text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 20

Atheism and Science
I am in the sciences, and it is rare to find anyone so dogmatic to proclaim faith in Atheism. Agnosticism is common, but so is theism. The Nature reference is a red herring--the survey asked scientists if they believed in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind", which would imply that God frequently changes physical laws to answer the prayers of all of humankind. "Intellectual" implies dialogue, "affective" means direct cause-result, and "humankind" (rather than "sometimes") means frequently. A large number of Christians would express disbelief to this! Note that one's disbelief in God's "intellectual and affective communication with humankind" does not preclude even overt miracles. This poll was taken in typical "push-poll" fashion, asking if God often intervenes before asking if God grants personal immortality.

It looks like this article has been hijacked by the militant atheists, which is a shame. The atheists efforts to ride in on the coattails of science has led to all sorts of abominations. Take in point evolution--evolution IS NOT A FACT, nor is ANY scientific theory. Even Newton's Physics is NOT A FACT (in fact, it's wrong--but it's usually close enough). You can't directly prove anything about the real world. The atheists who promote evolution as fact are doing at least as much of a disservice to science as the creationists, except that (1) a student taught creationism as theory is still allowed to question his scientific beliefs (that is, to think critically) and (2) many creationism stress Divine Creation as what happened but accept evolution as a useful predictive theory--these creationists do not conflict with science, they conflict with Atheists. I view the creationists as a distraction to science (which is a negative role), but the militant Atheists are a downright hindrance to scientific progress.

I tried to make some quick edits to fix the bias, but they are imperfect.

- James

Intro: history summary
The old discussion about the intro being inappropriate due to simply being a summary of the history of atheism has been archived, I see. I still think it would be better to remove the history summary. BM are you still opposed to that? --Yath 19:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How can we improve the introduction? Adraeus 20:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There should be a summary of the article in the introduction. It needs a couple more sentences summarizing the sections which are not presently summarized.   The few sentences summarizing the history should not be removed.  --BM 21:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

categorization in "philosophy of religion"
Adraeus just took this article out of Category:Philosophy of religion with the reasoning "religion isn't a component of theism or atheism." I disagree, at least to the effect that I think this article should be categorized as such; atheism is IMO quite closely linked to religion in subject matter; there are references to and discussions of religious matters scattered all throughout this article. In addition, philosophy of religion says that one of the two main questions that philosophy of religion is meant to address is "Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist?". Finally, Category:Atheism is already a subcategory of Category:Religion, so the connection between the two is already established. Bryan 05:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Has anyone ever told you that it is extremely rude to speak of someone in the third person when they're directly accessible? Since Category:Philosophy of religion is a subcategory of Category:Philosophy, which covers all the bases, I don't see why you object. On the other hand, atheism neither concerns "the rational study of the meaning and justification of fundamental religious claims" (philosophy of science) or "the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask" (philosophy). In the non-academic use of the term philosophy, strong atheism sometimes involves a way of living without gods, the supernatural, etc., but weak atheism and atheism in general do not.

 * To be without god-beliefs does not necessitate being without religion. Religion and theism are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. So, an atheist is not required to be without or against religion to be without or against theistic beliefs just as a theist is not required to be with or for religion to be with or for theistic beliefs.

 * Thus, religion is not a component of theism or atheism. (A component is a required part.) Adraeus 06:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't addressing the comment solely to you, otherwise I would have put it on your user talk: page instead of here. Categorization includes "A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in", and so since I believe the atheism article fits well under "philosophy of religion" I don't think leaving it in the supercategory is appropriate. As for whether atheism really belongs there, I'm not saying that atheism is solely about religion, just that it intersects with that subject enough to be categorized there. Bryan 16:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have no idea what all thia talk about components is about. Atheism is one of the central concerns of the philosophy of religion (moreover, the philosophy of religion is the only area of philosophy that discusses it); as a philosopher of religion myself, I'm astonished that anyone should argue otherwise. This isn't a matter of opinion, or something open to argument; it's a simple documented fact. I'll replace the category. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mel that the article should be in Category:Philosophy of religion, one of the main topics of which is the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Atheism is not a religion, but it is a position in the philosophy of religion, or a religious philosophy. --BM 13:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about "components" purely because of a comment Adraeus made while making the change, which is is mild danger of being conflated with the logic of the change per se. (If A. will forgive my extreme rudeness in making a 3rd person reference.) I agree with the above two editors:  it's related to philosophy of religion, it goes directly to one of the main concerns of PoR, of all the branches of philosophy, that's the one it's most closely related to. Alai

I agree that atheism is related to the philosophy of religion, but atheism is not a philosophy of religion except where strong atheism may concern. The supercategory is more appropriate, I think. Adraeus 21:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The category 'philosophy of religion isn't for 'philosophies of religion' (whatever that means), but for topics in the philosophy of religion. That's the standard Wikipedia usage of categories like this, and is certainly the intention of this one, because I created it. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. By the way, you don't have to "revert" everything I do. It is possible to simply "make changes". Adraeus 21:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a concept not a condition
atheism is a concept, not a condition, by saying condition you make it seem like its something bad and horrible, like a concusion, atheism is a concept, a concept is a type of belief

