text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 12

Comments

 * Adraeus You are trying to run this like a project and I dont think this is at all realistic, you could of course distribute a gant chart :) --Nick-in-South-Africa 10:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC).

 * Agreed. Managing an article in this way is not the wiki model, the wiki model is a much more evolutionary one. A timeframe like this is a waterfall model, which doesn't work in software, and I don't think is most effective here. Shane King 10:13, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nick: This is a project. Adraeus 00:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Knowing the history of this article and Talk page, literally no progress in 10 months due to obstructionism of one form or another, I can see why Adraeus proposes this method. The current process in play here is a recipe for more of the same. I would support moving to this process for this instance if a majority of the other participants agree.--FeloniousMonk 18:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Shane: There is no "wiki model"; currently, our efforts are not organized and are thus ineffective at producing results. This article has suffered a failed dispute resolution, a failed attempt to acquire arbitration, and an indefinite protected status. Now is time to try something new, more professional, and more focused. By the way, research evolution because your "wiki model" is certainly not evolutionary. Also, research the waterfall model, which is consistently used in product development successfully. I should know since providing strategic branding solutions is my business. Learn about project management too. Adraeus 00:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, looking at the edit history, that's due to people getting into edit wars (sometimes over what really amounts to next to nothing) far too often. I think the only way to counter that is to be more, not less, liberal in assuming good faith, and letting things develop wiki style. Instead of edit warring when something disagreeable to someone appears on the page, how about we take a policy of leaving it alone for a while and seeing how it plays out in the long run?

 * Trying to do things the way they're supposed to be done on a wiki is so crazy it just might work! ;) Shane King 23:22, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * The ignorance of the critics of this procedure is sickening. If anyone is interested in actually completing this article, please contact me. Adraeus 00:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Adraeus I am critical of it and I'm sorry that my 'ignorance' is 'sickening' for you :) however I don’t feel at all obliged not to disagree with you just because it may be sickening for you, so I  apologize in advance for any resulting nausea.

 * Putting the emotional and distinctly unsavory tone aside for a moment. If you want to change the Wikipedia MO I suspect you would have a better chance motivating for this at a Meta level or possibly starting a proof of concept afresh with another article on a different topic rather than doing so on an existing article in the middle of a dispute. Your model requires a collaborative team and an appointed or de-facto co-ordinator. Such a model has been used to develop the topic of Buddhism in Wikipedia but not with the detailed Project plan approach that you propose which I think simply unrealistic. Regardless  I for one would not accept you as the co-ordinator or project manager, simply because of your confrontational tone--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia M.O.? M.O.? What M.O.? There is no M.O. Your critique is unsubstantiated; thus, irrelevant. You believe that projects shouldn't be organized. Without organization, nothing will result from this discussion. FeloniousMonk made the problem clear, there has been literally no progress in 10 months. Now is time for a change in the way we're working. I realize that you disdain change and label anything you don't like unrealistic but let's set aside your petty grievances and finish the article collaboratively. If not, then the article will remain protected for as long as there exists dispute on this page.

 * By the way, tone is how you perceive it. You must have a sixth sense if you can hear my tone by reading plain text. Adraeus 08:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Adreus, I do indeed percieive your tone to be unecessarily abrassive simply because that's how it was written and as long as you keep it up I will keep pointing it out to you until you tap back and are a tad more civil in your interraction. Your tone is to me and dare I say others a barrier to communication and militates against 'good faith'. A little civility even in disagreement helps folks get along and consensus is more likely, more this is Wiki policy to which we are all subject.

 * Re The achievement in the last 10 Months it has simply been a blocking exercise preventing POV Theists such as Sam Spade imposing their agenda and bias on the article. Re Wiki MO you are right there is no hard and fast MO it's a development by chaos model, that is the MO! Your comment that "I realise you distain change" is a massive generalisation completely without any kind of support. As for your charge that I label anything I don’t like as "unrealistic", again your charge was a massive generalisation easy given the lie by scrolling back and reading what I've written. The unrealistic comment was simply a considered view on a specific issue and was made as such, nothing more and this view is as legitimate as yours. Please take a little more care with your debating technique specifically your use of unfounded generalisation and sweeping statements, this sort of thing is more than abrasive it’s not intellectually honest  --Nick-in-South-Africa 09:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No, Sam Spade has not been this article's primary troubles.
 * This article's primary troubles are caused by those whom rely on subjective and fanciful ideas about atheism and ignore academic research.
 * I certainly did not suppose a "massive" and "unfounded generalization" and I did not write any "intellectually dishonest and more-than-abrasive sweeping statements." Your opposition to change is readily apparent to anyone with a clear mind whom cares to look.
 * Explain how the proposed structure for atheism's collaborative methodology is "unrealistic." Explain. EXPLAIN. If you continue to dance around your responsibility to provide evidence to support your opposition and if you continue to lecture me regarding policy and how you think I should write, I'll merely deem your opinions unworthy of my consideration. Adraeus 10:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Iused Sam as an example, not the only case so I suspect that we are in agreement here
 * Agreed and Id expand that to include common usage
 * I beg to differ but I’m quite happy to drop it however feel free to cite specific examples of my ubiquitous opposition to change
 * No I will not "EXPLAIN" futher than I have done thus far because I am not your subordinate and I do not appreciate the command imperative (this point has been made before by Jwrosenzweig) secondly the lofty tone in "I'll merely deem you opinions unworthy of my consideration" is absolutely fine by me.....feel free go for it. Myself, I reserve the right to judge each case, point and argument on it's merit and react as I see fit --Nick-in-South-Africa 11:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Explain further than you have done? You haven't explained at all. You made a quick, substanceless statement, "You are trying to run this like a project and I dont think this is at all realistic..." I replied, "This is a project." You did not explain how a process such as my proposal is unrealistic. I'll demonstrate the amibiguous style: Nick, your disagreement is faulty. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Adraeus Your confrontational, highly abrasive style has been explicitly commented on by 3 here so far, it was initially pointed out to you extremely politely by Jwrosensweig. He bent over backwards to do this in a way that gave your ego ample consideration. I started off pointing it out gently and directly after this when you carried on with the abrasive style. Now it seems you are becoming more rather than less confrontational and are seemingly letting your emotions get the better of you and upping the ante rather than gently taking on board the message and adjusting your style in subsequent messages to be a tad more considerate and civil to others. This is all of course taking us off the issue in question even though it seems on the subject matter - the definition of 'atheism' you and I are in broad agreement. I for one would much appreciate it if you were more civil in your style this would I posit greatly help in generating a productive and co-operative atmosphere. You can of course respond to this message by further upping the ante and come back 'belching fire'. Before you do please give thought if this is a good use of time or will help. If you do come back 'belching fire' as per Wikipedia policy of asking for help, by way of pre-emption I humbly request that others, even if they disagree with me on the subject matter of the description of atheism to support me here on the specific matter of Adraeus' abrasive tone. --Nick-in-South-Africa 11:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nick: I'm not going to bother commenting as I prefer not to be baited into a flame war. Good day. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no "standard wiki approach." Wiki is merely software that creates a medium within which users may collaborate. There is no "wiki model." Adraeus 01:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe there exists a community that use the software, not just the software itself. That community has formed policies (eg Assume good faith, Be bold, Three revert rule, etc) that guide how editing is to be done. Beyond that, there are also customs and conventions, although not set in stone as official policy, that are generally followed. When I say "wiki model", I mean the model in use here at wikipedia. Other wikis differ somewhat, but I thought the fact I was referring to this site was implicit - I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious, I will make

a greater effort not to assume in the future. Shane King 02:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no "wiki model" that describes how articles should be constructed. Wikipedia leaves the responsibility to organize in the hands of users. Adraeus 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Instead of calling people's ignorance sickening, can we try to be constructive here? Why do you feel the procedure would be better than the standard wiki approach? Please, aim to inform us, I'd like to hear why you think this way. Shane King 01:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Instead of posting irrelevant and factually ignorant opinions, can you try to be constructive? Why do you feel the chaotic so-called "hit-and-run"-wiki-approach is better than an organized system designed for intense focus and efficiency? Please, aim to inform us, I'd like... well, actually, I don't care why you think this way. Practice what you preach. Adraeus 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Adraeus, My you really do have a notably abrasive tone! This barrier to communication aside, the chaotic hit and run approach is how Wikipedia has been built thus far and its done pretty well. I do take issue with some of the policy and aim to motivate at a Meta level. Remember most folks here are doing this for interest and fun and many valuable and knowledgeable contributors would not want to be marshaled thus. --Nick-in-South-Africa 08:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I take issue with your confrontational style. I'm not the only one asking you to tone it down here. I don't think we can make progress unless we try to build common ground rather than being in each other's face. I really don't think calling other people ignorant is helping that. As Nick states, wikipedia has worked thus far based on the chaotic model. It may seem counter intuitive, but it's worked remarkably well. I see no reason to abandon that model, in fact as I've already stated I think this page's failure to move forward is mostly due to not following the ideals closely enough.

 * If you think policy is wrong, I respect that: I think most of us disagree with at least some part of it. However, choosing to unilaterally take it into you own hands to change policy is not the way things are usually done: see How to create policy.

