text:
Talk:Maltheism

Who exactly believes this anyway
How old is the word maltheism? Does the person who coined it know that mal comes from Latin and theism from Greek, and that some people consider mixing the two to sound uncouth? (It's done in automobile and television and lots of other words, but those have become so much a part of the language that we'd be talking about pushing back the tide with a fork.) Michael Hardy 19:39, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * This article fails to mention a couple of items. First, how large is this body of belief? If it is limited to just a few people here and there this should be prominently stated; the length and scope of the article ("maltheists believe...") would lead one to believe that there is some kind of maltheist movement but there's little mention of it on the web outside of wikipedia mirrors. Second, a great deal of space is spent on the maltheist's unique take on the "problem of evil" but then fails to address the "problem of good". How do maltheists, as a group, explain the existence our source of Good? If God is evil then how was Good introduced to the world? Glade Diviney 10 Nov 2004

 * Glade, my dad wrote quite a bit about the problem of evil vs. the problem of good situation. I didn't think it worthy of inclusion here, as it was getting too detailed about one particular thing, but the answer to your question is relatively simple from the Maltheist perspective. Paraphrasing my dad:

 * 1) While it is often said that good cannot exist without evil, there doesn't seem to be any logical basis for saying this. Things we think of as good could exist in a world without evil but they would not "stand out" as something that ought to be given a special label like "good". There is no logical reason to assert that a world that is totally good without any evil could not exist—in fact isn't Heaven supposed to be that very world?
 * 2) But the converse is not true: a world that is totally evil without any good in it could not sustain itself for any extended period of time. It would wither and die. While good can exist without evil, evil cannot exist without good. It is part of the very definition of evil, that evil feeds off of good and takes advantage of it in order to thrive. It is in fact what defines it as being something evil.

 * Thus there is no "problem of good" in the manner you describe it. Not only is it not a problem per se that good exists in a world supposedly created by something evil, good is a necessity in that world in order for the evil to thrive. I hope that makes sense. As I said, I didn't want to go into this kind of detail in the article, as it seemed too narrow in focus, but if you think this merits inclusion, perhaps it should go somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where. This article has already accused of being a rambling personal essay, and I hesitate to make it more like that. Craig zimmerman 17:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Who exactly believes in this anyway? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I do.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

it's true that this is a (latin/greek) hybrid word. That doesn't say it isn't 'real', though (because so is e.g. automobile). A better term would be dystheism (in fact, dystheism does get a couple of google hits). Webster doesn't know either. It's hard to find background on the history of the term. The ideas expressed are of course genuine, and have long been present in theology. But I don't know if there is another, more "official" term. dab 21:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of the 1800 google hits, more than 1400 seem to be related to WP mirrors (this is getting ridiculous). The others are mostly blogosphere. Maybe we should concentrate on dystheism: very few, but academic-looking google hits. dab 21:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I got the impression when rewriting that this was somebodies pet idea, or maybe a concept entered into philosophical debates by atheists, but... I am willing to bet there isn't much of anybody who even uses the term, much less some sort of "community". [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * you are right, the article was not written well. I maintain that the content is notable, however, we just need someone with more background to improve it. Or somebody with a good lexicon of theology. We may have to move it, either to Dystheism, or to whatever the proper terminology turns out to be. dab 08:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I have a pretty good lexicon of theology, but I've never heard of either term. My impression is that perhaps the content should be split into atheism, gnosticism, and satanism, but I don't feel strongly about that. What I do feel strongly about is that we need to discuss who uses this term, and how, in a verifiable manner. I find the external links woefully inadaquate, and would like to see a prominant or expert source taking a stand on these issues. Since I don't plan on doing much more with the article myself however, I intend to be pretty agreeable with whatever it is you (or the next guy ;) decide on doing here :) Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't pride yourself on your good lexicon.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree completely. I propose a move to Dystheism. At least we have one serious source (utexas; well, better than nothing). (a funny take on the issue is here).
 * There are three possibilities concerning God: eutheism, dystheism and atheism. Eutheism is the thesis that God exists and is wholly good. Dystheism is the thesis that God exists but is not wholly good. Atheism is the thesis that God does not exist. The argument from evil, if it is successful, establishes the falsity of eutheism, leaving us with the two remaining options. If the argument from evil is to be used as an argument for atheism, we need some argument against dystheism.
 * dab 11:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

further cut down the article. I am now convinced that most of the original text was almost entirely without merit, probably written by a rebellious high-school kid. We would need a competent writeup of dystheistic thought in judaism, gnosticism, and satanism etc. dab 12:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Great! I'm convinced that the more rewriting done, the better the article will be. Finding that utexas link at minimum convinces me the page should exist, something I had been questioning. I'm impressed with what you have done here. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't say that I understand what the purpose behind the decimation of the Maltheism article really is. Calling it the work of a rebellious high school kid smacks of the kind of presumptive disdain you would see from people who scoff at anything but established mainstream religions. Should we also get rid of the Satanism article, too? How about Gnosticism? Or for that matter Judaism? This may sound flippant and perhaps abrasive, but by what standards do we judge which articles on subjects of religion stay or go, and who gets to say what in them? Should aryan nations folks be allowed to edit articles on Judaism to offer their perspective?

The word "maltheism" has been in broad discourse for decades. My father lectured on the subject for many years. He was using the word over twenty years ago, and the term is still prominent across Usenet and other boards, a variety of web sites, and in the real world. (Which you would think would be slightly more important than presence on the web.) The Beliefnet community has a forum dedicated to Maltheism, not Dystheism, and people who hold the belief (who I think carry more weight than the words of a single academic) use the word maltheist. Admittedly, there are not many of us, we don't exactly evangelize or proselytize the way many mainstream religions do. But are only major world religions supposed to be represented here? My own google search for "dystheism" came up with less than ten hits. Despite what the other person said, the majority of google hits on maltheism are NOT self-referential, not blogospherical, and certainly were far more numerous than the numbers for dystheism.

I hesitate to say this, because I fear it would unleash a wave of back and forth hostility, but I have to wonder if the decimation of this article is itself religiously motivated. I do not know who these people are who did a chop job on the original article, but I have to ask: would you treat so-called mainstream religions with the same disdain? There are religions with articles on Wikipedia that do not even have any adherents, or whose adherents are long dead and forgotten. Why strike at a legitimate belief about the nature of God that happens to be radically different from yours? Do we not have the right to honest representation here on this web site? I hope my fears are unfounded, but if in fact the purpose in emasculating the content of the article is religiously motivated, we have a right to know that.

 * Right on. Couldn't agree more!!!79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly propose returning the name of this article to Maltheism, and linking Dystheism to it, rather than the other way around. I also strongly propose restoring much of the deleted content. Some of the edits are quite benign and are textual improvements for sure, but others simply remove statements it seemed the editor would not rather not hear. As the supposed rebellious high school student behind significant portions of this text (for the record, I'm married and have two children, thank you) I took what I thought were thorough steps to ensure that things were stated as much as possible from the desired neutral point of view—stating things not as facts but as what Maltheists believe about God and about other religions. I would welcome corrections that would further this goal. But I certainly do not appreciate wholesale deletion of text because someone disliked what was being said.

I apologize if I am not doing this correctly, this is my first talk edit as a registered user.

 * Craig zimmerman 21:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following is a list of references to maltheism on the web, not including Wikipedia or any mirrors of it, not including Google groups searches and not including Beliefnet where maltheism has its own community. While some of these links are from the "blogosphere", even these demonstrate that the word is in common discourse, specifically among people who consider themselves to be maltheists. No one out there is using the word "dystheist" to describe their beliefs. Even those who stand against maltheism and belittle it use that word, not dystheism. We have basically one academic, himself not even a "dystheist", versus people using the name maltheistic to refer to their beliefs.

 * http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001023.php

 * http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz.cfm?qid=150298&origin=

 * http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27308#post27308

 * http://home.att.net/~HRTHalea/others.html

 * http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-78891

 * http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-211.html

 * http://www.thebibleforum.com/new/showpost.php?p=4567&postcount=94

 * http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/showthread.php?t=11108&page=4

 * http://www.theforumz.com/forumz/showthread/t-53795.html

 * http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/3608.html?1098070068

 * Craig zimmerman 22:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well, maybe we have to separate dystheism from maltheism, although they realy just mean the same thing. dystheism seems to be the term for academic theological speculation, and maltheism the 'hip' term used on the net. if you can point us to an actual 'maltheist' society, with members and statutes and all, we can write an article about them. I would still prefer to have an article on the history of the idea itself. No, the chopping was not religiously motivated. I like the idea and would like to do it justice. I think the way to do it justice will be a serious article, and not a personal essay. dab 22:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I see the distinction more along the lines of dystheism being (as you say) the term for academic theological speculation, while maltheism is the term that at least some set of people who hold this belief actually use. Most of the text I included here was paraphrased from my father's own writings, so forgive me if it came off like a personal essay. I did try to keep a neutral POV about it, paraphrasing my dad's words saying that these things are what maltheists believe as opposed to theological facts. (I'd noticed some other articles on various religions aren't quite so neutral, but I suppose that's another story.) I'm glad we can agree that doing this subject justice is the reasonable thing to do. Might I suggest an article on dystheism describing the academic term and its brief documented history, referring to an article on maltheism as a real world manifestation of dystheistic belief? Does that sound reasonable?