 * I can see why you might think that this is the case, but please accept from a native speaker (and an atheist) that that isn't the implication of the wording, and that your version doesn't make grammatical sense. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Changing the core definition of atheism is intolerable. Through extensive discussion, the dominant and active editors of atheism have developed an extremely accurate introduction to atheism using extremely precise wording. Condition is defined as "a mode of being or form of existence of a person or thing", such as the human condition or "the condition of being human". A condition is merely a state of being, which may be dependent on various factors. A condition of being, however, is a thing's natural state of existence. Developmental psychology and cognitive sciences have scientifically suggested that humans are born without awareness of deities, and therefore, without belief in deities (atheism). Consequently, the condition of being an atheist (i.e., a person without theistic beliefs) is inherent to the condition of being an Earth-born human. For theists who posit that humans are born aware of deities, which is unlikely, the term condition allows application of its alternative definition "an assumption on which rests the validity or effect of something else" thus neutralizing any claim of POV regarding the core definition of atheism. Moreover, any claim of ill-meaning regarding the term condition is also neutralized considering that the term condition is not attributed with any disease-related definition, which also means that such claims are founded on an ignorance of terminology and the common usage of terms. Adraeus 11:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you know, I actually agree Adraeus' version is slightly superior. But I still wish the haggling could be conducted with slightly less hysteria. And, of course, the sweat and tears could go into actually expanding miserable stub articles. ah, and I don't think an arcticle of such a scope should be protected over a squabble over "concept" vs. "condition". dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To which stub articles are you referring? I've been working on fixing formatting inconsistencies in hundreds of articles and re-categorizing controversial topics (Category:Controversial topics) in an attempt to move away from the primitive list of controversial issues. If you want to comment on article protection, post at Requests_for_page_protection. Ultimately, the administrators make their decision to protect independent of whatever reasons the requestees cite. Adraeus 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Trying to get the page protected over a couple of minor edits is hysterical, I agree.
 * I had thought that there wasn't much to choose between the two versions, but Adraeus' explanation has pushed me towards the word 'state'. He seems to be claiming that we should state as a fact that atheism is the natural human condition; I believe that it is, but there's certainly no 'scientific proof', as he puts it.  Moreover, his argument applies at best only to weak atheism, and leaves out of account all those who came to the state of atheism after the atate of religious belief.
 * The anon who sparked this off is obviously a non-native speaker, and misunderstood the term 'condition', but that's surely no reason to refuse to think about the issue that he raised. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "weak atheism" is a joke. I think we only keep it to humour people, so that the real article can be edited in peace. Incidentially, I do not think atheism is the natural human condition at all, but rather a cultural achievment, which may be lost again spontaneously, any time, as demonstrated by many "western" nations' demographics, these days. dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "Weak atheism" is not a "joke" since it has been well-documented by various philosophers throughout history. "Strong atheists" may view "weak atheism" as a "joke", which we mention in the article, however, editing the article to suit only strong atheism is POV. "Condition of being" applies to both weak atheists and strong atheists. Strong atheists simply add the assertion that deities do not exist. Adraeus 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, one could use 'weak atheism' to describe the situation of someone who has simply never thought about or conceived of anything like a god, and 'strong atheism' to erefer to those who have thought about it, and rejected it. In that sense, at least, I'd say that we're all born (weak) atheists. Some thinkers have denied this, though (Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, for example), and science is unable to settle the matter. I'd argue against the existence of innate ideas, but this article surely isn't the place for such a discussion. perhaps a brief mention of it should be included (if it isn't already; I can't remember off-hand). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'State' works for me, though I have to say I'd have to get out of bed on a very bad side to get too grumpy about "condition" or "concept", either. (Via the headboard, perhaps?) I'm also unimpressed by the request for page protection, not to say the tone of certain recent comments. Alai 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 'State' works, if only to appease the ignorant. Mel Etitis' edit was tedious though and introduced the fallacy of either/or. Adraeus 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Mel's new first sentence is an improvement -- not mainly because of the substitution of 'state' for 'condition', but because of the improved parallellism in the syntax. I don't like either 'state' or 'condition', although if I had to pick, I have a slight preference for 'state'. But this is my strong atheism talking -- which views the 'weak atheist' definition of "atheism" as a state or condition as confused. --BM 19:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a somewhat tangential comment, but just to put in a word for weak atheists: Positivists would generally be classified thus, but have a plenty sophisticated justification for their position, certainly not necessarily less so that the "strongs".  Alai 20:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That may be true, but positivists would not define themselves as "weak atheists" -- that is, as being in the "state" of being without a belief in God.  They take a position, which is that religious language is meaningless.  Defining the "absence" of a position on a topic as one of the possible positions seems to me to be nonsensical, but there you are.  --BM 21:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * They might well not so define themselves, but this article defines them that way. It doesn't say weak atheists are people who take no position at all on the existence of deities, but that they're absent belief in the existence of deities.  Alai 21:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus has, without explanation (except for a nomic and opaque reference to the 'fallacy of either/or'), changed the summary so as to remove the syntactical symmetry that I'd added (and which BM had remarked upon approvingly), and to change the grammatical 'any deity' to the ungrammatical 'any deities'. I've reverted to my version; perhaps he'll explain his thinking here before changing it again. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm requesting arbitration. I've had enough of your bigoted reverting every edit I make. Adraeus 23:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, I haven't reverted every edit you've made, nor anything like it. Secondly, your accusation of bigotry is vague and groundless. Thirdly, it's generally considered polite (if not actually required by the rules) to let someone know of a move like this on their Talk page, even if it is as frivolous as this one. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * [ Mel Etitis ] You've reverted every significant edit I've made since your appearance as an editor here. You've reduced me to being only valuable as a wiki-janitor of atheism. You've also given no consideration to that fact that I am among those who have greatly contributed to the progress and content of this article, like BM. Your antagonistic behavior towards my contributions demonstrably and definitionally justifies the accusation of bigotry — you are intolerant of my opinions which differ from yours, and you are dogmatic in thinking that you are incapable of error. Adraeus 13:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Adraeus, in all probability your request will just be turned down. Not because "Mel Etitis is popular while you are not", but because you didn't even go through RfC stage. The arbcom has more urgent tasks than to caucus over the injustice of replacing 'condition' with 'state'. Have a look at The universe does not revolve around you (and m:MPOV). dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Seeking arbitration is a process. That means going through the appropriate phases of the process, which includes RfC. I'm preparing for RfC. By the way, you completely misunderstand the reasons for my intent to seek arbitration. Mel Etitis has been strongly against me and all significant edits I've made since his/her appearance as an editor in this article, and each comment made by him/her regarding my contributions and I is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy against ad hominem comments. For instance, Mel Etitis described a recent revert of mine as "hysteria". If you were actually concerned with analyzing assertions of frivolousness, you'd be delighted by more examples of Mel Etitis's antagonistic behavior simply by looking up. The case is not me. This isn't about me. It's more like "The universe does not revolve around Mel Etitis". Adraeus 13:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * but then I remember you also considered it a personal attack when I misspelled your nick on one occasion. meden agan. btw, WP:RfC is not considered "arbitration", only the last resort, WP:RFAr is. dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whether the misspelling of my alias was ad hominem is dependent on how you spelled it (e.g., "Andrea" and "Andreas" are feminine names). WP:RfC is one of the first stages of the formal arbitration process ("the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties", a.k.a. dispute resolution), not WP:RfAr. I know what WP:RfAr involves. I've experienced it and I've been affected by it too. Adraeus 17:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Writing
To the anon IP re: your sentence: "Atheism is a concept/state of being without theistic beliefs ..." Edits have to be gramatically correct: "is a concept of being without" isn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * To 24.15.73.202, I'm reverting your edits because they make no sense. "Atheism is a belief of not having faith in theistic beliefs ..." "A belief of not having faith in" is meaningless, as is a belief in beliefs. Please leave the first sentence as it is, or try to gain consensus on the talk page for a change. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've given the anon advance warning on the 3-revert rule over on his user talk page, suggesting he come here to discuss the matter further. Bryan 00:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations
I have been requested to take part here. I will begin to do so. This is your sole and final warning. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Neow-body expects the Spanish Inquisi-shunn!" (sorry :o) dab (ᛏ)
 * ¡Ay caramba, es señor Samuel Pala! JRM 10:28, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

 * Please bare in mind that any attempts at anti-atheistic christian vandalism will be very quickly removed by the large number of honest people who are ready for your well known POV attacks Sam.Aaarrrggh 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please review Civility "Aaarrrggh". Your attempt at slander has been taken note of. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I was being perfectly civil. If your edits do not amount to the same kind of POV vandalism that you have been known for in the past, there will not be a problem. I don't see how this amounts to slander - it is a perfectly established fact. Aaarrrggh 19:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Sam meant libel here, not slander. Either way, Aaarrrggh is right. The archives of Talk:Atheism are a testament to Sam's 11 months of POV obstructionism here. Considering the disruption he caused and the number of new editors here now, Aaarrrggh's comment was necessary in that there is a well founded public interest in this specific information being widely known to save us from falling into the same deadlock caused by one tractable POV. And Aaarrrggh is also right in pointing out that truth is an affirmative defense against charges of slander. So since Sam's history in the archives of Talk:Atheism proves that his statement was based on fact, Sam's claim of defamation is groundless. That they are indeed facts also establishes that Aaarrrggh was only right to caution Sam.

