text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 15

Voluntary injunction
I'm happy how this discussion has moved towards trying for a consensus.
 * I'm happy too! --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To avoid edit wars, I'd like to suggest a voluntary injunction. This will mean that in order to show good faith to each other, editors involved in this article will follow the guidelines pointed out below to avoid further conflict. (Of course, I can only enforce #2 based on policy.)

 * 1) No one reverts more than twice in a 24 hour period, unless they change obvious vandalism like "I like poo" or similar edits back to the edit directly before it without changing anything else.
 * 2) People breaking the 3 revert rule will be blocked for 24 hours in accordance with blocking policy.
 * 3) Try to reach consensus here first. Vote on it if you have to.
 * 4) If someone breaks a rule, try to reason with them without personal attacks. If discussion doesn't help, report them. Do not engage in breaking of rules yourself.

I'll unprotect the page now.

-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Holbach
Felonious Monk says that Paul Holbach (1723 - 1789) is an example of an early atheist who uses the weak "lack of belief" definition of atheism,   I have been reading Holbach, and it is clear that he is what we would call a "strong atheist". For example, he says in paragraph 17-18 of Common Sense:

 * 17. Can we imagine ourselves sincerely convinced of the existence of a being, whose nature we know not; who is inaccessible to all our senses; whose attributes, we are assured, are incomprehensible to us? To persuade me that a being exists or can exist, I must be first told what that being is.  To induce me to believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, it is necessary to tell me things concerning him that are not contradictory, and do not destroy one another. In short, to fully convince me of the existence of that being, it is necessary to tell me things that I can understand.

 * 18. A thing is impossible, when it includes two ideas that mutually destroy one another, and which can neither be conceived nor united in thought.  Conviction can be founded only upon the constant testimony of our senses, which alone give birth to our ideas, and enable us to judge of their agreement or disagreement.  That, which exists necessarily, is that, whose non-existence implies a contradiction.  These principles, universally acknowledged, become erroneous, when applied to the existence of a God.  Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject, is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction, and must therefore appear absurd to every rational man.

These kind of statements are hallmarks of a strong atheist. I have not found an actual definition of atheism. Felonious, can you produce a quote demonstrating that we must consider Holbach a supporter of the "weak" definition of atheism? While you are at it, how about the Voltaire and Aquinas quotes? --BM 14:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Once again, another straw man argument from BM. I've never said Holbach was a implicit (weak) atheist, or even uses the term implicit (or weak) atheism, or even is sympathetic to the implicit (weak) atheist position. What I have said is that Holbach (and all of my other cites) acknowledge the existence of implicit(weak) atheism in their writings. You really need to re-read my original citations: "And once again I'll remind you and Sam that Paul Henri Holbach (1772)... in their writings made the distinction between weak and strong atheism, then known as "implicit" and "explicit" atheism."

 * Still don't understand why it's a straw man, BM? You're claiming I've insisted Holbach an atheist who supports the weak "lack of belief" definition of atheism, that I've suggested "we must consider Holbach a supporter of the "weak" definition of atheism." I have not. You are misrepresenting what I have claimed when I cited Holbach. I think we can really expect better technique in rhetoric and debate from someone who invokes on alleged BA in Philosophy from Harvard, magna cum laude no less. Either make your arguments on their points without the blatant logical fallacies, or your run the risk being ignored and dismissed. I have my doubts as to many of your claims here.

 * No, I understand how you were using Holbach. You didn't claim that he was a weak atheist, and I never said you did.   You said that he gave a definition of atheism that was consistent with the weak definition you have been arguing is primary.   I can't find in either Common Sense, or The System of Nature, where he gives a definition of atheism.   I haven't read through both of them in their entirety; so I'm asking you for the quote or a reference.  Or perhaps it is in some other work.  If you say he didn't give the weak definition but made the distinction between weak and strong atheism, OK, that is slightly different, but I would still like the reference. --BM 17:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Funny, but your own quotes of Holbach presented above do not even support your own claim that he is clearly a strong atheist. Both quotes form is as near a perfect justification as I've read for implicit atheism. Holbach said: "Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject, is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction, and must therefore appear absurd to every rational man." Maybe I should have claimed he was a weak atheist... --FeloniousMonk 16:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * My goodness, the quoted paragraph 18 from Common Sense is the classic strong atheist argument that God (at least, the ominiscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent God that is understood by Christians) is impossible because his alleged attributes are unintelligible, contradictory, and absurd.  How can someone who says directly that God is "impossible" be merely a weak atheist?   That is about all the more stronger atheism as it gets (as my Rhode Island friends say).  If you are reading that paragraph as implicit atheism, it is hard to rely on any of your statements.  --BM

 * I could respond to the specifics here, but I'd sooner not get involved in that as I can't see how speculating about whether Holbarch writings catogarises him personally as a strong or weak atheist beares upon improving the Wikipedia article or indeed how it devalues FM's citation of Holbach as having used the 'lack of belief'(weak) definition.

 * This aside; A specific question for you to answer please BM. You changed the atheism article to put in the Oxford Eng dictionary definition under the general intro, the OED atheism definition encompasses the weak definition. Does that mean you now accept that the weak definition is valid and appropriate for inclusion into the Wikipedia general definition of atheism? --Nick-in-South-Africa 15:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Nick, frankly I'm astonished at your question. I've been saying all along that the article needs BOTH definitions.  I know I'm long-winded, but my writing skills must really suck if this was not clear.   I've been open about my POV, which is that I don't think the weak definition is the one that "most people" would give as the definition of atheism, and I personally think the weak definition is not a particularly enlightening or helpful one.  But it is quite clear that it is a common definition, especially in academic discussions of atheism.   It is obviously very prevalent in English language on-line sources for example, and many, probably most, perhaps even all, notable thinkers in the freethought tradition have used this definition.  Of course it needs to be in the article.   But the strong definition also does.   I don't think any of the editors have produced a convincing case that one or the other is the primary definition (although I'm more persuaded, naturally, of the truth of my own POV). So I don't think we can neutrally say in the article which is the primary definition.  It is not really necessary to say which is primary, anyway.  It is amazing that such a minor issue has blocked progress on the article all this time.    On Holbach, he is relevant because FM has cited Holbach as an early user of the weak definition, along with Aquinas (even earlier) and Voltaire (somewhat a contemporary of Holbach).   Holbach seems like a fairly interesting figure, and I notice the Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him; so maybe I'll write one.  --BM

 * BM - I must have missed your agreement, if so I’m sorry for that. I thought you agreed with Sam. I understand Sam Spade's position to be that he wishes...or rather 'insists' that the general definition of atheism in the intro only include strong/ positive atheism and that weak/passive atheism be only dealt with in the body of the article and that either Wikipedia NPOV policy should be set aside with regards atheism or that he is simply incapable of being NPOV in this matter.

 * He has thus far explicitly rejected the inclusion of the weak/ passive definition in the intro general definition (with a couple of enigmatic self contradictions) despite being shown ample evidence that the weak and strong definitions are common, are valid and has been for centuries. The frustration FM, Adraeus and myself have with Sam relates to Sam's very clear slant and seeming personal crusade driven by some sort of agenda on this point and his rejection of the evidence that both the strong and weak definitions are valid.

 * It seems you BM agree with FM, Adraeus, myself and a few others. That is that we all agree that the general definition of atheism in the intro should cover both the meaning of the strong and weak definitions and should cover both without preference, is that correct, please clarify this again for me.....?--Nick-in-South-Africa 12:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think the article should not indicate any preference for one definition over the other, and should give "equal time" to both of them. I'm not sure how common the weak atheist definition is. If the universe being considered includes the theist "man-in-the-street", I think it is not very common. And I am skeptical about the statement that it has been "valid for centuries".  But it is certainly common enough in English-language academic and on-line sources that it needs to be mentioned in the article.  Someone reading about atheism online is going to encounter it and would think it odd not to have a discussion of it in the Wikipedia.   My personal opinion is that weak atheism is an incorrect position and that the definition of atheism that goes along with it isn't helpful. I think it would be better if people didn't have to be confused by it.   But there are lots of incoherent/confusing positions that are actually held by significant numbers of people, and I can't banish them from the Wikipedia, either, or else the religion category would be empty. --BM 13:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * My $.02 here. So far as I recall over the past few months, I think Sam is the only person to steadfastly oppose any mention the definition of weak atheism (but even there, I think he may have compromised somewhat at a few points). What is primarily at issue is not whether to mention the definition, but how to phrase the introduction so as to not imply bias for/against one or the other. As for the commonness of the weak definition, I suspect if you do a wide range of in-the-street interviews, you'd find plenty of people who would agree with a statement formulated something like "An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god". However I suspect that most of these same people would not accept the generalization of this in the form of something like "All people who do not believe in god are atheists." That is the heart of my problem with presenting the weak atheism definition. The categorical statement is an unecessary extrapolation of the weak atheism position for polemical purposes and is not integral to a definition of weak atheism. older ≠ wiser 14:32, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Bkonrad, I think you are probably correct about the outcome of your hypothetical survey.  The man-in-the-street would accept a definition that makes an atheist a person "who does not believe in god".   However, it would probably not occur to the man-in-the-street that "not believing in god" is different from "believing that there is not a god", unless it was pointed out.    Generally people aren't that rigorous in their speech, and if you say you "don't believe in ghosts", usually your position is not merely that you lack a belief in ghosts (although that *is* literally what you are saying).  Your position is likely to be that you believe that ghosts do not exist.  Same with gods.  --BM 14:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Another point, for me the decisive one, is that if we don't include both definitions and give them equal time, we will constantly have people coming upon the article, thinking it strange that one of the definitions is missing, and editing it in.  Thus, deciding to exlude one of the definitions is a decision to have edit wars.   Stability alone drives us towards being neutral. --BM 17:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's quite good that both of you, BM and Nick, have reached an agreement. It seems that everything changed (towards a rational discussion) during my one day absence. You're on the good way. --Neigel von Teighen 23:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus Building - Please state position on motion
So following on from all this is there anyone and I include Sam Spade, that doesn't now accept that the general definition of atheism should include both the negative/ weak and positive/ strong meanings in the intro to be written neutrally and without favour to either. I'm proposing that we state our positions to allow us to find out if there is a reasonably broad consensus and if so where it lies.