 * One more thing: running through this particular discussion there has been an interest in furthering documentation of historical instances of maltheistic/dystheistic ideas. Yet one particular example, the Eshu legend, was apparently deleted from the small list of existing examples. Can we put that back, for completeness?

 * Thanks for your help. Craig zimmerman 15:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * And I apologize if I appeared snooty. It would be helpful if you could point to some sort of organization of people who really believe this, and have an agenda, or press releases, or something like that. Otherwise, I fear, unless the argument is connected to the history of theological thought, it will read rather like a personal essay. As noted above, "maltheists believe" suggests some sort of organized movement, rather than theological speculation, and so far we have no evidence to support this. Of course the idea itself is trivial, and people will always come up with it independently (hence probably the "homemade" term 'Maltheism' (vs. Dystheism)), but in the interest of notability, we should focus on what mainstream theology has to say on this. And, to be convinced of the truth of the idea is a different matter entirely, and I imagine most people will opt for Atheism (because, after all, if we believe there are lies in the Bible, why question one part (God is good) and not another (God exists)). I will do some research into this once I have the leisure. As for Eshu, you know, Dystheism really seems dependent on Monotheism. Malevolent polytheistic gods are very common and add nothing to the concept here. User:Dbachmann 15:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No apology necessary, DAB. I'm just glad we can work towards mutual agreement. Maltheism isn't exactly an organized religion, even in the loose sense, and I could no more point you to an organization of Maltheists than I could have pointed you to an organization of Marranos during the Spanish Inquisition. Does this in itself make Maltheism unworthy of inclusion? Would it have been inappropriate, if we'd had the resources back then, to omit Marranos from an objective encyclopedia constructed during the 1500s because we couldn't identify a formal organization of them or a statement of their doctrine? I could offer personal testimonials of individual Maltheists I know personally from all over the world, but I doubt that's what you would be looking for as an impetus. I know that Maltheist "meetups" have been set up via the web, but perhaps that's considered online or blogospheric activity. As for your questions of "why doubt God's goodness but not doubt his existence" my Dad frequently compared this to a reading of Nixon's memoirs. We don't take his spin on the events surrounding his Presidency at face value, knowing what we know about the man, but we don't doubt that he existed or that events he described did not happen at all. And as for your thoughts on Eshu, I disagree that Maltheism/dystheism necessarily is dependent on monotheism—some say the universe is "run" by a bureaucracy that is at best incompetent and at worst malevolent; this combines the worst of polytheism and Maltheism, I guess. :-) But you are absolutely correct that polytheistic beliefs frequently offer a set of deities who exist at a variety of points on the good/evil spectrum. Perhaps this should be mentioned at some point to note that not all beliefs about God/Gods refer to a benevolent entity? The Eshu example is one that Joseph Campbell used himself to demonstrate the variety of cultural attitudes about deities. Craig zimmerman 18:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how this article should be organized (ToC)
not at all; it is perfectly alright to cover a community even if it hasn't gone beyond the internet (we do have the GNAA precedence, after all). However, in this case, there is more to the issue than a group of individuals communicating on the web. There is a venerable theological tradition, certainly more notable than blogs. That doesn't mean the blogs are out, just that they come after. We should have: re inquisition, you don't want to pretend you are persecuted, though? If the Church of Satan can be institutionalized, I am certain, so can the "maltheists". "The universe is run by incompetents" is a very different idea, very common in polytheism (if not put so bluntly, in general). It doesn't belong here. Dystheism is about a God who claims to be morally good, but is not. Good and Evil in the moral sense arise with monotheism. (polytheistic gods are neither good nor evil, they are just people too). The bible passages related with dystheism (Job etc.) are intimately connected with the rise of monotheism (i.e. they are vestiges of YHWH before he was monotheistic, i.e. they hark back to a time where there was no claim that any god be good or evil.
 * concise definition
 * history of the idea in theology
 * contemporary activity / "maltheism".

 * DAB -- No, I wasn't seeking to pretend to be persecuted or to invite persecution, thank you. My Dad certainly got his share of that in his time though, but that's not the issue. My point was that people like the Marranos didn't have an organization associated with them yet certainly they are worthy subjects for inclusion. Being "institutionalized" has more than one connotation, I'm sure you know, and frankly I see no reason for Maltheism or any of its adherents to be associated with either one. The "universe run by incompetents" idea was simply meant as example, it isn't even reflective of Maltheist thought about God (saying that God might be incompetent rather than deliberately malicious). Maltheism has been accused of being Yahweh-centric, that it is specifically an indictment of Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs about God. Perhaps it is, but is dystheism? Somewhere, I think, this notion should be presented in the abstract, as a statement about whatever God there is, whatever his name is. Perhaps that's more the purpose of a distinct dystheism article?

Ok, here's my suggestion: let's put the contemporary maltheist "blog-style" activity in a section towards the end ("modern forms" or something), rather than taking over the whole article, making it sound vindictive. dab 18:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That doesn't sound bad at all. Might I suggest the following breakdown into separate articles:

 * Dystheism

 * Article on theological concept of dystheism as referenced on the UTexas page that DAB supplied
 * Contrast with/pointer to article on eutheism, also referencing the UTexas page
 * Historical instances of dystheistic belief/thought
 * Mention that polytheistic beliefs frequently refer to maleovelent/trickster Gods, mention Eshu, contrast with dystheism having more monotheistic focus
 * Pointer to article on Maltheism as concrete modern manifestation of this notion
 * Comparison with/pointers to gnosticism, satanism, atheism (why many notions used to support atheism do not rebut the dystheistic perspective, e.g., why Nietzsche's statement about not believing in a God who always needs to be praised doesn't mean that such a God does not exist, merely that he would find it repugnant to believe in such a God)

 * Maltheism

 * Described as real-world manifestation of dystheistic beliefs (pointer to dystheism article)
 * Reference to theophilia as Maltheists' term for eutheism - note that they are not the same thing in that theophilia refers to people loving God whether or not he is deemed good
 * Specifics of Maltheistic belief as they contrast with general notion of dystheism (e.g., notion of worshipping an evil God who oppresses humanity as 'treasonous' is a specifically Maltheist notion, not necessarily a dystheist one)

 * Eutheism

 * Article on theological concept of eutheism as referenced on the UTexas page that DAB supplied
 * Contrast with/pointer to dystheism
 * Pointer to summum bonum which is an explicit extreme example of eutheism

 * Theophilia

 * Described as term used by Maltheists to designate people who believe in God's existence and worship/love him
 * Used to distinguish two types of theists - those who do worship/love God and those who don't
 * Contrast with/pointer to eutheism

 * Craig zimmerman 20:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

history of the idea
ok, here are some references: though they are really more connected to the "Problem of Evil". Nietzsche and Camus should by all means be included here, though. If anyone has the Oxford Bible Dicttionary (or similar), do check the Book of Job entry! dab 18:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * “ I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time. " Nietzsche, Friedrich
 * “The only excuse for God is that he does not exist.“ Stendhal in Camus, Albert (1953) The Rebel, Metaphysical Rebellion, Absolute Affirmation. (Penguin Books: London), pp. 58.

 * I think we'd find it hard to discuss dystheism/maltheism without referencing the problem of evil. :-) As a side note, I responded to another contributor's question about why there is no corresponding "problem of good" in Maltheistic terms. Where (if anywhere) should that go? Craig zimmerman 20:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * well, we are referencing the problem of evil, i.e. linking to its article. We don't need to explain it here. The "problem of good" may need some explanation here, if we can come up with a reference — it's not enough to compose ad hoc theological speculation here, this would amount to original research. If you like, write an essay on the "problem of good" and publish it somewhere on the internet, and we can afterwards link to it. The "problem of good", however, would only arise for someone who claims God is the "summum malum" ("kakotheism"?). If dystheism simpy disputes that God is the summum bonum, no problem of good arises. dab 08:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "Dystheism" cannot simply be the dispute of summum bonum, since many believers dispute that, and in fact it isn't a particularly widely understood or agreed to concept. A huge portion of believers see God as either being mixed of good and bad, or possessing a morality incomprehensible to most of mankind. Maltheism suggests a malevolent god, not just one who happens not to be pure goodness incarnate. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Dystheism is coined as the opposite to Eutheism. It does not imply a God who is entirely, purely evil (a better term may have been aneutheism:) How many Christians would agree that God can be selfish, mean, spiteful etc.? However, the belief that God can be malevolent doesn't imply pure evil. A "Problem of Good" would only arise if a purely evil God was postulated. dab 13:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Many Christians, and even more Hindus, muslims and Jews concieve of a jealous, angry God who can appear quite unfair, perhaps even cruel and petty. I have a good friend who is christian, and who (despite being a particularly nice, altruistic guy) assumes he is going to hell. Have you heard of Calvinism? Their concept of Predestination (Calvinism) is shocking indeed. Or how about God hates fags? Maltheism is the concept of a god who is mostly bad, not just slightly bad, as far as I can tell. W as bizarre a catagory as this is, its important that we not define it in such a way as to potentially include most (or many) ordinary believers. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of Calvinism. The common Christian view is that God may appear evil, but only "because his ways are hidden", i.e. because the full picture is not available to us. In Christianity, God is good by definition. If your friend thinks otherwise, he may be a dystheist. (thinking that he goes to hell because he deserves it, otoh, doesn't imply malevolence on the part of God: God would still be good, just your friend wouldn't (in his own eyes). Dystheism would imply that God sends people to hell who do not deserve the punishment, or that he maliciously created sinners only so he could send them to hell (which has some connection with Calvinist determinism, only a Calvinist would never admit to the maliciously part, but rather claim ignorance of God's greater plan) dab 16:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I second this response to Sam Spade.79.70.243.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