 * Keep in mind that we're all trying to do the same thing: create a good encyclopedia article. We have our differences in opinion as to what that article might look like, but that's helpful: a good article needs those differences of opinion to become really strong. So I suggest that we assume good faith and try to work together on the article, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Shane King 09:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Calling someone ignorant and describing someone's opinions as ignorant are different. Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.
 * Wikimedia built the MediaWiki (Wikipedia) software using software development methodologies.
 * Many featured articles may have been constructed without a focused method; however, many featured articles are not nearly as complex as atheism.
 * The typical hit-and-run contributive style clearly isn't working for atheism. Again, now is time to alter the way we work in order to complete this article.
 * Policy is irrelevant to the organizational structure I've proposed. Policy does not dictate how articles should be composed. There is no "wiki model." There is no attempt to change policy.
 * The organizational structure I've proposed will facilitate collaboration.
 * Again, don't twist my words to suit your agenda! I have not personally attacked you. Quite frankly, I'm tired of you claiming so. Adraeus 10:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You've told me on this very page "The ignorance of the critics of this procedure is sickening.", "After all, an argument with a believer cannot be won.", "further explanation isn't required for a rational person to comprehend.", "Perhaps you're better suited for a theistic worldview.", "I think it's unfortunate that you learned nothing in our roundabout discussions which is apparently indicative that you have faith in your misperceptions and are therefore not subject to change.", and so on. If these do not qualify as personal attacks, I have no idea what does.

 * But at the end of the day, there's plenty of things I'd rather be doing that talking about an article. Like editing articles and actually getting somewhere. My personal philosophy on wikipedia is that you should discuss things, but if you can't change someone's mind, just give up and let them do what they want to do. Three things can happen:

 * They do a good job and you're pleasantly surprised,
 * They do a bad job, in which case everyone sees it and the author loses credibility, or
 * They tire of the idea and don't actually follow through on it, in which case it all didn't matter anyway.

 * So I give up and hope what you want to do manages to fit into category 1. If not, I'm confident the wikipedia process will ensure a good result is obtained in the end anyway. In any event, I wish you the best of luck, and look forward to reading whatever gets produced. Shane King 10:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * "The ignorance [of the critics] of this procedure is sickening." Hardly a personal attack unless you consider knowing that you lack basic knowledge of this procedure offensive.
 * "After all, an argument with a believer cannot be won." True statement. Have you ever tried to convince a priest that his faith is irrational? Have you ever tried to convince Sam Spade that his opinions about atheism are incorrect and extremely theistic?
 * "Perhaps you're better suited for a theistic worldview." Perhaps you are and perhaps you are not. A person subject to belief is subject to any belief.
 * "Further explanation isn't required for a rational person to comprehend." True statement. I've shown our discussions and this article to many eminent philosophers, scientists and activists in the atheist community. What commonly binds them is that they agree with me.
 * "I think it's unfortunate..." I do. I really do. If that's ad hominem, I'm St. John. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll rejoin this debate when Adraeus leaves. He's just too abrasive for me.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * What debate, Noisy? Thus far, we've achieved nothing--a neverending discussion of the same topics of weeks and months ago--ten months of riding a Merry-Go-Round. Debate? Certainly not. I proposed a process that would facilitate collaboration at the highest level of efficiency with the goal of producing a article worthy of being featured. I received brash and hasty criticism complete with factual errors and logically fallacious claims. I'm definitely not the problem. I left for a week and still nothing was accomplished. You are at a dead-end and you don't realize it yet. Now is time to turn back and try another route, not attack members of the group because you can't find a way through the granite wall in front of you. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reset the tabs because it's really getting painful to read. Plus I haven't been here as long as other people have, so I hope that I don't get any false impressions. I will make several conclusions:

 * 1) What has happened is Adreus has proposed a new model for this article in order to get it out of it's stagnation. This has resulted in large amounts of objection from other members, and inflamed into an argument of it's own: Is a Waterfall Model more suitable than a Chaos Model? Both sides have produced many arguments, although:
 * 2) Adreus has given other members the impression that he is too abrasive. This has diluted the argument with many comments that he ought to cool down.

I believe these are the two main arguments that have stemmed in this Comments section. It's really not a comments section, it's more of an argument for Adreus's waterfall approach. What have both sides produced?

Pro-Waterfall
 * Chaos hasn't worked for this article, this is a new approach
 * Lack of organization from Chaos is main reason for failure, therefore Waterfall is the correct way to reapproach problem
 * Waterfall has worked in many external environments
 * Main reason for opposition is resistance to change

Pro-Chaos
 * Chaos actually will work if we let it run long enough.
 * Main problem is the POV Theists, not organization
 * Chaos has worked for rest of Wikipedia (including other controversial topics), so why not here?
 * Follow Wikipedia MO guidelines

And one Pro-Chaos reason that really isn't a reason, Adreus is too abrasive. Such a recurring theme. I think everyone is too abrasive, but I'm not going to say that because then I'd get flamed or something.

I think we're arguing about the wrong things. Both sides agree that the indefinite block is unacceptable. Adreus has presented us a way to unblock Atheism and get it working again. If this proposal is unacceptable, then let us find another proposal: Unblock Atheism and let it run its natural course. Do not argue against Adreus' proposal, argue for your proposal.

I am so going to get flamed for this attempt at diplomacy. Oh well. :-) Have a nice day. Ambush Commander 20:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that there are many "models" for the evolution of wiki articles and for the resolution of a dispute.
 * However, the "model" of this article seems to be that one person (Adreus) and a sysop have combined, using the sysop's power to mark the article as "protected", to take control of an article, and to dictate the terms on which the article will evolve.
 * The freeze needs to come off immediately, and the procedures for editing this article need to revert to Wikipedia norms.   Who is the article being "protected" from? BM 14:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The most recent protection comes of a dispute on whether or not a "Controversial" header versus an "Attention" and "POV + Factuality Dispute" header was appropriate (basically a petty revert war). Somehow, I don't think that was the real dispute. I'm looking into the other page changes right now. Ambush Commander 18:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're going to speak ill of me, at least spell my username correctly!! By the way, the article was being protected from the POV Warriors. Looks like I'll have to come back now to defend the article from the likes of Sam Spade. Adraeus 15:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Implicit Atheism
I just noticed that some asshole had deleted the title of a comment section that I started earlier on this talk page called "Implicit Atheism." I'm assuming that person's POV conflicted with the term implicit atheism and he/she wanted to remove it from the table of contents so that people wouldn't notice it. Being that there is a large new thread on babies without a single mention of the term "implicit atheism," I'm a bit peeved.

It was deleted by somebody with IP address "198.54.202.115". Here is the diff of the vandalism:
 * Allowing editing by folks not signed on makes this sort of thing rather inevitable, given the amount of vandalism I think this policy should be re-considered and only signed on users allowed to make edits--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It was you wasn't it Nick! The IP address traces back to a South African ISP .  Also, many of the edits done by "198.54.202.115" were edits on stuff that you had already signed:      Plus here is one edit by "198.54.202.115" with your name signed in the edit: .  Why did you do that? UVwarning 03:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Im not sure if or what I am being accused of but let me make clear My name is not, I dont know the fellow. My name really is Nick, yes I am really in South Africa, no I do not vandalise articles, as it happens I agree with the etymological broad encompassing the weak/ passive definition of the term 'atheism' everything I've written is consistent with that.--Nick-in-South-Africa 09:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The somebody is, kind enough to author a vanity page on WP which links to his website. Try a traceroute. Is pretty conclusive evidence. (20040302 11:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * Not conclusive but compelling. If I did do this it was by accident and I have no idea of how it occurred, no content was removed only a title and if anything this mitigates against my position which should tend to support the fact that there was no ill will. The reason it is not conclusive is that I do have a dynamically allocated IP address so it will tend to be different every time I bounce my DSL modem and somebody else could have picked up the same IP address at the same exchange. I don’t know how Roy Blumenthal was dragged into this, that most certainly is not me.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 20040302 thought that it was b/c someone with your IP edited the wikipedia article on (Most likely you). I have no reason to believe that you removed the implicit atheism title on purpose.  You have shown no motivation for that, so it seems reasonable to assume that it was an accident.  No hard feelings.  In the future I would suggest posting only while logged on.  That would help avoid confusions like these.  UVwarning 18:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I didnt kwow existed and most definitely hadnt visited the Wiki Article on him. I suspect that this was as a result of the dynamic IP address thing, he is probably on the same exchange as he is so Geographically close. I agree that I should only post when signed on, I pretty much always do this, only when Ive been timed out without realising it does this go astray sometimes. Also I suggest jumping to conclussions and throwing words like 'asshole' around too hastily is similarly perhaps not the best policy. Sure no hard feelings. --Nick-in-South-Africa 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You're right. I was upset obviously, but that was perhaps not the best policy.  My appologies. UVwarning 19:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is the important info copied (this is from alt.atheism FAQ):

Notes:*On Weak Atheism "This is often understood as simply lacking the belief in the existence of gods. But it is different from implicit atheism in the respect that the weak atheist calls him- or herself an atheist. The weak atheist does have an attitude towards theism, namely a sceptical one: he or she questions the validity and possibility of theistic claims."