 * Many of the long time contributors here will be watching again for the insertion into the article of the misbegotten POV that weak atheists aren't really atheists or that atheism isn't a natural state, these are historically the two points of Sam's that needlessly resulted in months of the article being locked to editing. We learned painfully the last time how to deal with biased or obstructionist editors, this time we're better prepared. --FeloniousMonk 20:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Sam Spade deserves a chance to participate (and cooperate) in the development of this article regardless of his worldview. (His previous defensive behavior, I think, certainly wasn't as negative as Mel Etitis' current antagonism...) With this article being recently and strictly managed by atheists, we've run into a more difficult problem that concerns the irrational and abusively biased declaration by explicit atheists that implicit atheism doesn't exist, is a "joke" (thank the local admin, dab, for that ad hominem insult to us implicit atheists), or that implicit atheism isn't a form of atheism at all (credits: BM). Quite simply, this discussion requires a third-party non-atheist viewpoint no matter how twisted, shallow, incompetent, ignorant, and/or incorrect some editors may perceive it. Third-party input is useful for allowing reasonable editors to see an issue from another angle not considered. (Sorry, Sam, if any of that was offensive. Offense not intended.) Adraeus 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody's trying to deny Sam a chance to participate here because of his "world views" -- it's his behavior that's been the problem. Anyone who doubts that he's behaved trollishly need only review his vandalism of my talk page today and his failed attempt at gaming the system with a misguided SLAPP action speciously claiming a copyright violation. It's his actions that cast doubt on his ability to contribute honestly and meaningfully, not his POV.--FeloniousMonk 01:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * None taken Adraeus, thank you for your thoughtful concern. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For the record, I have neither said nor implied that implicit atheism isn't atheism; indeed, I've said the opposite. But the rest of your comments will be useful if you really do intend to bring an RfC... Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I apologize for crediting you with the opposite of what you've said. I'm thinking about you way too much! ;) I removed the credit. Adraeus 23:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A few of us have been quite open all along about being strong atheists, and even with one more strong atheist in the editing crew (namely, Mel), I reckon we are still in the minority here. Whatever we might opine about weak atheism on this Talk page, nobody is arguing that it is not currently a common definition of atheism and doesn't belong in the article.  And I don't think Mel substitituting "state" for "condition" and cleaning up the syntax of the first sentence a little can really be construed as the strong atheists suddenly on a rampage, Adraeus, old bean.  --BM 22:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Explicit atheists are the majority — the dominant, active, powerful, and vocal majority — here. Implicit atheists are the minority, I think. I'm a scientific objectivist, Sartrean existentialist, Russellian rationalist, and an agnostic atheist so those classifications organize me into a definite minority [of possibly a single member]. Adraeus 23:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not have a problem with people coming from the article from different worldviews, what I have a problem with is a known troll such as samspade comining back to an article that he has very clearly tried to hinder and to vandalise in the past. He even stated explicitly that (and I quote), " And third, the bias against me from those lacking rigour is so extreme that there is no way in hell they are going to be convinced by anything I say. I could predict next weekÍs stock prices, and they'd still do nothing other than vomit forth the bile that has earned godlessness its infamy.[1]" In the same archive, you also make your own intentions regarding this article very clear: "I am in the habit of being bold, and I don't intend to change that. If you like some of my edits, reinsert them. I'll do just as I said, and come back someday when my improvements might not be reverted out of hand, and opposed by consensus." Translation: I am going to wait in the wings until I think I stand a chance of getting my POV edits into the article unedited.

 * As I have already said, I do not have a problem with you coming here and helping the article along. The second you start your famous POV trolling again however, I'm gonna be one amongst many others who will stop you before you even get started. Aaarrrggh 13:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok, but why rant about it? I don't think Sam sees himself as a troll. Just take his edits as they come, history or no history. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As I've said, if he comes here and edits productively I don't have a problem, but this particular user has such a history of (attempted) POV bullying that anyone familiar with his previous efforts on this article will naturally be somewhat alarmed that he is back here again - especially after he basically told us some time ago he was going to come back and carry on as per usual when he believed he stood a greater chance of having his edits accepted. I'm just going to sit back and watch now. Aaarrrggh 14:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aaarrrggh (and Felonious, too, for that matter): Sam Spade is a Wikipedian in good standing. You may think he should not be, and probably there are others who agree with you. Your recourse is not to make Sam the target of your ire on the Talk page of every article where you happen to end up with him as a co-editor. That simply lowers the tone of the discussion on the Talk pages. You only put yourself in the wrong by being uncivil and by engaging in personal attacks. If you feel compelled to do something about Sam, go to the Arbitration Committee and make the case that he should be banned. However, before doing so, consider that your own lack of civility and personal attacks will distract attention from whatever points you are trying to make and the Arb Comm is apt to simply wash its hands of the matter -- or to discipline everybody involved. Speaking personally, while I find Sam's editing behaviour a bit exasperating at times, I have not found him hard to work with. He generally returns politeness with the same, which I find is often true of people. --BM 14:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * that's more or less what I wanted to convey in fewer words :) dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

prevalent
ok, since we're talking about dictionary definitions:
 * Most generally received or current; most widely adopted or practiced; also, generally or extensively existing; widespread; prevailing; as, a prevalent observance; prevalent disease.

prevalent is a stronger term than widespread, which is again stronger than common. Atheism is certainly not "prevalent" in all cultures, it is not even common in all cultures, it is arguably in existence in all cultures, but even that is a strong claim, it took me a long time to find anything like an atheist from the European Middle Ages (c.f. the Löffler case in the history section). Anybody who claims that "atheism was prevalent in the Middle Ages" (which would be a corollary of "in all cultures"), is simply bullshitting you. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course; I've changed the wording — is that OK now? (Oh, and I removed the inverted commas from 'Tao', as we're presumably concerned with the concept rather than the word.) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro -- question
The introduction makes a claim that I find very strong and very surprising: "By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists". Is there a source for this statistic? I didn't see one elsewhere in the article. I apologize if this has been discussed before (there are a lot of archives up there...). --SamuelScarano 06:23, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

 * I asked a similar question previously too. I'd like to see more sources cited since lack of citation is Wikipedia's biggest failing as an academically credible reference. Adraeus 07:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose the statement is worthless, since "rationalist and humanists" are pretty much (not quite) defined by their atheism. I say, remove or attribute. dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regard to scientists, reference is given to at least one study in the article, and I gave another reference (Talk:Atheism/Archive 19). 'Rationalist' and 'humanist' aren't defined by atheism (and many religious philosophers (as opposed to philosophers of religion) and Christian Humanists would be surprised to be told that they were). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, but we cannot lump them together like that.
 * the study shows a narrow majority of atheists among early 20th c. natural scientists.
 * Humanism is indeed not defined by atheism, atheism may rather be considered a logical continuation of humanism (since humanism focuses on humans instead of on God. As soon as humans are more important than God, it is only a small step towards atheism. Arguably, Christianity is humanist theism, since it really boils down to God becoming human, which psychologists have long identified as a rationalization of the inverse desire of humans to become God). I have no idea how we are supposed to come up with a percentage of early 20th c. atheist humanists, short of unearthing a poll where people were asked "are you a humanist? are you an atheist?".
 * Rationalists, moreover, are necessarily atheists. You cannot be a rationalist and at the same time rely on a concept defined by its transcendence of rationality.
 * dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But many believers don't hold that the concept of god is defined by its transcendence of rationality. I don't just mean Thomists, though they're obviously significant, but it's the official position of the Catholic Church, and has been held by the majority of philosophers of religion, from Augustine (and before, in fact) to Swinburne, van Inwagen, Plantinga, Adams, Stump, et al. The retreat to a notion of faith based in irrationality is relatively recent as a mainstream phenomenon. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, this is rather subtle now. afaik, Thomism holds that the necessity of existence of God is provable rationally, but I suppose the proof heavily relies on the point of rationality itself having been created by God. This doesn't imply that God does not transcend rationality, indeed, if he didn't, God would just be a Turing machine. So, similarly to infinite regression, which is a valid proof without actually performing an infinite number of regressions, Thomists hold that God's existence can be proven rationally, without claiming that they could in principle implement a complete model of God. The question is, is a rationalist somebody who believes that existence presupposes rational cause, or is a rationalist merely someone who thinks that it is useful to make rational arguments now and again? Are we talking about weak and strong rationalism here (*rolleyes*) ?
 * All this is beside the point really, since we're really just looking for an attribution of the statement in question. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are dozens of ways of rationally proving God, personal revelation being the most obvious. See Arguments for the existence of God. There is nothing about rationalism that excludes theism. What about pantheism for crissakes, if you define God as existence, you can rationally prove existence, can't you? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Personal revelation doesn't count as proof of god; first, for all sorts of reasons that this isn't the place to into, concerning the nature of private experience, etc., but secondly because proof is here used with regard to the third person. x's claim to have personally experienced god shouldn't convince y of anything.  the question isn't whether any of the arguments works, but whether it's a matter for rational argument at all.  the history of theology and philosophy says yes. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * hm, I am not sure you are really on top of this conversation. Logically, the statement you have just removed is the more meaningful the more ways there are, as you claim, of "proving" God rationally. So, are you saying we remove it because it is not meaningful, since all rationalists are atheists anyway, or are we removing it because there were actually more theist than atheist rationalists? Can we also just wait with the edit warring for a minute until we have sorted this out here? dab (ᛏ) 10:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact we still have in the article:
 * It is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the twentieth century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century.