 * My friend feels that God is strict, and that he (himself) is bad, so he's no dystheist. Calvinists think God is right (so does Fred Phelps), and morally unquestionable. I think the key here is that maltheists (dystheists, whatever we call them) think God is bad, generally (not just partially). I think this "Problem of Good" would be good to explore, regardless of if the God is shown to be all bad, and regardless of if we can find a refernce discussing it (this subject is far to obcure to be particularly strict Re: citation, if were going to go that route, it will likely need to be made a stub, and kept that way). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has certainly become lively. :-) The two of you bring up many of the very same issues Maltheists have grappled with. For instance, if eutheists are those who believe God is good, and yet some of them believe that being jealous, angry, spiteful, and cruel are characteristics God manifests, is good redefined by them so that jealousy, anger, spitefulness, and cruelty are considered good things? Only if God is the one engaging in those behaviors? Isn't that "do as I say, not as I do?" Do these people believe God is still good, and redefine what's good accordingly, or do they simply not care whether or not God is good and worship him anyway? This all trails back to summum bonum in that if you accept the idea that God is the "ultimate good" is this a statement of fact about God's goodness, based on an objective definition of goodness, or an example of despotic fiat, declaring that God is good because he gets to define good, because he's God? The distinction between good defined by description and good defined by proscription is not unfounded in theological discourse: is good whatever God says is good, or is good something objectively defined, independent of God, that God either is or isn't?

Calvinists, who are rather prevalent in the American heartland, seem to fall back on the ineffability of God and say that what he does is good regardless of its effects, we just aren't capable of understanding. So they'd likely call themselves eutheists, and define good in the proscriptive sense of "whatever God says is good", as circular as that might be. I think you're right that a Calvinist would never admit to the 'maliciously' aspect, but my father engaged one particular Calvinist and got him to describe what would be an example of God's being evil, and he described pretty much what Calvinists believe God to be. (!!!) So are they "eutheists", or "theophiles?"—Do they really believe God is good, and love and worship him because he is good, or would they love and worship him whether or not he was good, and just define good circularly? I think this is something worth covering… somewhere.

DAB's suggestion that I post an article or essay on the web, particularly on the "problem of good" that could be referenced here sounds reasonable. (Check the third paragraph from the top in this talk entry for the beginnings of that.) I have a lot of my Dad's old writings that we were planning on collating and eventually publishing at some point anyway. I still claim that Dystheism and Maltheism are two different things, in that Dystheism is simply the intellectualized notion of a belief that God is not the summum bonum as documented by the professor at UTexas, while Maltheism has historically been an actual belief system held by people and a more rigorous set of statements about the reasons for and consequences of such belief. I'm beginning to think a good starting point is to have a page devoted to Eutheism vs. dystheism, since neither concept is especially meaningful without its dialectic opposite. I started composing what I thought might go on such a page, a combination of DAB's words and some of my own. Here goes:

 * Eutheism is the belief that God exists and is good. It is contrasted with Dystheism which asserts that God exists but is not good. Both dystheism and eutheism are forms of theism, in that they are belief systems that assert the existence of God in some form. The opposing viewpoint to theism is of course atheism, which asserts that there is no God.

 * Most theistic belief systems are eutheistic, but by no means all of them. Gnosticism, Satanism, and Maltheism are examples of belief systems with dystheistic tenets. Also, many polytheistic belief systems assert the existence of a variety of deities, both good and bad. Thus the strict dichotomy of eutheism vs. dystheism as opposing beliefs is usually framed in monotheistic terms, though this need not be the case.

 * One of the open questions associated with eutheistic belief systems is how their adherents define what "good" means and how God manifests himself as good.

 * A eutheistic belief system that defines good in and of itself, attempting to be objective and independent, uses a descriptive definition of good, and asserts that God is good because he fits this definition in his nature and behavior.
 * A eutheistic belief system that defines good as whatever God says is good uses a proscriptive definition of good, and asserts that God is good because he is God and gets to define what good is. (For example, belief systems that recognize that God can be petty, jealous, cruel, vindictive, and destructive but say that this is OK because is serving some greater good through his actions consider themselves "eutheistic.")

 * Conversely, the same questions apply to dystheistic belief systems and how their adherents define what "evil" means.

 * The problem of evil raises questions about God's nature, asking why a benevolent omnipotent God would create a world with evil in it when he could have chosen not to do so. Atheists cite the problem of evil as a disproof of the existence of God and theism in general, but in reality it only works as a disproof of eutheism. The problem of evil does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of a malevolent God as postulated by dystheism.

 * Summum bonum is an extreme form of eutheistic belief, declaring that God is the center and source of all good.

 * An elaboration of the formal dichotomy of eutheism vs. dystheism was first proposed in an academic setting by Robert Koons at the University of Texas.

…

Craig zimmerman 23:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to just jump in and create a Eutheism and dystheism article as I'd suggested and see where that goes. If it seems wrong, feel free to kill it. I think it's a good direction to go in, and I hope you agree.

Craig zimmerman 00:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal
Having honed the Eutheism and dystheism article a bit, I would like to make the following proposal to structure things a bit better:

 * 1) Make the Eutheism and dystheism article the focal point for this topic. (Add appropriate redirects for "Eutheism vs. dystheism", etc.)
 * 2) Change redirect for Eutheism to point to Eutheism and dystheism instead of summum bonum. I think it was generally agreed that Eutheism and summum bonum are really separate things, and the dialectic article references summum bonum appropriately.
 * 3) Change Dystheism to be a redirect to Eutheism and dystheism. Virtually all of the content in the current dystheism article is recomposed in the dialectic article, and that which isn't can be included in a separate Maltheism article.
 * 4) Change Maltheism from a redirect to Dystheism into its own article, incorporating the bits from the Eutheism and dystheism article that are specifically about Maltheism. That section in there now is way too much content for a subsection in that larger article and should be in its own space. Include elements from current Dystheism article specific to Maltheism. This should only contain that which is specific to people who identify with the term 'Maltheist', including concepts unique to believers in Maltheism. This will be short and to the point and will not be a personal essay. :-)
 * 5) Remove most of the content in the Maltheism subsection, since it would have been moved to its own article by this point.
 * 6) Change content of Theophilia to reflect that this is a term coined and used by Maltheists, referencing Eutheism (which would bring readers to the dialectic page).

I think this is a reasonable solution addressing the concerns of people who have had issues with the original Maltheism article. Eutheism/dystheism focuses on the philosophical/theological concepts and elaborates on the dialectic between the two beliefs. Separate articles on eutheism and dystheism would be weaker, in my opinion, because they would need persistent cross-references all over the place in order to make it all meaningful. Each term is meaningless, or at least contentless, without its opposite, thus discussing them in one place seems more prudent. Both terms are defined very early in the article so redirects from the individual terms would be clear.

Shall I proceed?

Craig zimmerman 16:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've begun tweaking the redirects.

Craig zimmerman 18:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it's looking good so far! dab (ᛏ) 18:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

so far
Craig, I appreciate what you have done with Eutheism and dystheism, but I am still not sure about the status of this page. It is still phrased as if there was a sizeable congregation of "maltheists". As far as I can see, there is mainly your blog, and your dad. And from this it is not clear whether it, and he, does not rather view the whole thing as a pedagogic exercise, essentially exposing the arbitrariness of religions. If that is so, I still think that "Maltheism" does deserve a section on "Dystheism" as a recent "internet" version of Dystheistic thought, but the bulk of the article must be rewritten. I.e. the evidence from the bible should be incorporated in the Dystheism article, and the essay-like style of this article must go (meaning, this article must sound less like somebody trying to convince people of his position). We cannot say "Maltheists believe", "Maltheists point out" if we cannot point to any Maltheist organization. I will not engage in edit-warring with you over this, but I do hope you possess the intellectual honesty to see my point. I am sorry. Dystheism obviously deserves a detailed article, but the "Maltheism" variety doesn't, unless we can be sure it goes beyond a one- (or two-) man-project. dab (ᛏ) 17:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I just realized your distinction of "Maltheism" as a stronger form of Dystheism (ie. Maltheism= God is evil while Dystheism = God is not entirely good). This is entirely idiosyncratic, and unless you can point to some dictionary of Theological terminology, it should be rejected as misleading: Maltheism still isn't a well-formed term, and the proper term, if ever applied in literature as opposed to dystheism, would more probably have been kakotheism. But we cannot just make up terms here. Googlehits are not a good measure of notability (unless they are in the 100,000s), especially if the term originates with somebody of considerable online activity. The majority of hits is still from WP mirrors. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DAB, don't worry about "edit-warring", my goal is to come to mutually agreeable terms for these articles, not to fight about them. I agree wholeheartedly that the evidence from the Bible section could and should be moved into the parent dialectic article. I was reticent to do that because the particulars associated with what was said in that section do not come from Dystheism in general (which so far only has an academic existence), but from Maltheism in specific. Most of the content of the "evidence from the Bible" section does not derive from any academic discourse on Dystheism, but from what a Maltheist actually said. Since there is no "organization" associated with Maltheism, and I'm not sure we would want for there to be one, I can only speak for what I believe, and for what my dad believed, knowing that others agree in principle with some but not necessarily all of these particulars.

