any rate, God as influencing the universe (from the quantum realm up, and since the beginning (big bang) of this "cosmic epoch") makes more sense than an omnipotent God that controls and is thus responsible for everything.  God's omniscient viewpoint, if creatures can come into contact with it (traditionally called God?s will) is better conceived as a guiding/teaching force?creatures may reject it or follow it and thus exercise free and real action in the world.  A traditional God is really the only force in the universe, and thus creatures are simply meaningless appendages.  See, e.g., Charles Hartshorne's Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Aliman 23:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A. In the same society in which we describe completely secular works as being "bibles" in their field. If I recall hearing a fellow undergraduate describe a mathematician as a topological god, if I ever notice the name come up on a catalogue search, I might be more likely to look for that book earlier than my other references - after all, I have some reason to believe I'll be impressed.

(I didn't find the original context in which 'god' was applied to influential teachers, so this might not be the fact that is most pertinent to your question. Then feel free to change back the format of this reply.)

"it is not logically possible for something to come from nothing"
' For example, it has been argued that, without postulating the existence of one, eternal God, the origin of the universe appears inexplicable, since it is not logically possible for "something" to come from "nothing". Non-believers argue that this argument is internally inconsistent as it fails to explain the origin of 'God'. '

 * Someone seems to feel this is less clearly objectionable than I. One glaring error is the assumption that "it is not logically posible for something to come from nothing". It is also generally unhelpful and unnecessary, and if needed at all can find its way to arguments for or against the existance of God. Sam [Spade] 02:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The statement that "it is not logically possible for something to come from nothing" is a paraphrasing of part of the cosmological argument, one of the best-known arguments for the existence of God. Combined with the sentence that follows it, which points out that it does not explain the origin of God, it helps to nicely introduce the topic of the section.  Further, there is no error in the particular statement you question.  It is fully consistent with basic math (2 + 2 = 4) and science (the conservation of mass and energy).  While you may find it "objectionable", "unhelpful" and "unnecessary", these do not provide a sufficient reason for removing material.  Others might say the same regarding the remaining sentences in the section, or, for that matter, the entire article or encyclopedia.--Johnstone 01:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the section is flawed. Let’s consider the key statement: It is not logically possible for something to come from nothing. What sort of statement is it? The statement is not obviously a tautology; so it is not true, as Johnstone appears to claim, in the same sense as 2+2=4. If Johnstone wishes to claim that it is a tautology, then perhaps he should present a parsing of the statement into, say, first-order predicate calculus so that we all can see its truth.

If it is an observation, we run into another difficulty. For it is not by any means obvious what the 'nothing' is. If we take the nothing to be a simple vacuum, which is implied by the link to the article vacuum, then the statement is simply wrong, since we know that virtual particles do indeed spring into existence in a vacuum, forming the vacuum energy of quantum physics. And if the 'nothing' is the absence of space-time itself, then how could one make the observation? Certainly, it would be interesting to know of any observations Johnston has made outside of space and time.

Perhaps it is a definition of 'something' – something like, something is the stuff that does not come from nothing. But then the argument would be circular, and Johnston begs the question.

Perhaps it is a physical law, like the conservation laws. Such laws are aphorisms that parse scientific statements into English – so, for example, energy is neither created nor destroyed is the English version of $$ \Delta U = U_1 - U_2$$. But since such laws inevitably involve time as a variable, they do not apply in cases where time does not exist – as may be the case before the origin of the universe.

Perhaps the statement is the expression of a personal preference – I would prefer that something cannot come from nothing. But if that is all it is, it has no place in this article.

As it stands, that section does not do justice to the cosmological argument, simply because it is too brief. Far better to leave the example out, and link to the article about the argument itself. Banno 21:43, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why thank you banno, I couldn't have said it better myself. I was stuck trying to choose among a few of the various examples you choose to provide, and in the interim you have done me the service of articulating my thoughts for me, for which I am sincerely greatful. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. Banno

 * No paraphrasing ever fully captures what is being paraphrased, so Banno's making a detailed attack on my explanation of a portion of one half of a paraphrasing of an argument, as if it were the argument itself, is misdirected . The two sentences simply convey the general essence of the argument, not the argument itself.  It's fairly typical of article sections that point to other articles to give a flavor of what is in those other articles, to give the reader a hint of what they will find there.

 * However, to address some of Banno's statements for the sake of further explanation:

 * 1. I didn't claim that the statement is true in the "same sense" as 2 + 2 = 4. I simply said that the statement is "fully consistent with basic math".  If one has 5 items, one could maintain that they were given 2 sets of 2 things, that 2 + 2 = 5.  But this is illogical since, somehow, a fifth item appeared without explanation; it is equivalent to saying that something came from nothing.

 * This put me in mind of Natural_number, in which the natural numbers are created, literally ex nihilo, from the empty set.Banno 21:28, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why can?t one just say they were given 2 things plus 2 things, plus the one created  ex nihilo, makes 5? Banno 21:44, May 25, 2004 (UTC)~

 * 2. I simply said that the statement in question is "fully inconsistent with" the conservation of mass and energy. Even if the word "vacuum" is used, Banno's statements regarding it are misleading.  While particles can spring into existence in a vacuum, they don't spring from nothingness; conservation of mass and energy is not violated.

 * It was you, not I, who equated nothing with vacuum. Banno 21:44, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * 3. Note: The phrase "something is the stuff that does not come from nothing" is not circular. "Something is the stuff that is not nothing" is circular.  Consider: "milk is stuff that does not come from chickens" vs. "milk is stuff that is not a chicken".

 * If you define something as the stuff that does not come from nothing then to say that it is not logically possible for something to come from nothing  is redundant. Your argument would beg the question. Banno 21:44, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * 4. Yes, I have made observations outside space and time. I found the source of Banno's contempt. ;-)

 * Familiarity, perhaps? Banno 21:44, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * 5. I agree that material that is only an expression of personal preference has no place in the article. My argument in favor of the sentences has nothing to do with personal preference, nor could it.  The two sentences taken together basically are neutral and inconclusive.--Johnstone 01:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

God must be found through personal revelation, and cannot be understood by those who have not experienced this - who maintains this? Certainly it is a protestant idea. Does it derive from Luther? Banno 22:00, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * In other words, those who believe in god, believe in god, and those who do not believe in god, do not believe in god - a tautology - with the additional and arbitrary judgement that those who do not believe in god are somehow lacking knowledge in comparison to those who do believe in god, and their opinion is thus inferior. Such a statement is clearly not objective, and is intended to persuade.  As it is not objective and therefore not factual, it does not belong outside of quotes. Kevin Baas 19:32, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

 * To resolve the "something from nothing argument": the word "from" is logically problematic. It is logically possible for there to be nothing, and then be something.  However, if there is a "from", there must be a mechanism of transition, which is something.  For instance, if an object transforms from a dog to a cat, there is a set of identifiables which change their identity, as well as a mechanism by which they change their identity; by which they go "from" and "to", such that have this mechanism in common, making it possible to logically say that they are not merely two distinct and disparate objects/events, but rather they both occupy the same perceptual space, the content of which changes: going "from" and "to".  Insofar as there is this perceptual space which enables identity, there must be, in any case 'something'.   Even if the identity of 'nothing' goes to the identity of 'something', that 'going to' nonetheless 'comes from' this mechanism, which is something.  i.e. the possibility of the identity 'something' is logically contingent on that mechanism, i.e. comes from that mechanism. So something cannot "come from" nothing (proper), though something and nothing can be juxtaposed temporally. Kevin Baas 19:32, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

Disambig
I think that Disambigs should go at the top of articles, so that it is immediately apparent without having to scrole through the article - is there some reason to put it at the bottom? Mark Richards 02:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it looks terrible. The policy on this is pretty vague, BTW. I've seen it done both ways. Sam [Spade] 03:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to revert it, but it seems reasonable to put alternative meanings where people don't have to rummage around for them - people may not assume that there are any. What about at least putting a tag at the top saying that there are alternative meanings, and to see the bottom of the article? Mark Richards 16:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Despite my earlier thoughts and personal view,
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation
 * Has been pointed out to me, which suggests it should be at the top as, indeed, you say Mark. -- EuroTom 17:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved it back re this discussion - please let me know if it still offends. Mark Richards 17:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The God song thing is just silly, its not even an article, and in no way deserves disambiguation, much less at the top of this page. Sam [Spade] 02:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree - especially since other artists like Tori Amos also have songs called "God." This should either be a proper disambig, with references to all the songs, as well as the company "Guaranteed Overnight Delivery" or it should go - current form is not helpful. Snowspinner 02:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that it needs a disambig, lets delete it if it does not, but lets not have two classes of disambig. Either it needs one, at the top, where disambigs should go, or it doesn't, and it shouldn't be on the page at all. How about another page for God (songs) with a note at the top? Mark Richards 16:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no need, unless you plan on writing a bunch of pages about these songs, which would be kinda weird. Sam [Spade] 19:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really saying that we need it, and am certainly not going to write the article. At most the disambig could point to the artist and album. What I am saying is that if we have a disambig, it should go a the top. If we don't need one, lets get rid of it, not put it at the bottom where no-one will ever see it, I am happy with either solution. Mark Richards 19:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It just occurs to me that maybe these should be in the 'see also' along with 'God particle', which also has nothing to do with God in this sense. Can't be bothered to sort it out though, especially as I don't think any of these songs have actual articles. Mark Richards 19:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Hinduism
An anonymous user just added that Hinduism also spells god with a capital "G" in the second sentence, apparently citing Brahman as his source. I'm not sure if it should be taken out or not.