The motion The Wikipedia article on atheism should in its introduction cover the meaning of both strong/ positive and weak/negative/ passive atheism in neutral language without favour to either.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)....please add your names.

For the motion

 * 1) Nick-in-South-Africa
 * BM
 * 1) Neigel von Teighen
 * 2) Yath 23:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Bryan 00:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) User:Davin (usurped) 01:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:07, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) --FeloniousMonk 19:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Against the motion
 * 1) I believe that's going too far into it for an introduction. I like the introduction as it is now written. Everything else should wait for after the introductory paragraph, In my opinion.:
 * Atheism is defined either as the denial of the existence of deities, or alternately as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. The word originates from the Greek prefix a-, meaning either "not" or "without", and theosmos, theos meaning God, and mos, belief.

I think it is neutral and gives plenty of introduction into both passive and assertive atheism for an itroduction. Pedant 21:47, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * I of course second that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly I oppose voting on matters such as these (article content, POV, etc...), the wikipedia isn't a democracy, or majoritocracy, but is instead consensus based. Secondly beginning an article with a dictionary definition is generally frowned upon, and for good reason: It isn't encyclopedic. The weak definition shouldn't be in the intro at all, of course, but this is an improvement, more accurate than what was there before, and I don't expect better at present. In other words, I don't approve of the intro, but won't stand in the way of the current consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur exactly what Sam said, the current definition is good but should not be the final version. However, the passive athiesm probably should be there. I would like everyone to start calling weak or negative atheism, Passive athiesm. Why? because weak and negative are downer words and it belittles those that are passive athiests. Wikipedia cannot be a party for this, so as it stands, passive is the only descriptor that can be used to describe those who are not strong athiests. In the end however, passive might not cut it as an appropriate descriptor. "implicit atheism" vs. "explicit atheism" should probably be used. See the article on about.com about strong vs. weak. --The Sunborn

 * Unfortunately, "weak" and "strong" are the adjectives that appear to be most commonly used for those terms and so whether you personally prefer them or not those are the terms that we should use in Wikipedia. It's not our place to try to coin neologisms or influence the usage of a term. Bryan 00:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup Ive dealt with the weak strong point before with Sunborn. Taking ones tea weak or strong implies no value judement as to which is better and neither is in this context a downer, negative or a pejorative, so it is with atheism.--Nick-in-South-Africa 12:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that calling this "voting" is a little bit unfortunate. Perhaps it should be called "making a list of people's positions so we know where consensus may lie." The results won't be particularly binding on the form of the article. However, given that most people support giving the strong and weak definitions equal standing in the introduction (for which extensive evidence has been provided in the discussion archives), it will provide ammunition for shooting down any disbelief-only edits, if and when they should pop up in watchlists. --Yath 23:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup thats exactly the point Yath, so Ive changed it from a vote to a statement of position. --Nick-in-South-Africa 05:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Atheism has both strong and weak forms, since Wikipedia policy says that a lead section should summarize the article, I think weak atheism should be included in the lead. If "weak" carries too much negative connotation I have no problems in using another wide-spread term for it, but it should defintely be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:07, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Atheism having strong and weak forms is an opinion, or interpretation, not a fact. Focus on weak atheism takes away from any summary, synopsis, or introduction to atheism, as does the wording "gods". I will accept the former for the time being, but the latter needs repaired more promptly. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you Sam, but both definitions are in use, and many web sites about atheism use this distinction as if it were universally accepted.  Wikipedia should not become one of those web sites: I would like to see, in addition to the weak/strong distinction being described, that it is made clear that many people do not make this distinction and have other terms for the various "weak atheist" positions. --BM

 * Good call, we should talk about the weak/strong as a way of categorizing Atheism. However, it is only one way of doing things, and as such should probably not be done in the introduction.--The Sunborn

 * Any person without theistic belief belongs to one or another state, the two most obvious being the active denial of belief or the passive absence of belief. This is a fact readily verified by simple logic, it is not opinion. The choice of descriptors, weak/strong, implicit/explicit may reflect an opinion, but the nature of the states they describe are quite real. Both states need to be afforded equal consideration and time in the article. Weak atheism is just as real of state as strong atheism, Sam. Are you still insisting that all atheism is an active rejection of theism?--FeloniousMonk 19:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * How about my latest attempt? It might not be perfect; but its better, no? --BM 20:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent. I made one extremely minor, but in my view highly signifigant change. The current version of the intro would fullfil my concerns, but I think an even better one would contain a link to gods, and address beliefs in the supernatural, mysticism, belief in the paranormal, etc... Skepticism should also me mentioned in the intro, probably in regards to the afor mentioned esoteric phenomena. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oxford english dictionary
I don't have one, and they won't let me view it online without an account, but I'd like to see the precise wording of the Oxford quote. Does it say "gods" or does it say "God" or "God or gods" or what? I removed mention of the dictionary both because it is generally innappropriate to cite a dictionary in the first sentance, but mainly because I didn't want to misquote the Oxford dictionary by my edit. Not knowing what the Oxford dictionary precisely says makes me a bit nervous in general w this reference. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The "anon" who is glad to revert and make accusations of "vandalism", but is unwilling to discuss matters in talk (violating our Voluntary_injunction, sadly enough) is going to earn the article a dispute header if he insists, since I'm not going to continue to revert, nor allow the factual innaccuracy of "gods" to go unchallenged. God is not a god, nor is God uniquely Christian, as a quick review of Deity, God and gods should make clear. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, BM, I think you misunderstand the disagreement w that anon. Also, I don't think anybody wants the article saying

 * "Atheism is defined either as the belief that God or gods exist..." ;)

Lets discuss it, ok? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 19:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops. --BM 19:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * :D Hehe... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Couple of problems with the "The Types of atheism" section
There two problems with the section that need to be addressed:
 * Spoon feeding --The section spoon feeds the reader. Spoon feeding is against the wikipedia guidelines as well as being poor scholarship.
 * "Some atheists distinguish between two variants of atheism:" --This implies that only atheists make this distinction. Plenty of others who are not atheists make this same distinction as well, many of them are indeed theists. I'll be rewording this to reflect that this is not just an atheist-only distinction.

 * "Many writers who identify themselves as weak atheists define atheism broadly as "lack or absence of theistic beliefs", and regard atheism as encompassing non-belief, disbelief, doubt, and denial of the existence of God or gods. Others prefer to define atheism narrowly as the "denial of the existence of God or gods", and do not use the term 'atheist' to refer to those who simply lack theistic beliefs, using other terms (for example, agnostic) for them." --Again, this implies that only atheists make this distinction. It spoon feeds the reader into accepting that weak atheists are the only ones who make this assertion and distinction, which indeed, is not the case.

 * Generalizations and characterizations --There are several obvious unsupported generalizations and characterizations made in the section:
 * "Some atheists distinguish between two variants of atheism:" --Again, plenty of others who are not atheists make this same distinction as well, many of them are indeed theists. I'll be rewording this to reflect that this is not just an atheist-only distinction.

 * "The strong/weak dichotomy is, in itself, controversial." --That is a is a mis-characterizing, over-generalizing statement. The distinction between weak/strong is controversial only for some people. There is abundant evidence that there is no controversy for a large percentage of writers, theist and atheist alike, and hence it is not even a dichotomy. I'm rewording it to read: "The distinction between strong and weak atheism is for some people controversial."

--FeloniousMonk 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "two types of atheism" phrase. That is what it said before, and I didn't change that, but should have. If you want to remove or replace, fine with me, and now that you point out the problem, if you don't do it, I will probably do it myself before too long.