Thus I agree with you that we cannot meet your standard for a separate article on Maltheism—there is no organization to speak of that would merit an encyclopedic entry. (I already compared this to the notion of an "organization" of Marranos during the Spanish Inquisition, pointing out that even though one more than likely did not exist that wouldn't preempt a valid entry for Marranos in an encyclopedia, but I think my point was misinterpreted.)

Therefore, in the interest of coming together on this, I agree that the evidence from the Bible points should be moved into the master dialectic article. I would not see a problem with removing the Maltheism article entirely, if you really think that's the correct path, leaving just a section in the master article. But I agree that as long as we do not meet your standard, devoting an article of any significant length to Maltheism would conflict with your purposes. A section on Maltheism as it exists in the master article sounds fine. Realize that, originally, I had all those points about Maltheism now in the Maltheism article included in the Maltheism section of the master article, but I decided that was clearly not the right thing to do. I'm sure you would concur. :-)

Is the current content of the Eutheism and dystheism article, assuming we include the Bible points and possibly the popular culture stub section into it, otherwise reasonable? Craig zimmerman 22:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * yes, I do have the impression that you are genuinely trying to be fair. And I don't want to nitpick about the wording etc. too much. In my opinion, the "evidence of the bible" would belong under dystheism, because these things have been pointed out as problematic for a long time, without necessarily anybody actually converting to 'maltheism' because of them. Their traditional interpretation in theology should be given, together with 'maltheist' criticism, at least. That's all very well. Maybe, if your dad really was serious about being a 'maltheist', this article should revolve around his views, rather than anonymous "maltheists' views"? Did he ever publish his views in some way? Or else it can be about your blog, and similar sites (we do have articles about individual internet sites)? I just insist that we need some historical depth here. Etymology. Look at Atheism: There were clear examples of atheism in Ancient Greece, but there was no Greek word atheismos. This was coined around 1700. It is important to have an idea of the relation of the terminology with the actual ideas. Dystheist ideas have been around forever, as you say, in Gnosticism, in Satanism, etc. Dystheism must be a recent term (19th century?). Malteism must be a very recent term (your dad's?). If your dad invented the word, you'll need to say that your dad invented the word, and the article would be about his ideas, and how they evolved since, and how they tie in with earlier thinkers. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, DAB. A few points about your comments:
 * 1) We're in complete agreement about moving the "evidence from the Bible" section over to the Eutheism and dystheism article. I had the same thought while piecing those parts together, that that's where it belonged, but I was focusing on the Maltheism article at that time.
 * 2) I would venture that no one "converted to Maltheism" (or Dystheism) because of any of the points you see here, or in Koons' essay, or anywhere else. My point has been that very few people in the world identify overtly as being a Maltheist or Dystheist by name, likewise few people would describe their process of coming into such belief as a "conversion" to anything in particular. What does this say about the number of people who hold or have considered such beliefs? Does the lack of a formal religious belief system as a "conversion destination" change how the topic should be covered?
 * 3) You say "Dystheism must be a recent term (19th century?)", but the only representation of that term we've seen is from 1998. Maltheism definitely dates back to the early 1980s, but that's hardly ancient history either, I would agree. They both then qualify as "very recent terms". It seems to me (and to others) that the phenomenon has been "around forever" as you say, but has never been instantiated with a name—except perhaps the generic "heresy" and "blasphemy" labelings from God worshipers. We can't have an encyclopedic entry for something that doesn't have a name, can we? The act of naming something like this often helps increase focus on it for purposes of study and analysis. It's a question of what we name and how we name it. An entry defining this sort of belief is highly unlikely to convert anyone to anything (not that that would be its purpose in any case), but it is much more likely to give people who already happen to hold such beliefs a point of focus and a name to apply to those beliefs. No, that's not the "job" of an encyclopedia, but it's often the end result of this kind of intellectual inquiry—giving a name to the unnamed.
 * 4) Regarding Maltheism in particular, my Dad may indeed have been the one who coined that term, but I've wanted to make this not about individual ego but about the universality of the belief. If you like, we could make the Eutheism and dystheism entry have that focus, and if we agree that Maltheism is worthy of its own article, I could attribute what I know to be my Dad's original writing to him.

For now, I can take the actions we've discussed here, moving the Bible section over, and changing the "flavor" of the Maltheism entry according to what we've been saying. If we can't work things out concerning that entry, then we can agree to let it go away, leaving a brief mention in the master entry. I hope we are on the same page concerning the Eutheism and dystheism entry.

By the way, I am thinking that better crosslinking for the Eutheism and dystheism entry is in order. Linking the sections describing how good is defined to divine command theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma would be useful. At the same time, a link from the mention of "the common belief that what we worship is given spiritual substance through the act of worship" and … whatever the name is for that belief! (Have I just come up with a great example of my concept of naming the unnamed, or am I simply too dense, too forgetful, or too clueless to recognize the term associated with this?) Craig zimmerman 14:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * you may be looking for (some uses of the term) fideism. you are right that I should stop giving you a hard time over the term "maltheism" until I have researched the history and official status of the term "dystheism" (which I am confident is some 100 years old). I will be back after I did that ;o) dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not sure if fideism is quite right, but I'll keep looking, this can't be a totally original notion. Right now, I don't like at all what I stuck in their for divine command theory/Euthyphro Dilemma within the definition of good section, so that will be tweaked for sure. It's a bit rambling and not very cohesive as it is now. Craig zimmerman 19:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbachmann is a very nice, accomodating, guy, in my experience. And it looks like Craig is a sincere person; so I think maybe dab has maybe been a bit too accomodating with this article. For one thing it it sure looks like something went wrong with all the redirecting. Dystheism is redirected to Eutheism and dystheism, but Talk:Dystheism is redirected here. That just seems weird. But, more importantly, the concerns voiced above by dab and others about this article are valid, it seems to me. I ask again: why does this article exist? Who are the maltheists? What notability does it have apart from being a near-synonym for dystheism used on a few online discussion forums. Name one maltheist. When and where was the term introduced, and by whom? I just don't think an article that only states "Maltheists say this; maltheists say that" can ever be good. Who are the maltheists; and who are the authorities on what the maltheists say? I mistrust an article where the person writing it (and his Dad) seems to be the only authority on the subject. The Wikipedia isn't the place for the manifestos of new religions, even if there are some Internet discussion groups. How can the information in this article be verified? Do we have only primary sources and are those primary sources the archives of various on-line forums? What secondary sources exist on this. For me, the supposed distinction between "God is not good" and "God is evil" isn't significant enough to warrant a separate article from dystheism, and this article ought to be deleted and redirected to Eutheism and Dystheism, in my opinion, with that article perhaps somewhat expanded a little to reflect maltheist views, assuming someone can find a notable maltheist to quote. --BM 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For that matter, it doesn't look like dystheism has much of a pedigree either. --BM 21:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. We have the Maltheism article, but Talk:Maltheism is redirected to Talk:Dystheism, and the former content of Talk:Maltheism has been moved to Talk:Dystheism. There doesn't seem to be any prior Talk:Dystheism history, of if there was, I don't know where it went to. But the Dystheism article itself seems to be redirected to Eutheism and dystheism. I hope I am not being presumptious, but I am going to presume that this situation was a slip of the fingers, and fix it. --BM 21:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I need help from an administrator, I think. I'm afraid of losing the histories. It seems like the history of Talk:Maltheism is over on Talk:Dystheism, and I have no idea where the original history of Talk:Dystheism is, if there was one before Talk:Maltheism was redirected there. --BM 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * BM - I thought I had made clear that if a separate Maltheism article was deemed unwarranted then the one that's there should go away. My goal is not to fight over territory and naming rights but to present information coherently. Per DAB's suggestion, I moved most of the relevant pieces of the old Maltheism article out and over to the Dystheism article DAB had put together. I am almost positive we have not been losing any histories: Talk:Maltheism existed and became Talk:Dystheism when Dab renamed the main page itself. There was never a talk page for Eutheism (or for Eutheism and dystheism), and there has been no new talk page for Maltheism. I can assure you there's been no history loss only because I've been keeping my eye on the related pages for a while now. Just to reiterate what I did:
 * Modified the article DAB was working on to make it a single article about eutheism and dystheism as a dialectic.
 * Changed the redirect for Eutheism from going to summum bonum (there was agreement that eutheism and summum bonum were not the same thing) to point to this larger article.
 * Made Dystheism a redirect to the larger article
 * Made Maltheism its own article again. (That's probably where the talk page link breakage happened. I apologize if I'm the cause of that.) Again, if what's there is unsatisfactory, then please remove it.

 * DAB said he would be looking into historical references to the name "dystheism", but I'm wondering whether it has as paltry a formal history as the term "Maltheism". Clearly the phenomenon has existed historically, without necessarily having a name. Does it need to have had a name for a certain number of years to be represented?

 * OK, so Robert Koons and my Dad finally gave it a name (or two) in only recent memory. I can understand if you are saying that Maltheism in particular is "just the rantings of one person" and unworthy of inclusion as such. Don't worry, I don't take offense. I wanted not to make any discussion of Maltheism into an ego thing where I talked about "how Paul Zimmerman said this, that, and the other thing." It's not about my or my Dad's personal ego, and if the only way to make Maltheism concrete is to make it that way then I will agree with you that we'd be better off without an article specifically on Maltheism.