 * he is correct. Sam [Spade] 03:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. for those interested... -- EuroTom 03:14, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

moved from article
' Critics of this argument might contend it confuses the objective question of existence with arguments about the potential ethical impact of such belief. '

 * There is nothing wrong with this sentence, but I would want to give a response to it that may take as much as a paragraph, and I'd rather do that on the arguments for/against page. It ignores pragmatism, and variations of "appeal to consequence". There are many who say that which is moral is correct, and some of them see belief in God as moral. Obviously there is the theoretical consequence of eternal damnation, a clear appeal to the stick (seen as acceptable logic by pragmatists and others, but not by all). Sam [Spade] 03:16, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

', or that one ought to live as if God exists '

I've no problem with discussing this issue, but at the moment this sentence is essentially confusing the two important areas of distinction. As it is quite a common error, (and common to many arguments) it's particularly important not to be propagate it.

I would enjoy being enlightened on the issue, though I would suggest we leave both bits out if it is hard to find a definite agreement. Hopefully we'll be able to write something that convey both the pragmatic arguments and the concern over confusion of the issues. -- EuroTom 03:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The purpose I had in mind for this phrase was to point to the pragmatic considerations; they are not covered well at Argument from morality. Perhaps it would be better to leave it for an improved version of that article. Banno 12:04, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps include in the Practical Benefits of Religion section? -- EuroTom 16:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, and would point out that these sorts of discussions generally consist of a misuse of terms, false dicotomies, and a whole host of other difficulties and confusions. If the discussion of it were easy, we'd have a whole lot less atheists/believers, depending on which possesed/posseses the most valid argument. ;) Sam [Spade] 03:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you overestimate people's trust of rational argument over other human drivers. I do wish I could be as optimistic, but I think rational debate is unfortunately the last thing that motivates some people's positions on both sides. I agree, though, difference in interpretation of meanings can be more problematic than the underlying issues sometimes! -- EuroTom 03:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * There are many who say that which is moral is correct, and some of them see belief in God as moral.

 * Morality is a complex issue obviously, but they needs to be good justification for equating 'truth' and 'being moral' and I think many would strongly disagree. Independent of the potentially wonderful benefits of religious belief to society and the individual, it seems unlikely to me that their ethical views and behaviour directly affect the possibility of their very physical existence.

 * Obviously there is the theoretical consequence of eternal damnation, a clear appeal to the stick (seen as acceptable logic by pragmatists and others, but not by all).

 * Again, this argument may be a good one in terms of 'what should I convince myself and others to believe?' but doesn't demonstrate anything about the 'objective' existence of God or gods. This is one worry I had about shorterning the title of the section - it leaves a bit of abiguity over what is under debate: 'is it ethical to hold a belief in God' or 'does God exist, excluding impacts of such beliefs'.

 * The Argument from morality page shows the risks:

 * 1) To have stable standards of morality, we must believe that God exists.
 * 2) We obviously have or need stable standards of morality, therefore, God exists.

 * The latter is the suspect stage, as it talks about a pragmatic, human need for generally stable systems of morality (eg: for a nice society), as if it were a fundamental logical necessity (eg: human beings cannot exist without a absolutely stable morality), which, given the successful continuation of other forms of life on this planet, seems improbable. -- EuroTom 03:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

' Morality is a complex issue obviously, but they needs to be good justification for equating 'truth' and 'being moral' and I think many would strongly disagree. '

 * Many do disagree. I suspect the two of us do ;) Pragmatism states something similar to "that which is efficient is correct" Utilitarian says something like "that which does the most good (for the most people) is correct". Machiavelli says something like "that which is expediant is necessary". I happen to agree w all of these, and see them all as supporting the existence of God. I also happen to generally see everything as evidence of God, esp. my own existence (I am a pantheist, so proof is easy for me) but thats another subject. Anyways there is prob not room for discussion of this in the article, and I think its best discussed at length elsewhere. Sam [Spade] 05:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, Naturalistic_Pantheism for example, leads directly to meaning and purpose directly from the existence universe around and within us. Machiavelli interestingly managed to combine religious ethics with his proto-Utilitarian views. (But then he was quite cunning...) -- EuroTom 16:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quotes barrage
An anon added a lot of quotes, mainly aimed at the Christian understanding of God and Christianity as a religion. All were pejorative without fail, and IMO they contribute nothing to the article. Revert. JFW | T@lk  09:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removal of atheist perspectives and lack of objectivity
Hi,

I am new to editing on wikipedia (infact I'm not currently registered, although I'll change that soon), and recently added a few changes to the 'god' article here. With such an obviously contentious issue it is probably best to be very open and honest from the outset. I am an atheist, and having looked at the page, I was a little dissapointed with the lack of any real references to atheism or alternatives to belief in some form of deity. As you are aware, I added a small amount about atheism (I thought not written in an aggressive style and fully within line with the rest of the article), and added a few qualifications to other areas and changed small amounts of grammar. I think what I did promoted the objectivity of the article rather than forced my particular viewpoint, or 'vandalised' the article in any way. I was therefore very dissapointed to see that the user with the name 'texture' decided to withdraw all the changes I made on the article. I am being completely honest and open about my atheism, and I would appeal to yourself and anybody else within the wikipedia community to have a look at the changes I made. I honestly do not think they appeared in any way dogmatic, and were simply an attempt to redress the balance a little and to present another alternative viewpoint.

If you would like to contact me in person please do so at: aaarrrggh_uk_1999@yahoo.com I will be happy to talk to you about this. Also, I will make an appeal myself in the community portal when I have more time. I hope this is ok. I honestly think the changes I made were in the better interests of objectivity and were for the benefit of the article.

Ps - I would also like to point out that I also noticed a number of anti-christian quotes go up not long after texture removed my additions to the article. I would just like to make it clear for the record that I was not involved in this.

Paul :)

 * (I just answered this same query on my talk page - here is the response I gave.) Welcome, Paul. What I saw last night appeared to be vandalism and advertisement for a website.  The first few words were replaced with "follooun", which set my thoughts to vandalism.  The changes made seems so anti-god and anti-religion that it appeared to be a vandalism of the article or an attempt to be so out there as to get people to visit your web site. Other anon edits before and after the one's I reversed also seemed to be anti-god vandalism.  I may be wrong on what you are attempting to do with the article.  If I am, I apologize.  However, before you create a large addition of atheist/anti-god/anti-religious text in the article on god, may I suggest you discuss it on the Talk:God discussion page?  In addition, you may want to add your information to the Arguments against the existence of God article instead. -  Tεx  τ  urε  15:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paul - 28/6/04 Thanks for replying texture. I don't know what the "folloun" quote is a reference to, but it was certainly not something I added (certainly not intentionally anyway?!). I can understand the changes seemed anti-religious, but I do think I was adding them to create an alternative voice (not I hope didactic or forceful) to the page which I thought considerably improved the articles objectivity. I can give you one specific example: The subtitle 'The Nature of God' to me needs to be qualified in that it seems to presume implicitly that the existence of god is an objective fact, and therefore rules out alternative viewpoints, or at least places these viewpoints lower down in terms of the heirarchy of relevance or truth. I changed the title to 'The Nature of God for those who believe' and added a paragraph at the start of this section that pointed out that arguments on the 'nature of god' do of course require first that the individual believes in the existence of god(s). I think the way I wrote this however was not argumentative or forceful, but served only to qualify the section and to acknowledge alterantive perspectives and viewpoints.

All the other changes I added were along these kind of lines (for example, I changed the subtitle 'the existence of God' to 'debates regarding the existence of God').

I know this is an issue that creates huge divisions of opinion (and which is never likely to be settled easily), but I think the addition of these kinds of qualifications, and the section I added (which was still very small - consisting of (I think) only two or three small paragraphs) regarding atheism and agnosticism help promote the objectivity of the article and present a wider collection of viewpoints. I think it is very important to not privilige one particular viewpoint as more important or as closer to the 'truth' than any other within the context of a wikipedia type article.

Hope some of this helps. I would be happy to debate this issue in here first and maybe agree some changes to the language/content of the article in advance before doing it for real. Also I'll sign up with this thing soon so I actually have a username, lol ;)

- Paul

As regards a change I made: The New Testament cannot contain ideas which are a radical departure from idea found in the Quran. The NT came first; the Quran was written a number of centuries later. RK

Minor stuff
"The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints is an exception; it teaches that God the Father also has a perfect body of flesh and bones, while agreeing that the Holy Spirit is bodiless.)"