I don't think my wording puts the definitions into the mouths of weak atheists or strong atheists. I agree that more than just atheists have a difference of opinion about these definitions (e.g. Sam, who is a theist). That is why I put the definition into the mouths of "writers.  --BM 22:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for catching and correcting my misspellings on the page.--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted Sam's recent edits to this section, which were inarguably POV and largely unsupported by the facts, evidence, or consensus here.--FeloniousMonk 00:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam: God versus god
Sam, I think I know what your point about 'God' is, and I think it is valid. But, I don't think you can telegraph it by just capitalizing 'god' in various places. First of all, the other editors don't get the point of this, and neither will readers of the article. We need to think about how to get it more explicitly into the article. But I'll let you explain the point. --BM 22:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Its best explained by reviewing Deity, God and gods. The gist of it is that certain conceptions of God are so esoteric and abstract as to be able to be mathematicaly provable commodities. This would include The Ultimate, All, and the Absolute Infinite at minimum. Other concepts of God (monotheism) may include these concepts, but even if not, their conception of God maintains that he is necessarily unique, and is possessed of certain maximum qualities (often immanence, omniscience, omnipotence, or others, this varies). These two conceptions are (capital) G-od. gods are far lesser entities, even to those who believe in them. Indeed, one can be a monotheist and still believe in gods, so long as you think of them as minor spirits (angels, devils, djinn, etc...) or aspects of God, rather than possessed of maximum attributes. The denial of minor entities is not relevant to most people’s conception of atheism, since many people deny (or fail to worship) some entity or other. It is the blanket denial of the Ultimate that is presented when one invokes atheism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a theistic tirade that does not bear upon this space of consensus building or improving Wikipedia, it is better suited to some or other bulletin board whose focus is allowing folk to ‘gob off’ their personal atheistic or theistic tirades. I fail to see how Sam’s post helps move us towards any consensus as it’s blatant axe grinding as sadly (from a time management POV) seems to be his wont.

 * Back to the point on consensus building; good people please add your name to the appropriate section above on the consensus building question --Nick-in-South-Africa 23:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "It is the blanket denial or, or absence of belief in, the Ultimate that is presented when one invokes atheism." you mean... ;-)

 * That justification for capitalization of "god" is what's esoteric and abstract here. Your argument assumes what is in the minds of the readers. Some may indeed being thinking about God (whatever/whomever that may be) and so see the need for capitalizing the proper noun. But certainly others will just read the term "god" as a concept that can mean just any old supernatural being. The capitalization of god in this instance is unjustified. --FeloniousMonk 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * God, capitalized, is a proper noun, referring to a specific entity. The unfortunate and inappropriate split of the God and deity articles isn't a mistake that needs to be repeated here. The Hebrew god, who is referred to as God as a proper noun, is simply another god. That said, there are those who like to define atheism as "denial of my Yahweh/God", and this definition can be included due to its popularity, but it is not the only mainstream definition, and due to NPOV policy should not be the only one in the introduction.

 * I think the crux of this disagreement, Sam, is your unwillingness to accept the evidence (cited in the archives of this discussion page) that atheism-as-lack-of-belief is a POV deserving of inclusion. Do you deny that it's well-known enough? I can't seem to find your reaction to those references. What is your response to them? --Yath 23:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * My response was to cite contridicting references. I accept all the evidence, I simply find some sources suprior to others. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the capitalization of God, every expert source does that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * A contradiction would be a source making the claim "No one defines atheism as the lack of belief in deities." I haven't seen anything like that. What we have is a lot of sources saying that atheism is sometimes defined as lack of belief. How do you discount them? --Yath 00:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Only proper nouns are capitalized. People, places, things. Rationalizing that all such instances of the word god must refer to a thing and thus are to be capitalized is uncompelling for most people. Not "every expert source" capitalizes god in the manner you claim. Apparently some sources are indeed superior to others.--FeloniousMonk 00:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think Sam's comment is a theistic tirade. He is just trying to explain his POV, which is fine on a Talk page.   His POV is basically that 'God' is not merely a 'god' or 'deity'.   This is not a view that is any way unique to him.  There are conceptions of the monotheistic 'God' of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as the Hindu concept of Brahman according to which God is not merely a god or deity.   Under this view, 'God' is not a supernatural being, but rather is conceived as the Divine Ground, Existence or Being itself, the ground of being, the monistic substrate, etc.    Gods and deities are beings, supernatural though they may be.   God is conceived not as *a* being but as Being itself.    By this view, it is not enough to say that an atheist denies 'gods' or 'deities', because the theist with this conception probably also denies them, or at best thinks of them as symbols.  Many atheists may not even be aware of this conception of God and it is hard to say whether they deny God as the ground of being (etc) or not.  Other atheists are aware of it, and deny God as well as gods, think this conception is incomprehensible, or disagree with the relevant theories of metaphysics. This is why I consistently define atheism as the denial of God or gods, but with this conception of God in mind saying that atheism is the denial of deities is not quite accurate or sufficient.   I am pretty sure this is what is behind Sam's campaign to replace 'god' with 'God'.  --BM 00:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 00:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering when Sam would bring up capitalization again. :) This is yet another point that's been fought over since he first arrived here, a while back he started a poll on the subject: Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll. The result was IMO pretty clear. Bryan 01:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the solution is fairly easy. Consistently refer to "God or gods", not "gods" or "deities". Unless someone is prepared to differentiate between atheism as the denial of supernatural gods and deities versus atheism as the denial of the "ground of being"/monist substrate interpretation of "God". These are actually quite different, which many atheists (or even theists) may not realize. Denial of gods and deities is a position against the existence of supernatural beings, or at least a position against a class of supernatural beings, and is an ontological position, i.e. what objects exist? Denial of God (as interpreted by Sam, and many others) is a part of metaphysics --BM 01:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, I just looked at the poll. Obviously most people voted for an interpretation of "God" as an member of the set of "gods/deities" and saw no difference beween denying God and denying "gods/deities". No doubt many theists as well as atheists think of God as a supernatural being and are not familiar with the monistic "Divine Ground", "ground of being", "Absolute Infinite", etc line of thinking about God. Sam didn't do a very good job of explaining. However, while a somewhat advanced theological topic, it is not at all unique to Sam. It is a common strand of thought in the Hindu conception of Brahman, in Protestant theologians (such as Paul Tillich), and even in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "divine simplicity". I don't think it can be so easily dismissed as the poll did, but it is a complex topic to go into in a short article on atheism. Other articles on the Wikipedia only touch on this. The solution, as I said above, is to define atheism consistently in relation to "God or gods" or as lack of "theistic beliefs" and let it go at that. At this point, we aren't actually giving arguments in the article for atheism, anyway. The ontological arguments for the denial of gods and deities as supernatural entities are quite different (and a lot easier to understand) than the metaphysical arguments related to substance, etc, which are involved in rejecting monist metaphysics. --BM 01:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The substantive communication which ended up resolving things did not occur on that poll page. If you scroll way down to the bottom, you will see things suddenly wrapping up, and concensus declared. That was due to User:Eloquence removing all mention of God or gods and replacing it w deity. Unsatisfactory, but an acceptable stop gap measure needed at the time, because tensions were high. A particularly unpleseant troll had been involved in talk:Atheism and I was about as annoyed as I get on the wiki (mjy comments within the poll are reflective of that). Shortly after eloquences compromise, bryan and I went to mediation, and the atheism page cooled down for some time, until recent changes forced me back into the maelstrom ;) Just thought I'd give you some context. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To add my own 2 pence worth, the statement God of gods is itself POV, regardless of whether theologians consider God to be a god or not. Obviously, many atheists (and other theists) regard God as merely one among many gods. To make an explicit distinction between gods and God is ignoring the position of these individuals. By your argument we should similarly list all gods (Allah, Jehovah, Brahman) to avoid Christian bias. --Axon 12:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Axon for the same reason to a different extent. To state "God or gods" is extremely Victorian and politically correct. "God" is contained within "gods." When one needs to apply an idea to a single god, the correct term is "god" and not "God." Adraeus 12:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Victorian and politically correct? And I thought I'd heard it all. Equally, one could make a similar argument that simply referring to gods ignores those individuals who consider God to not be a god, but something seperate (although one can't help feeling that, semantically, they are fighting a losing cause). I'm not arguing against "politically correct" (whatever that means) inclusivity, rather I'm saying that using the phrase "Gods and gods" excludes those who think the two are one and the same, and simply referring to "gods" excludes those who think they are distinct. Listing all possible gods so as to avoid Christian bias is also not a solution, so some compromise needs to make itself available. --Axon 12:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just in case someone thinks it was an anonymous vandal, 129.59.26.46 was in fact me (Titanium Dragon). I changed a few instances of "God or gods" to just "gods" or "deities", but I believe I preserved at least one in order to maintain the link to the God page, as opposed to the deities page (which gods also links to). The concept of "God", as in the universal one, is no more or less a god than any other. Just because some people believe all the gods are the same one doesn't mean atheists aren't going to deny this combined god's existence as well. I didn't mean to throw in stuff without consent, and I understand if it is reverted, as it was my fault for not noticing that this section was a dispute over that very phrase. Maybe we should just refer to it as "deities"? "God or gods" not only is redundant, but also is a very awkward construction which is best avoided. Titanium Dragon 12:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the phrase "gods and/or supreme being (i.e. God, Allah, etc)" seems far more neutral compromise, although some might object to the explicity distinction between "gods" and hypothetical supremes beings. --Axon 12:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hypothetical supreme beings are gods/deities by definition. Again, it is redundant and overly verbose, not to mention terribly awkward. Singling out supreme beings is just not going to be NPOV, as there are literally hundreds of them. It would be tolerable to have one link to the God page somewhere on the page (maybe under the guise of "Supreme being" or something), but it doesn't need to be repeated ad infinitum. Titanium Dragon 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That is simply incorrect in many ways. God is not a god, nor a deity. Also, there is only one supreme being, by anyones conception. As far as "tolerable", that isn't at issue, rather we must consider what is necessary for NPOV and factual acuracy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Show me a source which states this omni God is neither a god nor a deity. I have never come across one. Even the wikipedia definition shows God as being a deity. Titanium Dragon 14:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Besides, if you are going for the extreme case in which God is not defined as a god (which is to say, it is more of a philisophical force, a way of referring to the universe as a whole, or something similarly estoteric), then it doesn't even belong in this article, given that atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in any gods. If "God" is not a "god", then it doesn't belong in this article anyway as it is NOT a god and atheism is not the same thing as irreligion, though a large number of atheists are irreligious. Titanium Dragon 14:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etymological error in intro.
Sadly, I've found a major error in the intro: theosmos is wrong and should be replaced by theismos. Also, -mos isn't a suffix in greek: -ism- is correct (-os isn't part of the suffix. Is an inflectional ending). The etymology of atheism is: a- + theós (< the-os) + -ism- > a-theism- > atheismós.--Neigel von Teighen 22:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * God is not theismos. God is God.  ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * God is God? What is God? Define "God." There are many gods existing in the imaginations of many people inhabiting Earth and many of those gods are "true gods" too. Whose "God" is real? Or is this declaration of "God being God" simply a POV matter for you, ConfessedSockPuppetJunior? I think your username answers the latter question well. Adraeus 11:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus
Is there something like consensus on the version that we have right now, as edited by me, Sam, Felonious Monk, and Yath. The reason I ask is that I have just reverted a large edit by Adraeus, which seems to me to lose a lot of ground and to be full of problems, small and large. --BM 10:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would have preferred if Adraeus had made smaller edits. I found the changes to the headings an improvement, and maybe a few of the other edits. The introduction, in particular, wasn't helped . Articles shouldn't open with a statement about the Oxford English Dictionary's definition. --Yath 11:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind being the one to fix it this time? I don't want to "use up" another revert. In addition to the unfortuate change to the intro, he also essentially reverted the Types of Atheism section, which several people worked on yesterday including Felonious, and which definitely was better than the previous. Some of these changes seem motivated by animus towarrds me, who he persists in calling a troll. --BM