 * But I think the topic in itself is worthy of inclusion, historically speaking. Is there disagreement on that? My framing of the article in dialectic form came about because, as I was trying to figure out what would go in individual articles on eutheism and dystheism, I noticed constant crosslinking was occurring in my outline, which would have made individual articles unreadable. Talking about eutheism in and of itself would either be pretty boring or a rehash of various other religion entries. Talking about dystheism in and of itself makes little sense without contrasting it to eutheism. Hence, my approach.

 * As I said in an earlier note, sometimes an endeavor such as this gives a name to the unnamed. I hope that some sort of article still emerges on this topic and survives. Craig zimmerman 00:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, well I'm glad no histories have been lost. But it doesn't make sense for Talk:Maltheism to redirect to Talk:Dystheism, if the Maltheism article still exists, and especially not if the Dystheism article is itself redirecting to yet a third article, Eutheism and dystheism.  All that is just confusing.    If article X exists, the convention is that its Talk page is at Talk:X.   The way it is now, if you go to Maltheism and click on the "Discussion" tab, you find yourself on Talk::Dystheism; then if you click on the "Article" tab, you are not back on the Maltheism article, as you would expect, but on the "Eutheism and dystheism" article, and if you click on that Discussion tab, you are now on "Talk:Eutheism and dystheism".  I can't put this right because I'm not an administrator, but dab is, and I hope he will help sort this out.

 * As for the articles themselves, it doesn't make sense to me for Maltheism to be separate from "Eutheism and dystheism".  And I have my doubts as to whether "Eutheism and dystheism" should even exist.   What are your sources for the information in these articles?   It bothers me a lot that in these articles not a single eutheist, dystheist, or maltheist is named or quoted. Who are all these people having debates with each other?   When did these debates take place, and where?   Where are they documented, so that I can check whether the article is correctly representing the various views?   Who advocates these positions?   Where can I find their writings?   I don't mean to be rude, but in the previous discussion, you've cited your father a few times as the source of your information.  Who is your father, in what way is he notable, and what makes him an authority?  Are his lectures or other writings on this topic publicly available?   Where can I find commentary on any of these positions by recognized scholars?   Information in the Wikipedia is supposed to be based on public sources, ideally secondary sources, and not be original research, or original reporting.   Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for essays on interesting ides that people have. --BM 01:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BM - Doing an explicit edit of Talk:Maltheism (without redirects) shows that there is a redirect in that page to this one (Talk:Dystheism). That can easily be changed, I imagine, but you're right that an administrator should probably be the one to do this. Perhaps it's better to move this entire discussion to Talk:Eutheism_and_dystheism. (Just an idea.)

As for your comment regarding "not a single eutheist, dystheist, or maltheist":
 * 1) Robert Koons employed the terms eutheist and dystheist in his curriculum to describe opposing viewpoints about God, transcending the natural assumption that eutheism was a "default" for any and all beliefs about God. These terms are his and DAB saw his essay as a reasonable place to start. I would agree, and I think so far others here have agreed.
 * 2) The answer to the question of "who advocates eutheism" would be the majority of people in the world who worship a God they consider to be good. I think there are a lot of them. :-) Eutheism comprises the vast majority of religious beliefs in the world, as the majority of such beliefs assert the existence of a God who is good and more often that not a command to worship him. The answer to the question of "who advocates dystheism" (or who has put forth dystheist notions in their work) would not be a reference to some organized group. It does, however, include a list of people, virtually all referenced in some form in the larger article, ranging from Camus, Nietzsche, Wiesel, Blake, and Milton, to George Carlin and Woody Allen. Dystheistic thought is not unknown and the contention is that it's not isolated individual thought. It has a name given to it in an academic context—not that that necessarily legitimizes anything, but I think this is a legitimate enough topic to be given coverage.

I would concur with you, given your statements about original research, that given the lack of published work on the subject of Maltheism per se, including a Maltheism article here would be wrong. Again, someone take the initiative then to delete it. My father was just someone who wrote online and in local articles on this subject. He may have been the one who coined the word Maltheism, we never knew for sure. This is not about "immortalizing" my Dad's work on the pages of Wikipedia. It's about giving due coverage to the topic. I hope that's what the Eutheism and dystheism article achieves. Craig zimmerman 17:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess in the case of eutheism and dystheism, the more relevant question is not who advocates them, but rather who uses the terms. Also, I followed the link to Koons lecture, and in it dystheism and eutheism are introduced basically as footnotes in a lecture about the problem of evil, rather than full-blown positions. And, you know, in my opinion there are already several more articles than necessary on the problem of evil, which I had been hoping to merge one day. Perhaps Koons' point (and terms) should simply be added to one or more of those articles. --BM 18:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * BM - You say the relevant question is "who uses the terms." My answer is that almost nobody uses the terms because almost nobody knows there are any. The belief that God exists and is evil clearly exists, given the scattering of literary and philosophical voices who have considered the notion and said something on the subject, but barely has a name, meaning that the subject is going to be underdiscussed because nobody knows what to call it, because there are no encyclopedic references to it. Thus, no one uses any "term" for it because no one knows there are any terms for it because there are few if any references to such terms. This is the purpose of a reference source—to provide this sort of information, even if only "what's that thing called?"

 * While I agree that the problem of evil entry has grown like a hydra out of proportion, I would disagree that this subject can all be rolled into a single "problem of evil" entry. The problem of evil is the question that forms the basis of a need for theodicy, an explanation of why a benevolent omnipotent God would create evil, period. The notions of eutheism vs. dystheism include reference to the problem of evil but not just to that—the issues of alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and divine command theory also play a part. Conversely, the problem of evil concerns itself with eutheistic and dystheistic conceptions of God, but also comes back to issues like free will, the discipline of theodicy, etc.

I decided to rename the "Eutheism and dystheism" page to "Eutheism, dystheism, and maltheism", and to merge the content of this page there. In my mind, that is just a temporary, because the eventual place for all of this material, in my opinion, should be a single article on The problem of evil. --BM 21:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree, but my disagreement has nothing to do with dystheism or maltheism: more along the lines that the subject of the tentacles to the problem of evil article—"free will and the problem of evil", "theodicy" et al—are too much to squeeze into one space, for reasons already mentioned.

 * And thanks for cleaning up the talk pointers, I thought you were going to ask an administrator to do this but it looks like you put things in order. Craig zimmerman 23:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well?
after almost two years, we still have any evidence whatsoever that the term refers to more than an online essay, and that the term is in any way well-defined as distinct from dystheism. the "beliefnet introduction" is a user comment on their discussion board (and it is my distinct impression that you are linking to your own words, Craig)! If no sources and no respectable evidence is brought forward, I will finally redirect this to dystheism, it simply will not do to use Wikipedia as a host for personal essays on topics that already have perfectly good articles. dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Redirection to misotheism would be more apt. FFS, there's a WP for Russell Brand. Have a sense of proportion!!!79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of religious intolerance
I suggest that the bit referring to "the God we perceive" be edited. I don't know about you folks, but most people haven't in any sense perceived a god. 70.8.74.104 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Two responses: (a) what they meant of course is the God concept, not God Himself (itself, whatever). (b) I have never perceived God in your (correct) sense of the term, and do not believe others have. Nonetheless, I must allow for the possibility that other folks have ways towards knowledge that are closed to me. In other words, you and me may have the gnostic equivalent of colour blindness, with them not seeing why we don't see and us not understanding why they believe in their own fairytales.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to Satanism
The most popular forms of Satanism are Atheism. They do not advocate rebellion to "god" because they don't believe in it. It is rebelling against stupidity and authoritarian control. What people who are not Satanists believe is Satanism, is not the religion any more than what Christians believe Islam is.

 * That's just nonsense. Atheist do not believe in God, and most of them do not believe in Satan either. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby: not believing in God is not a belief, merely the total absence of it. Satanists tend to believe in both God and Satan, and worship the latter presumably because they believe Satan is a source of greater strength. However, it is incongruous to worship and serve a bad entity who does not care much for you. Now, the maltheist knows full well that God is evil and accordingly does not worship Him. Instead, the maltheist goes to Hell and mutters to himself: Figures. What else is new?

 * Autocorrect does not know the term maltheist, but supplies the correction malt heist. It may have a point there.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

replaced source
replaced belief net source with a google book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

After we spent years massaging what precious little evidence there is for this into an actual article at misotheism, who on earth would just recreate this as a clueless, unencyclopedic pseudo-article? Citing this as a reference? It doesn't get any sadder than this, surely. Then a webcomic artist is fooled by this abominable excuse for an encyclopedia article into using the term, and the fact is reported back as sort of confirmation of the term's existence? Sometimes the bleakness of human stupidity laid bare here on Wikipedia really gets to me. You can't make this up. Well you can try, as in xkcd, but reality will always be much harsher than the poets can imagine. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maltheism


text:
George Bellas Greenough

George Bellas Greenough FRS FGS (18 January 1778 – 2 April 1855) was a pioneering English geologist. He is best known as a synthesizer of geology rather than as an original researcher. Trained as a lawyer, he was a talented speaker and his annual addresses as founding president of the Geological Society of London were influential in identifying and guiding contemporary geological research. He also courted controversy, after using his presidential address in 1834 to cast aspersions on a paper on great earthquakes by Maria Graham. Greenough advocated an empirical approach to the early science; his scepticism of theoretical thinking courted controversy amongst some contemporaries, especially his doubts of the usefulness of fossils in correlating strata. He compiled a geological map of England and Wales, published in 1820, and in the penultimate year of his life used similar methods to produce the first geological map of British India. Greenough characterised himself as follows: ʻbright eyes, silver hair, large mouth, ears and feet; fondness for generalisation, for system and clearliness; great diligence, patience and zeal; goodnature but hasty; firmness of principle; hand for gardening.ʼ

Early life
Greenough was born in London, as George Bellas, named after his father, George Bellas, who had a profitable business in the legal profession as a proctor in Doctor's Commons, St Paul's Churchyard Doctors' Commons and some real estate in Surrey. His mother was the only daughter of the apothecary Thomas Greenough, whose very successful business was located on Ludgate Hill near to St Paul's. A younger brother died in infancy.