Various types of atheism.
 * Atheist: one who lacks belief in the existence of gods
 * 1) Implicit atheist: one who hasn't heard of theism
 * 2) Explicit atheist: one who knows that he is an atheist
 * 3) Weak (or negative) atheist: one who is sceptical about the belief in gods.
 * 4) Strong (or positive) atheist: one who actively rejects the existence of gods. UVwarning 00:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Not all people who would fall into the "explicit atheist" category necessarily identify as atheists. -Sean Curtin 04:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's an important point, plenty of folks who fall within the well supported broad definition of negative or weak atheism would avidly deny this and would not choose to use the term to describe themselves. This is a common phenomenon the fact that an individual does not like a term does not of itself mean it is not an accurate and appropriate term. If the definition can be supported (and the broad definition of atheism has been well supported in these here parts) and one falls within the ambit of that definition then it is applicable whether one likes it or not. Plenty who describe themselves as agnostic and pointedly avoid using the term atheist to self describe are in fact weak atheists, hell plenty of self declared agnostics make it as strong or positive atheists. --Nick-in-South-Africa 10:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Is there a difference between implicit atheism and agnosticism? Sextus 22:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. Agnosticism is a positive assertion, whereas implicit atheism is an absence of a particular belief. In fact, agnosticism isn't even on the same axis as atheism/theism. Whereas "atheism" and "theism" describe the presence or absence of the belief in the existence of gods, "agnosticism" is a completely different subject (i.e. whether it's possible to know). --Yath 22:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Carvaka and Jainism Atheistic?
I wanted to add one point. The major school of atheism that existed in India was Carvaka. Contemporary atheistic religion in India is Jainism, which however affirms an ethical code even though it denies the existence of God. I wanted to add Carvaka to the atheism page but I see the page is protected from editing. Raj2004

 * We're currently dealing with a dispute, but will add in Carvaka when we solve it. Thanks for the suggestion. Andre ( talk )A| 14:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have been discussing this on my talk page, and would point out here as well that Jainism is in no way atheistic. See User_talk:Sam_Spade. Sam [Spade] 01:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam's definition of atheism is that he only accepts the positive definition despite ample evidence and the the etymology that supports the validity of the wider negative definition; this very point is under dispute. He is also is on record of stating that " I revile atheism," (User_talk:Jwrosenzweig). Given this and in the context of his failure to accept sources and his sending private an abusive and obscene e-mail to Felonious Monk directly following disagreement on this topic I think any reasonable person would accept that Sam's ability to be dispassionate on this topic is at best highly questionable--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC).

 * What bearing do your ad hominem's have on the particulars? Do you dispute my interpretation of Jainism's stance on God? Please review, and get a clue. Sam [Spade] 14:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Re Ad hominem, the ad hominem was specifically bringing into question your ability to be dispassionate on the topic of atheism, given your track record. An ad hominem isn't always a fallacy if the point raised is germane to the issue in question as is clear in this case. If your definition is skewed you are not best placed to make a call if something could be considered atheistic or not.

 * Re Jainism being athistic. This pivots on the meaning of the term atheism in the context of the Jain Dharma (teaching) if one takes the broad negative definition there is a strong argument that Jainism is indeed atheistic, much of Buddhism is the same, indeed many modern followers of Buddhism are positive atheists.

 * A-theism as in– without god, just like a-moral – without morals, a-symmetrical. without symmetry. In this vein if Jainism’s teachings have no deity it is a-theistic.

 * With regards Jainism the existing Wikipedia article as it currently stands details Jainism as atheistic. Perhaps you’d like to seek out and change in Wikipedia all atheistic references that square with the broad or negative definition and do not square with your narrow positive atheist view.

 * Personally I think with regards Jainism the case is far from clear. My personal view is I would rather hedge my bets either way rather than say "Jainism is in no Way atheistic," that’s putting it way, way too strongly. Some credible sources do rindeed egard Jainism as atheistic

 * From the BBC
 * From the India Tourist Portal "Jainism did not spread much outside India. Instead it continued to thrive in west India and has left a large amount of architectural heritage. As it was a small minority group it followed Buddhism and Hinduism in its architectural style, but in the 11 -15th century it developed remarkably in west India. As Jainism was a religion opposing Brahmanism, it was originally atheistic religion. It is not Gods but 24 Saviours called Tirthankaras that are worshiped in the temples. It is said that the 24th and the last Tirthankara was Mahavira.".
 * Burton Stein who was Professional Research associate in History at the School of Oriental and African Studies London at his death in 1996, previously holding professorships at the Universities of Hawaii and Minnosota describes Jainism as Atheistic in his work ‘A History of India’ on page 65.

 * I have a direct question for you Sam – why in addition to the positive definition which you accept do you not accept the myriad references and etymology that support the negative view of atheism?--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the matter at hand I provided enough information. Since you have no shame for your rudeness I won't continue to discuss with you however. Sam [Spade] 17:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, Specifically where have I been rude? Was that pointing out the fact that you are on record of stating that you revile atheism, that you send abusive and foul language e mails to FM following him not agreeing with your position, that you wont explain why you will not accept solid references from a number of individuals or that I take the considered view that you are incapable of being dispassionate on the topic of atheism or now that you wont yet again answer a direct question Sam

 * I ask again for the third time a direct question why wont you accept some of the myriad sources that cite and endorse the fact that the negative definition that squares with the etymology of atheism is in common use? Please answer the question, avoiding questions is specifically detailed as not kosher Wikipedia guidelines, you should know that --Nick-in-South-Africa 17:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That does make sense A-theism as in– without god, just like a-moral – without morals, a-symmetrical. without symmetry. In this vein if Jainism’s teachings have no deity it is a-theistic. As that, I would be willing to accept the broad definition of Atheism. Which would make me one. However, if you call me a "weak" or "negative" atheist, I will call you immature and biggoted. It is a perjurative term to call your fellow atheists weak or negative, I won't stand for it. --metta,  T he  S unborn  ☸  04:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I know plenty of atheists who self-identify as "weak" (although I would say the term "skeptical" is probably a better alternative). Hell, if asked, I'd be as likely as not to call myself a weak atheist, though that does require some explanation that simply saying atheist does not. Nonetheless, I do not view the term as derogatory in the slightest. SS451
 * I myself am an example of such an atheist. While I agree that the label is not ideal, in that it seems likely to give rise to misleading first impressions, I know of no other term that is both as specific and as widespread as that one to describe my view. Bryan 06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sunborn no slight was intended to anyone who holds passive atheistic views, including yourself if indeed you do. I'm sorry if you took it as such. The 'weak' and 'negative' does not mean the individual is 'weak' or 'negative' it is simply a qualifier on their atheism. The term 'atheist' is also when used neat seen by many as a pejorative, it is no doubt a loaded word to many. --Nick-in-South-Africa 06:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't care what it is meant as, it is still not very nice. It would be like Protestants calling Catholics "weak" Christians. Many probably do, however, as an insulting way. This in no way any worse than the theist explanation on the lack of belief. I will reject an form that defines any group of people less than any other, weak or otherwise. You insult me by your definition just as the theists perjure you. --The Sunborn

 * Sunborn me thinks you are, dare I say taking untoward umbrage and seeing slight where there is none whatsoever. No pejorative is implied by the term 'weak atheism', firstly I for one did not use it to describe you either directly or by implication, the attachement to it is yours and yours alone. Secondly the term 'weak atheist' is not a term that one could reasonably describe as "less than any other," and from a value point of view I have not implied or suggested or nor do I tacitly hold the view that the term "Strong Atheist" has any more intrinsic value or merit than the term "passive" or "weak" atheist. The term pertains to the respective views on atheism, it is a techical term and is in no way a value judgement. I humbly suggest that you are getting hung up on the terms 'weak' and 'strong' based upon their day to day usage and imposing on yourself a completely unnecessary Equivocation. Please Sunborn understand that I am in no way having a dig at you or those who hold your views either directly or implicitly .--Nick-in-South-Africa 20:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Views on Atheism
A link which should be cited, IMO (but I can't add it as the page is protected):
 * http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/JewsDontBelieve.htm

It has statistics for percentages of people who identify as members of various religions but also identify as not believing in a god. --L33tminion | (talk)

 * This section is innaccurate, see amalek. Sam [Spade] 12:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's pretty accurate, at least as far as Jews are concerned. Orthodox Jews (those who are described in amalek) are a minority among Jews in general - there are far more Reform and Conservative Jews, and many many of those are also atheists. I'm one, in fact. Andre ( talk )A| 20:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I cant say I know that much of Judaism other than it is one of the 4 best known 'brands' of monotheism along with hundreds of sects of Christianity, 2 major sects of Islam and of course Sikhism. It is my observation that there it is particularly noticeable that in the real World Judaism seems to be as much about cultural identity as religious dogma. There seems to be a phenomenon of the atheistic Jew or secular cultural Jew (for those that find the Word atheist hard to swallow). That is to say those born of Jewish parents who still identify culturally with the Jewish Diaspora, indeed I understand that Israel - created as a Jewish state, has a higher proportion of atheists than most courtiers (but I don’t have the numbers to hand). I could discuss why this ‘culturally Jewish but atheist’ phenomenon is so noticable, but this is not a discussion board......On the point visa vis atheism it thus seems reasonable to include a section on Jewish atheism and I for one wouldn’t resist it.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An atheist Jew makes no sense, if you ascribe to the concept that Judaism is a religion, and not a race. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

False dichotomy. There is a Jewish culture (or rather cultures) and there is arguably a Jewish ethnicity. There is also the theory that Jews, at least those of European origin, are a "people-class". AndyL 21:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Out of those I accept only "ethnicity", which is very different from religion, and would be in sharp contrast to the views of many on this subject, who insist that Judaism is a religion alone. I take no stand, I only point out the contradiction of a common opinion, that Judaism is a religion only, not a race or ethnicity. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're Someone's wrong, Sam. Just plain wrong. There are many who define themselves as Jewish culturally and atheists religiously; I'm one of them. Jews have their own cuisine, language, customs, and traditions. I was born of Jewish parents; I light the menorah every Chanukah; I eat knishes, challah, latkes, and kugels; I can read Hebrew and I know some words of Yiddish (though my grandmother is more fluent); I was Bar Mitzvahed; I wear a yarmulke for special occasions; and I intend to get married and have a Jewish wedding when the time is right. How can you say that Jewish atheists can't exist? Would you somehow try to contend that I am not Jewish? I refer you to Reconstructionist Judaism and/or Reform Judaism (though I haven't checked out these articles for POV). Andre ( talk )A| 15:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * I repeat I take no stand. I was merely iterating a POV I have often heard. I ment no offense, and don't intend to personally take a stand on the subject, other than clarifying a common POV. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Mea culpa. The point is, whoever's POV it is, it's completely incorrect and should not be present in any articles. Judaism is a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity. Andre ( talk )A| 21:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, let's find some evidence for the prevalance of this POV and then write a section of the article that discusses this POV and why it is wrong or right or neither. Okay?????? Ambush Commander 21:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * That would probably be better on the Jew or Judaism articles. Indeed I assume such content is already there. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Category:Atheism

 * The following was added to Category:Atheism by user:152.228.2.129 rather than to this protected page.