which as far as I'm concerned says it all, so I'm quite satisfied with removing the other more hand-waving statement as redundant. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm simply saying that being a rationalist doesn't imply being an atheist (aside from anything else, one can be a rationalist and wrong); thus the claim that most rationalists are atheists isn't tautologous, as was claimed.
 * I replaced the sentence simply because it was still under discussion, and I thought it better to finish talking before acting.
 * The fact that it's in the article, explained at greater length, surely doesn't preclude it from appearing in the summary; rather the reverse, if anything. Isn't the summary supposed, in part, to summarise what comes later?  Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if SS could stop removing the sentence in question while we're still in the process of discussing it. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The intro doesn't say that rationalism or humanism necessitate atheism; it says that atheism is the dominant position among rationalists and humanists. I am confident that this is true. However, I'm in favor of removing rationalists and humanists unless someone can produce surveys or polls of "rationalists" or "humanists" similar to those we have cited in the article and on the Talk page concerning "scientists". If such polls were done, I don't have much doubt as to the outcome, notwithstanding the odd Catholic humanist, Thomist, pantheist, or Deist here or there. But I don't know how we would prove this. --BM 10:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's a small thing, either remove the rationalists/humanists from the intro, or mention them in the article. I have no problem with the statement, I am "arguing for the enemy", acknowledging that it is not backed up water-tightly. Edit conflict, agree with BM. dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I yield to this point, but note the intro to Rationalism: yes, it's not identical with, or a subset of atheism, but it's a related stance, so that it is no marvel that most rationalists should be atheists.
 * 2) I think it would be best to find a compromise. Right now, the intro addresses scientists, rationalists and humanists. Only the "scientists" claim is backed up by the article. I readily believe that percentage among the remaining groups is even higher, but if it's in the intro, it should be elaborated upon in the article.
 * 3) again, granted for "scientists", not the case for rationalists or humanists.

Fair enough; I'll Google, and contact a couple of Humanist organisations to see if they can provide citations. In line with Wikipedia guidance on NPoV, though — is there anyone who genuinely questions the claim that most rationalists and humanists are atheists? If so, on what grounds? I mean, it's easy to question anything for the sake of disruption, but is there any ground for such questioning here? (This question is obviously not aimed at either dab or BM.) Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * arguing from a theist pov, I wouldn't contest it as being incorrect, but as being suggestive of "everybody with any sense was an atheist" while being carefully crafted to include the specific groups with atheist leanings. again, I would advocate a compromise wording, such as "widespread among...". dab (ᛏ) 11:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd be fine w that. The problem w all this is that "rationalist" and "humanist" are terms which can apply to people and concepts which may not be readilly identified with them. Wouldn't any charity be humanist? Wouldn't any sensible, logical position be rationalist? I agree that the overwhelming % of people who self identify w these labels are at least weak atheists. Scientists I reject, and if you look into it there is no good evidence that the amazingly broad international community of "scientists" is atheistic to any l;arge degree. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * nope, you are thinking "humane" and "rational". the -ism part changes that into a fundamental-ist position. A humanist is fundamentally humane, if you like. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The grounds for such questioning, Mel, is that such a claim of fact is a generalization, and most of us are aware that generalizations are fallacious and "bad science". Use Occam's Razor to cut through the vegetation. Adraeus 19:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originally started this section asking about the last sentence of the intro, the claim of prevalance of atheism among scientists, humanists, and rationalists. Someone then mentioned a source for the claim about early 20th-century scientists. (Although I was not able to find it.) As for humanists and rationalists, we seem to be in stark disagreement about the very nature of the statement. I propose that we take rationalists and humanists out of the statement, because it's a little odd to lump a group defined by philosophical positions along with a group defined by an occupation, in expressing a statistic; and because there's no source, and certainly no semblence of agreement. I also propose that the statement be moved into the main article, under the statistics section, with a documented source. Does anyone have a reason not to do these things? --SamuelScarano 00:37, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I support your proposal. Adraeus 04:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I also think the humanists and rationalists statement is a bit odd, given that rationalists are more or less defined by their aetheism (not entirely, of course), and humanists similarly (again, not entirely). It would make more sense to say it's the common position among scientists and philosophers, which is what I believe it used to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Atheism in decline

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, a theologian believes that "(a)theism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide." I'm shocked. That's about the sort of non-news I expect from the World Tribune.--FeloniousMonk 15:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I take it you meant atheism, of course. Yeah, I'm shocked too. I'd better start shopping around to pick a religion for when the EAC finally closes up shop and I have to believe in one. :) Bryan 15:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I meant atheism. My cutting and pasting skills are suspect until I've sufficiently diluted the blood in my caffeine system. I've fixed it. Shopping for a new religion? You'd abandon the Invisible Pink Unicorn in her hour of need? Has she you? Apostate!--FeloniousMonk 16:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard similar reports. I think there was a study showing increase of theistic belief in Switzerland, some 79% say they believe in God. The point is that the people responsible for this increase believe in whatever they chose. It has finally become acceptable to build your own religion as you go along. An appalling number of people who self-describe as Christians also claim to believe in reincarnation, unaware, or uninterested in the fact that reincarnation would completely defeat the point of Christianity. It's all about a fuzzy feeling you get when you think of "God" when you feel bad, but the big change is that people actually think it is okay that this should be all religion is about. I'll see if I can dig up some numbers. If we're so much into showing how atheism gained ground during the 20th century, it's only fair to show how it seems to be losing some, recently. dab (ᛏ) 17:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article states that Antony Flew has "embraced the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski". I don't think there's any truth to this because 1) I'm in constant contact with a professional philosopher who is a close friend of Flew's, and 2) Antony Flew believes in Aristotle's God which is quite different from the Christian God and from Dembski's "intelligent design" — Flew is still an atheist, although theists like to spin a different tale because they (i.e., those who spin these tales) are practically ignorant of any more philosophy than what they can see. Flew was initially impressed with Richard Swinburne's cosmological fine tuning argument, and Tony worried about hellfire for a few years, but he recently confessed in private that he believed only in Aristotle's God who had no interest in or even knowledge of the sublunary sphere. Aristotle thought that there are some things of which it is more perfect to be ignorant.

 * There are a number of factual errors in that article aside from misinformation about Flew. For instance, there is no central authority on atheism. Sure, there are organizations like the American Atheists, The Brights, and the Center for Atheism, but such organizations remain independent, each with their own objectives.