 * Saying "incarnation aside" is impossible. It is the single largest issue in regards to the gender of God. That is like saying "Laws of thermodynamics aside, a random mixture of salt and pepper will separate into two separate groups by random shaking." RK

NPOV violations rife in this article
In my opinion, this article should be revisited seriously and soon; it is POV in a number of aspects not least in the cultural ethnocentricity it displays. I do not want to break out an edit war here, however, the modern day Judaeo-Christian stuff which largely presages this arrant nonsense does not even begin to create a context in which this subject can seriously be broached. Sjc 06:47, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As an example of this we have 48 mentions and supersets of the word Christ and 3 of the word Allah. Christ isn't even a God lol. Sjc 07:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Tell that to a Christian. Not that I disagree with your point. Yath 08:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * hehe nice work on starting to get this seething mess cleared up btw :) I don't particularly have it in for Christians, btw, they just seem so ubiquitously attention seeking Sjc 08:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of POV-related violations, I have just removed the following from the very end of the article (below the links section):

"There is no proof of a god or of gods. The theory of conservation states that matter and energy can not be distroyed and so this means that if god is the creator, that he may not exist unless he was a figure that did not create and is only refered to as god as we can see it. It does not mean to say that there is not a being that is watching over us. It is often the case that people happen to follow one particullar religion or belief in heards (they believe in it because everyone else does).  However this does not mean the belief that they hold is correct.  This is because of the fact that there is other religions that are also followed in heards and they have just as much chance of being correct, then again they may all be wrong."

I'm not removing based on dis/agreement with the sentiment, but because it is fairly POV and already covered in the section on the existence of God and the various pages concerning arguments pro and con. Whooper 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: divide the article into "God (capitalized)" and "god (lowercase)"
It seems that the ambiguity of the article's title continually causes friction between "pro-God" and "anti-God" wikipedians. (Although the title appears capitalized, all article titles appear capitalized.)  I suggest that the article be divided into two separate articles: God (capitalized) and god (lowercase), with a God (disambiguation) page to steer readers to the right usage. Most of the present article would go into "God (capitalized)."

For example, Yath recently overhauIed the introduction in a way that would be more appropriate for an article "god (lowercase)," wheras the majority of links to the present article refer to "God (capitalized)".--Johnstone 15:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, implementing my above suggestion would entail a massive amount of minor edits of all the articles that point to this one, in order to avoid double redirects. Instead, I have added the following line to the beginning of the article:

 * This article is about "God" (with a capitalized "G"). For the generic usage, see gods.--Johnstone 16:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * There are gods, and then there are Gods. Granted these three letters may refer to a specific entity or not. But mentioning both of these usages in the same article does not make one anti- either of them. An article named "gods" is just silly. Also, since polytheism predates monotheism, it makes sense to start out with what a god is rather than who God is. I realize that the majority of modern readers are more likely to believe in a single god, but writing the article in reverse order is just awkward, confusing, and bad form. Yath 18:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The usage is quite simple: God is capitalised because it's a proper noun, and god is not, because it's not. Notice that one person's God may be another person's god, and vice versa. -- Anon.

 * Umm, yeah. Your point? Yath 22:47, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The fact that I put "pro-God" and "anti-God" in quotes was meant to communicate that it was not to be taken literally. It was meant as a short-hand way of saying "for the article to be about God with a capital 'G'" vs. "for the article to be about god with lowercase 'g'".  The concept of God as the one supreme being, variously described as creator of everything, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc., is quite beyond the descriptions of most polytheistic deities, and the two topics deserve separate articles.  For an article about the gods, your intro is fine.  But for an article about God, it would be unusual and confusing.  For example, look at the article "Moon".  Why shouldn't there be an article about the Moon, as well as an article for the generic "moon"?  Also,  for the article about the Moon to start by launching into a basic description of what a moon is would be wrong.

 * However, I agree that there shouldn't be an article "gods," but for a different reason: the standard practice of having articles named in the singular. Therefore, I'm moving the article "gods" to "deity."--Johnstone 19:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * This strikes me as a POV hijacking of a definition. If you wish to have a separate "Christian God" or a "Monotheistic God", that'd be one thing, but unilaterally deciding that the page should only address one particular aspect of the definition smacks of agenda-pushing.

 * Since I'm sure that your intent was not to push a personal agenda, but to improve the objectively neutral Wikipedia, rather than revert, I invite you (Johnstone) to correct this yourself; please do so as soon as you reasonably can. -- orthogonal 09:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It is not "POV hijacking" any more than having an article titled "Moon" be about one particular planet's natural satellite, or an article titled "evolution" be about only biological evolution, are "POV hijacking." All are simply instances of article titles corresponding to the most frequent usage of a term, as suggested in naming conventions, which states,
 * "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
 * Besides, there is (now) a separate article, deity, for the common noun.--Johnstone 23:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I would just like to throw in a "me too" on the God/deity articles. I know that in the USA, when someone says "God", 98% of the time it's capitalized and it's Jesus/his dad/holy spirit. Yahweh. If the rest of the English-speaking world is very different, it might not be right to have the articles named like this, but I don't know about that. This setup is just as sensible as Moon/natural_satellite. --Yath 02:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following my "argument."--Johnstone 01:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

God vs. deity
I also like the "God vs. deity" split. It's much better than using the case of the "G" as the distinction. Now we need to refactor the articles. For example, some polytheist religions like Hinduism also believe in a supreme God of which (as I understand it) all their other deities are aspects. From the article: "Within Sanatana Dharma, or Hinduism (as it is commonly called) a variety of lesser gods are seen as aspects of the one God, Brahman (not Brahma). Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be." -- The Anome 14:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, also. The God of Hinduism that you mention can be accommodated in the present article with one tweak: changing the description of the article to be "about God, the supreme being" (which is the capitalized usage—I'm not the one who changed the definition of the article to be about "the God of the major monotheistic religions" —although I've since realized that distinguishing an article by capitalization would be poor practice.)  As evidenced by the links in Wikipedia, when an English-speaker uses the three-letter word "GOD," they are almost always referring to a supreme being, regardless of what religion's (if any), just as when an English-speaker says "evolution," they are typically referring to biological evolution, regardless of which sub-theory (if any).  They are only rarely referring to the generic senses of either word.  In my opinion, the "supreme being" definition most fully meets the requirements of naming conventions, quoted above, though I am very interested in what others have to say.  P.S. The article deity also needs a lot of work.--Johnstone 01:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"inclusivistic religions"...really?
I fully agree with the article that Islam and Christianity are "exclusivist" religions. However, is Hinduism really an "inclusivist" religion? What is meant by "inclusivist"? When there is a contradiction between the major, central, core teachings of each religion, do they then become exclusive to each other? Obviously Hindus believe that their faith is the best way--otherwise they would have a different faith. (right?) According to Hindus, do the deep, important teachings of their religion cease to be true merely because someone chooses not to be a Hindu? Any insight is appreciated. --Locarno 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * While I'm no expert on Hinduism, I think that Hindus believe that there's is the best path, but not the only path, whereas Christianity and Islam would say that there's is the only path. A Hindu would probably believe that a non-Hindu who lived a good life might still stand a good chance of being reincarnated in a better condition, whether or not they actually believed in reincarnation. If they didn't, they would be reincarnated in a worse station in life, perhaps even as some sort of animal. Also in Hinduism, I believe that in the end, everything gets swallowed up in Brahman, including things like light and darkness, good and evil, and so on. No doubt I'ver oversimplified some points and got others plain wrong; I hope that someone will better clarify these points. I also suspect that Reform Judaism may qualify as inclusivistic since they believe that the Jews have a particular covenant with God, but other people may have other covenants with God that are different. Not sure whether Orthodox Jews would go along with that. Wesley 17:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I see, makes sense. The more I think about it, the more it seems that the analysis of exclusivistic and inclusivistic religions does not belong in this article, as the text here really focuses on religions rather than the understanding of the person, nature, or essence of God.  Additionally, this article has a header saying that it is about "major monothestic religions"; Hinduism and Buddhism are major, but not monotheistic; with transcendentalism, it is hard to pin down whether it is major, monothesitic, or even a religion.  I say we remove the discussion of inclusive/exclusive religions as non-germane and perhaps biased POV; it can be replaced as desired with discussions of how each major monotheistic religion understands God.  Analysis of exclusivistic/inclusivistic religions belongs on the page of each religion or perhaps in their own articles, Exclusivistic religions and Inclusivistic religions.  Comments, all?  --Locarno 19:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hearing no objections, I will make the change. --Locarno 13:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * See Talk:God Sam [Spade]

The trinity and Unitarians
"Many Trinitarian Christians hold that belief in the Trinity is so essential to Christianity that Unitarian Christians are pseudo-Christians, in need of being baptized with the Trinitarian formula before they can be considered genuine Christians."

Two things:
 * This seems to be more a question of "who counts as a Christian", which belongs on the Christianity page; or a question of baptismal regeneration, which belongs in the Baptism article. It is not immediately germane to someone's understanding of the person, essence, or nature of God.
 * I don't think this is true at all. Most Christians who know what Unitarians believe would not consider them Christians of any sort; most Protestants assert that baptism isn't necessary for salvation, and niether does baptism make one a Christian.