Two related articles by an atheist growing up Christian: Hope is the Bait http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst1.txt

Fear is the Trap http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst2.txt

 * Sean Curtin 04:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of this lot to the article? That aside, they are particularly bad links to showcase as the font is really difficult to read.--Nick-in-South-Africa 16:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not really relevant, but I'd rather leave the link in a talk page than yank it completely. -Sean Curtin 02:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, after we get this dispute resolved, we'll probably have to change the short definition accompanying atheism on the Category page. Ambush Commander 20:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps you'll finially accept that is a correct summary, and place it on this article as well. That would be much better. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam an assertion does not an argument make, especially given the backdrop of the content of these talk pages--Nick-in-South-Africa 11:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That too. Ambush Commander 15:23, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Language in society isn't defined by a single person or even just a small group of people, the language representative of the entire society and how they use the word. Even if a group of people feel that a word is using incorrectly, if it generally accepted, then it is the language. In Atheism's case, there are so many usages of the word that we have to go over all of them. Ambush Commander 00:43, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * That is correct. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Wrong. We only need to cover the major definitions. If we needed to cover every fringe definition of "atheism," Spade's existence here would be purposeful; however, we do not. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Wait, I'm confused. What views dows Sam Spade have? Ambush Commander 18:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * That atheists are evil manipulative thugs trying to impose their will on Wikipedia and corrupt the minds of sane God-fearing men. Don't believe me? Check the history and the comments he left on other editors' namespaces. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Short Definition versus Long Definition
After looking at the page history, I realized that one of the primary disputes was which definition was more appropriate, the short, one sentence one, or the long paragraph one. Let's compromise.

Atheism' is the condition of lacking theistic belief.

However, Add longer definition here, going over all the extra things. Ambush Commander 18:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * And just what is this "longer definition"? I reject modification of the single-lined and generally applicable definition of atheism as a condition of being. A "longer definition" is located below it which further evaluates the topic with clarity. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 12


text:
Lausanne HC

Lausanne Hockey Club is an ice hockey team based in the city of Lausanne, Switzerland, which competes in the National League (NL). During the 2004–05 NHL lockout, the HC Lausanne signed National Hockey League players Martin St. Louis and Andy Roach.

The team plays its home games in the 10,000-seat Vaudoise Aréna.

History
Founded in 1922, the Lausanne Hockey Club is one of the oldest clubs in Switzerland. They played for sixteen years at Chalet-à-Gobet, in the city heights. In 1938, LHC moved their headquarters to Montchoisi where, in 1941, they merged with Star HC to become the Montchoisi Hockey Club. On November 6, 1949, the team of Lausanne chose their original name: Lausanne Hockey Club. It is with this name that they started off in the Swiss national league.

Relegated to Nationalliga B in 1954, they powered back to the Nationalliga A on March 2, 1957 and remained there until 1961. For the next seventeen years, LHC remained at the Nationalliga B level where they had occasional success. On February 18, 1978, in front of over 7,000 fans, Lausanne Hockey Club obtained promotion to Nationalliga A, defeating HC Davos 8 goals to 4. After three seasons spent in the highest league, LHC, following the loss of a player in a car accident, was relegated to NLB. They remained there from 1981 to 1984 before falling to the 1. Liga while also moving to the International Ice Center at Malley (CIGM) where they still play today. They then played one season in first League (84-85) and made a round trip to NLB (85-86), to be back in the first League. Three years later they reached the finals in 1989 and obtain their promotion to NLB. In 1992, the club's survival was threatened by a bankruptcy. The team saved itself from relegation to the 1. Liga (season 1992-1993). The season 1993-1994 saw participation in the finals to access the national League A, finals played in five games against Rapperswil, the latter winning it over. At the beginning of the 1994-1995 season, Lausanne Hockey Club was designated as the Nationalliga B favorite to access the NLA. Against GCK Lions during the finals and after five games, the decisive match was won by Lausanne 8 to 0. In the 1995-1996 season, after a series of losses the club decided to fire their head coach. The change didn't prevent Lausanne from being relegated to NLB at the end of the season. During the following four seasons, the LHC occupied the middle of the NLB ranking until 2000-2001 when they were at the head of the championship during almost the whole season. Lausanne won the title of champion of NLB and defeated HC La Chaux-de-Fonds for the promotion games. Winning against the HCC in six matches, LHC was back in NLA for the 2001-2002 season.

After a relegation in the 2004–05 season, Lausanne played the role of “favorite” for the other teams of the NLB. In April 2007, Canadians Barry Alter and Ken Lockett were introduced to the public as new majority owners of the club to help the club through financial difficulties. With the introduction of former coach Jim Koleff to the ownership group, later represented by his wife following his death, Lausanne was also backed by Hugh Quennec with interest already in fellow professional club, Genève-Servette HC. The club tried to reach the NLA once again through promotion, but failed twice in the promotion games 2008–09 and the 2009–10 seasons, losing both times against EHC Biel in seven games. In the 2012–13 season, after a slow start into the regular season, Lausanne won the NLB championship for the 7th time, defeating EHC Olten in the play-off final. In the following promotion games, Lausanne defeated the SCL Tigers in six games to reach again the NLA for the 2013–14 season.

In 2013, following the series of promotion / relegation blocks against the SCL Tigers, the club moved up in the National League A with four wins and two defeats. During the 2014–15 season, their second in the NLA, the team averaged 6,711 spectators per game, ranking them third in the league in term of attendance.

In February 2016, American businessman Ken Stickney acquired the majority of shares of Lausanne from Quennec. Stickney was previously president of EHC Kloten and a member of Avenir Sport Entertainment LLC (ASE), the owner of the club.

In April 2016, the Lausanne released Danish head coach Heinz Ehlers after failing to make the playoffs for the 2015–16 season. Ehlers had achieved with the playoff appearances in 2014 and 2015, the largest club successes in the NLA until then. His was succeeded by Daniel Ratushny on April 26, 2016. Under Ratushny, the team used an overly defensive style capitalizing on opportunistic offense. Enjoying initial success they finished the 2016–17 regular season in fourth place. In the playoffs, however, LHC did not find victory in the quarter-final's against HC Davos, suffering a series sweep.

Following 12 points in their first 10 games in the 2017–18 season, Ratushny was let go of his coaching duties on 11 October 2017. He was replaced on an interim basis by former Lausanne youth coach and fellow Canadian, Yves Sarault, and later announced to remain for the remainder of the season. However, with the club still struggling into the new year placing third from the bottom of the league, a second coaching change was announced as Sarault was replaced by John Fust on 8 February 2018.

Venues
The home games of the Lausanne HC were played in the CIG de Malley from 1984 to 2017 and had an official capacity of 8,000 spectators. While waiting for completion of a new arena in the 2017–18 season, Lausanne moved to a temporarily built ice hockey arena known as the 2.0 Malley, which sat 6,700 spectators. It was established as the largest temporary ice hockey arena in the world.

The new arena opened in September 2019. The new ice rink received the sponsorship name Vaudoise Aréna, after the insurance company Vaudoise.

Current roster
Updated 5 July 2024

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

title: Lausanne HC


text:
User:Poddster

rar

title: User:Poddster


text:
South African shelduck

The South African shelduck or Cape shelduck (Tadorna cana) is a species of shelduck, a group of large goose-like birds which are part of the bird family Anatidae, which also includes the swans, geese and ducks. This is a common species native to southern Africa.

This is a 64 cm long bird which breeds mainly in Namibia and South Africa. In the austral winter, many birds move north-east from the breeding range to favoured moulting grounds, where sizable concentrations occur.

This species is mainly associated with lakes and rivers in fairly open country, breeding in disused mammal holes, usually those of the aardvark. Pairs tend to be very nomadic when not in breeding season.

Taxonomy
The South African shelduck was formally described in 1789 by the German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his revised and expanded edition of Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. He placed it with all the other geese, ducks and swans in the genus Anas and coined the binomial name Anas cana. Gmelin based his description on the "Grey-headed goose" from the Cape of Good Hope that the English ornithologist John Latham had described in 1785 in his A General Synopsis of Birds. The South African shelduck is now placed with five other species in the genus Tadorna that was introduced by the German zoologist Friedrich Boie in 1822. The genus name comes from the French name Tadorne for the common shelduck. The specific epithet cana is from Latin canus meaning "grey". The species is monotypic: no subspecies are recognised.

Description
Adult South African shelducks have ruddy bodies and wings strikingly marked with black, white and green. The male has a grey head, and the female has a white face and black crown, nape and neck sides. Note the colour on the females head is highly variable. In flight they can be hard to distinguish from Egyptian geese. Juveniles are duller in appearance. Young females lack the white on the head, excluding white eye circles. Males make a deep honk or hoogh call while the female tends to produce a louder, sharper hark.

South African shelduck is one of the species to which the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) applies.

title: South African shelduck


text:
Khalilou Fadiga

Khalilou Fadiga (born 30 December 1974) is a Senegalese former professional footballer who played as a midfielder.