At the age of six he was orphaned with his father dying first, and the cause, recorded by Greenough in a biographical sketch, was 'By neglect of business, by carelessness, extravagance, dissipation and by party zeal, my father's fortune was soon squandered away—family dissention followed; his constitution was broken, his prospects blighted and he died of decline at Clifton in 1784'. His mother followed only a few months later.

He was adopted by his maternal grandfather, who had made a fortune through selling popular preparations, the most popular of which were "Pectoral Lozenge from Balsam of Tolu", for coughs and colds, and various tinctures for cleaning teeth and gums and curing tooth ache.

His grandfather sent him to Mr Cotton's school at Salthill near Slough and then to Eton at the age of ten. He stayed there only one year, suggesting he was perhaps too delicate a child for the robust life at the boarding schools of the day.

In September 1789 he entered Dr Thompson's school at Kensington where he studied for the next six years. Whilst he was at school he took the name Greenough at the request of his grandfather.

Education
He left school in 1795 and went up to Pembroke Hall, Cambridge to study law for three years, but he did not take a degree.

In September 1798, he went to the University of Göttingen to continue his legal studies, thinking that the lectures would be in Latin, but found instead they were all in German. In order to improve his language skills Greenough attended the lectures of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach on natural history and these inspired a passion for mineralogy and geology. At Göttingen Samuel Coleridge was one of his closer friends. A few years later, Greenough was instrumental in securing a government post for Coleridge during his period in Malta.

In 1799, Greenough made at least two tours of the Harz; one in the Easter vacation with Clement Carlyon and Charles and Frederic Parry; and the other in the late summer with Carlyon and Coleridge. These tours were mainly to collect minerals, but he also studied geological collections in the towns he visited. In 1801, Greenough returned to England and his interest in geology deepened when he toured England with Carlyon and met Humphry Davy in Penzance. Later he attended Davy's lectures at the Royal Institution in London. The following year he travelled to France and Italy and 'noted what I saw of geology on my way'. He went on a geological tour of Scotland with James Skene in 1805, and of Ireland with Davy in 1806. On the Ireland tour he also made a study of social conditions which aroused a deep interest in political questions.

Politics
1807 was a significant year for Greenough as this was the founding year of the Geological Society in which he deployed considerable political skill in its establishment and its subsequent organisation and debates on controversial aspects of the emerging science.

He was elected member of parliament for the ("rotten" ) borough of Gatton, continuing to hold this seat until 1812, although Hansard does not record he made any contributions to the House.

During the time he helped to found and forge the Geological Society, Greenough served in the militia in the Light Horse Volunteers of London and Westminster. This was a corps of volunteers, originated by a group of city businessmen, and rather than being paid for their services members had to pay to join and maintain an annual subscription. The unit has an obligation to be called out in support of the civil power when necessary. It was rather different from other regiments in organising itself democratically through a committee. All prospective members had to be proposed by one of the committee and if admitted all served as private soldiers, with officers elected by ballot. Greenough enlisted as a private soldier in 1803, but in 1808 he was elected a commissioned officer with the rank of Lieutenant and he served for the next 11 years. Greenough resigned his commission in 1819 as a matter of principle following the Peterloo massacre in Manchester, which he regarded as an abuse of military power for political ends. He published his resignation letters in The Morning Chronicle and The Times. Clearly, Greenough was a man of conscience.

Geology
In 1807 Greenough's interest in science in general, and geology in particular, increased : he joined a number of eminent scientific and cultural societies and he was elected fellow of the Royal Society. He also became associated with a group of mineralogists to which Davy referred in a letter to William Pepys, dated 13 November 1807, when he said 'We are forming a little talking Geological Club'. This club rapidly developed into a learned society devoted to geology and Greenough became the chief founder with others of the Geological Society of London. He was the first chairman of that Society, and in 1811, when it was more regularly constituted, he was the first president. In this capacity he served on two subsequent occasions, and did much to promote the advancement of geology.

In 1819, he published A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, a work which was useful mainly in refuting erroneous theories. In the following year, the Geological Society issued his famous Geological Map of England and Wales, in six sheets (published 1 May 1820, although the date 1 November 1819 appears on the map). A second edition was issued in 1840 (the date on this map is 1 November 1839) and a third edition was published in 1865. This map was the culmination of a major cooperative project of the early Geological Society, who had established a Committee of Maps in April 1809, led by Greenough. Members of the society out in the provinces of England and Wales submitted details of local rocks and strata which were collated by Greenough, entered in his notebooks and plotted on a topographical map. Greenough was an inductivist in the Baconian tradition, so he eschewed 'theory' and systematically collected information and details with the aim of discovering the distribution of rocks. Greenough received assistance in the collection of his geological facts chiefly from William Buckland, Reverend W. D. Conybeare, Henry Warburton, and Thomas Webster, and amongst others from Henry Thomas De la Beche, John Farey, the Rev. J. Hailstone, David Mushet, Thomas Biddle and Arthur Aikin.

A first draft of the geological map was presented to the Geological Society as early as 1812, but there was dissatisfaction with the quality of the engraving of the topographical map, resulting in the base map not being ready until 1814. In 1815, William Smith published his famous geological map and when Greenough finally published his map five years later it was clear he was heavily indebted to Smith's work in delineating strata (although not acknowledged and thus plagiarized until the 1865 edition); nevertheless Greenough's map contained more geological detail and was better cartographically. Smith had relied on a theory about the linear arrangement of strata identified by characteristic fossils to extrapolate from his observations (Smith himself was indebted to John Strachey's theory of strata for his ideas ), and so was able to map out the distribution of strata across the country. Greenough, on the other hand, did not go by theory, and this aversion was probably one of the factors that delayed the preparation of his map.

It has been claimed that Greenough and the Geological Society failed to work with William Smith in the production of a geological map due to snobbishness, but Rachel Lauden argues that a more compelling reason is that Greenough did not consider that fossils could reveal anything about the nature of rocks. Greenough (incorrectly) considered that fossils had been very overrated in their usefulness, as fossil species were different from modern species, so fossils could not be used to 'theorise' about or deduce the relative age and the conditions of deposition of the rocks. Indeed, he was suspicious of the concepts of 'stratum' and 'formation', much used by Smith. For this reason Greenough wanted to dissociate himself and the Geological Society map from the man who was using fossils to identify strata. Seemingly, Greenough had intellectual reasons rather than primarily social reasons for not collaborating with Smith. This did not, however, stop Greenough from using Smith's map as a source of material for the Geological Society's version of the map and there is debate about how much Smith's map influenced Greenough. Both maps now hang side by side on the main staircase in the entrance hall of The Geological Society apartments in Burlington House, London. An anonymous 1855 obituarist noted that Greenough's geology was based mainly on "mineralogical views" and that his habitual skepticism of new theories made him a "drag" on the progress of geological science.

A common narrative in some recent accounts of William Smith's life and his map asserts that rivalry built up between Greenough and Smith. However original sources point to this narrative not being the case and indicate Smith was used by John Farey Sr., another 'practical man'(i.e. mineral surveyor), to prosecute Farey's own grievances against the Geological Society in an article in The Philosophical Magazine by which he both started and fuelled the story that Smith was disrespected and there was ill-feeling towards him by the Geological Society men and Greenough in particular. In the following issue Greenough replied, publicly declaring his view as being non-antagonistic by stating: "Your correspondent considers me, in common with many other persons, actuated by feelings of hostility towards Mr. Smith. Now my feelings towards that gentleman are directly the reverse. I respect him for the important services he has rendered to geology, and I esteem him for the example of dignity, meekness, modesty, and candour, which he continually, though ineffectually, exhibits to his self-appointed champion."

Another common but misleading narrative in some recent accounts of Smith's map has Greenough's 1820 map undercutting the price and sales of Smith's map, thereby citing Greenough as a primary cause of landing Smith in Debtors' prison. However, Greenough's map could not have contributed to the debts for which Smith was consigned to prison as the Greenough map, although dated 1819 on the map, was not published until May 1820, after Smith's incarceration. In fact Smith's maps retailed at 5 guineas, which was the same price as that privileged to Geological Society members for purchase of the Greenough 1820 map. However the Greenough map retailed to public at 6 guineas, thereby being a more expensive purchase than Smith's map. Also, the number of sales of Smith's map appears to have topped those of Greenough's map (196 copies sold), although neither map sold well and there are only 15 names in common between Smith's subscribers' list and the list of those who bought the Geological Society's map. In 1843, he started to prepare a geological map of British India. This was possibly inspired by Roderich Murchison's presidential address in which he lamented the lack of a geological map of India. In 1852 Greenough produced a series of maps of Hindustan, mainly hydrographical, defining all the important elements of the ten water basins of the Indian Peninsula (for the Asiatic Society), and in 1854 a large-scale geological map of the whole of British India, published as a 'General Sketch of the Physical and Geological Features of British India. Greenough never visited India but much as he had done for his earlier maps of England and Wales, he compiled his map from scraps of information gathered from many observations of officers in the East India Company who were provided forms to submit. He was assisted in this effort by Colonel William Henry Sykes of the East India Company and sixty copies of the map were purchased by the company for distribution. One of Greenough's key strengths was his assiduous ability to collect and collate information for his empirical cause. However, this 'remote' method of map construction resulted in 53 errors on his India map, some topographical as well as geological and palaeontological, that were listed by a committee led by Thomas Oldham, Director of the Geological Survey of India, in 1856. Nevertheless, Greenough's geological map of India was a pioneering effort.