 * Until someone extensively fact-checks the article, Sam, I'm going to oppose the inclusion of any content from the article into atheism. Adraeus 19:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can confirm what's said here about Flew (although I find it difficult to believe that any decent philosopher could be impressed by Swinburne's argument); I heard it directly from Flew (except for the reference to Swinburne). I doubt that he's even heard of Dembski (I hadn't until I came across him in Wikipedia). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In an interview several months ago Flew states that he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism. "We must follow the argument wherever it leads," he said. "I've never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is."

 * Scientific evidence also now leads him to believe in an disinterested god like that which Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson spoke of, he said. Yet, when asked whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, Flew responded: "Certainly not."

 * See also:

 * I think the most we can say with any certainty of Flew at this time is that he may be a little muddled --or at eighty-something, dotty. --FeloniousMonk 23:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Characterizing a "change of mind" as "muddled", "dotty", or "flip-flopping" is hardly reasonable. Kerry was criticized throughout his campaign for demonstrating he is capable of learning and adapting to evidence new to his knowledge of things. I can't respect those latter comments about Flew's mental health, Felonious. More to the point, Richard Carrier's opinions on atheism (and theism) and on Tony are woefully inadequate of objectivity to be considered scientific (i.e. informed), or even aspiring to that degree of strength.

 * Richard Carrier writes, "Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism."
 * To that I reply, "Neither inquiry nor standards of inquiry led me to atheism. I was born without theistic beliefs and have since remained without theistic beliefs. I do not follow. I lead."
 * Carrier also writes, "It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship."
 * How biased, although unsurprising considering that Carrier is a "positive" atheist, that he would claim that all theists are unscholarly. Interestingly, a history of philosophy and science would reveal many theistic scholars that have made enormous contributions to their respective fields of study. In fact, I think, the term "scholar" was originally reserved for holy scribes and other "men of God". Adraeus 00:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 20


text:
Philip J. Purcell

Philip J. Purcell (born September 5, 1943) is an American businessman. Purcell is a former chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, where he worked in the late 1990s and 2000s. He was previously chairman and CEO of Dean Witter, Discover and managed the firm under its ownership by Sears, Roebuck & Co. He subsequently became head of Continental Investors, a private equity firm that invests in Internet-enabled financial services and consumer companies.

Early life and education
Phil Purcell was born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he graduated from Judge Memorial Catholic High School. During the school year, he worked selling magazine subscriptions and pressing clothes at a drycleaner; during summers he worked road construction and at the national parks in southern Utah. He was a center on the basketball team and starting tackle on the state championship football team.

Purcell won a scholarship to the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. After his freshman year, he transferred to the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, where he earned a Bachelor of Business Administration. He won fellowships to the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, then to the London School of Economics. In October 2006, Purcell contributed $12.5 million for the renovation of Notre Dame’s basketball arena, which was renamed "Purcell Pavilion" in his honor.

Career
Purcell has been a significant figure in the financial services industry for over 30 years. He was the main architect of Dean Witter's acquisition of Morgan Stanley in 1997, and was Chairman and CEO of the merged firm (known as Morgan Stanley) from 1997-2005. During that period, the market cap of Morgan Stanley increased from $23 billion to $64 billion. He was previously chairman and CEO of Dean Witter, Discover & Co, from 1986 to 1997. After leaving Morgan Stanley, Purcell formed Continental Investors LLC, a private equity firm. Purcell has also been on the executive board and as vice-chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. He was one of the founding members of the Financial Services Forum and was chairman during its first three years.

McKinsey, Sears, and Dean Witter
Purcell began his business career in 1967 at McKinsey & Co., an international management consulting firm, traveling and working with clients throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia. When he left McKinsey to join Sears in 1978, he was Managing Director of the Chicago office—the youngest head of a major office in the firm's history.

At Sears, Purcell became Senior Vice President for Corporate Administration and Planning, reporting directly to the CEO. In addition to long-range planning, his duties included exploring acquisitions and divestitures for the company. He played a leading role in Sears's acquisition of Dean Witter Reynolds on December 31, 1981, and became President in 1982 and Chairman and CEO in 1986. In 1993, Purcell led the spin-off from Sears and initial public offering of Dean Witter Discover. Shareholders buying the IPO made 20% per year, or 9 times their original investment by March 2005.

At Dean Witter, Purcell saw the potential of the asset management business well ahead of other firms. The approximately $11 billion in money and mutual fund assets at Dean Witter in 1982 grew to more than $100 billion by 1997 and to about $400 billion by 2004. He started the Discover Card from scratch in 1986; by 2006 it had grown to more than 50 million accounts and $1.5 billion in pre-tax income.

Morgan Stanley
For a while, the Dean-Witter/Morgan Stanley merger seemed to be a winner. The firm's profits and ROE soared and the stock price reached 109 on Sept. 11, 2001. But the early promise of the one-stop-shop model faded as integrating the two firms became problematic and returns began to suffer. By 2004, Purcell himself was acknowledging that, "returns had sunk to the middle of the pack."

After a series of missteps, including firing President Vikram Pandit and a $1.4 billion jury verdict against the firm, Purcell began to lose the confidence of shareholders and his board of directors. A highly public campaign against him by former Morgan Stanley partners (the Group of Eight) added additional pressure on the board after the group outlined a series of issues with corporate governance.

After a bitter struggle to retain his position, Purcell announced on June 14, 2005 that he would retire from the firm. As part of the deal to step down, Purcell was awarded a $113 million pay package

The events that led to his resignation are covered in detail in a 2007 book by Patricia Beard, Blue Blood and Mutiny: The Fight for the Soul of Morgan Stanley.

Purcell was at the helm of Morgan Stanley on September 11, 2001, when the terrorist hijacked planes hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center. More than 3,500 Morgan Stanley employees worked in the World Trade Center. Based on the firm's experience in the earlier 1993 WTC bombing, contingency plans were in place long before 9/11. As a result, there was a rapid evacuation and organized follow-up on 9/11 that helped mitigate the terrible tragedy. Morgan Stanley employees at the WTC helped save lives of both Morgan Stanley employees and many others.

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

title: Philip J. Purcell


text:
Netherlands Antilles at the 2000 Summer Olympics

The Netherlands Antilles competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia.

Athletics

 * Key
 * Note–Ranks given for track events are within the athlete's heat only
 * Q = Qualified for the next round by position in race or, in field events, by achieving the automatic qualification target
 * q = Qualified for the next round as a fastest loser or, in field events, by position without achieving the qualifying target


text:
Phil Purcell

Phil Purcell may refer to:

 * Philip J. Purcell (born 1943), American financial executive
 * Phil Purcell (hurler) (1900–1963), Irish hurler

title: Phil Purcell


text:
Bruce Bowen

Bruce Eric Bowen Jr. (born June 14, 1971) is an American former professional basketball player. Bowen played small forward and graduated from Edison High School and Cal State Fullerton. He went on to play for the National Basketball Association's Miami Heat, Boston Celtics, Philadelphia 76ers, San Antonio Spurs and the Continental Basketball Association's Rockford Lightning, and also played abroad in France.

One of the most feared perimeter "lockdown" defenders in NBA history, Bowen was elected to the NBA All-Defensive First and Second Teams eight times, and was a member of the Spurs teams that won the NBA championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. At the same time, he was frequently accused of having a "dirty" playstyle and endangering other players. Off the court, Bowen became an informal ambassador for child obesity awareness.

Early years
Bruce Bowen Jr. was born in Merced, California. He is the son of Bruce Bowen Sr. and Dietra Campbell. Bowen had a problematic childhood growing up in Merced. According to Bowen, his earnings from selling newspapers were taken from him by his father so that his father could buy alcohol. Bowen has also stated that he only saw his father "from time to time". He has asserted that his mother took drugs, and that she once sold the family television to feed her crack cocaine habit. Bowen has an uncle named Darryl who looked out for him as a child; he regards Darryl and his sons as brothers.