Comments? --Locarno 19:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It is sort of a question of "who counts as a Christian", but a brief mention of it here serves to highlight the significance many people attach to this aspect of understanding God. It seems relevant to mention not only the persons, essence and nature of God, but also briefly mention who thinks these things are important and why. Any lengthier discussion should be kept on the pages you suggested.
 * Secondly, I know the statement is true for the Orthodox, and strongly suspect it is also true for the Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other like minded Protestants. Even those Protestants who don't believe baptism is "necessary" for salvation mostly still practice it, and of these, I think many would be inclined to baptize someone who was transferring from one of the nontrinitarian denominations. Perhaps Unitarian should be replaced by nontrinitarian though. Wesley 17:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I see what you are saying. I was thinking more that baptism alone is insufficient to make a Unitarian into a Christian.    I'm going to make some changes; let me know what you think.

God and energy are different
I deleted the word "energy" at the beginning of the article, just above the "contents." There is an underlying energy that pervades the universe that makes the existence of the universe possible. Quantum field theory (Actually, Quantum electrodynamics), says that everything interacts with everything (the word “everything” is being used loosely here because “everything” even applies to vacuuous space where no matter is present). This interaction takes place on the quantum level via a continuuous exchange of energy in the form of photons. It is thus erroneous to claim that God is an underlying energy that pervades the universe, whose existence makes the universe possible. This is not God, it is simply energy. (The word “consciousness” should remain, of course, because although everything in the universe is based on the electromagnetic (photonic) exchange of energy, the highly complex things contained within that energy field such as consciousness, atoms, and desks, are different from that energy). In addition, the phrase “that which is beyond all understanding or definition” should equally be deleted, because this phrase is unintelligible. However, we’ll leave it intact for now. Aliman 11:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * "It is thus erroneous to claim that God is an underlying energy that pervades the universe, whose existence makes the universe possible" - This is a false conclusion, in no way supported by its premises.

 * God is the universe, the "exchange of energy", the "Quantum field", God is everything that ever is, was, and ever shall be (even that only imagined), the sum total of all existence, the alpha and omega, absolute infinite. "God is energy" is one way of attempting to explain this. God is not anthropomorphic, rather we are "theopomorphic", Godlike (God becoming, really) in our essence, our spirit, our energy, our soul. Look into &.

 * Sam [Spade] 03:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In addition, the phrase “that which is beyond all understanding or definition” should equally be deleted, because this phrase is unintelligible. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is in fact a very important point in at least some theologies and theological approaches; see apophatic theology for example. Also, Sam makes a good point saying that "God is the universe" etc. Christianity (and I think Judaism?) draws a sharp distinction between God the Creator and Creation, that is everything that is created. With this distinction in place, it follows that anything physics instruments can detect and measure must be part of the Creation, and cannot be the Creator. But many religions do not have this sharp distinction, so to say something is material or explainable by physics would not to them necessarily prove that it was not God. The two are not mutually exclusive as they are in Christianity and like religions. And even within Christianity, the lines can be blurred, for instance when Gregory Palamas says that God can not be known in his essence, but can be known in his energies. (Palamas of course knew nothing of the Quantum field etc.) Wesley 16:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Good points. Pantheism and panentheism are both useful reading in these regards. Sam [Spade] 19:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:God/Archive 4


text:
Trenčianske Teplice

Trenčianske Teplice (Trentschin-Teplitz; Trencsénteplic) is a health resort and small spa town in western Slovakia, in the valley of the river Teplička, at the foothills of the Strážovské vrchy mountains, a few kilometres away from the city of Trenčín.

Characteristics
The town of Trenčianske Teplice is known not only for its thermal springs and the health resorts, but also for an international film festival Art film and the Bridge of Fame. Not far from the town is also a small village Motešice, known very well for horse-breeding farm and horse racing. 'Green Frog' is a name for sport/recreational complex, very popular by locals, which was renovated and reopened in 2015.

Legend
A legend says that the healing springs were discovered by a gammy shepherd while he was looking for a lost sheep. He found a small hot water pool with a sulphuric smell and after several days, he recovered.

History
In the middle of the 13th century as terra Teplicza it was property of the Cseszneky de Milvány family. It has been a spa site since the 14th century. As early as the 16th century, the spa was known all over Europe, and was mentioned as the most important of the Kingdom of Hungary. The spa was owned by the Illésházy, an aristocratic family of the Kingdom of Hungary, from 1582 onwards. In 1835, it was bought by the Viennese financier Jozef Sina, who developed the area. The spa was nationalised after the Second World War.

Bridge of Fame
What does make bridges famous? Might be architects, builders, location, size or shape. The Bridge of Fame in Trenčianske Teplice is different. The bridge is located in small town, overarching a small river, but known by whole country. Bridge of Fame is the place where a plate dedicated to the top guest of the biggest film festival in Slovakia is added. The festival was held in Trenčianske Teplice since 1993 (until 2015), Artfilm. The plates given here to date include those dedicated to Sophia Loren, Gina Lollobrigida, Franco Nero, Ornella Muti, as well as exceptional Slovak film actors and actress as: Jozef Kroner or Emília Vášáryová.

Artfilm
Film festival Art Film Fest was held for first time 1993, the year when "Slovak republic" was founded. Artfilm is the longest active international film related festival in Slovakia. The festival was founded by "Peter Hledik", who is also the director. As Mr. Hledik said, the reason for founding the festival was affected by the time, early 90s. The time when film studios in Slovakia had significant financial problems and they stopped filming. Artfilm wanted to replace live cinematography. The first years of the festival begins 14 June 1993 in Trenčianske Teplice with "UNESCO" support. It was a small review of documentary movies in one cinema hall for just 200 people. By the time, festival has been growing and has become one of the most iconic cultural events in Slovakia. While in 1993 the festival welcomed just 300 visitors, in 2009 it was 25 000 visitors. Because of the growing tendency, in 2016, the event was moved from small town of Trenčianske Teplice to the second biggest city in Slovakia Košice.

Carpathian Jewel
Long before the era of the successful film festival was kicked off, Trenčianske Teplice, became famous as a spa resort. The town is nested amid lovely nature in the Teplicka Valley, and thanks to the exceptional location and the healing springs it was given a Romanic attribute – 'Carpatian Jewel'. When lords of Trenčin Castle learned about this natural jewel in the past, they discovered that it's worth not only being protected, but also aggrandised. Palatine Štefan Zápoľský in the 16th century laid the foundation stone of what later became the spa resort area. The spa is open year-round, and is visited by people looking for a cure for diseases of locomotive organs and nervous system. The resort lies in an ideal natural environment, protected against wind and enjoying many sunny days. Traditional curative methods have been marvellously joined by the modern methods of comprehensive balneotherapy. This features the use of curative effects of thermal mineral springs along with wonderful healing effects of mineralised mud. Thermal water rises from the depth of around 1200 meters, and before it comes out on the surface, it flows through limy soil and layers of magnesium, which results in its intense mineralization and warming. Besides enjoying the beneficial effects of the healing springs, visitors to the spa have a chance to admire an interesting architecture of the own of Trenčianske Teplice. The most popular is a bath called hammam, which can be taken in a spa house called Sina]. The house is decorated in an Oriental (Arabic/Moorish) style of late 19th century. The surroundings of the spa houses are glamorised by a Romantic English park with a small pond.

A hydroelectric power station (it was producing polyphase AC of 5250 V) was built between 1886 and 1888 and supplied the town's streetlights as well as surrounding communities (Trenčianska Teplá, Košeca, Ladce) with electricity. It also powered a special narrow-gauged public electric railway opened on 29 July 1909. The railway has a length of 5.9 km and connects Trenčianske Teplice with a railway junction at Trenčianska Teplá. Regular service on the railway was discontinued, seasonal trains still operate.

Sport
Slovak Bandy Association has its seat in Trenčianske Teplice.

Demographics
According to the 2001 census, the town had 4,438 inhabitants. 96.6% of inhabitants were Slovaks, 1.7% Czechs and 0.2% Hungarians. The religious makeup was 77.7% Roman Catholics, 13.6% people with no religious affiliation, and 4.6% Lutherans.

Twin towns – sister cities
Trenčianske Teplice is twinned with:
 * 🇩🇪 Aschersleben, Germany
 * 🇹🇷 Tuzla, Turkey
 * 🇨🇿 Vsetín, Czech Republic
 * 🇵🇱 Wilamowice, Poland

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

title: Trenčianske Teplice


text:
Park College of Engineering and Technology

Park College of Engineering and Technology is a college of engineering situated in Kaniyur, 15 km from the Coimbatore International Airport, in Tamil Nadu, India. It is affiliated to Anna University, Chennai, which is the top 5th university of India and approved by All India Council for Technical Education. The college has been accorded ISO 9002 Certificate.

History
The Park College of Engineering and Technology (PCET) was started in 1997 and is situated on the National Highway NH 47 in Kaniyur, 28 km east from the industrial city of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. It is located on 30 acres of land surrounded by green fields and coconut groves on its three sides, and industry on the other.