He started his youth career at the Paris-based clubs Paris Saint Germain and Red Star before going to FC Liège in the Belgian League. He made his senior debut at FC Liège in the 1994–1995 season before playing for Lommel (KVSK United) and Club Brugge. After a loan spell with Auxerre in 2000, he signed permanently for the club in 2001.

In the summer of 2003, he was signed by Inter. At Inter, doctors discovered that he had heart problems and he never appeared for the team. He opted not to retire. After leaving Inter, he had brief stints at Bolton, Derby County, Coventry City, Gent, Germinal Beerschot and KSV Temse.

He earned 37 caps for the Senegal national team. He was part of the Senegal team that defeated reigning champions France in the opening fixture of the 2002 World Cup and made it to the quarter-finals. He was also part of the team that finished runner-up in the 2002 African Cup of Nations.

Early career
Fadiga moved to France when he was six years old. Fadiga began his career at Paris Saint-Germain in France but failed to make an impression, and so was transferred to fellow Parisian club, Red Star, before moving to Belgian club RFC Liège.

Lommel
It was in Belgium that he found the profile that was to launch his international career. After one season he moved from FC Liège to Lommel, which is now KVSK United. He played two seasons at Lommel before he was spotted by Club Brugge.

Club Brugge
Fadiga quickly became a fan favorite. He scored nine goals in 67 appearances. In September 2000, the midfielder returned to France when he signed for Auxerre.

Auxerre
In all, he played in 82 league games for the French club, scoring 10 goals, as well as appearing in the Champions League and UEFA Cup during season 2002–03. In his final season at Auxerre, he helped them win the 2002–03 Coupe de France, playing in the final as they defeated Paris Saint-Germain.

Internazionale
Fadiga moved to Internazionale in the summer of 2003, but the discovery of heart problems did not allow him to feature for the Italian club, apart from appearing in a few friendly games during the summer. He was released from the San Siro side after just one season but decided against retirement despite his heart problems.

Bolton Wanderers
English club Bolton Wanderers signed Fadiga for the 2004–05 season after he passed a medical. However, before he made an appearance for Bolton, he collapsed prior to a match in October, and had to be fitted with a defibrillator due to an irregular heartbeat. Despite stating his desire to return to the game, medical specialists urged him to retire, warning that if during a game his chest was knocked the defibrillator could fail, leading to instant death. However, following a period of rest and passing a medical, Fadiga returned to the Bolton squad in early 2005 and played in five games.

At the start of the 2005–06 campaign, Fadiga was loaned to Derby County of the Football League Championship, making four appearances. On his return to the Reebok Stadium, he took part in ten games, two of them in the UEFA Cup, before eventually being released in May 2006.

Coventry City
Without a club at the start of the 2006–07 season, he went on trial with Portsmouth and played for their reserve team. He also had trials at Watford and Hull City, before eventually signing a four-month contract with Coventry City on 23 February 2007. In April 2007, he suffered a serious achilles injury in the home game against Preston, and it ended his time at Coventry.

Return to Belgium
He returned to his wife's homeland, signing with AA Gent. After one year, he moved in June 2008 to Germinal Beerschot, but left Beerschot after short time in December 2008. He signed for Third Division club KSV Temse in 2011, before retiring from the game.

Personal life
Fadiga is married to a Belgian woman and has two kids, Noah and Naoel. Noah followed in his footsteps in becoming a professional footballer. Fadiga also holds Belgian nationality.

Career statistics

 * Scores and results list Senegal's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Fadiga goal.

title: Khalilou Fadiga


text:
Paradise shelduck

The paradise shelduck (Tadorna variegata), also known as the paradise duck, or pūtangitangi in Māori, is a species of shelduck, a group of goose-like ducks, which is endemic to New Zealand. Johann Friedrich Gmelin placed it in the genus Anas with the ducks, geese, and swans. Both the male and female have striking plumages: the male has a black head and barred black body and the female has a white head with a chestnut body. They weigh between 1.09 and 2 kg and are between 63 and 71 cm in length.

Paradise shelducks mate for life and usually live as pairs, and moult their feathers from December to February. They are primarily herbivorous, and mostly graze on pasture grasses and clover, but have been observed eating a wide range of invertebrates. They are seasonally hunted as a game bird throughout New Zealand, and today the IUCN Red List classifies them as a species of least concern.

Taxonomy
The paradise shelduck was formally described in 1789 by the German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his revised and expanded edition of Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. He placed it with all the other ducks, swans, and geese in the genus Anas and coined the binomial name Anas variegata. Gmelin based his description on the "Variegated goose" from New Zealand that had been described in 1785 by the English ornithologist John Latham in his A General Synopsis of Birds. The naturalist Joseph Banks had provided Latham with a water-colour drawing of the duck by Georg Forster who had accompanied James Cook on his second voyage to the Pacific Ocean. The picture of a female bird was drawn in April 1773 at Dusky Sound, a fiord on the southwest corner of New Zealand. This picture is now the holotype for the species and is held by the Natural History Museum in London. The paradise shelduck is now placed with five other species in the genus Tadorna that was introduced by the German zoologist Friedrich Boie in 1822. The genus name comes from the French word Tadorne for the common shelduck. The specific epithet variegata is from the Latin variegatus meaning "variegated". The species is monotypic: no subspecies are recognised. Other common names include painted duck, pari, parry, parrie, and pūtangitangi in Māori.

Description
The paradise shelduck is a colourful, large-bodied species of duck that differs in features depending on the sex. Both females and males have chestnut-colour undertails, primarily black wing feathers with green secondary wing feathers, and upper wing surface feathers that are white. They have black legs and webbed feet for swimming. Paradise shelducks are the largest of the Tadorna species, measuring 63 to 71 cm in length and between 1.09 and 2 kg in weight, averaging 1.72 kg in males and 1.29 kg in females, with a wingspan of around 90 cm.

The adult male has a blue-black head and neck, with a black rump and tail; the back and flank are lightly flecked with a pale yellow colour. The wings of males have contrasting white upper-coverts and black remiges, metallic green speculum feathers, and rusty brown tertials feathers. The male also has a dark grey flecked with pale-yellow breast and abdomen, chestnut undertail and underwing, and black iris, bill, legs, and feet. The female, unlike the male, has an entirely white head and neck with a dark grey back heavily flecked with pale yellow. The rest is very similar to the male with the female's body being dark or light chestnut depending on age and stage of molting.

The downy young are white with a brown crown and brown stripes from crown to tail. Juvenile males look much like the adult males, but the females are smaller with a white patch at the base of the bill. The females assume their white head during the first molt and 1–2 months after fledging their breast and abdomen turn dark chestnut.

The vocal calls differ from male to female. The male belts a di-syllabic honk like a goose when in flight or when alarmed. The male gives off a deep zonk-zonk honk, while the female is characterised by a penetrating zeek-zeek.

Male and fledgling paradise shelducks can be confused with the vagrant Australian shelduck which has a similar size, shape, and posture when swimming, on land, and when in flight. However, paradise shelducks lack the white collar, white parts around the eye and base of the bill, and the chestnut-coloured breast band.

Distribution and habitat
Paradise shelducks are the most widely distributed waterfowl in New Zealand. They inhabit the North Island, South Island, offshore islands such as Little Barrier Island, Kapiti Island, Great Barrier Island, and Stewart Island. They are most numerous in the North Island, Hawkes Bay, Poverty Bay, Taranaki and in Tongariro National Park, while scattered populations are present in Waikato and Wellington. Paradise Shelducks are uncommonly found on the Canterbury Plains, and generally not found in the high parts of the mountains.

Their preferred habitat is pasture, tussock grassland, and wetlands both on the mainland and on offshore islands. They are common around the hilly farmland characterised by fertile riversides, farm dams, and natural pools of the North Island. On the South Island, they can commonly be found in the tussock river valleys and high-country lakes while a small number can be found in the mountain streams, coastal flats, and brackish inlets. Around water bodies are the preferred breeding habitat for which to use as a nursery area for young, the quality or depth of water does not influence the selection, but available vantage points with long views to or from water do influence the selection. Many chosen places have a grassland at the edge of the water and a cover for refuges which is dense, such as reedbeds and forest. This has the purpose of the birds being able to feed close to the water's safety, and lakes surrounded by dense vegetation might be chosen as well to feed at night.

Behaviour and ecology
The male adopts a threat posture by dropping his head low with the bill horizontal to the ground. If a female notices a threat on the water she responds by stretching out her neck and body while swimming towards the threat, swinging her body back and forth, and making a high-pitched call. On land she will lower her head and charge. Males will respond to the females by charging with her or taking on a "high and erect" posture. In this posture, the male will stretch its neck and head upwards and forwards, raise its feathers on the lower neck, call rapidly, and pivot between facing the threat and the female. When a predator threatens an adult pair with young, the parents will adopt the "broken wing display". The pair will run away from the young in a crouched position, raising and lowering its half-opened wings to distract the predator. Once the predator follows the pair away from the young, one of the adults will return to them.

Breeding
Paradise shelducks first breed in their second or third years forming long-term pair bonds, often lasting for life, and defend their territories. If one of the individuals of the couple dies, the other will keep the same territory and will find another mate. They have a long breeding season, lasting from August to December. Mating displays are not elaborate, consisting of a female inciting a male to attack other mates or females and the winner of the fight is then chosen as a partner. The paradise shelduck can nest in a variety of places including inside hollow logs, under fallen logs, in-ground holes or trees up to 20 m high, rabbit burrows, under haystacks, piles of fence posts, tussocks, in rock crevices, under buildings, among tree roots, or in culverts. Clutches usually range from 5 to 15 eggs with an average of 8 to 10, with most clutches numbering over 12 being a collective nest from two females. The success rate for eggs laid is 83% hatched and a survival rate from hatchlings is 89%.