Bruce Jr. spent his days playing basketball and eventually became a star at local West Fresno Edison High School. He then played four seasons at Cal State Fullerton, appearing in 101 games, and averaged 11.4 points and 5.8 rebounds per game. After averaging 16.3 points, 6.5 rebounds and 2.3 assists in 36.6 minutes in 27 games as a senior in 1992–93, he was named to the All-Big West Conference First Team. Bowen ranks 12th on the Titans' all-time list in career points (1,155) and is seventh all-time in rebounds (559).

Le Havre (1993–1994)
After finishing his four-year college eligibility, Bowen was eligible for the 1993 NBA draft, but went undrafted. Between 1993 and 1997, Bowen played for five different teams, starting his professional career for the French team of Le Havre in 1993–94.

Évreux (1994–1995)
Bowen played for Évreux during the 1994–95 season.

Rockford Lightning (1995–1996)
In 1995–96, Bowen played in the CBA with the Rockford Lightning.

Besançon (1996–1997)
Bowen spent the next season back in France with Besançon.

Return to the Lightning (1997)
Bowen returned to the Lightning in February 1997.

Miami Heat (1997)
Bowen made his NBA debut when he was signed to a ten-day contract by the Miami Heat in March 1997. His output consisted of 1 game, 1 minute and 1 block.

Boston Celtics (1997–1999)
In the 1997–98 NBA season, Bowen reappeared in the NBA, having been signed by the Boston Celtics. With the Celtics, Bowen slowly established himself in the NBA. In his first full year as an NBA player, he appeared in 61 games (nine of them as starter) with the Celtics, averaging 5.6 points, 2.9 rebounds and 1.43 steals in 21.4 minutes per game, shooting .409 from the field, .339 from three-point land and .623 from the free throw line. The next year was a disappointment for him, as Bowen appeared in only 30 Celtics games, averaging 2.3 points and 1.7 rebounds in 16.5 minutes per game.

Philadelphia 76ers (1999–2000)
In the 1999–2000 NBA season, Bowen signed with the Philadelphia 76ers.

Return to Miami (2000–2001)
Bowen was later traded to the Chicago Bulls and immediately waived, then picked up off waivers by the Miami Heat. In that season, he wore jersey #12 instead of #3 and appeared in 69 games, averaging 2.8 points and 1.4 rebounds in 12.7 minutes per game, and scored in double-figures six times. In the following year, Bowen was retained by the Heat. In that year, he had his breakout season. For the first time in his career, he played in all 82 regular-season games, averaged 7.6 points, 3.0 rebounds, 1.6 assists and 1.01 steals in 32.7 minutes per game and set new single-season career-highs in games, points, rebounds, assists, blocks, minutes, field goals made and attempted, three-point goals made and attempted and free throws made and attempted. Bowen logged more minutes (2,685 vs. 2,678), scored more points (623 vs. 606) and hit more threes (103 vs. 54) than he had in his first four seasons combined. Especially, Bowen earned himself a reputation as a defensive stopper. For his strong perimeter defense, he was voted into the All-Defensive Second Team.

2001–03: First championship
In the 2001–02 NBA season, Bowen was signed by the San Antonio Spurs. He joined a championship-caliber team, led by veteran Hall-of-Fame center David Robinson and young power forward Tim Duncan, complemented by talented role players like Steve Smith, Malik Rose, Antonio Daniels and point guards Terry Porter and Tony Parker. Bowen established himself as a starter, beginning in each of his 59 regular-season games. In that season, Bowen received his first of several fines: he had to pay $7,500 for kicking Wally Szczerbiak in the face during a March 1, 2002 game. In the 2002 NBA playoffs, Bowen started in all 10 Spurs playoffs games, where the team eventually succumbed to the Los Angeles Lakers. For his feats, Bowen earned himself his second All-Defensive Second Team nomination, although some peers and sports analysts accused him of being a "dirty" defender.

In the next season, Bowen started in all 82 regular-season games for the second time in his career and averaged 7.1 points, 2.9 rebounds and 1.4 assists in 31.3 minutes per game. Again, he was voted into the All-Defensive Second Team and was a member of the Spurs team which won the 2003 NBA Finals. At age 31, the one-time journeyman Bowen had won his first championship ring as a starter. In the following three seasons, Bowen established a reputation as one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA, earning three straight All-Defensive First Team elections and ending as runner-up in the NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award votings twice, losing to post defender Ben Wallace.

2003–04: Back-to-back chase
Having established himself as the premier defensive backcourt player, Bowen's effective, but hard-nosed style of play came under discussion. In particular, rival guards Vince Carter and Steve Francis accused him of encroaching into their landing space during their jumpshot. Inside Hoops columnist M.J. Darnell commented: "They're whining because Bruce Bowen has frustrated, upset, hurt or angered them in some way.... He just plays tough, physical defense, does not play with any intent to injure, but isn't afraid to get in someone's grill". Bowen's defensive style failed to help this Spurs squad repeat in the 2004 NBA playoffs, as the team was eventually defeated 4–2 by the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference Semi-Finals.

2005–07: Second and third championships
Bowen and the Spurs bounced back and won the NBA title in 2005, defeating the Detroit Pistons. The Spurs could not win back-to-back titles, however, and bowed out 4–3 in a seven-game series against the Dallas Mavericks in the 2006 NBA playoffs. As a testament to his controversial style of play, Bowen picked up a $10,000 NBA fine for kicking Ray Allen in the back during a March 2006 game.

In the 2007 NBA playoffs, the Spurs played against the Phoenix Suns, and Bowen became the center of controversy. His knee contacted Phoenix Suns guard Steve Nash's groin, knocking Nash to the floor. Also in that series, forward–center Amar'e Stoudemire accused Bowen of kicking him during a game, but the NBA reviewed and dismissed the claim. ESPN columnist Bill Simmons commented that Bowen was "a cheap player who's going to seriously hurt someone someday", but Simmons also acknowledged that Bowen "ultimately makes his team better." The Spurs went on to beat the Suns, and Bowen's defense contributed to the Spurs winning their fourth championship in the 2007 NBA Finals.

2007–09: Final years in San Antonio
In the 2007–08 NBA season, the now 36-year-old veteran Bowen played and started in 81 of 82 regular season games, earning his fifth straight nomination in the NBA All-Defensive First Team. Ever controversial, Bowen was fined $7,000 and suspended for one game for kicking Chris Paul after Paul had fallen to the floor during a March 12, 2008 game. Bowen finished as the runner-up behind Marcus Camby for the league's defensive player of the year award. In the 2008 NBA playoffs, Bowen was unable to stop Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who averaged 28.3 points and helped L.A. beat the Spurs in five games. Bowen started in every Spurs regular season and playoff game from 2001 to 2008.

The 2008–09 NBA season was to be Bowen's last with the Spurs. Although he played in 80 regular-season games, he was no longer a starter as was the case in the previous seven San Antonio campaigns. His minutes were also greatly reduced (from 30+ to 18.9 per game), although his shooting numbers remained consistent. The Spurs went into the 2009 NBA playoffs with a 54–28 record and as the third seed. With influential shooting guard Manu Ginóbili out injured, the Spurs got off to a bad start to the series and eventually lost 4–1 against the Dallas Mavericks, bowing out of the playoffs in the first round for the first time since 2000.

On June 23, 2009, Bowen was traded along with Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto to the Milwaukee Bucks for Richard Jefferson. He was released on July 31, 2009, and retired on September 3, 2009.