The college is affiliated to Anna University, Chennai, and is approved by AICTE, Delhi and NBA (National Board of Accreditation). PCET is a NAAC A+ accredited engineering college and also an ISO Certified Institution. The Director of Technical Education of the Government of Tamil Nadu is the supervisory authority over the college. The college is a co-educational self-financed private institution. Ms.Anusha Ravi is the CEO of the Park Group of Institutions

The college is located not far from the industrial city of Coimbatore.

Academics
Undergraduate courses

 * B.E. Aeronautical Engineering
 * B.E. Mechanical Engineering
 * B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering
 * B.E. Computer Science and Engineering
 * B.Tech. Information Technology
 * B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering
 * B.Tech Artificial Intelligence & Data Science
 * B.E CSE Cyber Security
 * B.E Bio Medical Engineering
 * B.Tech Textile Technology
 * B.E Mechanical Engineering

P.G courses

 * MCA - Master of Computer Applications
 * M.E - Aeronautical Engineering
 * M.E - Engineering Design
 * MBA - Master of Business Administration


text:
User talk:Ioop

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — siro χ  o
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Image tagging
Thanks for uploading the images listed below. I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you created it and wish to release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Images that remain untagged will be deleted. Thanks so much, Laura Scudder | Talk 22:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Westlife.jpg
 * Image:Dougie.gif
 * Image:Tom Fletcher.gif
 * Image:Mcfly.jpg
 * Image:B031.gif

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbirds group.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thunderbirds group.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbirds.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thunderbirds.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ioop


text:
Bhairon Singh Shekhawat

Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (23 October 1925 – 15 May 2010) was an Indian politician who served as the 11th vice president of India. He served in that position from August 2002, when he was elected to a five-year term by the electoral college following the death of Krishan Kant, until he resigned on 21 July 2007, after losing the presidential election to Pratibha Patil. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. He served as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan three times, from 1977 to 1980, 1990 to 1992 and 1993 to 1998. He represented several constituencies in Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha from 1952 to 2002. He was also awarded Padma Bhushan in the year 2003.

Early life
He was born in 1925 to a Rajput family   in the village of Khachriyawas, then in Sikar district, Rajputana Agency, British India. His father Devi Singh was a farmer of the village and his mother, Bane Kanwar was a housewife. He was very good in studies and completed high school but was unable to complete college due to his father's death. He had to support his family. He worked as a farmer and an officer sub-inspector of police. After working in Police Department for few years he saw his interest in the politics and joined Bharatiya Jana Sangh in 1950. In the year 1952, he resigned from the position of Police Inspector to contest Elections in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.

Legacy
Referred to as "Rajasthan ka ek hi Singh" (The only lion of Rajasthan) or "Babosa" (Head of the family of Rajasthan) and affectionately as Bhairon Baba, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat entered politics in 1952. In 1952 he was MLA from Ramgarh, in 1957 from Sri Madhopur, 1962 and 1967 he was MLA from Kisan Pol. In 1972 elections he lost but in 1973 he was elected to Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh. In 1975 during emergency he was arrested and sent to Rohtak jail. He remains the only Non-Congress politician to be the Chief minister of Rajasthan 3 times and was the first Vice President of India from BJP.

Janata Party
After emergency in 1977 he became MLA from Chhabra as Janata Party candidate. In that year the Janata Party won 151 of the 200 seats in the state assembly elections of Rajasthan and Shekhawat took over as the first non Congress Chief Minister of Rajasthan in 1977. His government was dismissed by Indira Gandhi in 1980.

Bharatiya Janata Party
In 1980, Shekhawat joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and became MLA again from Chabda and was leader of opposition. In 1985, he was MLA from Nimbahera. However, in 1989 an alliance between the BJP and the Janata Dal won all 25 of the Rajasthan seats in the Lok Sabha and also 138 seats (BJP:84+Janata Dal:54) in the 1990 elections to the Ninth Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. Shekhawat once again became Chief Minister of Rajasthan and was MLA from Dholpur. His government was dismissed in 1992 and President's rule imposed.

In the next elections, in 1993, Shekhawat led the BJP to be the single largest party, winning 96 seats. He himself contested from two seats, becoming MLA from Bali, but he lost from Ganganagar seat where he finished third and Congress candidate Radheshyam Ganganagar won. Three BJP-supported independents also won seats and other independents who supported the BJP took its total to 116. And Shekhawat became Chief Minister of Rajasthan for third time.

In 1998, Shekhawat was elected from Bali again but the BJP lost power and Shekhawat became Leader of Opposition in the legislative assembly. Shekhawat won every election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, except in 1972 when he lost from Gandhi Nagar in Jaipur, and in Ganganagar he lost in 1993 and Congress leader Radheshyam Ganganagar won.

In the 1999 general elections, he had recommended the BJP to give Prem Singh Rathore from Hyderabad, a close friend a ticket from Maharajganj(now goshamahal)and helped him win his elections and established strong BJP presence in North Andhra Region. Shekhawat also helped Rathore in his daughters marriage by fixing the marriage with a relative.

Shekhawat was elected as the Vice-President of India in 2002, when he defeated the opposition candidate, Sushil Kumar Shinde by a margin of 149 votes out of the 750 votes polled.

In July 2007, Shekhawat fought the presidential election as an independent candidate backed by National Democratic Alliance as a popular presidential candidate next to A. P. J. Abdul Kalam; but lost to the United Progressive Alliance-Left backed candidate Pratibha Patil. He became the first vice-president to lose presidential election. Following this defeat, Shekhawat resigned from the post of vice-president on 21 July 2007.

Against Sati Pratha
Shekhawat played the most crucial role in removing Sati (practice) from Rajasthan as a part of their culture, especially among Rajput community. At the time of 1987 when a 18 years old girl 'Roop Kanwar' was burnt as Sati, then the matter came in controversy. Then at that time without thinking about his votebank, he put a total ban on this practice.

Antyoday Yojna
Shekhawat started the "Antyoday Yojna" scheme, which was intended to uplift the poorest of the poor. The chairman of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, referred to him as the Rockefeller of India.

Powerful Administration
Shekhawat was also known for his control over bureaucracy and the police. He had involvement in policies designed to improve literacy and industrialisation in Rajasthan, as well as tourism centred on the themes of heritage, wildlife and villages. He was also lauded by both, national and international leaders for his historic conduct of the Rajya Sabha.

Death
Bhairon Singh Shekhawat succumbed to cancer and other related health problems, and died on 15 May 2010 at the Sawai Man Singh Hospital in Jaipur. He was cremated the next day, at a plot of land provided by the government of Rajasthan, where his memorial is now built. His funeral was attended by thousands of people. He was survived by his wife, Suraj Kanwar and his only daughter, Ratan Rajvi who is married to BJP leader Narpat Singh Rajvi.

His wife, Suraj Kanwar (1927–2013), died on 9 March 2013 at the age of 86, after outliving her husband by two to three years and was cremated at Shekhawat's memorial as per her last wish.

Electoral history
Shekhawat was a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on the following occasions:
 * 1952 - 1957, Jana Sangh MLA from Danta-ramgarh.
 * 1957 - 1962, Jana Sangh MLA from Sri Madhopur.
 * 1962 - 1967, MLA from Kishanpole.
 * 1967 - 1972, MLA from Kishanpole.
 * 1972 : Lost from Gandhinagar as Jana Sangh candidate.
 * 1974 - 1977, Rajyasabha MP from Madhya Pradesh.
 * 1977 - 1980, Janata Party MLA from Chhabra, via a bypoll.
 * 1980 - 1985, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA from Chhabra.
 * 1985 - 1990, BJP MLA from Nimbahera. (Also won from Amber, but resigned from that seat)
 * 1990 - 1992, BJP MLA from Dholpur. (Also won from Chhabra, but resigned from that seat)
 * 1993 - 1998, BJP MLA from Bali. (Also contested from Ganganagar but lost that seat, finishing third)
 * 1998 - 2002, BJP MLA from Bali.

Offices held
He held the following offices:
 * 22 June 1977 – 16 February 1980: Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
 * 1980 – 90 Leader of the Opposition, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.
 * 4 March 1990 – 15 December 1992: Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
 * 4 December 1993 – 29 November 1998: Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
 * December 1998 – August 2002: Leader of the Opposition, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.
 * 19 August 2002 – 21 July 2007: Vice-President of India.

title: Bhairon Singh Shekhawat


text:
Natural American Spirit

Natural American Spirit, often referred to simply as American Spirit, is an American brand of cigarettes and other tobacco products, currently owned by Reynolds American and manufactured by the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company.

History
The company was founded in 1982 by Bill Drake, author of The Cultivator's Handbook of Natural Tobacco; Robert Marion, an acupuncture student at the Kototama Institute in Santa Fe; and Chris Webster, a Santa Fe entrepreneur and Realtor. Startup investments came from Edward Wikes, a Santa Fe plumber/contractor who took out a loan to support the venture; Robert Wolf, an oil rig roughneck; and Philip Naumburg, an heir to the Elkan Naumburg fortune. In January 2002, the company was acquired by Reynolds American and is now a wholly owned independent subsidiary of Reynolds American, which is in turn owned by British American Tobacco. Japan Tobacco announced in September 2015 that it acquired the right to sell Natural American Spirit products in markets outside the United States.