Greenough was an active supporter of many important learned scientific societies existing in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1831 he was one of the prime movers in establishing the British Association for the Advancement of Science (now the British Science Association). He helped found the Geographical Society of London in 1830 (later to become the Royal Geographical Society), being elected to its first council and serving as president from 1839 to 1841. Greenough was an early advocate for physical geography and the accurate delineation of physical features thereby "endeavouring to give a more scientific character to the proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society".

Greenough's connections and travels with Romantics of the period led to him realizing that artistic representations of physical features were imbued with emotional responses and representation which did not mix well with accuracy. On a trip through Switzerland in 1802 he noted that Mont Blanc is very difficult to reproduce artistically. He wrote: "A list of facts drawn up by a simple cold-blooded mathematician who has travelled through the country with his quadrant in his hand! may be better than a painter's sketch." Nevertheless, the influence of the Romantic poets is evident in his travels as his notebooks show how Greenough also found pleasure in allowing imagination and emotion to colour his response to grand landscapes.

Greenough followed the system of Sir Joseph Banks to have weekly open hours for scientific meetings at his residence (first in Parliament Street and later at Grove House).

Residence
In 1822 he built himself a villa in Regent's Park, designed by Decimus Burton, which was his home for the remainder of his life. In 1827 this was included in a series of drawings of villas in the park by Thomas H. Shepherd, although the dedication misspells the owner's name as "Greenhough". The house, now known as Grove House and structurally modified in the years since Greenough's death, stands on Prince Albert Road, NW1, with its gardens alongside the Regents Canal, which separates the property from the main part of the park.

Death and legacy
Greenough travelled on journeys to the continent throughout his life and at the age of 76 he set off for Italy and the East (Constantinople) with a view of connecting the geology of his researches on the geology of India with that of Europe, but he was taken ill en route with oedema ("dropsy"), probably caused by cardiac problems, and died at Naples on 2 April 1855. He is buried in Kensal Green Cemetery, North London. The grave lies on the south side of the main east–west path. A marble bust by Sir Richard Westmacott commissioned for one hundred pounds in 1842 is now in the Geological Society of London.

Greenough bequeathed his fossil collection to the Geology Department at University College London (UCL) and his notebooks are in the Greenough Papers collection held at UCL Library. The student geological society at UCL is named after Greenough.

The Greenough River in Western Australia was so-named in 1839 by Captain George Grey, after Greenough sponsored his exploration north of Perth. Successful wheat production in the area helped establish the small town of Greenough.

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

title: George Bellas Greenough


text: User talk:68.119.31.205

title: User talk:68.119.31.205


text:
Chris Byrd

Christopher Cornelius Byrd (born August 15, 1970) is an American former professional boxer who competed from 1993 to 2009. He is a two-time world heavyweight champion, having first won the WBO title in 2000 after an upset corner stoppage over then-undefeated Vitali Klitschko. In his first title defense later that year, he lost to Vitali's brother Wladimir Klitschko. In 2002, Byrd defeated Evander Holyfield to win the IBF heavyweight title for his second reign as world champion. He made four successful defenses until losing his title again to Wladimir Klitschko in a 2006 rematch. He was ranked by BoxRec in the world's top 10 heavyweight from 1998 to 2004, reaching his highest ranking of No.3 in 2000.

As an amateur, Byrd represented the United States at the 1992 Summer Olympics and won a silver medal in the middleweight division. He is also a three-time national amateur champion, winning the light middleweight title in 1989, and the middleweight title in 1991 and 1992.

Early life
Chris Byrd was the youngest of eight children growing up in Flint, Michigan. He began boxing at age 5, training in his father's (Joe Sr.) Joe Byrd Boxing Academy. His father continued to train and manage Byrd as a professional. Byrd attended Flint Northwestern High School.

Amateur career
Byrd began competing in the ring at age 10, since then he had 285 amateur fights in various weight classes, compiled an impressive record of 275 wins, 10 losses. He was a three-time U.S. amateur champion (1989, 1991, and 1992). He was on the 1991 U.S. National boxing Team that became the first (and only) U.S. team to score a tie against the heralded Cuban team. Byrd won the silver medal in the 1992 Barcelona summer Olympics as a middleweight, losing to Cuba's Ariel Hernández in the final.

Amateur highlights

 * Lost in the 1988 Olympic Trials at Light Welterweight, losing to eventual United States representative Todd Foster.
 * 1989 United States Amateur Light Middleweight Champion
 * 1990 Goodwill Games in Seattle, lost to Torsten Schmitz (East Germany) on points, in Light Middleweight competition.
 * 1991 United States Amateur Middleweight Champion
 * 1991 World Championships, lost at Middlweight to Ramon Garbey (Cuba)
 * 1992 United States Amateur Middleweight Champion
 * 1992 Middleweight Gold Medalist at Canada Cup. Results were:
 * Justin Crawford (Australia) won on points
 * Joe Laryea (Ghana) won on points
 * Igor Anashkin (Russia) won on points
 * 1992 Qualified as a Middleweight at the Olympic Trials in Worcester, MA. Results were:
 * Derrick James won on points
 * William Joppy won on points
 * Mike DeMoss won on points
 * Eric Carr won on points, this bout was at the Olympic Box-Offs in Phoenix, AZ*
 * Captured the Middleweight Silver Medal at the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games. Results were:
 * Mark Edwards (Great Britain) 21-3
 * Alexander Lebziak (Russia/Unified Team) 16-7
 * Ahmed Dine (Algeria) 21-2
 * Chris Johnson (Canada) 17-3
 * Ariel Hernandez (Cuba) 7-12

1993–1998: early career
Byrd turned professional on January 28, 1993, knocking out 10 of his first 13 opponents. Byrd moved up to heavyweight three fights into his professional career.

Byrd remained undefeated for his first 26 fights, knocking off then-notable opponents like Phil Jackson, Lionel Butler, Uriah Grant, Bert Cooper, Craig Peterson, Frankie Swindell, Jimmy Thunder, undefeated Eliecer Castillo and Ross Puritty.

1999: Byrd vs. Ibeabuchi, comeback victories
However, in 1999, Byrd's undefeated record came to a dead end when he fought undefeated Ike Ibeabuchi. With 48 seconds left in the fifth round, a left-handed bolo punch followed with a right hook sent Byrd to the canvas, face first.

2000: first world title, facing the Klitschkos
During the last week of March 2000, Byrd was offered the chance to be the replacement (for Donovan Ruddock) against undefeated champion Vitali Klitschko in Berlin, Germany (Klitschko's adopted home country) for the WBO Heavyweight Title. He therefore had only seven days to prepare for the fight (not the customary 6–12 weeks). Byrd was trailing after nine rounds by scores of 88–83 (on two cards) and 89–82 (on one card), i.e. losing seven or eight of those rounds. However, Byrd was arguably Vitali's most difficult opponent as he landed clean shots and made him miss regularly, resulting Klitschko severely injured his shoulder and being unable to continue after the ninth round. The injury that Klitschko suffered was a torn shoulder rotator cuff, which required major surgery and a 7-month lay-off. Despite trailing on all three of the judges' scorecards, Byrd walked away the winner by a technical knockout due to the injury to Klitschko. While most consider this a fluke win for Byrd, nobody (including Lennox Lewis) gave Vitali a more difficult fight before that and since. Vitali landed at a much lower percentage and while he threw more, Byrd almost landed as many punches as him.

Six months later, Byrd was back in Germany to defend the title against Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali's younger, more agile brother. Twelve rounds later, Byrd had lost a lopsided unanimous decision and the WBO belt after being knocked down twice.

2001–2002: comeback victories, second world title
Byrd returned to the U.S., signed with Don King and beat Maurice Harris to win the United States Boxing Association heavyweight belt in Madison Square Garden. He was now a top-five contender for the IBF title. After winning his next match (a title defense against New Zealand's top contender David Tua) Byrd eventually received his mandatory shot at the vacant IBF world Heavyweight Championship against Evander Holyfield in Atlantic City. On December 14, 2002, Byrd won a unanimous decision and the IBF title.

2003–2005: four successful title defenses
Byrd has successfully defended the IBF belt against: Fres Oquendo in 2003, a highly entertaining draw with Andrew Golota and a decision win over friend Jameel McCline in 2004, and DaVarryl Williamson in 2005. Byrd's fight with Golota did 75,000 buys on pay-per-view.