The incubation period lasts for 30 to 35 days with only the female looking after the nest 21 to 22 hours a day only leaving at dawn and dusk for food for 1 hour each; the male only stands next to the nest after the eggs have hatched. The fledging period for the downy young lasts on average eight weeks, parenting is shared during this time with the young feeding independently and being kept close to the nest in a radius of around 500 m.

They typically live on average 2.3 years, although some individuals live longer, with the longest-lived individual being 23 years.

The moulting season lasts from December to February, with these moulting flocks being an important food source for the early Māori people. Māori did not hunt the birds during the breeding seasons to conserve populations, rather hunting during the moulting season when the birds could not fly, this selective hunting ensured healthy populations for culling. During the moulting season, distinct flocks will gather at traditional sites, the one and two-year-old birds arrive first, followed by the failed breeders, and then by the successful breeders arriving late January. At moulting sites, the birds gather in open water with high open hillsides surrounding them acting as vantage points, many sites also have dense vegetation for refuge. Early departures from moulting sites begin in March and April, when adults will return to their distinct breeding territories.

Food and feeding
The paradise shelduck is a diurnal omnivore. The adults are primarily herbivorous preferring pasture grasses and clover while the young eat mostly aquatic insects for the first five weeks of life before grazing on land. They can feed on a variety of food including grazing or pasture crops, seed heads of grasses and weeds, earthworms, insects, and a variety of crustaceans. An extensive record of one bird's diet from the Canterbury district, South Island, New Zealand shows a wide range of leaves and seeds of terrestrial herbs, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and some aquatic plants.

Threats and conservation
The paradise shelduck originally had no predators but now with introduced predators such as stoats and weasels, some smaller populations can become threatened. The only group of parasites that affects the Paradise shelduck are the helminths which consist of flukes (Trematodes), tapeworms (Cestodes), and roundworms (Nematodes), with only the flatworms not living symbiotically with the host. Only periodic cases of avian botulism have been reported to affect populations.

In relation to diseases, recent research discovered the presence of the bacterium Chlamydia psittaci on Paradise shelducks. Different bacteria genotypes were identified in the samples of the survey and this species has been affected by genotype C. This type of bacterium is associated with important diseases not only in birds but also humans. However, the possible impact of the disease still needs to be determined and assessed.

Hunting
Hunting of the species happens throughout the islands where harvest numbers range from 5% to 48% depending on the region, with an average of just over 30%. The hunting season usually starts on the first Saturday of May and ends on the 31st of July. Daily bag limits range from 6 to 25 depending on the region.

Conservation
Populations of the paradise shelduck used to be much smaller during pre-settlement times due to the increased forest cover but after the settlers began to inhabit the island and clear the land for pastures the populations eventually began to rise. But before the population could rise, it fluctuated dramatically because of overhunting and exploitation by the settlers. Only through protective measures between 1900 and 1920 and limited shooting in the South Island from 1923 to 1939, could the population rise to historical heights by 1935. Today the Paradise shelduck is considered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to be a species of least concern with stable populations, with a population in the range of 600,000 to 700,000.

title: Paradise shelduck


text:
Radjah shelduck

The radjah shelduck (Radjah radjah), is a species of shelduck found mostly in New Guinea and Australia, and also on some of the Moluccas. It is known alternatively as the raja shelduck, black-backed shelduck, or in Australia as the Burdekin duck.

Taxonomy
The specific name radjah  is from the Moluccan name Radja for the radjah shelduck on the island of Buru in Indonesia.

Formerly placed in the genus Tadorna, it differs markedly from other members in external morphology and mtDNA cytochrome b sequence data, suggesting its status should be reinvestigated. Current classification places it in its own monotypic genus Radjah.

Description
Both the male and female of the species are mostly white, with dark wing-tips and a distinctive "collar" of dark feathers. When viewed from above, during flight or with wings outstretched, green bands are visible on the tops of their wings. To communicate, the female utters a harsh rattle while the male emits a breathy, "sore-throat" whistle.

Distribution and habitat
The radjah shelduck inhabits the mangrove forests and coastline of New Guinea (West Papua and Papua New Guinea) and Australia, and some of the Moluccas in eastern Indonesia. In Australia, its primary range is coastal, tropical northern Australia, extending as far south as central Queensland, west through the upper regions of the Northern Territory (including Kakadu National Park) to the Kimberley in Western Australia. The radjah shelduck is listed as a protected bird in all the states of Australia, and penalties are enforced for harming or disturbing them.

The species prefers the salty waters of mangrove flats and paperbark tree swamps, but will visit all manner of brackish and freshwater swamps, lagoons, lakes, estuaries, river deltas, and billabongs further inland during the wet season.

Behaviour
The radjah shelduck forms long-term, bonded pairs, and they are usually encountered in lone pairs or small flocks. During the rainy season, the males commonly become very irritable, and have been observed attacking their mates.

The ducks' preferred diet consists mainly of mollusks, aquatic or other insects, worms, aquatic weeds, sedge materials and algae. Pairs start searching for nesting sites during the months of January and February. They nest close to their primary food source, often in the hollow limbs of dead or dehydrated trees, which makes habitat destruction a particular issue.

The radjah shelduck does not use nesting materials apart from some self-supplied down feathers. Egg-laying is usually completed by May or June, but depends on the extent of the wet season. The clutches range from 6 to 12 eggs. Incubation time is about 30 days.

title: Radjah shelduck


text:
The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus was a British concert film hosted by and featuring the Rolling Stones, filmed on 11–12 December 1968. It was directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who proposed the idea of a "rock and roll circus" to Jagger. The show was filmed on a makeshift circus stage with Jethro Tull, The Who, Taj Mahal, Marianne Faithfull, and the Rolling Stones. John Lennon and his fiancee Yoko Ono performed as part of a one-shot supergroup called The Dirty Mac, featuring Eric Clapton on guitar, Mitch Mitchell (of The Jimi Hendrix Experience) on drums, and the Stones' Keith Richards on bass. The recently formed Led Zeppelin had been considered for inclusion, but the idea was rejected. (As the Who's Pete Townshend recalled, an earlier idea for a circus-themed concert tour had been floated; it would have featured the Stones, the Who, and the Small Faces.)

The film was meant to be aired on the BBC, but the Rolling Stones withheld it, contending that they did so because they felt their performance was substandard; they were clearly exhausted after 15 hours of filming (and some indulgence in drugs). It was Brian Jones' last appearance with the Rolling Stones; he drowned some seven months later while the film was being edited. Some speculate that another reason for not releasing the film was that the Who, who were fresh off a concert tour, upstaged the Stones on their own production. The show was not released commercially until October 1996.

Concept and performance
The project was conceived by Mick Jagger as a way to promote the Stones' album Beggars Banquet beside conventional press and concert appearances. Jagger approached Lindsay-Hogg, who had directed promos for two Rolling Stones songs in 1968, and would go on to direct the Beatles' Let It Be documentary, to make a full-length TV show for them. According to Lindsay-Hogg, the idea of combining rock music and a circus setting came to him when he was trying to come up with ideas; he drew a circle on a piece of paper and free-associated.

The Rolling Stones and their guests performed in a replica of a seedy big top on a British sound stage—the Intertel (V.T.R. Services) Studio, Wycombe Road, Wembley —in front of an invited audience. The performances began at around 2 pm on 11 December 1968, but setting up between acts and reloading cameras took longer than planned, which meant that the final performances took place at almost 5 o'clock in the morning on the 12th.

By that time the audience and most of the Rolling Stones were exhausted. It was only due to Jagger's sheer enthusiasm and stamina, and Lindsay-Hogg's patience and encouragement, that they kept going until the end. Regardless, Jagger was reportedly so disappointed with his and the band's performance that he cancelled the airing of the film, and kept it from public view. Pete Townshend recalled:

 * "When they really get moving, there is a kind of white magic that starts to replace the black magic, and everything starts to really fly. That didn't happen on this occasion; there's no question about that. They weren't just usurped by The Who, they were also usurped by Taj Mahal – who was just, as always, extraordinary. They were usurped to some extent by the event itself: the crowd by the time the Stones went on were radically festive."

Lindsay-Hogg recalled that the Stones' Brian Jones had phoned him the night before the scheduled filming in order to inform the director that he would not be participating in the film. "I hate the Rolling Stones," Jones told him. Lindsay-Hogg spoke with Jones for about twenty minutes and convinced him to come to the filming. It would prove to be Jones's final public performance with the Rolling Stones. For much of the Stones' set he is very low in the mix, although audio exists in which his guitar is much higher. His slide guitar on "No Expectations", maracas on "Sympathy for the Devil", and rhythm guitar on "Jumpin' Jack Flash" remain clear. Ian Anderson remarked:

 * "Brian Jones was well past his sell-by date by then… We spoke to Brian and he didn't really know what was going on. He was rather cut off from the others – there was a lot of embarrassed silence. But a delightful chap, and we felt rather sorry for him… I was approached for an interview by a chap from Record Mirror… I inadvertently remarked that the Stones were a bit under-rehearsed and that Brian couldn't even tune his guitar, which was literally the truth but a bit tactless and inappropriate for me to say. This was duly reported, whereupon Mick Jagger was mightily upset. I had to send a grovelling apology to his office."

As well as marking the last live performance of Brian Jones with the band, it also marked the first time that long term collaborator Nicky Hopkins performed live with them, having contributed extensively to the Beggars Banquet sessions. The last song, "Salt of the Earth", was sung live by Keith Richards and Mick Jagger to the pre-recorded tape from the studio album on which the song had been released.

According to Bill Wyman's book, Rolling with the Stones, the Rolling Stones also performed "Confessing the Blues", "Route 66" and an alternative take of "Sympathy for the Devil" with Brian Jones on guitar.