Markets

Natural American Spirit cigarettes have been sold in the United States, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Tunisia, Japan, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Finland and Denmark.

Products
Natural American Spirit offers various types of select filter cigarettes which are color-coded to denote the nicotine and tar contents, which are altered by using different filters and cigarette paper. American Spirit also has a Perique Blend Filter cigarette, which contains 10% Perique tobacco, and an Organic Filter cigarette, which contains organic tobacco.

Natural American Spirit also offers several "Roll Your Own" tobaccos in tins and pouches.

In the UK, American Spirit rolling tobacco comes in Blue (regular) or Yellow (light).

American Spirit cigarettes are sold in packs of 20. They come as follows:

 * Orange – Smooth Mellow Original Taste
 * Yellow – Original Blend Mellow Original Taste
 * Blue – Original Blend Full-bodied Taste
 * Light Green – Organic Mellow Menthol
 * Dark Green - Organic Full-Bodied Menthol
 * Gold : Organic Mellow Taste
 * Turquoise - Organic Full-Bodied Taste
 * Black - Perique Rich Robust Taste
 * Light Blue - Full-Bodied Taste
 * Dark Blue - U.S. Grown Premium Full-Bodied Taste
 * Tan - U.S. Grown Premium Mellow Taste
 * Sky - Smooth Taste
 * Celadon Green - Unique Balanced Taste
 * Hunter Green - Full-Bodied Balanced Taste
 * Gray - Perique Rich Taste
 * Agate (Japan Only) - Rich Sweet Taste
 * Brown - Unique Non-Filtered

The claim of additive-free cigarettes
Natural American Spirit products in the year 2000 were advertised as "100% Additive-Free Tobacco".

California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced on March 1, 2010, that his office had secured an agreement with the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company to clearly disclose that its organic tobacco is "no safer or healthier" than other tobacco products. Attorneys general from 32 other states and the District of Columbia signed onto the agreement.

title: Natural American Spirit


text:
User talk:Siroxo/Archive 1

This is an archive of User talk:Siroxo of edits made from May through September 2004.

My very own welcome message
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Logic page
Hmm..I thought that's what you wanted to do. The material that was there before is in other pages. You can go ahead and revert it, but we're going to have to clean this up spmehow.

CSTAR 13:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Signatures
Hi. I saw your note about creating interesting signatures. Denni had a specific request that was done with:

Denn]][[User talk:Dwindrim|i

The above produces a link to his user page for "Denn" and a link to his talk page for the "i".

Mine is:

Tεx ]] τ [[User:Texture| urε

and my sig produces: Tεx  τ  urε

Basically, your sig is whatever you want to be between and.

If you were to make your signature Siroxo it would come out as Siroxo when you use three tildes to sign something or four tildes to sign with a date/time.

- Tεx  τ  urε  03:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cool signature! I like the X that travels below the underline. Breaks the surface in an eye-cathing way without being an eye-sore. - Tεx  τ  urε  03:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Grrrrrrr
This looks so much better than my page.... :) I'm jealous.  Nice work! -  Tεx  τ  urε  03:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Somari
Hey, thanks. Very nice layout on your user page, btw. -Seth Mahoney 02:56, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Nansindlela School
Nansindlela School - you say -Siroxo (Talk | contribs) wfy, but should this be vfd? (Is that Wikify and Verified ??) I happen to know that it is the current principal entering this information. Wizzy 11:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. If you find any policies re: schools, I can pass the message on. Wizzy 12:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Annotated texts
G'day! I haven't found the Wikibooks section on annotated texts in a quick look, could you give me a link? But assuming that the Annotated Lyrics to The Vicar of Bray belongs there, my suggestion is to copy it there first (copying the history to the talk page as per the Transwiki process), and then once it's agreed at Wikibooks that it's suitable content there, it may be appropriate to shorten or even delete the article here at Wikipedia. I see you're registered at Wikibooks (great), but as your userpage there redirects back to Wikipedia it's a bit difficult to see how active you are there (I confess I'm not at all). Andrewa 01:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Found the Wikibooks annotated text page, ta! Andrewa 01:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion
It looks like the Early National Socialism will be deleted. If and when it does, can you move it as a subpage to my talk page along with the discussion part. I have created also some new encyclopedic articles with that and they would be lost and orphaned without that page, so I appreciate if you can do that. Thanks.WHEELER 14:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reliability of the information of ex-members of purported cults

 * Delete. This list is either far too POV or far too incomplete to justify as encyclopedic. Much of it is based solely on hearsay of former members and outsiders. While valid to a point, this does not offer enough reason for so few groups to be distinguished as cults. I understand that wikipedia articles are meant to grow as time goes on, but the selection in this is too POV, and needs major revision to be saved. As such I think it should be deleted until someone shows me that it can be saved. —siroχo 03:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * siroyo wrote that the list is made on "hearsay by ex-members". I think this is incorrect and insulting. Some people mentioned on the list like Robert Priddy and Glen Meloy have been members of the purported cult (Sathya Sai Baba) for decades. Your remark suggests that information from ex-members is systematically flawed. This is just prejudice. If there is anyone who have more inside information then it is the people who have been members for decades. Yes, I admit that there may be reason to assume that they are a bit too negative about the group because they feel betrayed. But they usually have very good reason too feel that way because of major discrepancies between words and deeds. Sometimes it takes years to find this out. I urge you to retract that insulting statement. Andries 06:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Siroxo, sorry I got a bit emotional this morning. Drop my request. Andries 22:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

qwqeqwe
qwewqew

Indian coast guard
Yes it was a copyvio, I had accidently created. I have rectified the violation. See if it is suitable now. I am generally not careless. You'll have to excuse me, as I try and gather all the facts before writing it in my own words. (I do my editing pretty late-2am and I must have goofed off) Yes, the page has to be removed from history, please request any moderator to do so. Nichalp 20:47, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the Thievery Corporation stub. In return, I added a stub for Moon Safari. May they grow old and wise

Slashdotted
That explains it, alright. One after the other. Thanks for the info. A good thing I'm addicted to Recent Changes and New Pages. SWAdair | Talk 08:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Communist Workers Party
Thanks for the head's up. I wouldn't call it vandalism just yet; better to assume good-natured testing. The article in question was recreated because I deleted it just before you added the delete tag, which the server interpreted as you resubmitting the work. It's annoying, but it happens now and then. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rock music section
I know that you think the red with black text is hard to read.

Is white text on a red background better?

CSS
Adding
 * 1) ca-edit a{font-weight:normal !important;} to User:Siroxo/monobook.css should work. I love the design of your talk page by the way. Angela. 19:57, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Substubs
Thanks for your support of substubs. We need all the support that we can get. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk) ]] 12:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Solitaire algorithm
What's going on? I created a small stub about the solitaire algorithm, described in the novel Cryptonomicon. You listed that page for speedy deletion, and it was deleted in a few hours. Why?

There was no explanation anywhere, neither here, nor in my talk page, not even in the article's discussion... I believe it's common courtesy to explain your decision to the person who created the article! If I did something wrong, then i'd like to know what, that way I won't do it again :)

nice user page btw. ^^ F i P 12:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Allright case closed :) (the answer is on my talk page) F i P 09:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Todo speedy deletion candidates
I do not think that these were speedy deletion candidates - they don't seem to be patent nonsense or obviously insane redirects. If you really want them gone, I'd reccomend Redirects for deletion. Snowspinner 02:00, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Another substub vote
I just wanted to let people know that there's another vote on substubs going on in Template talk:Substub. I know that this is a second vote, however, apparently it was originally intended to be only a vote about whether to keep the template message, but somehow evolved into a vote on the existence of substubs themselves. I know that you already voted in favor of substubs, so I wanted to get your support on this poll too. Thanks for your support! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

changing templates
Should we change all "green" templates to #efe for consistency? red to #fee?