2006: Klitschko rematch
On April 22, 2006, Byrd faced Wladimir Klitschko for the second time. Byrd was making his fifth defense of his IBF title and the fight was also sanctioned by the International Boxing Organization for its title, which had been vacated upon the retirement of Lennox Lewis. The fight took place at SAP Arena in Mannheim, Germany. Byrd was heavily dominated throughout the fight, was down in the fifth, and again in the seventh. Referee Wayne Kelly stopped the fight after the second knockdown when Byrd had an open cut near his eyes. Klitschko won in a TKO.

2007–2010: Povetkin bout, move to light heavyweight, and retirement
After losing to Alexander Povetkin, Byrd would drop about 40 pounds to return to the light heavyweight division. He fought Shaun George on May 16, 2008, at the Thomas and Mack Center in Las Vegas. Byrd was dropped by George in round one and rocked again in round two. George then hammered Byrd with his right hand at will, finally flooring Byrd twice in the ninth round. Byrd beat the count after the first knockdown, but was then battered down again and the bout was waved off by the referee.

In 2010, Byrd officially announced his retirement from boxing.

Life outside boxing
Byrd hosts a weekly video podcast, entitled "Byrd's Eye View", which showcases former boxers as well as current professional and champion-level fighters.

Additional information

 * Byrd's hometown is Flint, Michigan, where he trained along with his brother Patrick Byrd and sister Tracy Byrd. Byrd's other sister, Laurie Byrd, is a professional basketball coach. Byrd is also a first cousin of Lamon Brewster, himself a former world heavyweight champion and two-time Klitschko opponent.
 * Byrd's corner consisted entirely of family members.
 * Byrd made an appearance in the 2008 documentary Beyond the Ropes.
 * Byrd also makes an appearance in the 2011 documentary Klitschko, in which he discusses his trio of title bouts with the brothers.

title: Chris Byrd


text:
Talk:JJ Redick

Italicized title
Just asking: why has this article's title remained italicized? Bagoto (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Mind the Game
JJ Redick has started a podcast with LeBron James titled Mind the Game. Dialmayo 19:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Head Coach of the Los Angeles Lakers
JJ Redick is officially the head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5573570/2024/06/20/jj-redick-lakers-coach-contract/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.85.200.229 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * lol I mentioned this because it was being reported literally everywhere and Wiki editors refused to accept it.. and guess who was right? Look at your life. You spend all this time editing Wikipedia.. and for what? 136.26.124.59 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
Lakers Head Coach 50.220.203.226 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ unclear what change you want made and no source. S0091 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2024
JJ is now the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers which should be mentioned in the introduction paragraph. 108.252.172.74 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

New coach
New coach of the Los Angeles Lakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhotsouth22 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:JJ Redick


text:
Talk:Sad iPod

Is there any reason that this shouldn't be merged with iPod? I see that the merge is disputed, but no reason why. Joyous 22:24, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one, support the merge. --Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Placed the info into iPod and changed this to a redirect to that article. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see no mention of the Sad iPod in the current iPod article, and feel that this would be better suited to redirect to the Sad Mac page, so I'm doing that now. — Jeremy Banks Talk  02:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sad iPod


text:
Talk:Premature ejaculation

Source cited has a conflict of interest.
Freudians claimed that premature ejaculation could be cured using psychoanalysis. But even years of psychoanalysis accomplished little, if anything, in curing premature ejaculation. The source cited is a self-help manual claiming to teach how to cure premature ejaculation. There is an obvious conflict of interest regarding the book in question referring to other treatments as being ineffective; a better source regarding the effectiveness or lack hereof of psychoanalysis with regards to curing premature ejaculation.

Edit: Disregard this paragraph, read Kaplan's Wikipedia entry.

title: Talk:Premature ejaculation


text:
Talk:Forster's tern

Untitled
Correct taxonomy for this species is: Order Charadriiformes, Family Laridae, Subfamily Sterninae, Genus Sterna.

Ron Landskroner Oakland, CA

 * not so, some regional areas may use this, but American isn't the same as correct, jimfbleak 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Page engvar
Currently mixed (grey, centre; coloring, behavior); the page should be edited to make it MOS:CONSISTENT. Although the page started with en-gb, I'd propose en-us as the standard for the page given the species' MOS:TIES to the USA (where the great bulk of its population occurs), and will edit so in the next few days if no objections - MPF (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Forster's tern


text:
Teeline Shorthand

Teeline is a shorthand system developed in 1968 by James Hill, a teacher of Pitman Shorthand. It is accepted by the National Council for the Training of Journalists, which certifies the training of journalists in the United Kingdom.

It is mainly used for writing English within the Commonwealth of Nations, but can be adapted for use by other Germanic languages such as German and Swedish. Its strength over other forms of shorthand is fast learning, and speeds of up to 150 words per minute are possible, as it is common for users to create their own word groupings, increasing their speed.

Writing style
Teeline shorthand is a streamlined way to transcribe the spoken word quickly by removing unnecessary letters from words and making the letters themselves faster to write. Vowels are often removed when they are not the first or last letter of a word, and silent letters are also ignored. Common prefixes, suffixes, and letter groupings (such as "sh" and "ing") are reduced to single symbols. The symbols themselves are derived from old cursive forms of the letters, with unnecessary parts removed. Unlike phonetics-based shorthands, such as Pitman, Teeline is a spelling-based system.

Alphabet
Teeline differs from many shorthand systems by basing itself on the alphabet as opposed to phonetics, making it simpler to learn but also carrying the speed limitations of the alphabet when compared to other systems. However, it is common to find some phonetics spellings used. For example, ph is often just written as an f, so the word phase would be written as if it were spelt fase. This coincides with the creator's intentions of streamlining it as much as possible. As with many shorthand systems, there are few strict rules on how to write it, so it is common for users to make personal adaptations for their own use. Certain letters also have specific meanings as well as their traditional alphabetic value, as shown in the table below.

Note: there may also be some regional, dialectal, and linguistic additions to these.

Writing technique
Teeline eliminates unnecessary letters, so that the remaining letters can be written in one swift, sweeping movement. People who use it daily will run words together: proficient users develop their own forms for common phrases, such as "more and more people" and "in the end".

It is possible to write most words using basic Teeline theory, which consists of the alphabet and vowel indicators, but learning advanced Teeline theory allows users to increase their speed to well in excess of 100 words per minute.

Examples of Teeline theory include blending of letters (such as CM, CN and PL) and the R principle.

Doubling is also commonly used in Teeline - this involves lengthening the outlines for D, T, L, M and W to indicate that an R comes after these outlines - for example, the "D" outline becomes "DR" when it is lengthened, and "M" becomes "MR".

Speed can be dramatically increased through the use of reduced suffixes and prefixes that occur frequently, such as "under-", "multi-" and "trans-", along with "-nce", "-nch", "-able" and "-ing".

Adaptations
Although Teeline is used primarily in English, it has been adapted to other languages in the past, namely Welsh, French, German, and Spanish,.

Notable users
Alastair Campbell used Teeline to write his diaries while serving as spokesman for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. He has claimed to have 120 wpm ability. Campbell's tutor later reported that he was first in his class, reaching 100 wpm before others. But journalist and media commentator Roy Greenslade has questioned the value of shorthand in the digital era, noting an instance where a reporter's scrawl could not be read by a court-appointed expert. British MP Meg Hillier has said she wields Teeline at 100 wpm and is wary of any reporter who fires questions at her faster than she herself could jot down. Jon Harris of Cavendish Press says training programmes that omit Teeline are short-changing their trainees. "Shorthand makes for a more rounded reporter; yet without it some of these courses are just 'Del Boy' degrees," he told the UK Press Gazette.

In popular culture
Teeline appears on the cover of the album The Gaelic Chronicles by The Budapest Café Orchestra. Fiddler Christian Garrick said he was astounded to find a reporter using shorthand during an interview, and asked her to scrawl the words for the album cover.

Teeline is referenced in "You're with us now", the sixth episode of the second season of the American television show Hanna, as a journalist's method for keeping notes that cannot be easily read by others.

It supplies a clue in episode 6 of series 7 of the Anglo-French TV show Death in Paradise entitled "Meditated in Murder".

title: Teeline Shorthand


text:
Stephen Bungay

Stephen Francis Bungay (born 2 September 1954) is a British management consultant, historian and author, and the Director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre at Hult International Business School.

Biography
Bungay received an MA with First Class Honours from Oxford and studied for a doctorate in philosophy at Oxford and the University of Tübingen in Germany, where he was a Research Fellow of the Humboldt Foundation. He worked in the London and Munich offices of The Boston Consulting Group for seventeen years and worked in insurance before joining the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre. He teaches on several executive programmes at Ashridge Executive Education program at Hult International Business School, and works as an independent consultant, teacher and speaker. He published his first book on military history, The Most Dangerous Enemy – A History of the Battle of Britain, in 2000. His second history book, Alamein, was published in 2002. Since 2004 he has also been a contributor to television programmes including the Channel 4 series Spitfire Ace.

Personal life
He married Atalanta Beaumont in 1987, the daughter of Tim Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley. They have two sons born in 1990 and 1994.

Publications

 * Beauty and Truth: a Study of Hegel's Aesthetics (1984) ISBN 0-19-815540-9
 * The Most Dangerous Enemy: a History of the Battle of Britain (2001) ISBN 1-85410-801-8
 * Alamein (2002) ISBN 1-85410-842-5
 * The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results (2010) ISBN 978-1-85788-559-0

title: Stephen Bungay