 * According to BM, the changes made "lost a lot of a ground"; apparently, that ground specifically belongs to him and his posse. Considering BM's fullscale reversion, I've concluded that he never analyzed what actually was changed or thought of reasons, and merely reverted on the basis that I, Adraeus, made the changes.
 * The introduction was optimized to address the concerns of all involved in this discussion. Archive 14 demonstrates that consensus was reached for the paragraph promoted by mgm.
 * Etymological specificity was removed from the introduction to allow for a rigorous explanation later in the article.

 * You removed information. If you were going to add etymology back in somewhere else, where is it? --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There was a section on etymology but you seem to have deleted it. Adraeus 11:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The comparison of atheism to agnosticism was removed. Agnosticism regards the how. Atheism regards the what. Strong agnostic theists are possible.

 * The statement is consistent with the articles on strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism in the Wikipedia.  Where are your sources?  This whole section was gone over by several people yesterday and is not the work of just me. --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Is it now? Where are your sources? Both articles you referenced support the removal of the comparison. Note the sentence: "Neither type of agnosticism is irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities), but both are typically irreconcilable with strong atheism." Irreconcilable means incompatible. If both types of agnosticism are incompatible with strong atheism, according to those articles' editors, tell me: how is it that you feel justified in saying otherwise? Adraeus 11:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The claim that theists can be strong atheists to certain god-beliefs was removed. That claim obviously emerged from someone's imagination. Essentially, this removal was a matter of logic. A theist can never be also an atheist because a theist believes in gods and an atheist does not.

 * This isn't made up.  The notion that once can be an atheist WITH RESPECT TO a particular god or gods is common.    Nobody is saying theists are atheists.   However, theists are commonly atheistic WITH RESPECT TO particular gods. You also removed a lot of other text, much of which was from Felonious. --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Being atheistic with regard to specific deities and being equivalent to a strong atheist are entirely different things. The former article stated that strong agnosticism is another form of weak atheism which is simply not true. Adraeus 11:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Grammatical inconsistencies and errors were repaired in a few of the sections. Take a look. The article is much smarter now and moreso than it has ever been before.
 * Adraeus 11:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * BM reverted the article a second time through a series of edits. In doing so, he reintroduced poor grammar and false information.
 * 16:33, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Bring back deleted paragraph about atheism "with respect to" particular gods)
 * That deleted paragraph is false information.
 * 16:30, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Reinstating deleted material on weak atheism as edited by BM and Felonious Monk.)
 * No correct information on weak atheism was deleted. The wording was simply improved.
 * 16:25, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Removed "popularly" from intro. Also mysterious statement about self-identification, which is very telegraphic, vague, and anyway doesn't belong in intro. Expand this point later if you want.)
 * "Popularly" is the correct term and its inclusion addresses Yath's concern above in addition to Wikipedia's policy regarding definitions. Adraeus 11:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection
I'm not so sure this page should have been unprotected, and I definitely think we need more admin involvement. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think your account needs more admin involvement. Adraeus 12:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Then follow the dispute resoloution process, and quit running your mouth about it here. Until you do something substantive thru the proper channels, your constant accusations are nothing but obstructionist ad hominems. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It depends on whether Adraeus' edits get any further support, or if he is a minority of one.   If there are still two larg-ish groups that disagree, who are going to carry on an edit war, then the article needs to be protected again.   Yesterday,  there seemed to be a consensus around the text, including Felonious and Nick.   So, if it is just Adraeus, he will be stymied by the 3-revert rule, and the page doesn't need to be protected again. Anyway, he is out of reverts for today, having now reverted 3 times.   In fact, he overstepped the 2-revert limit for which the administrator requested voluntary compliance -- which does not show good faith.   By the way, Adraeus has a good point about agnosticism being not necessarily a weak-atheist position, and that should be made more clear.  However, agnosticism and unwillingness to adopt positions on faith are the mainstays of many a "weak atheist" position so it is not unreasonable to mention agnosticism as long as it is clear that agnosticism is an epistemological position to which theists can subscribe as well.  I've done one revert this morning, and a series of edits which I didn't think of as a revert, but which from Adraeus point of view amount to a revert, apparently.  So, I'll honor the 2-revert rule,  meaning someone else needs to carry the ball now.  If something close to yesterday's text is reinstated, then I will try to make the status of weak/strong agnosticism more clear in the "Types" section.  --BM 12:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Agnosticism has its own article. Further clarification of agnosticism-related information should be done in the appropriate articles. See also strong agnosticism, weak agnosticism and agnostic atheism. Explaining agnosticism in the atheism article is neither required nor wanted. Adraeus 13:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I tried to incorporate that in my most recent edit. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I rather prefered Adraeus' version, because it seemed slightly more concise and did not contain some rather poor phrasing (ex. "God or gods" being repeated). However, some aspects of your version should certainly be incorporated. The "merger" didn't seem to be much of one though from my POV and reading of it, and seemed more like a revert, espeically of my minor changes (including the grammatical one of "policies" to "policy"; "has been the policies" is improper grammar, and there is no reason to change it from "has been the policy" to an improper construction. "Have been the policies" doesn't sound right to me.) Titanium Dragon 13:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weak atheism in the intro, Sam
Hey Sam. Earlier, I asked how you responded to certain references that included a definition of atheism as lack of belief. The question was a bit off-topic in a section about "God vs. god", so I'll reopen the subject in a fresh header.

Here are the references:, kindly provided by FeloniousMonk. There seem to be at least 20 of them, and in my opinion, many are reputable sources.

With so many sources providing the weak atheism definition, it seems to me that we have no choice but to include weak atheism on a similar footing as the atheism=denial definition.

What do you think, Sam?

--Yath 12:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * well, if you look at my most recent edit (reverted by andreas) you'll see thats exactly what I did. I may not agree about the equal footing, but I am clearly willing to compromise as far as this article is concerned. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I see. I wasn't sure if you had just left it in there from exhaustion, or what. The most relevant comment that I could find was pretty adamantly opposed . --Yath 12:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I still feel that way, but as I said I am willing to0 compromise, and sway with the flow of consensus (particularly the concensus of reasonable minds, such as yourself). I think the reader would be best served by a greater emphasis on denial of God, w weak atheism relegated to a a section on views within atheism, or types of atheism, or whatever. But I'm not here to enforce this, or any other view, but rather to involve myself with this article in a manner accomadating to progress. At this time, progress seems to involve placing all definitions equally in the inro, and I accept that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks like the current header already contains both definitions (I refer to the one unlocked by MGM), though it does not explicitly use the terms "strong" or "weak", it does seem to contain both definitions. Going into minutae in the header (such as defining those terms explicity) would dilute it. The introduction should be clear and concise. "Denial of the existance of gods" is the explicit strong atheist view, while "not believing in gods" (or something similar, I forget the precise wording) encompasses both views but seems (in contrast with the first) to imply the weak atheist viewpoint. As the only difference between the two is the explicit denial, I do not think we really need to change the header much. Titanium Dragon 13:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Feel free to work on it, I'm going to hold off for awhile, so as not to appear overly aggressive. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus' Reverts
I call the attention of the administrator monitoring this page to the fact that Adraeus has now reverted 4 times this morning. Please enforce Wikipedia policy. --BM 12:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll check the edit history and take action if this is indeed correct. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The edit history of December 14 (today) clearly shows 4 reverts on Adraeus' part. I've blocked him for 24 hours as per Wikipedia policy. I'll also unprotect again, since this effectively stops the edit war. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus won't you slow down and not fix the whole article overnight? Make a little edit and see how it sits. You know how tense people are about this thing, no need to wade in like a Caterpillar D9. --Yath 13:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mgm, can you revert the last (illegal) revert that Adraeus made? --BM 13:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, I could, but it won't be any easier for me. My rollback won't work here. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Well, I fixed it by going back a bit, then applying a series of edits. I hope this doesn't count as a revert. --BM 14:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 15


text:
Steam explosion

A steam explosion is an explosion caused by violent boiling or flashing of water or ice into steam, occurring when water or ice is either superheated, rapidly heated by fine hot debris produced within it, or heated by the interaction of molten metals (as in a fuel–coolant interaction, or FCI, of molten nuclear-reactor fuel rods with water in a nuclear reactor core following a core-meltdown). Steam explosions are instances of explosive boiling. Pressure vessels, such as pressurized water (nuclear) reactors, that operate above atmospheric pressure can also provide the conditions for a steam explosion. The water changes from a solid or liquid to a gas with extreme speed, increasing dramatically in volume. A steam explosion sprays steam and boiling-hot water and the hot medium that heated it in all directions (if not otherwise confined, e.g. by the walls of a container), creating a danger of scalding and burning.