Spiff 15:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Todo
Nope, still doesn't work. Yes, the namespace is correctly prefixed, but the link is an edit link instead of a view link. Not good. I'm reverting the usage back to WikipediaTodo. - UtherSRG 14:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aligns
Not a problem. You're right, it does sound like a bug. It's not a problem, we're all just trying to do our best. I'm assuming that the problem might only be in the templates, but here's a test. -- Netoholic 02:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If it turns out to work fine in pure-html, then make sure and report it the MediaWiki developers. It might be a bug in the renderer here. -- Netoholic 02:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:JohnArmagh/Heads of State of Benin
Thanks Siroxo, I like the improvements - hopefully I get some favourable consensus on the format as a standard for such lists. Best regards --JohnArmagh 18:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holomovement
I agree with your concerns. You should take a look at the rest of the discussion page on holomovement. Especially the part about redirecting to Implicate and Explicate Order. I'm just about at my wit's end with this. Floorsheim 22:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Message box
Hello, somebody has added a message of yours in Template_talk:Message box as a comment to my Proposal. If you agree with my proposal, would you please sign with your support? Thanks. --Cantus 16:38, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers
Just want to say hi from a fast-becoming-wikiholic, and thanks for your minor edit to improve Alignment (role-playing games). ··gracefool |☺ 11:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:User_talk:Spleeman#Vandalism
I have very little patience for this sort of white washing and codling of POV pushing, personal attacks and vandalism. You are either ill informed, or ill suited to the task of encouraging policy compliance in this situation. Please find yourself useful elsewhere. Sam [Spade] 00:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Please see my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004_2. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VfD phrases
Excellent idea. I noticed a few small typos, and rather than make a big deal about them on the Talk page, I made them directly, since they didn't change the meaning at all--if you look at a diff you will see it was a missing "the", an extra small word that appeared to be left over from a cut and paste, a misspelling, and I changed a comma to a semi-colon. If you object, or fear that will set a bad precedent, I certainly won't be offended if you revert. I did try to word my message on the Pump to point people with comments to the Talk page, as I will do with anything I find that's more substantive. Niteowlneils 03:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship?
If you're willing to become an administrator, as your interest in various policy issues suggests, I would like to nominate you. Please let me know if that's okay with you. --Michael Snow 19:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I've posted the nomination at Requests for adminship. Please reply there to indicate whether you accept the nomination. Also, as you may be aware, people sometimes post questions on that page for the nominee, so you may want to check back occasionally to answer those. --Michael Snow 20:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Harry Caray
Thanks for the fixing my embarrassing error. -- orthogonal 23:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Congratulations! After receiving 100% support on RfA, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 21:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Siroxo! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I'll probably adapt to the new role a little at a time, to ensure I don't screw anything up (: —siro χ o  03:13, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion
Sorry about the confusion about opening Trivia... I should've added that notice way earlier. :-) • Benc • 03:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bullets
Please take a look at the new format I've applied to History of Templates, ie. Template:History of Germany. As a matter of consensus I've given up on bullets. I consider this new format brilliantly elegant. Unfortunately, Guanaco is still reverting me. Can I please get some sort of moral support? I can't believe this. Thanks. --Cantus 07:01, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oliwa
Careful with reverting older edits from an vandal IP - the one you reverted at Oliwa was a good edit. I have reverted your revert :-) andy 21:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit links
I can live with that; However, the same argument could be said about an article that is simply a list of countries. Those still have edit links. And the template would have an edit link still; it would just be simpler to access. But you are correct as well. I won't fight to keep the edit link, as useful as I find it. :) --Golbez 06:15, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Edit links
I can live with that; However, the same argument could be said about an article that is simply a list of countries. Those still have edit links. And the template would have an edit link still; it would just be simpler to access. But you are correct as well. I won't fight to keep the edit link, as useful as I find it. :) --Golbez 06:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Rants
Love your page, may style mine similarly, thanks. And thanks for the category in Process Oriented Psychology. The beginning of your rants page triggered a rant of mine. Surely you meant, "fleshing out", which means to expand by putting meat on the bones, so to speak, rather than "flushing out" which means to purge with volumes of water? This is similar to another rant of mine, "honing in" which is a conflation of "homing in" as to approach a goal by succesive moves corrected on the basis of feedback, with "honing", which is a form of fine grinding meant to produce a certain texture on a machined surface or to make fine adjustments to a dimension.

Sorry if I am overly pedantic, but hey, this is an encyclopedia?

Thank for listening Diogenes 17:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from carptrash
Thank you for looking at/into my photo rights issue elsewhare. Being new here I want to go everywhere and see everything, so I've been tracking down those who intersect with me here. Since you seem to like baseball, I just posted two baseball pictures that you might enjoy. Alan Trammell and Little League Carptrash 21:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

General Mayhem
The VfD discussion was at Votes for deletion/Genmay - the article was originally created under the name Genmay, but this reincarnation is the same thing. There was also another Genmay article which I just deleted as well, it was languishing in a copyvio state though. —Stormie 06:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Speedy deleting it would not be appropriate unless they recreated the exact (or very nearly) same content on the new page name. I'd say let them finish, and then send it to cleanup. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats a subjective interpretation "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy" says WP:CSD, it doesn't say anything about it having to be identical, it was the same content nontheless. If they come forward with a decent article, post on talk or the pump, i'd agree, let them finish.  But they haven't shown good wikiquette yet.   —siro χ o  07:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * "They" is extremely hard to identify. At least a few have been editing in seemingly good faith.  -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, agreed, but they really didn't explain anything, they basically reposted the content with a few modifications. Relax, perhaps go talk to one of them (Qapf had created an account) and get them to post on the pump that they will try to create the article again and ask for some help from the community. They'll get the help if they show the desire.  Perhaps the article can be started at a subpage of that users page, moved, and then protected if a wave of vandalism hits it again.  —siro χ <font color=#627562>o  07:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I just made my own account, and I will attempt to get an actual wiki written for General Mayhem aka Genmay. Once written I will submit for Votes for undeletion. --akghetto 08:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Stub
Why did you turn the Stub message into a speedy delete message? What's going on? Andre 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, that's fine. I was just terribly confused. Andre 06:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Stub
What were you trying to do here? I've reverted it... — Kate Turner | Talk 05:58, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
 * Ah, right - an easy enough mistake to make :-) I thought the 'delete all stubs' crowd had gone a bit too far this time...    — Kate Turner | Talk 06:12, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

What the bleep.
Fixed. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not your fault MediaWiki didn't stop you from doing something terribly wrong but unobviously so. A hacked in bugfix is in place, and a more permanent solution is underway. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WHO CARE ABOUT THAT TEA AND CRUMPET BOB BYLAN.
Who cares about bob dylan, what about the grateful dead they are an american bandand we are in america are we not. Don'tyou dare say they are imposters because they followed the ??trend?? how do you know they followed the trend maybe they already had everything planned out. All I'm saying is you do not know until you find out and ask them or whoever is alive still.

JOE TAX PAYER the soultion that's me.

title: User talk:Siroxo/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Sarah Bernhardt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 21 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdiev1000149992. Peer reviewers: Grgnwsk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt
This section seems to veer away from a biography of Bernhardt into a promotion of one person's paper. It reads like a minor senior thesis. I would like to remove it entirely, as having no valid place in Wikipedia. Comments?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removing this section. It is not relevant to an article on Sarah Bermhardt and it needs more references. There is only one reference (Freedman, Jonathan (1 January 2013). "Transformations of a Jewish Princess: Salome and the Remaking of the Jewish Female Body from Sarah Bernhardt to Betty Boop". Philological Quarterly. 92 (1): 89). It would be more relevant to the Wikipedia article "Body Image". Svirbely (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In agreement with this deletion. It contains only one reference, and is a long digression about a topic that doesn't belong in this article. 70.50.36.56 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864, sepia.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 22, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt a "courtisan?"
I dispute the statement that Bernardt was a courtisan, that is, by definition, "a prostitute or kept woman". She had many lovers, but she was never a "kept woman"; she had an independent source of income. She had a police file because she had relationships with important and famous people, not because she was a prostitute. "Courtisan" is a degrading and inappropriate term to use for her. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Try reading the article before making inaccurate statements. She was a prominent courtesan. :
 * "From 1864 to 1866, after Bernhardt left the Comédie-Française, and after Maurice was born, she frequently had trouble finding roles. She often worked as a courtesan, taking wealthy and influential lovers. The French police of the Second Empire kept files on high-level courtesans, including Bernhardt; her file recorded the wide variety of names and titles of her patrons; they included Alexandre Aguado, the son of Spanish banker and Marquis Alejandro María Aguado; the industrialist Robert de Brimont; the banker Jacques Stern; and the wealthy Louis-Roger de Cahuzac." Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt and The New Women's Movement in Brazil
I've added a couple of maintenance tags on this section. The whole thing is the summary of the views expressed in a single essay, on an extremely specific niche Bernhardt-related topic. I think a sentence or two would suffice to cover this topic. And certainly it would be preferable if we got a second source. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sarah Bernhardt