Of the Dirty Mac's one-song, one-off performance, the journalist David Dalton, who attended the filming, wrote in Rolling Stone magazine in 1970, "Simply the presence of all these magicians together is completely overwhelming." After the group's performance of Lennon's "Yer Blues," which segued into an extended, avant-garde jam featuring Ono's wailing, Dalton described the audience as "totally awestruck; they do not move or talk. It was breathtaking."

Performers

 * Sir Robert Fossett's Circus
 * Norman McGlen – dwarf
 * Willie Shearer – dwarf
 * Milton Reid – strongman
 * Jethro Tull
 * Ian Anderson – flute and vocals (recorded live)
 * Glenn Cornick – bass guitar and harmonica (mimed)
 * Tony Iommi – guitar (mimed)
 * Clive Bunker – drums (mimed)
 * The Who
 * Roger Daltrey – vocals
 * Pete Townshend – guitar and vocals
 * John Entwistle – bass guitar and vocals
 * Keith Moon – drums and vocals
 * Taj Mahal – harmonica and vocals
 * Jesse Ed Davis – guitar
 * Gary Gilmore – bass guitar
 * Chuck Blackwell – drums
 * Marianne Faithfull – vocals
 * backed by pre-recorded instrumental tracks
 * Danny Kamara – fire-eater
 * Donyale Luna – assistant
 * The Dirty Mac
 * John Lennon – guitar and vocals
 * Eric Clapton – guitar
 * Keith Richards – bass guitar
 * Mitch Mitchell – drums
 * Ivry Gitlis – violin
 * Yoko Ono – vocals
 * The Rolling Stones
 * Mick Jagger – vocals, harmonica (on Parachute Woman)
 * Keith Richards – guitar, vocals (on Salt of the Earth)
 * Brian Jones – guitar, slide guitar (on No Expectations), maracas (on Sympathy for the Devil)
 * Bill Wyman – bass guitar
 * Charlie Watts – drums
 * Nicky Hopkins – piano
 * Kwasi Rocky Dzidzornu – percussion
 * Julius Katchen – piano (bonus tracks only)

Footage
The project was abandoned until Lindsay-Hogg attempted to edit the film in 1992 but, due to missing principal footage, the project was put on hold. Some of the footage of the concert was thought to be lost or destroyed until 1993, when it was discovered in a bin in the Who's private film vault by the director/producer team Michael Gochanour and Robin Klein. Subsequent to their discovery, Gochanour and Klein completed the unfinished film in autumn 1996.

A significant segment, of the Who performing "A Quick One", had been shown theatrically in the documentary The Kids Are Alright (1979), the only public viewing of the film until its eventual release. The full movie was restored, edited, and finally released on CD and video in 1996. Included on the recordings are the introductions for each act, including some entertaining banter between Jagger and Lennon.

This concert is the only footage of Black Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi performing as a member of Jethro Tull, during his brief two-week tenure as a replacement for Mick Abrahams. Coincidentally this is also the first live footage of Jethro Tull ever made; no footage of the original line-up with Abrahams (December 1967 – December 1968) is known to exist. The band mimed to the album version of "A Song for Jeffrey" and "Fat Man," so the guitar heard is actually Abrahams, and not Iommi, who may not have known his part sufficiently after only a few days in the band. The Rolling Stones forced them to cut their rehearsal time short, although Ian Anderson sings and plays flute live on "A Song For Jeffrey." "Fat Man" never made the final release, although it is not unreasonable to assume he also sang that live, as the released version (which appears on Stand Up) was not recorded until four months later. Finally, the footage shows Ian Anderson's first clumsy attempts at his now famous flute-playing position of standing on one leg.

Reception
In a 1996 review, Janet Maslin lauded the "sleek young Stones in all their insolent glory presiding over this uneven but ripely nostalgic show"; although "rumor had it that the Stones... thought they looked tired and felt upstaged by the high-energy Who," "it hardly looks that way as Mick Jagger's fabulous performance nearly turns this into a one-man show." She called Jethro Tull's performance a "shaky start" by "arguably the most unbearable band of their day," said The Who "turn up early and stop traffic, delivering a fiery performance," and notes Yoko Ono's "glass-shattering shrieks" are "dutifully" backed by the Dirty Mac. She calls the concert-ending sing-along of "Salt of the Earth" smug and condescending, a "song about little people living in the real world."

Theatrical releases
The film was premiered on 12 October 1996 at the Walter Reade Theater as part of the New York Film Festival.
 * October 1996

In March 2019, it was announced that the film would be receiving a limited theatrical release in Dolby Cinema in early April, as the first concert film was due to be remastered with Dolby's Atmos and Vision, in conjunction with what was still then the ongoing North American leg of the Rolling Stones' No Filter Tour (before it was later postponed). Indeed, a limited U.S. remastered theatrical release of the film ran during the first week of April 2019.
 * April 2019

Home media
The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus was released in October 1996 on VHS and laserdisc following two days of screenings at the Walter Reade Theater as part of the New York Film Festival.

A DVD version, produced by Gochanour and Klein, was released in October 2004, with audio remixed into Dolby Surround by Gochanour and co-producer Klein. The DVD includes footage of the show, along with extra features directed by Gochanour and Klein, which include previously "lost" performances, an interview with Pete Townshend, and three audio commentaries. Of particular interest in the Townshend interview is his description of the genesis of the Circus project, which he claims was initially meant to involve the performers travelling across the United States via train (a concept used for a short concert series in Canada that was later documented in the feature film Festival Express). The remastered DVD also includes a special four-camera view of The Dirty Mac's performance of The Beatles' "Yer Blues" (showing Yoko Ono kneeling on the floor in front of the musicians, completely covered in a black sheet).

DVD track listing
The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus Parade / Mick Jagger's introduction of Rock and Roll Circus (2:10) "Song for Jeffrey" (Ian Anderson) – Jethro Tull (3:43) "A Quick One While He's Away" (Pete Townshend) – The Who (7:40) "Something Better" (Barry Mann, Gerry Goffin) – Marianne Faithfull (2:37) "Fire Eater and Luna (Donyale Luna)" (1:28) "Jumping Jack Flash" (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards) – The Rolling Stones (3:38)
 * 1) David Dalton's written historic introduction (0:33)
 * 2) "Entry of the Gladiators" (Julius Fučík) – Orchestra/
 * 1) Mick Jagger's introduction of Jethro Tull /
 * 1) Keith Richards's introduction of The Who /
 * 1) "Over the Waves" (Juventino Rosas) – Orchestra (1:20)
 * 2) "Ain't That a Lot of Love" (Willia Dean "Deanie" Parker, Homer Banks) – Taj Mahal (3:52)
 * 3) Charlie Watts' introduction of Marianne Faithfull /
 * 1) Keith Richards's introduction of Danny Camara /
 * 1) Mick Jagger and John Lennon's introduction of The Dirty Mac (1:05)
 * 2) "Yer Blues" (John Lennon, Paul McCartney) – The Dirty Mac (4:26)
 * 3) "Whole Lotta Yoko" (Yoko Ono) – Yoko Ono, Ivry Gitlis, The Dirty Mac (5:03)
 * 4) John Lennon's introduction of The Rolling Stones/
 * 1) "Parachute Woman" (Jagger, Richards) – The Rolling Stones (2:57)
 * 2) "No Expectations" (Jagger, Richards) – The Rolling Stones (4:07)
 * 3) "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (Jagger, Richards) – The Rolling Stones (4:27)
 * 4) "Sympathy for the Devil" (Jagger, Richards) – The Rolling Stones (8:52)
 * 5) "Salt of the Earth" (Jagger, Richards) – The Rolling Stones (4:56)
 * 6) Credits, to the sound of "Salt of the Earth" (2:45)

Sideshows (DVD extras)
"Ritual Fire Dance" – Julius Katchen (4:21) "The Clowns" (2:01)
 * Interview – Pete Townshend (18:26)
 * "Checkin' Up on My Baby" (Sonny Boy Williamson) – Taj Mahal (5:39)
 * "Leaving Trunk" (Sleepy John Estes) – Taj Mahal (6:28)
 * "Corinna" (Taj Mahal, Jesse Ed Davis) – Taj Mahal (3:51)
 * Brian Jones' introduction of Julius Katchen /
 * "Sonata in C 1st Movement" – Julius Katchen (2:11)
 * "Yer Blues" TK2 Quad Split – The Dirty Mac (4:35)
 * Bill Wyman's introduction of The Clowns /
 * "Close, But No Cigar" – John Lennon and Mick Jagger (0:43)
 * "Sympathy for the Devil" (Fatboy Slim Remix Video) – The Rolling Stones (4:29)

title: The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus


text:
User:Wolfgang1018

Hallo welcome to my User page in the Wikipedia!

I am from Germany, live and work in Nuremberg and am glad to support the idea of free knowledge for all people in the world.

My main activities are in the German and Latin Wikipedia.

More information about me, my life with the computer, as a creationist and a supporter of Intelligent Design, the Wikipedia and the Bible, the most important book of the world, you will find in German language there: de:Benutzer:Wolfgang1018

See also: Portal:Creationism

de:Benutzer:Wolfgang1018 es:Usuario:Wolfgang1018 fr:Utilisateur:Wolfgang1018 it:Utente:Wolfgang1018 la:Usor:Wolfgang1018 pt:Usuário:Wolfgang1018 & simple:User:Wolfgang1018 &

title: User:Wolfgang1018


text:
Pink-eared duck

The pink-eared duck (Malacorhynchus membranaceus) is a species of duck found in Australia. It has a large spatulate bill like the Australasian shoveler, but is smaller at 38–40 cm length. Its brown back and crown, black and white barred sides and black eye patches on its otherwise white face make this bird unmistakable. Juveniles are slightly duller, but otherwise all plumages are similar. Its vernacular name refers to a pink spot in the corner formed by the black head pattern; it is only noticeable at close distance however, making the seldom-used Australian name of zebra duck more appropriate.