On March 21, 2012, the Spurs retired Bowen's #12 jersey. Bowen's jersey was the seventh retired by the Spurs. With Bowen's permission, the Spurs reissued the number 12 for free agent LaMarcus Aldridge in 2015.

National team career
In 2006, U.S. coach Mike Krzyzewski invited Bowen to join the U.S. national team, which participated in the 2006 FIBA World Championships in Japan. At 35, he was the oldest player to participate; Krzyzewski said that the team needed a defensive player like Bowen. However, Bowen received little playing time, despite the injuries of fellow swingmen and guards Antawn Jamison, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade. Although he participated in several training sessions and training camps, Bowen was eventually cut from the team. He expressed disappointment and said he hoped to make the 2008 Olympics squad, but was not named to the team in the end.

Player profile
The 6 ft, 200 lb Bowen played the small forward, and occasionally the shooting guard, position. He had a reputation for being one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA, earning himself eight consecutive nominations for the NBA All-Defensive First and Second Teams from 2001 to 2008. From 2005 to 2007, he was second in voting for the NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award, beaten only by centers Ben Wallace (2005 and 2006) and Marcus Camby (2007) who are both post defenders. His accolades for defense were accompanied by persistent allegations of dirty, dangerous play.

Bowen was not known for his offensive production. He was seldom sought on offense, having never attempted more than 600 field goals in an entire 82-game regular season, and his career averages of 6.1 points, 2.8 rebounds and 1.2 assists per game, and .575 free throw shooting were considered mediocre, never earning him nominations for NBA All-Star or All-NBA First or Second Teams. His free throw shooting, in fact, was poor enough that he was at times been made the target of the Hack-a-Shaq defense. However, opposing teams could not leave Bowen wide open on offense, because he was also an accurate three-point shooter (.393 career average on 2,082 attempts), particularly from the corner. In addition, despite his age Bowen played 500 consecutive games between February 28, 2002, and March 12, 2008, leading Sports Illustrated to name him in 2007 the "Iron Man" of the NBA.

Post-playing career
Bowen often speaks out against child obesity. In 2004, he started the "GET FIT with Bruce and Buddy" program for children's healthy nutrition and daily sports activities. He runs the Bruce Bowen Foundation, an organization set up to provide scholarships and bursaries. In 2006, he received a college degree in communications from Cal State Fullerton; he had also taken classes at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He has stated that he wants to become a teacher. In 2011, Bowen was inducted into the Fresno County Athletic Hall of Fame.

Bowen worked for ESPN as an NBA analyst after he retired. Bowen spent the 2017–18 season as a color analyst for Fox Sports West television broadcasts of the Los Angeles Clippers' games. He was relieved of his duties after making comments critical of Kawhi Leonard, a free agent and trade target of the Clippers.

In April 2019, Bowen was hired as boys' basketball coach at Cornerstone Christian School in San Antonio.

Personal life
Bowen regards Robert and Sandra Thrash, a Los Angeles couple that he met in church during his college years, as his adoptive parents.

In 2004, Bowen married Yardley Barbon, a Miami native of Cuban descent, and the couple had two sons. The two divorced in 2012.

In 2006, he received a college degree in communications from Cal State Fullerton; he had also taken classes at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

title: Bruce Bowen


text:
Zimbabwe at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Zimbabwe competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia.

Athletics

 * Key
 * Note–Ranks given for track events are within the athlete's heat only
 * Q = Qualified for the next round
 * q = Qualified for the next round as a fastest loser or, in field events, by position without achieving the qualifying target
 * NR = National record
 * N/A = Round not applicable for the event
 * Bye = Athlete not required to compete in round

 * Men

 * Women

Diving

 * Men

Swimming

 * Men

 * Women

title: Zimbabwe at the 2000 Summer Olympics


text:
Talk:Tommy Boy Records

What happened?
What happened to all of the information that was on this page? Now it’s just a meaningless blurb. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating
This article is outdated, I believe. Didn't AOL/Time Warner buy Tommy Boy in 2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.99.48 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2005

Fair use rationale for Image:Modern Tommy Boy Logo.jpeg
Image:Modern Tommy Boy Logo.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No additions without RS
While the page is completely unsourced, it makes no sense to permit further additions which are unsourced. And as previously noted, Mic Neumann, there are no RS supporting your claims of association with Tommy Boy anything.--Lexein (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Boy Entertainment → Tommy Boy Records – There is no source that this is the current name of the label; in addition, this would be in sync with Category:Tommy Boy Records singles. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 14:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The official website never says "Records", but in small letters at the bottome of the page it does say "Entertainment". That said, I see no indication they are in any other business but the marketing of sound recordings.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, Category:Tommy Boy Records singles should be speedily moved to Category:Tommy Boy Entertainment singles.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose, a quick Google gave half a million ghits for the current name and five times fewer for the proposed new name  (your results may vary). But I see no need to move the category. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (change of vote) deferring to BHG's superior Google searches below. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME,  When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources ... so I searched Gbooks. 1840 hits for "Tommy Boy Records" -Wikipedia -"books, llc" versus 68 for "Tommy Boy Entertainment" -Wikipedia -"books, llc". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll have a closer look when i get a moment. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per BrownHairedGirl.   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move - Round 2
The name of the label is now officially Tommy Boy Entertainment, as indicated on this page and on the company site. I think we should move to Tommy Boy Entertainment and redirect Tommy Boy Records there. Toughts? --FeldBum (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, as per the above. (I agree with myself, that is.) --FeldBum (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (Third time's the charm!), 26 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure)  QEDK ( 後  🌸  桜 ) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Boy Records → Tommy Boy Music – See https://www.tommyboy.com/history which says Tommy Boy Music LLC at the bottom. I tried to move this myself, but Tommy Boy Music (along with Tommy Boy Records) are both redirects to this page so everything got a bit tricky. Melodies1917 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Support? - Pointed this user towards WP:RM when they asked about changing the name of the article. Label's name appears to be Tommy Boy Music according to their website, although I'm seeing "Tommy Boy Records" in the press as recently as September 2017. I didn't know that this would be the third RM request - I'm a little wary of moving too much, but I can see the reasons. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 20:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Support - If I can support my own request ha. Thank you for that link btw. Is it even possible to move? At the very least should the lead be updated?-Melodies1917 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is unnecessary to support your own nomination and is discouraged, see WP:RM Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as no case has been made in terms of WP:AT, see below. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There does not seem to be any good reason yet to rename this article. That may change in the future; however, if TBM is indeed the "new name" of this company, there should be more about that on their website, like on the "About" page, and more reliable sources writing about TBM rather than about TBR and TBE LLC.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  04:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The official name carries little weight, as do other primary sources. What is the common name in reliable secondary sources? Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know it was unnecessary and discouraged re: the above. Is the lead okay? It begins with Tommy Boy Music. I can add the URL I used to reference this page move there. Melodies1917 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and we are all learners here, so don't get too worried about the redundant !vote... see my take on this which is supported by many policies and guidelines, most notably wp:AGF and wp:BOLD. I just wanted to point out to you and others what the convention is, for next time.
 * So far as the lead goes, it should of course reflect the title. So I can only repeat... is there a case for the move based on our article title policy? Because otherwise, it should not be moved.
 * So far as the link to https://www.tommyboy.com/history goes, it's a primary source so it's of little relevance so far as the article title goes (this was challenged a little while back but nothing came of it as far as I know, I'll have another look). But the official name of the organisation should certainly appear in the lead. I think this history page should be given as a reference there if the article is not renamed, and as a reference later in the article in any case... we can use a named reference to do this neatly. Primary sources do have some limited use, see the link above. But again, first things first. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion of a little while back was at Wikipedia talk:Official names and was sparked by Talk:Nokia phones beta labs. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging and  as you participated at Wikipedia talk:Official names and I'd like your opinions on this RM, which seems to be a similar case. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi to all – love these gnarly ones. The external link I just fixed carries the company as both "Tommy Boy Entertainment LLC" and "Tommy Boy Records", as if they were two different companies. (See this link.) In a case like this where there are several "Tommy Boy Foo"-type names around, it probably matters little what title is used by Wikipedia just as long as there are redirects to help readers and searchers. If we follow WP:AT to the letter, then I don't see much of a case yet to rename, although that may change if more reliable sources are found to justify the rename. It would also help if there were something on the website that shows precisely when the official name change took place. So far I haven't found anything about that. And I also just noticed "Tommy Boy Entertainment" used on their website, but no explanation as to what if any difference there is between that and other Tommy Boy Foo titles. In cases like this it may be best to take no action at this time to effect a change to this title.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  04:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Tommy Boy Records


text:
John Mack (musician)

John Mack (Sunday, October 30, 1927 – Sunday, July 23, 2006) was an American oboist.