Steam explosions are not normally chemical explosions, although a number of substances react chemically with steam (for example, zirconium and superheated graphite (inpure carbon, C) react with steam and air respectively to give off hydrogen (H2), which may explode violently in air (O2) to form water or H2O) so that chemical explosions and fires may follow. Some steam explosions appear to be special kinds of boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), and rely on the release of stored superheat. But many large-scale events, including foundry accidents, show evidence of an energy-release front propagating through the material (see description of FCI below), where the forces create fragments and mix the hot phase into the cold volatile one; and the rapid heat transfer at the front sustains the propagation.

Examples
High steam generation rates can occur under other circumstances, such as boiler-drum failure, or at a quench front (for example when water re-enters a hot dry boiler). Though potentially damaging, they are usually less energetic than events in which the hot ("fuel") phase is molten and so can be finely fragmented within the volatile ("coolant") phase. Some examples follow:

Natural
Steam explosions are naturally produced by certain volcanoes, especially stratovolcanoes, and are a major cause of human fatalities in volcanic eruptions. They are often encountered where hot lava meets sea water or ice. Such an occurrence is also called a littoral explosion. A dangerous steam explosion can also be created when liquid water or ice encounters hot, molten metal. As the water explodes into steam, it splashes the burning hot liquid metal along with it, causing an extreme risk of severe burns to anyone located nearby and creating a fire hazard.

Boiler explosions
When a pressurized container such as the waterside of a steam boiler ruptures, it is always followed by some degree of steam explosion. A common operating temperature and pressure for a marine boiler is around 950 psi and 850 F at the outlet of the superheater. A steam boiler has an interface of steam and water in the steam drum, which is where the water is finally evaporating due to the heat input, usually oil-fired burners. When a water tube fails due to any of a variety of reasons, it causes the water in the boiler to expand out of the opening into the furnace area that is only a few psi above atmospheric pressure. This will likely extinguish all fires and expands over the large surface area on the sides of the boiler. To decrease the likelihood of a devastating explosion, boilers have gone from the "fire-tube" designs, where the heat was added by passing hot gases through tubes in a body of water, to "water-tube" boilers that have the water inside of the tubes and the furnace area is around the tubes. Old "fire-tube" boilers often failed due to poor build quality or lack of maintenance (such as corrosion of the fire tubes, or fatigue of the boiler shell due to constant expansion and contraction). A failure of fire tubes forces large volumes of high pressure, high temperature steam back down the fire tubes in a fraction of a second and often blows the burners off the front of the boiler, whereas a failure of the pressure vessel surrounding the water would lead to a full and entire evacuation of the boiler's contents in a large steam explosion. On a marine boiler, this would certainly destroy the ship's propulsion plant and possibly the corresponding end of the ship.

Tanks containing crude oil and certain commercial oil cuts, such as some diesel oils and kerosene, may be subject to boilover, an extremely hazardous situation in which a water layer under an open-top tank pool fire starts boiling, which results in a significant increase in fire intensity accompanied by violent expulsion of burning fluid to the surrounding areas. In many cases, the underlying water layer is superheated, in which case part of it goes through explosive boiling. When this happens, the abruptness of the expansion further enhances the expulsion of blazing fuel.

Nuclear reactor meltdown
Events of this general type are also possible if the fuel and fuel elements of a water-cooled nuclear reactor gradually melt. The mixture of molten core structures and fuel is often referred to as "Corium". If such corium comes into contact with water, vapour explosions may occur from the violent interaction between molten fuel (corium) and water as coolant. Such explosions are seen to be fuel–coolant interactions (FCI). The severity of a steam explosion based on fuel-coolant interaction (FCI) depends strongly on the so-called premixing process, which describes the mixing of the melt with the surrounding water-steam mixture. In general, water-rich premixtures are considered more favorable than steam-rich environments in terms of steam explosion initiation and strength. The theoretical maximum for the strength of a steam explosion from a given mass of molten corium, which can never be achieved in practice, is due to its optimal distribution in the form of molten corium droplets of a certain size. These droplets are surrounded by a suitable volume of water, which in principle results from the max. possible mass of vaporized water at instantaneous heat exchange between the molten droplet fragmenting in a shock wave and the surrounding water. On the basis of this very conservative assumption, calculations for alpha containment failure were carried out by Theofanous. However, these optimal conditions used for conservative estimates do not occur in the real world. For one thing, the entire molten reactor core will never be in premixture, but only in the form of a part of it, e.g., as a jet of molten corium impinging a water pool in the lower plenum of the reactor, fragmenting there by ablation and allowing by this the formation of a premixture in the vicinity of the melt jet falling through the water pool. Alternatively, the melt may arrive as a thick jet at the bottom of the lower plenum, where it forms a pool of melt overlaid by a pool of water. In this case, a premixing zone can form at the interface between the melt pool and the water pool. In both cases, it is clear that by far not the entire molten reactor inventory is involved in premixing, but rather only a small percentage. Further limitations arise from the saturated nature of the water in the reactor, i.e., water with appreciable supercooling is not present there. In the case of penetration of a fragmenting melt jet there, this leads to increasing evaporation and an increasing steam content in the premixture, which, from a content > 70% in the water/steam mixture, prevents the explosion altogether or at least limits its strength. Another counter-effect is the solidification of the molten particles, which depends, among other things, on the diameter of the molten particles. That is, small particles solidify faster than larger ones. Furthermore, the models for instability growth at interfaces between flowing media (e.g. Kelvin-Helmholtz, Rayleigh-Taylor, Conte-Miles, ...) show a correlation between particle size after fragmentation and the ratio of the density of the fragmenting medium (water-vapor mixture) to the density of the fragmented medium, which can also be demonstrated experimentally. In the case of corium (density of ~ 8000 kg/m³), much smaller droplets (~ 3 - 4 mm) result than when alumina (Al2O3) is used as a corium simulant with a density of just under half that of corium with droplet sizes in the range of 1 - 2 cm. Jet fragmentation experiments conducted at JRC ISPRA under typical reactor conditions with masses of molten corium up to 200 kg and melt jet diameters of 5 - 10 cm in diameter in pools of saturated water up to 2 m deep resulted in success with respect to steam explosions only when Al2O3 was used as the corium simulant. Despite various efforts on the part of the experimenters, it was never possible to trigger a steam explosion in the corium experiments in FARO.(Will be continued ...)

If a steam explosion occurs in a confined tank of water due to rapid heating of the water, the pressure wave and rapidly expanding steam can cause severe water hammer. This was the mechanism that, in Idaho, USA, in 1961, caused the SL-1 nuclear reactor vessel to jump over 9 ft in the air when it was destroyed by a criticality accident. In the case of SL-1, the fuel and fuel elements vaporized from instantaneous overheating.

In January 1961, operator error caused the SL-1 reactor to instantly destroy itself in a steam explosion. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union was feared to cause major steam explosion (and resulting Europe-wide nuclear fallout) upon melting the lava-like nuclear fuel through the reactor's basement towards contact with residue fire-fighting water and groundwater. The threat was averted by frantic tunneling underneath the reactor in order to pump out water and reinforce underlying soil with concrete.

In a nuclear meltdown, the most severe outcome of a steam explosion is early containment building failure. Two possibilities are the ejection at high pressure of molten fuel into the containment, causing rapid heating; or an in-vessel steam explosion causing ejection of a missile (such as the upper head) into, and through, the containment. Less dramatic but still significant is that the molten mass of fuel and reactor core melts through the floor of the reactor building and reaches ground water; a steam explosion might occur, but the debris would probably be contained, and would in fact, being dispersed, probably be more easily cooled. See WASH-1400 for details.

Further examples
Molten aluminium produces a strong exothermic reaction with water, which is observed in some building fires.

In a more domestic setting, steam explosions can be a result of trying to extinguish burning oil with water, in a process called slopover. When oil in a pan is on fire, the natural impulse may be to extinguish it with water; however, doing so will cause the hot oil to superheat the water. The resulting steam will disperse upwards and outwards rapidly and violently in a spray also containing the ignited oil. The correct method to extinguish such fires is to use either a damp cloth or a tight lid on the pan; both methods deprive the fire of oxygen, and the cloth also cools it down. Alternatively, a non-volatile purpose designed fire retardant agent or simply a fire blanket can be used.