Taxonomy and systematics
The pink-eared duck was first described by the English ornithologist John Latham in 1801 under the binomial name Anas membranacea. It is the only living member of the genus Malacorhynchus; a closely related, but slightly larger extinct form from New Zealand was described as Scarlett's duck (Malacorhynchus scarletti). This peculiar duck may be most closely related to the shelducks but its relationships are enigmatic. It may be closer to the musk duck and the stiff-tails (Sraml et al. 1996) and, formerly placed in the paraphyletic "perching ducks"; it is in any case not close to the dabbling ducks.

This species is the only member of the order Anseriformes known to have carotenoid pigments in its feathers, in the characteristic pink "ear" spot.

The pink-eared duck was reportedly known as the New Holland duck by early colonists in Western Australia.

Distribution
Widely distributed throughout Australia and highly mobile, these ducks can appear anywhere there is standing water, especially in dry inland regions, where annual rainfall rarely exceeds 15 in.

Food
They are dependent on plankton, as well as crustaceans, mollusks and insects. Their bill is well designed for straining minute organisms, with pliable mandibular flaps that channel water in a manner that allow the ducks to filter algae and other plankton efficiently. They also feed by vortexing, in which two ducks spin about a central point with the head of one opposite the tail of the other, concentrating food in a gyrating water column.

Breeding
Nesting is stimulated by the drying and filling of pools that promote increased levels of organic material. In good years, large numbers of pink-eared ducks concentrate in shallow flood plains. However, when conditions do not meet specifications, reproduction may be completely curtailed.

title: Pink-eared duck


text:
Upland goose

The upland goose or Magellan goose (Chloephaga picta) is a sheldgoose of the shelduck-sheldgoose subfamily of the Anatidae, the biological family that includes the ducks and most duck-like waterfowl such as the geese and swans. Sheldgeese resemble true geese and display similar habits, yet they are more closely related to shelducks and ducks. The two recognized subspecies of upland goose are the continental picta subspecies and the insular (island) leucoptera subspecies.

This species nests and breeds close to water (rivers, ponds, oceans) either on the ground or near it among vegetation, usually in grasslands or coastal meadows in the Falkland Islands or in southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego at the beginning of the austral summer. Population estimates suggest the insular subpopulations are stable, but continental populations show a recent decline in abundance. Upland geese are herbivores, specializing in plant leaves, stems and seeds.

Taxonomy
The upland goose was formally described in 1789 by the German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his revised and expanded edition of Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. He placed it with the other ducks, geese and swans in the genus Anas and coined the binomial name Anas picta. Gmelin based his description on the "Painted goose" that had been included by the English ornithologist John Latham in his A General Synopsis of Birds. The species had been observed in 1775 on the Isla de los Estados (Staten Island) during Captain James Cook's second voyage to the Pacific Ocean. The naturalist Joseph Banks had provided Latham with a water-colour drawing of the goose by Georg Forster who had accompanied James Cook. It is the holotype for the species and is held by the Natural History Museum in London. The upland goose is now placed with four other species in the genus Chloephaga that was introduced in 1838 by the English naturalist Thomas Campbell Eyton. The genus name comes from the Ancient Greek khloē meaning "grass" and -phagos meaning "-eating". The specific epithet picta is from Latin pictus meaning "painted.

There are strong morphological and genetic similarities between the bird fauna of the Falkland Islands and southern South America, and most native bird species are usually present in both insular and continental populations. The biogeography of the region suggests that these similarities exist because in the geological past, birds from the continent might have reached the Falkland Islands either across a former land connection, during periods of lowered sea levels, or through long-distance dispersal. Genetic analyses place the Magellan goose as a sister taxa to the kelp goose.

Subspecies
Two subspecies of upland goose are recognised. The smaller mainland form, picta, also known as the lesser Magellan goose, is found from central Chile and south-central Argentina south to Tierra del Fuego. The larger insular form, leucoptera or greater Magellan goose, is indigenous to the Falkland Islands, located to the east of the southern part of South America.

Description
Upland geese males are similar to other sheldgeese, notably the kelp goose (Chloephaga hybrida) due to their predominantly white plumage, while females resemble the ruddy-headed goose (C. rubidiceps) due to their similarly barred breast plumage. This species is 60–72.5 centimetres (23.6–28.5 in) long.

Greater Magellan geese (leucoptera subspecies) are the largest birds of the Chloephaga genus. Males typically weigh 3.5–4.5 kg (7.7–9.9 lbs) and females range from 2.9 to 3.5 kg (6.4–7.7 lbs). Lesser Magellan geese (picta subspecies) males weigh 2.7–3.6 kg (6.0–7.9 lbs) on average and females 2.9–3.5 kg (6.4–6.8 lbs).

Upland geese display strong sexual dimorphism in their plumage. Males have white heads and breast plumage with black legs, whereas females have reddish-brown heads and breast plumage with yellow-orange legs. However, two interbreeding morphs exist for males. One morph causes black-barred breast plumage while the other causes white breast plumage. A greenish-bronze speculum is also located on the inner secondary flight feathers of the adult male. Males make a whistling "wheep" sound, while females make a low, rattling "a-rrr" sound.

Upland geese molt both their primary and secondary feathers in ponds or sheltered sea inlets, usually between late November and early January. Molting frequency depends on breeding success to some degree, since most adults that molt have either not yet mated or failed to breed. Some greater Magellan geese skip this molt, retaining their ability to fly during the austral summer. While unusual, skipping this important process might have energetic advantages, since molting season can be very nutritionally taxing.

In Chapter VI of On the Origin of Species, author Charles Darwin noted that the upland goose has webbing between its toes that appeared to be "rudimentary in function, though not in structure", and concluded that this was a vestigial anatomical feature in this bird.

Habitat
Upland geese usually live in small, scattered groups on most pasture types (temperate grasslands, arid lowland scrubs), favouring areas with short green grasses. However, recent land use changes towards crop fields and managed pastures have forced them to adapt to and colonize such modern landscapes.

Distribution
Upland geese occupy the southern South American Continent (southern and central Chile and Argentina) and the Falkland Islands, with a continental distribution ranging from central Chile/southern Argentina to Tierra del Fuego, near Antarctica. Lesser Magellan geese usually reside in Patagonia or southern Chile and migrate north during the winter towards central Argentina, to their wintering grounds. Southernmost populations are more likely to migrate, with migrants reaching flight speeds of over 40 km/h. In 2013, researchers identified a lesser Magellan goose in southern Brazil, redefining the northern edge of their wintering grounds. Greater Magellan geese, however, do not migrate and rarely leave the Falkland Islands. In general, population densities are highest around ponds and in green grasslands. Computer modelling of population ranges suggests that their distribution is favoured by the ample presence of green grasses to feed and breed in, and hindered by human presence, notably urbanization and oil extraction. There is also a sizeable introduced population on the sub-Antarctic South Georgia Island.

Breeding
Upland goose breed in southern Patagonia or their native islands during the austral summer. They are monogamous, although divorce can occur, and generally return to breed in the same territory every year. After approximately two years from birth, females can start to lay eggs, and usually do so near their birthplace. Males begin breeding later and tend to settle farther away from where they were born. This sexual difference in dispersal distances causes the sex ratio of young to become biased towards the dispersing sex due to the inherent resource constraints of crowding. Therefore, upland geese tend to display a male-biased sex ratio. They breed non-colonially in densely-vegetated areas, generally in September and October on the mainland, and in November on the Falkland Islands. A large population of this species breeds in the New Island Nature Reserve, which was created in collaboration with Falkland Conservation.

Males attract females through a courtship display in which they whistle loudly, to which the female responds with softer cackles. As they are monogamous and territorial, a violent fight may break out if a male encroaches on another's territory. Males have been found injured or dead after these fights.

The simple nest is either on the ground or within 1.5 m of it, usually concealed by dense vegetation, and often located near water. A clutch consists of 5-8 eggs which are incubated for about 1 month. When the chicks hatch, they are covered in greyish-brown down. They don't remain in the nest for more than a day, quickly going to a nearby water source or feeding area, and are able to feed themselves from birth. They fledge in 9–10 weeks and reach maturity in 3 years.

Food and feeding
The upland goose is primarily a herbivore, feeding mostly of seeds, leaves, stems, and other plant matter. They are very gregarious, and flocks of thousands of birds can be found grazing in one pasture alone. They are considered pests by farmers due to the fact that they eat on the pastures that are used for cattle and sheep, and because they claim that upland geese significantly decrease crop yield. However, a recent study claims that while sheldgeese do reduce wheat cover, they do not reduce overall wheat yield and they might even provide an ecosystem service through weed grazing.

Threats and conservation
In the early 20th century, the Argentinian government declared the three Patagonian sheldgeese species (Ruddy-headed goose, Ashy-headed goose, and Upland goose) as pests due to claims of excessive grazing and negative effects on crop yields. Since then, wildlife agencies have encouraged hunting of upland geese across the entirety of their range and without restrictions on the number of birds killed. Consequently, population surveys started suggesting continental populations were declining. In 2008, all three species were classified as endangered by the Argentine government and hunting was banned, although some poaching still occurs, mostly on the mainland. Recently, fox predation has drastically reduced population numbers on the mainland, so national governments have established several protected areas throughout Patagonia in an attempt to conserve the species.

title: Upland goose