text:
Talk:Philippa Gregory

Untitled
I love Pilippa Gregory's writing. With such passion and imagination she has inspired me to start writing more. I am 16 and enjoy her books a lot. Her use of though and ideas she has given her characters makes them unbelievably lifelike and I can't wait to read The Virgin's Lover. For anyone wishing to read the book I recommend it as this is fact based yet doesn't drone on like those type of books. Personal thanks to the author!! Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.115 (talk) 09:10, October 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Interesting" Comment...
 * Heh, I found your comment amusing: Philippas books are not only completely fictional, but she uses her "creative liberty" to completely re-arrange the "facts". In The Virgin's Lover, for example, she plays upon the romance of Robert Dudley and Elizabeth I of England (which was only rumor, mind you), and portrays Elizabeth as a weak, malleable woman who is head-over-heels for Robert Dudley. Most trustworthy reports from Elizabeth's era show her as strong, determined, stubborn, and only friendly with Robert. The Virgin's Lover is also a show that her work is not based on fact, for the main plot of the story is that Elizabeth and Robert are in love (again, this is only rumor). She also has Elizabeth arrange for the murder of Marie of Guise and Amy Rosbart, which was completely unlikely (I believe most doctors then and now agree that Marie of Guise died naturally; and Amy Rosbart was probably murdered, if she was, by Robert so that he could marry Elizabeth). You'll also see that her dates are very mixed up and she often mixes fact with fiction. She defends herself, saying that she has filled in the parts we don't know about with her own ideas, but shows no basis for these ideas or plots. Another example of this is that, in The Other Boleyn Girl, the Boleyns are supposed to be the rival family of the Seymours. Not only were the Boleyns in a higher position then the Seymours, they were related to the Howards (one of the most powerful families in then-England) and, therefore, had little reason to fear outside-family rivalry. Look it up, please: Gregory's stories are either completely mixed up or just plain fiction.
 * K.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.161.139  (talk)  01:32, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Added her latest book, The Constant Princess. I was practically crying of frustration of all the wrong facts. I was ready to stop reading entirely when Philippa said Henry VII's wife died during giving birth to a girl. Gosh, I'm a stickler for facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.134.77  (talk)  01:17, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also like facts. But at first I didn't know that the story was so fictious! So, while I read it I thought it was great! So, the reason why I am actually here, is to say that this article is absolutely pathetic and would have done more good if it has never even been created! Sorry, Article Creator, but it seems no-one cares to contribute more information to this article. And me... I am 15 and have no idea who Philippa Gregory is, except for the fact that she wrote "The Virgin's Lover", and could not possibally contribute notable stuff here... English is not even my first language so how could I write an article on an English encyclopaedia?! Well... enough for excusing myself for not helping out here... I just hope you understood my poor English - and that someone would for heaven's sake write a decent article about this noteworthy author. Scotteh 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MORE INFORMATION PLEASE
What more can I say? --Scotteh 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot more. More information about what? Where she attended school, what years she wrote her books, that kind of "stuff"? Anyway, I added some information about her education. That'll have to satisfy, since I can't seem to find anything else about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.11.47  (talk)  17:36, August 14, 2006  (UTC)

Needs a complete rewrite.
This is awful, it reads like a dating profile. Needs a total rewrite Junkupshowup (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed, it seems like it was written by her press people. Where's any talk about the controversy surrounding the fact that her historical fiction is really just...fiction?  And yet she passes it off as being historically accurate.  This wiki page is ridiculous.  I would certainly not call it "unbiased." 216.119.176.119 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The article read like a commercial for her books, so I removed content that contained a heavy bias towards Gregory. In particular were lines that praised her writing but did not cite any reputable sources - they were the editor's oppinion entirely. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Biography enlarged
I've added some details about where Philippa Gregory lives/has lived and some information about her private life. Bandalore (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I wanted to point out that her bio section reads at one point as if Gregory had a daughter with problems associated with incest?....Is that correct or strangly written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.133.89 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of inclusion under Women's History project
I've kept Gregory as part of the Women's History project, though we're trying to weed out as many BLPs as possible, because of her exceptional influence as a novelist on the popular perception of women's history of a particular period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynwolfe  (talk • contribs)  01:53, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Poor referencing
I've tagged the page as poorly referenced: while certain sections are well-sourced, others (such as Media and Charity work) have few sources, and it makes more sense to tag the whole article rather than tag-bomb the whole thing ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philippa Gregory


text:
Alan Gordon (soccer)

Alan Gordon (born October 16, 1981) is an American former professional soccer player. In the majority of his career, Gordon was mostly relied upon to make goals in game as a Super–sub.

Youth and college career
Gordon moved to Gilbert, Arizona in his mid-teens, and played two years of college soccer for Yavapai College, where he scored 39 goals in his two seasons, before a transfer to Oregon State University, where he won All-Pac-10 honors twice and scored 11 goals as a junior and 15 as a senior. Gordon scored 40 goals and 7 assists for the Oregon State Beavers, setting several program records.

2004–2010
Upon graduating, Gordon was drafted 53rd overall in the 2004 MLS SuperDraft's sixth round by Los Angeles Galaxy, but was not signed by the team. He signed with the Portland Timbers of the A-League and had a successful season, ending the regular season with 17 goals in 27 matches to tie Dante Washington for the league lead. Gordon was named the A-League Rookie of the Year and was a finalist for the MVP Award, having helped Portland to a first-place finish in the regular season. He was loaned back to the Galaxy, where he occupied a developmental roster slot, and made his MLS debut on September 25, 2004, as a substitute for Carlos Ruiz. Gordon earned a spot in the starting lineup for 2005, but only played in five matches due to reoccurring injuries, including a strained hip and groin early in the season.

He returned to the starting lineup during the 2006 season and scored his first MLS goal on August 26 against D.C. United. Gordon then scored twice the following week in a home match against the Kansas City Wizards and ended the season with four goals in league play. He scored three goals in the Galaxy's 2007 SuperLiga campaign, which ended with a second-place finish. During a friendly with Chelsea, Gordon was substituted for David Beckham's debut with the Galaxy. For much of the 2007 season, he was a third-string forward and also coached a girls youth team to supplement his MLS salary.

On April 26, 2008, Gordon scored two goals off the bench in the Galaxy's 5–2 victory over rivals Chivas USA. He finished 2008 with a career year. He scored five goals and seven assists, even though he was not a full-time starter.

2010–2018
In August 2010, he was traded to neighboring Chivas USA for allocation money just one match short of his 100 league appearances with the Galaxy, during which time he notched 16 goals. Following the 2010 season, he was selected by Vancouver Whitecaps FC in the 2010 MLS Expansion Draft, but was immediately traded back to Chivas USA, along with Alejandro Moreno, for allocation money and an international roster spot.

He was traded to Toronto FC ahead of the 2011 season in exchange for Nick LaBrocca. Gordon made his debut for Toronto on March 26 in a 2–0 home victory against Portland Timbers with both goals coming from Javier Martina. On April 2 Gordon scored his first goal for Toronto in a 1–1 tie against his former team Chivas. Gordon had a memorable return to The Home Depot Center on June 11 when he scored two goals against The Galaxy in a 2–2 thriller which saw two goals scored in injury time of the second half.

Following Toronto's designated player signing of Danny Koevermans, Gordon became a dispensable asset and was traded along with Jacob Peterson and Nana Attakora to the San Jose Earthquakes for Ryan Johnson, allocation money, and an international roster spot in July 2011. Gordon signed a new contract with San Jose in January 2012 and reunited with former Galaxy head coach Frank Yallop. Alan Gordon had a career best of 13 goals in 23 appearances with the Earthquakes that year, primarily as a late substitute alongside Chris Wondolowski and Steven Lenhart.

In April 2013, during a match with the Portland Timbers, Gordon was caught on camera using the word "faggot" in reference to Portland midfielder Will Johnson. Gordon was suspended for three matches following the incident, in addition to the one-match ban he received for drawing a red card in the 78th minute of the same match.

Gordon returned once again to Los Angeles when San Jose traded him to the Galaxy in August 2014 in exchange for allocation money. Gordon ended the season scoring five goals, four of them from off the bench.

Prior to the 2017 MLS season, Gordon announced that he would join the Colorado Rapids on a free agent deal.

On March 16, 2018, Gordon joined MLS side Chicago Fire. On October 28, 2018, Gordon announced that he would retire from playing professional soccer after their final game of the season against D.C. United.

International career
Gordon earned his first call-up to the United States men's national soccer team in August 2012 in advance of a friendly match against Mexico. Gordon was again called up in October 2012 to prepare for the final two matches in the semifinal round of qualifying for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. He made his first international appearance on October 12, 2012, as a substitute against Antigua and Barbuda, where he provided a critical assist to Eddie Johnson, who scored a 90th minute game-winning goal.

He was called into the squad for the 2013 Gold Cup, after the U.S. advanced to the knockout stages. He did not play, however, as the U.S. won the tournament.

He was also called into the squad for the 2015 Gold Cup, after the U.S. advanced to the knockout rounds, replacing Jozy Altidore, who was still trying to recover from an injury. He came on as a late substitute for Aron Johannsson in the U.S. 2–1 loss the Jamaica in the semifinals but failed to make an impact.

Career statistics

 * CCL play for 2013 San Jose has matches played in 2014 but was still the 2013 edition of the tourney

Honors
Portland Timbers
 * A-League The Commissioner's Cup (1): 2004

Los Angeles Galaxy
 * MLS Cup (2): 2005, 2014
 * U.S. Open Cup (1): 2005

Toronto FC
 * Canadian Championship (1): 2011

San Jose Earthquakes
 * Supporters' Shield (1): 2012

United States
 * CONCACAF Gold Cup: 2013

Individual
 * Major League Soccer Player of the Week (1): 2013
 * A-League Rookie of the Year: 2004
 * A-League Top Scorer (1): 2004

title: Alan Gordon (soccer)