Biomass Refinement
Steam explosive biorefinement is an industrial application to valorize biomass. It involves pressurizing biomass with steam at up to 3 MPa (30 atmospheres) and instantaneously releasing the pressure to produce the desired transformation in the biomass. An industrial application of the concept has been shown for a paper fiber project.

Steam turbines
A water vapor explosion creates a high volume of gas without producing environmentally harmful leftovers. The controlled explosion of water has been used for generating steam in power stations and in modern types of steam turbines. Newer steam engines use heated oil to force drops of water to explode and create high pressure in a controlled chamber. The pressure is then used to run a turbine or a converted combustion engine. Hot oil and water explosions are becoming particularly popular in concentrated solar generators, because the water can be separated from the oil in a closed loop without any external energy. Water explosion is considered to be environmentally friendly if the heat is generated by a renewable resource.

Flash boiling in cooking
A cooking technique called flash boiling uses a small amount of water to quicken the process of boiling. For example, this technique can be used to melt a slice of cheese onto a hamburger patty. The cheese slice is placed on top of the meat on a hot surface such as a frying pan, and a small quantity of cold water is thrown onto the surface near the patty. A vessel (such as a pot or frying-pan cover) is then used to quickly seal the steam-flash reaction, dispersing much of the steamed water on the cheese and patty. This results in a large release of heat, transferred via vaporized water condensing back into a liquid (a principle also used in refrigerator and freezer production).

Other uses
Internal combustion engines may use flash-boiling to aerosolize the fuel.

title: Steam explosion


text:
Thongdrel

A Thongdrel (མཐོང་གྲོལ།) (alt. throngdrel) is a large appliqué(གོས་དྲུབ།) religious image normally only unveiled during tsechus(ཚེ་བཅུ།), the main religious festivals in Bhutan. They are the largest form of thangka(ཐང་ཀ།) paintings in the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Thongdrels typically depict a seated Guru Rinpoche surrounded by holy beings in a composition that, unlike most smaller thangkas, is in a "landscape" format, somewhat wider than it is tall.

Thongdrels are composed of several layers, mostly of silk. These begin with a backing, then the image itself, made up of appliqué pieces sewn to a background. Finally there is a yellow drape that covers and protects it when not on display. Thongdrels are stored rolled up. Thongdrels are displayed once a year as the highlight of the tsechu festival of a district or dzongkhag (although not every district has a thongdrel). Typically they are displayed on the last day of the tsechu. The painting is not allowed to be struck by the direct rays of the sun, thus it may be unfurled at around 3:00 in the morning and rolled back up by 7:30 AM.

Usually the architecture of the dzong provides a wall with access above, down which they may be unrolled, but sometimes metal hanging frames may be used. Major Tibetan centres have thangka walls, structures built into the defensive walls or other buildings specifically designed to give a large space for the display of festival thangkas.

The mere viewing of the unfurled thongdrel is said to cleanse the viewer of negative karma. They may also be exhibited at other important occasions such as royal coronations, when the thongdrel from a number of monasteries may be transported to appear.

title: Thongdrel


text:
Greg Anthony

Gregory Carlton Anthony (born November 15, 1967) is an American former professional basketball player who is a television analyst for NBA TV and Turner Sports. He played 11 seasons in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Anthony also contributes to Yahoo! Sports as a college basketball analyst and serves as a co-host/analyst on SiriusXM NBA Radio. His son, Cole Anthony, plays for the Orlando Magic.

Early life
Born and raised in Las Vegas, Nevada, Anthony aspired to enter politics. He wanted to become Nevada's first black Senator. A graduate of Rancho High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada, Anthony played his freshman year of college basketball for the University of Portland where he was the WCC Freshman of the Year before transferring to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In his junior season with UNLV, the Runnin' Rebels won the 1990 NCAA Championship game over Duke with Anthony starting at point guard, as UNLV blew out the Blue Devils and Christian Laettner by 30 points. He played almost the entire season with a broken jaw. He was a three-time All Big West performer and 3rd Team All America his senior season. This talented team was coached by Jerry Tarkanian and also included future NBA players Stacey Augmon and Larry Johnson. In March 2011, HBO premiered a documentary entitled Runnin' Rebels of UNLV.

During summer breaks, Anthony worked at the World Economic Summit and on Capitol Hill as an intern to for Rep. Barbara Vucanovich. He also started a T-shirt and silkscreening business, Two-Hype, while attending UNLV. His entrepreneurial endeavor was the reason why he relinquished his athletic scholarship. Anthony made enough money selling T-shirts that he was able to pay for his own tuition.

New York Knicks (1991–1995)
Anthony was drafted by the New York Knicks in the first round of the 1991 NBA draft, with the reputation of being a poor outside shooter but an excellent defender. He served as a point guard and defensive specialist, and typified the hard-nosed defensive reputation of Pat Riley's Knicks. On May 24, 1994, Anthony scored 16 points off the bench during a 100-89 Eastern Conference Finals Game 1 win over the Indiana Pacers. The Knicks would ultimately beat the Pacers to advance to the 1994 NBA Finals, but lose to the Houston Rockets in a hard-fought seven game series.

Vancouver Grizzlies (1995–1997)
In 1995, Anthony was drafted in the 1995 NBA expansion draft as the 1st pick (2nd overall) by the Vancouver Grizzlies, where he would be the full-time starter at point guard for two seasons. On January 5, 1996, Anthony scored a career-high 32 points during a 103-102 overtime win against the 76ers.

Seattle SuperSonics (1997–1998)
In August 1997, Anthony was released by the Grizzlies. In October 1997, he signed as a free agent with the Seattle SuperSonics. Anthony played one season in Seattle, appearing in 80 games in the 1997-98 season, averaging 5.2 points per game. The Sonics finished the season with a 61–21 record but lost in the Western conference semifinals to the Los Angeles Lakers.

Portland Trail Blazers (1999–2001)
In January 1999, Anthony was released by the Sonics and signed a contract with the Portland Trail Blazers. He would spend three seasons playing in Portland.

Chicago Bulls (2001–2002)
As part of a trade in July 2001, Anthony was sent to the Chicago Bulls in exchange for a 2002 second round pick (Jason Jennings was later selected). Anthony would play 36 games for the Bulls in the 2001-02 season.

Milwaukee Bucks (2002)
Anthony was released by the Bulls and signed a contract with the Milwaukee Bucks, his final stop in the NBA. The Bucks would miss the playoffs and Anthony played his final NBA game on April 17, 2002, recording two points, six rebounds, and six assists in a loss to the Detroit Pistons.

Broadcasting career
Upon retirement, Anthony joined ESPN as an analyst for both NBA coverage on ESPN and ABC.

On December 13, 2008, Anthony made his debut as a college basketball analyst for CBS Sports, replacing Clark Kellogg, who was promoted to lead commentator.

Anthony agreed to be a color commentator for the YES Network covering the Brooklyn Nets for the 2012–2013 season alongside Ian Eagle, Mike Fratello, and Jim Spanarkel.

In 2014, Anthony and Kellogg swapped their respective roles at CBS Sports, with Anthony moving to the broadcast booth as a lead commentator and Kellogg returning to his previous role as a studio analyst.

Anthony has been featured as a commentator in the NBA 2K series of video games since NBA 2K16.

Personal life
Anthony is married to Chere Lucas Anthony, a dermatologist, with whom he has one daughter and one son. He has two other children from a previous marriage to Crystal McCrary, Cole and Ella Anthony. Cole was the starting point guard for the University of North Carolina Tar Heels and was drafted by Orlando Magic in the NBA 2020 draft with the 15th pick in the first round.

Politics
Anthony has been politically active with the Republican Party since his days at UNLV, where he graduated with a degree in political science and served as the vice chairman of Nevada's Young Republicans.

In 2012, Anthony publicly endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, appearing in a Romney ad in Nevada.

Arrest
On January 16, 2015, Anthony was arrested in Washington, D.C., and charged with soliciting a prostitute. Following his arrest, Anthony was indefinitely suspended by CBS and Turner Sports. On February 11, Anthony reached a deferred prosecution agreement in which the charge would be dropped provided he completed 32 hours of community service and stayed out of trouble for four months.

In March 2016, Anthony was dropped by CBS, but returned to Turner as a studio analyst for NBA TV, and as a fill-in analyst for the NBA on TNT during the regular season and the playoffs.

NBA career statistics
A list of Anthony's career statistics:

title: Greg Anthony


text:
Nicolaus Copernicus University Polar Station

The Nicolaus Copernicus University Polar Station (Stacja Polarna Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika na Spitsbergenie) is a Polish research station in north-western Spitsbergen.

It is located in the northern part of the Kaffiøyra close to Aavatsmarkbreen and has operated since 1975. It was opened by the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and named after Nicolaus Copernicus.

The station has been used by 13 expeditions and 70 people. In its 30-year existence the station has been visited by about 300 people.

The Nicolaus Copernicus University Polar Station is the second northernmost Polish scientific institution.


text:
File:HighTimeToKill.jpg

Summary
James Bond 007 - High Time to Kill

© 1999 Coronet Books (paperback).

Source: Image scanned and uploaded by 23skidoo.

Rationale for "fair use" in the article High Time to Kill :

No free or public domain images have been located for this book.

This image is used on various websites, and has been published in several books, so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. It does not detract from the original and is used for information purposes only.

title: File:HighTimeToKill.jpg


text:
John McClintock (theologian)

John McClintock (October 27, 1814 – March 4, 1870) was an American Methodist Episcopal theologian and educationalist, born in Philadelphia.

Early life and education
McClintock was born in Philadelphia, on October 27, 1814. He matriculated at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Ill health, however, forced him to leave Wesleyan in his freshman year. He returned to Phil as delphia, where he graduated with an A M. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1835.

Career
He was assistant professor of mathematics (1836–1837), professor of mathematics (1837–1840), and professor of Latin and Greek (1840–1848) at Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He opposed the Mexican–American War, as well as slavery, but did not consider himself an abolitionist.

In 1847, McClintock was arrested on the charge of instigating a riot, which resulted in the rescue of several fugitive slaves; his trial, in which he was acquitted, attracted wide attention. The trial dealt with the issue of Personal liberty laws in the North and the fugitive slave crisis.

"When Stephen Olin, president of Wesleyan died, the chair was offered to McClintock, but he preferred the call to the editorship of The Methodist Quarterly Review, later renamed The Methodist Review, a post he held for eight years, from 1848 to 1856. In 1855, He declined the presidency of Troy University.

From 1857 to 1860, McClintock was pastor of St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal Church in New York City. From 1860 to 1864, he was in charge of the American chapel in Paris. There and in London, he did much to turn public opinion in favor of the Northern States. In 1865 to 1866, he was chairman of the central committee for the celebration of the centenary of American Methodism. He retired from the regular ministry in 1865, but preached in New Brunswick, New Jersey, until the spring of 1867, and in that year, at the wish of its founder, Daniel Drew, became the first president of the newly established Drew Theological Seminary at Madison, New Jersey (later, Drew University), where he died. At Drew, McClintock also served as professor of practical theology from 1867 until his death in 1870.

A great preacher, orator, and teacher, and a remarkably versatile scholar, McClintock by his editorial and educational work probably did more than any other man to raise the intellectual tone of American Methodism, and, particularly, of the American Methodist clergy.

Works
He introduced to his denomination the scholarly methods of the new German theology of the day by his translation with Charles E. Blumenthal of Neander's Life of Christ (1847), and of Félix Bungener's History of the Council of Trent (1855), and also by his great project, McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (10 vols., 1867–1881; Supplement, 2 vols., 1885–1887, in the editing of which he was associated with James Strong (1822–1894), professor of exegetical theology in the Drew Theological Seminary from 1868 to 1893, and the sole supervising editor of the last six volumes of the Cyclopaedia and of the supplement.

With George Richard Crooks (1822–1897), his colleague at Dickinson College and in 1880–1897 professor of historical theology at Drew Seminary, McClintock edited several elementary textbooks in Latin and Greek (of which some were republished in Spanish), based on the pedagogical principle of imitation and constant repetition. Among McClintock's other publications are:
 * Sketches of Eminent Methodist Ministers (1863)
 * an edition of Richard Watson's Theological Institutes (1851)
 * The Life and Letters of Rev. Stephen Olin (1854).

title: John McClintock (theologian)


text:
High Time to Kill

High Time to Kill, published in 1999, is the fourth novel by Raymond Benson featuring Ian Fleming's secret agent, James Bond (including Benson's novelization of Tomorrow Never Dies). This is the first James Bond novel copyrighted by Ian Fleming Publications (formerly Glidrose Publications). It was published in the United Kingdom by Hodder & Stoughton and in the United States by Putnam. The novel's working title was A Better Way to Die.

Plot summary
Bond faces off against a ruthless terrorist organisation called "The Union", whose trademark assassination technique is throat-slitting. Bond and his girlfriend Helena are attending a dinner party thrown by a former Governor of the Bahamas. The Governor, who owes a gambling debt to a member of The Union, has refused to pay up since he believes he was cheated. Accordingly, there is a heightened security presence at the event. However, an assassin disguises himself as one of the guards and kills the Governor, just as Bond realises the danger. Bond almost catches the assassin, who commits suicide before he can be interrogated.

A top secret British formula hidden in microfilm, codenamed "Skin 17", is stolen by two traitors, scientist Steven Harding and RAF officer Roland Marquis. The microdot is surgically implanted in the pacemaker of an unhealthy old man named Lee Ming, a former Chinese intelligence agent. Bond is sent to recover it before the Union can sell the microfilm to a foreign power.

Bond tracks Harding and Lee to Belgium, but they slip away while Bond fights and kills Harding's bodyguard Basil. MI6 tracks Lee to Nepal. It turns out, however, that Harding plans to double-cross the Union by having the plane carrying Lee hijacked. Le Gerant, the blind leader of The Union, immediately deduces Harding's double-cross and has him executed; Harding's body later washes up on the beach at Gibraltar.

The plane carrying Lee crashes in the Himalayas, so a deadly race between several parties commences to recover Skin 17. Bond, sexy mountaineer Hope Kendall, and Marquis, who was Bond's rival in their schoolboy days, lead one of the expeditions. Early on, they destroy the Chinese base camp, forcing that team to withdraw. Not long after, however, everyone on the British expedition is killed, save for Bond, Hope and Marquis. It turns out that Marquis was in on the theft with Harding, though they don't plan to sell it to The Union. The race climaxes with Bond battling Marquis atop the peak of Kangchenjunga. After a physical high-elevation fight, Bond trades oxygen from a mortally wounded Marquis for Skin 17. Bond and Hope return to base camp to find Paul Baack, a team member believed to have died with the rest, who reveals his affiliation with the Union and demands Skin 17. Bond and Hope manage to kill Baack and Skin 17 is returned to the British.

Meanwhile, Helena reveals herself to be a reluctant agent for The Union, who threatened to harm her family if she did not do their bidding, but she is killed before Bond can reach her.

Locations
Locations where the book takes place include:
 * The Bahamas
 * London
 * Buckinghamshire
 * Hampshire
 * Belgium
 * Delhi, India
 * Morocco
 * Nepal
 * Mt. Kangchenjunga
 * Brighton

Publication history

 * UK first hardback edition: May 1999 Hodder & Stoughton
 * US first hardback edition: June 1999 Putnam
 * UK first paperback edition: July 1999 Coronet Books
 * US first paperback edition: June 2000 Jove Books

title: High Time to Kill


text:
Talk:Priscilla Chan (singer)

Master's degree
Did she really get a Master degree? Or just a BA?

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg's steady girlfriend is also named Priscilla Chan!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So she is Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend?
She look too old. 206.248.152.209 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No she is not. There is more than one Priscilla Chan in the world. Mark Zuckerberg's gf is a third-year American medical student, not a Hong Kong pop singer. Get your facts straight. Melba1 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

– When I search Priscilla Chan, I do not means this singer. So that recommends to refer the disambiguation back. Zero00072 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Priscilla Chan → Priscilla Chan (singer)
 * Priscilla Chan (disambiguation) → Priscilla Chan
 * Neutral probably Mark Zuckerberg's wife is better known in America, but here on en.wp she's only a mention in her husband's article. Wheras in books the Cantopop singer is still more notable. If the move gathers support then move Priscilla Chan (disambiguation) over the baseline. User:Zero00072 are you going to help fix all the broken links if the move goes ahead? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply Allthough she is only mention in her husband's article, many people will confuse that "Is she a singer?", absolute not I think. I do not want to introduce her as a singer as I am stupid again. So the disambiguation page is more clearly shows there are not only one. I will help fix the wrong link in my free. Zero00072 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, not convinced but not opposing. In fact I would support (singer) being added even if Priscilla Chan primary redirects to the singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Only person here by that name with an article. Zuckerberg's wife is known only for being Zuckerberg's wife (i.e. WP:NOTINHERITED) and only has a couple of lines in his article. Better to put a hatnote from this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply You may follow the rule of WP:INTHENEWS. We known her by newspapers. Zero00072 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Although there are no her own page now, someone will build one. Follow the rule WP:REDLINK. Zero00072 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but she probably isn't notable enough for an article in the first place. What has she done in her own right? See WP:INHERITED. Just being written about because you're the spouse of someone famous doesn't make you worthy of an article. In addition, (a) we do not disambiguate unless we need to at the time, and (b) she is no longer Priscilla Chan anyway! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply You are right but not absolute right. How about Lyudmila Putina, Jenny von Westphalen and Linda Lee Cadwell? They are famous just by their husband. I know the rule is important, because who need to know Jordan's wife named Yvette Prieto? But I think Zuckerberg's wife is famous from the newses. That is why I get here to discusses it from Asia outside the U.S. Zero00072 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I've created Priscilla Chan (philanthropist). With the recent announcement of Chan and Zuckerberg's huge charitable foundation, she's now definitely notable in her own right as a philanthropist, and better known than the singer. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I mentioned this move request at Articles for deletion/Priscilla Chan (philanthropist). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support having 'Priscilla Chan' as disambiguation page, as both names are relatively well known. Peco Wikau (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Support now that Priscilla Chan (philanthropist) exists. Gap9551 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I have known the Hong Kong singer all my life, and I bought one of her albums (actually, a rerelease). Sad to say, she no longer surpasses the other Priscilla Chan mainly due to Westerners' perception of the HK culture and sole attention to Mark and his wife and Facebook. Still, both are equally prominent. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The wife of Mark Z is notable per WP:GNG (as overwhelmingly confirmed at the recent AfD), and also at least as notable as the singer. Disambiguate is best. — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

awful content
seriously? we are going to add content related to her being upset about the death of her cat? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent title change
Szqecs, may you please change the title back to Priscilla Chan (singer) and then start the RM on this please? The change needs discussion. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is objecting. If you are, state you reasoning first. Szqecs (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Szqecs: As I said, it's contentious. It is not that I'm objecting. Some others are, like ones from Talk:Jasper Tsang, Talk:Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor), Talk:Gary Fan, etc. The naming convention for Hong Kong personalities was discussed. Case-by-case is status quo. In this case, here are the sources:
 * "Priscilla Chan" singer: Macau Daily Times, The Straits Times, one book, another book, Lonely Planet travel guide, Billboard, Asiaweek
 * Both interchangeably used: SCMP (copied into The Star),
 * Per WP:PARENDIS, let's use the previous title instead for now. If you wish, try the RM instead. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If case-by-case is the status quo, this particular case is not contentious because no one is objecting. We don't use RM unless it's controversial. Szqecs (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just simply move it back, Szqecs. I'm close to requesting a revert at WP:RM/TR unless you are willing to change it back. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, almost no one was aware of the changes. Most readers surf to the other Priscilla Chan but probably are unaware of it. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, multiple sources, including official and independent ones, use "Priscilla Chan" rather than "Priscilla Chan Wai-han" as pointed out before. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Priscilla Chan (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130204194251/http://artiste.tvb.com/index.php?m=guest&u=priscillachan728 to http://artiste.tvb.com/index.php?m=guest&u=priscillachan728
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205170930/http://pages.prodigy.net/ultraman/priscilla_world.html to http://pages.prodigy.net/ultraman/priscilla_world.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

B-class
A review was requested by User:Will629 at WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. I have looked a the article and it seems to meet the criteria for the B-class; I'll update the assessment noticed accordingly. Interested editors may consider WP:GAN review next. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Priscilla Chan (singer)


text:
Talk:List of Quebec media

La Presse Québécoise
I removed La Presse Québécoise from the "News services" section - googling suggests it's usually used as a generic for the press of Quebec, and is also the name of the journal of the Rassemblement pour un pays souverain. It is unlikely they'd use the name of an existing news service. It's also, of course, awkwardly close to La Presse (though La Presse Canadienne obviously shares the same problem). Was it an historical news service? Samaritan 19:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am the one who added La presse québécoise I believe. There were talks by people revolving around the newspaper Le Québécois to start such a news service. I though it was already done. I don't know exactly since when it is like that, but the page on the subject is currently empty:

 * http://www.lequebecois.org/Presse.aspx

 * I guess the project is on hold or has been abandonned.

 * -- Mathieugp 21:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thank you. On another note, I didn't link Métro when I added it, and I just unlinked-for-now Hour and The Link, which went to unrelated pages. (I'm suprised Hour isn't disambiguated already!) For the general media, I'm sure we or somebody will write them all up (and work out how to title and disambiguate them) in good time. (Additions to The Record (Sherbrooke), started today, encouraged!) For the campus papers, well... Votes for Deletion sentiment seems to be fairly deletionist on most student newspapers, so it might be best just to cover them (or all but standouts) within each school's article, or within grouped articles like "Campus newspapers of Quebec" or whatnot. Samaritan 02:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No language description, no year of creation and possible finish
This article is poorly written because there is no description of the newspapers language. I am currently searching archival newspapers and google is NOT bilingual, the search is either in pure English or pure French. There are also no notes of when the newspaper started, which is critical when looking through archives. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Quebec media


text:
Juan de Valladolid

Juan de Valladolid (English: John of Valladoid) (c.1420–?), also known as Juan Poeta ("John the poet"), was a Castilian poet. Born Jewish, he converted to Christianity later in life. As a converso or a baptized Jew, he married a Christian woman named Jamila.

Born in Valladolid, Juan de Valladolid lived for some time at the courts in Naples and Milano, where he was an astrologer. On his way back to Spain, he was taken prisoner by pirates who took him to Fez. It was reported he had converted to Islam and also married a Moorish woman in Fez. He eventually traveled to Spain where he became known as a poet and made the acquaintance of, where the two would exchange satirical poems.

With his conversion being widely known, contemporary poets refer to him invariably as "Juan el Judío" ("John the Jew") and he was held in high regard by Queen Isabella of Spain. His poems are found throughout various collections, including the Cancionero de Antón de Montoro.

title: Juan de Valladolid


text:
Leng Tch'e

Leng Tch'e is a Belgian grindcore band. The band describes their style as "razorgrind", a combination of grindcore with death metal, stoner rock and metalcore. The band's name is an alternate romanisation of "língchí", a method of torture and execution originating from Imperial China that is also known as "death by a thousand cuts". Death by a Thousand Cuts is also the name of one of the band's albums.

Biography
Leng Tch'e drummer Sven is Aborted frontman Gurgloroth 'Svencho' Sven De Caluwé. The band began life under the billing of Anal Torture, forged by Sven and Dark Ages guitarist Glen along with vocalist Isaac and bass player Kevin in early 2002. Leng Tch'e signed to the Italian Spew label for the opening 2002 album Death by a Thousand Cuts. After that album, the band released a split 7-inch single with Black Ops.

The band would employ Israeli guitarist Nir 'The Goat' Doliner of Lehavoth, even undertaking gigs in Israel opening for Amon Amarth. Unable to secure a bassist Nicolas would switch from guitar to cover this role. Eventually the distance factor for Doliner prevented a full-time role. In early 2004 therefore the band inducted Geert as second guitarist. The band enrolled former Pyaemia bassist Frank Rizzo as guitarist in late 2003. Meantime, Isaac founded a noise side project billed as Permanent Death whilst vocalist Sven De Caluwé would front In-Quest for an album.

The band's second album, ManMadePredator, was released in May 2003. Leng Tch'e proposed split releases in 2004 with Fuck...I'm Dead for No Escape Records and a split 7-inch single with Gronibard on Bones Brigade Records. Guitarist Rizzo decamped in August, being replaced in November by Jan of Spleen. In early 2005 the band inducted Boris of Suppository as new frontman, debuting this revised line-up at 30 April 'Face Your Underground' festival in Antwerp.

Leng Tch'e contracted to Relapse Records in March, scheduling a summer release date for new album The Process of Elimination. The band played May US East Coast dates along with Impaled, Malignancy and Aborted. The band partnered with Fuck the Facts and Beneath the Massacre for a Canadian tour in 2006.

On March 9, 2007, a new album, Marasmus, was released on Relapse Records. Some commentators noted that the album was closer to the deathcore sound.

On May 16, 2008, The band announced that Boris had decided to quit the band.

A successor was found in Serge Kasongo, formerly of Ackros with whom the band toured Canada in 2008 alongside Krisiun. Recording for the followup to Marasmus started in 2009 with a release planned for the spring of 2010 on new record label Season Of Mist. The album was named Hypomanic and mixed and mastered by Russ Russell (Napalm Death, Brujeria, Evile).

The band toured with Origin and Psycroptic in early 2012 in support of Hypomanic.

Influences
The band's Myspace page credits Regurgitate, Hemdale, Nasum and Blood Duster as formative influences for the group. Jan Hallaert has also cited Hateplow, Bury Your Dead, Burnt by the Sun, Yob, The Sword, Converge, Neurosis, Mastodon, Aborted, Ringworm, Morbid Angel, Hatebreed, Torche, Suffocation, Fu Manchu, and Cephalic Carnage.

Current members

 * Nicolas Malfeyt - bass (2002–present)
 * Jan Hallaert - guitars (2005–present)
 * Serge Kasongo - vocals (2008–present)
 * Olivier Coppens - drums (2011–present)

Former Members

 * Kevin Loosveld - bass (2001-2002)
 * Glen Herman - guitars (2001-2003)
 * Isaac Roelens - vocals (2001-2005)
 * Sven de Caluwe - drums, vocals (2001-2007)
 * Steven Van Cauwenbergh - bass (2003)
 * Nir Doliner - guitars (2003)
 * Frank Stijnen - guitars (2003-2004)
 * Geert Devenster - guitars (2004-2007)
 * Boris Cornelissen - vocals (2005-2008)
 * Peter Goemaere - guitars (2007)
 * Tony van den Eynde - drums (2007-2011)

Timeline

Discography

 *  Razorgrind  (Split 7-inch EP with Black Ops) (2002)
 * Death by a Thousand Cuts (2002)
 * ManMadePredator (2003)
 * The Process of Elimination (2005)
 * Amusical Propaganda for Sociological Warfare (Split 7-inch EP with Warscars) (2006)
 * Marasmus (2007)
 * Split w/ Fuck the Facts (2008)
 * Hypomanic (2010)
 *  Razorgrind  (2017)

title: Leng Tch'e


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sprankton

Not sure what to do here. The Sprankton page has been resurrected by an anon user, with more content but it is still basically nonsense. I've added the subst:vfd tag to the page, but that just links here and we're not supposed to edit this page. The instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#VfD_footer, don't account for this happening, So now I don't know what to do. AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
File:James Bond - DoubleShot (Raymond Benson novel - cover art).jpg

Summary
James Bond 007 - Doubleshot

© 2000 Coronet Books (paperback).

Rationale for "fair use" in the article Doubleshot :

No free or public domain images have been located for this book.

This image is used on various websites, and has been published in several books, so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. It does not detract from the original and is used for information purposes only.