Born in Somerville, New Jersey, Mack attended the Juilliard School of Music, studying oboe with Harold Gomberg and Bruno Labate and then at the Curtis Institute of Music with Marcel Tabuteau, the longtime principal oboe of the Philadelphia Orchestra.

His first professional experience was with the Sadler Wells Ballet's American tour in 1951–1952. Afterwards he was appointed principal oboist of the New Orleans Symphony, taught briefly at Louisiana State University, and then played with the National Symphony Orchestra from 1963 to 1965. He was also principal oboist at the Casals Festivals in Prades and Perpignan, France.

Mack was appointed by George Szell as principal oboist of the Cleveland Orchestra in 1965, succeeding Marc Lifschey, and remained there playing under Szell and his successors Lorin Maazel and Christoph von Dohnanyi until 2001 when he retired.

"Teaching," Mack once said, "is close to a sacred duty." He was the Chairman of Oboe Studies at the Cleveland Institute of Music and served on the faculty of the Juilliard School of Music in New York and Hartt School in Hartford. He also taught at the John Mack Oboe Camp, a yearly summer event established by Mack's student and former principal oboe of the New York Philharmonic, Joseph Robinson, in Little Switzerland, North Carolina.

Ellen Taaffe Zwilich's Oboe Concerto was commissioned by the Cleveland Orchestra to honor his 25th anniversary with the orchestra and he performed the world premiere.

John Mack died in Cleveland, Ohio of brain cancer at the age of 78.

The John Mack Oboe Camp
Mack began the John Mack Oboe Camp (JMOC) in 1976 to give more people access to excellent oboe teaching and mentoring; it is held each year in early summer at Wildacres in Little Switzerland, North Carolina, on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The teaching legacy that Mack inspired and instilled is a summer tradition at Wildacres Retreat. A long-standing institution for many oboists, the camp has seen the "who's who" of oboists pass through its doors since 1976.

External source

 * Liner notes. Mack, John; Podis, Eunice. John Mack, Oboe Crystal, 1990.

Listening

 * Art of the States: John Mack performing Deux rapsodies (1901) by Charles Martin Loeffler

title: John Mack (musician)


text:
South Division (AFL)

The American Conference - South Division was a division of the Arena Football League's American Conference.

The Southern Division was formed in 1992 when the AFL first split into three divisions. The League used only conferences in 1993 and 1994, but returned to division play in 1995. The Southern Division has produced 10 ArenaBowl teams and 5 champions, with the most recent during the 2011 Arena Football League season by the Sharks. Rivalries such as the Tampa Bay Storm and Orlando Predators, known as the "War on I-4," used to define this division, but the Georgia Force had risen to the top and dominated in recent years before their folding.

Division lineups
1992 Creation of the Southern Division. Charlotte Rage enfranchised. In 1993, New Orleans Night folded upon suspension of the Southern Division while the league has been realigned into the American/National conference structure.
 * Charlotte Rage
 * New Orleans Night
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

1995 The Southern Division returns, now part of the National Conference. Three of the National Conference teams, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay reformed this division.
 * Miami Hooters
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

1996 Miami Hooters renamed Florida Bobcats. Texas Terror enfranchised.
 * Florida Bobcats
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm
 * Texas Terror

1997 Texas Terror moved to the American Conference's Central Division.
 * Florida Bobcats
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

1998–1999 Nashville moved in from the National Conference's Eastern Division.
 * Florida Bobcats
 * Nashville Kats
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2000 Carolina Cobras enfranchised.
 * Carolina Cobras
 * Florida Bobcats
 * Nashville Kats
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2001 Carolina moved to Eastern Division.
 * Florida Bobcats
 * Nashville Kats
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2002–2003 Carolina moved back from Eastern Division. Florida Bobcats folded. Nashville moved to Atlanta as Georgia Force.
 * Carolina Cobras
 * Georgia Force
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2004–2005 Austin Wranglers and New Orleans VooDoo enfranchised. Carolina moved back to Eastern Division.
 * Austin Wranglers
 * Georgia Force
 * New Orleans VooDoo
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2006 Kansas City Brigade enfranchised. New Orleans VooDoo suspended due to Hurricane Katrina.
 * Austin Wranglers
 * Georgia Force
 * Kansas City Brigade
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2007 Kansas City moved to Central Division. New Orleans reactivated.
 * Austin Wranglers
 * Georgia Force
 * New Orleans VooDoo
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2008 Austin Wranglers moved to af2. In 2009, the AFL has been put on a one-year hiatus while Georgia Force and New Orleans are suspended.
 * Georgia Force
 * New Orleans VooDoo
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2010 The Southern Division moved to the American Conference. Alabama moved in from af2. Jacksonville Sharks enfranchised.
 * Alabama Vipers
 * Jacksonville Sharks
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2011–2012 Alabama moved to Duluth as Georgia Force. New Orleans reactivated.
 * Georgia Force
 * Jacksonville Sharks
 * New Orleans VooDoo
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2013–2014 Georgia Force folded.
 * Jacksonville Sharks
 * New Orleans VooDoo
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

2015 New Orleans VooDoo moved to East Division.
 * Jacksonville Sharks
 * Orlando Predators
 * Tampa Bay Storm

Divisions were discontinued after the 2015 season.

Division Champions

 * 1992: Orlando Predators (9–1)
 * 1995: Tampa Bay Storm (10–2)
 * 1996: Tampa Bay Storm (12–2)
 * 1997: Orlando Predators (10–4)
 * 1998: Tampa Bay Storm (12–2)
 * 1999: Tampa Bay Storm (11–3)
 * 2000: Orlando Predators (11–3)
 * 2001: Nashville Kats (10–4)
 * 2002: Orlando Predators (7–7)
 * 2003: Tampa Bay Storm (12–4)
 * 2004: New Orleans VooDoo (11–5)
 * 2005: Georgia Force (11–5)
 * 2006: Orlando Predators (10–6)
 * 2007: Georgia Force (13–3)
 * 2008: Georgia Force (10–6)
 * 2010: Jacksonville Sharks (12–4)
 * 2011: Jacksonville Sharks (14–4)
 * 2012: Jacksonville Sharks (10–8)
 * 2013: Jacksonville Sharks (12–6)
 * 2014: Orlando Predators (11–7)
 * 2015: Orlando Predators (12–6)

title: South Division (AFL)


text: File:Baseketball.jpg

title: File:Baseketball.jpg


text:
Marquis Daniels

Marquis Antwane Daniels (born January 7, 1981) is an American former professional basketball player. He played college basketball at Auburn University before going undrafted in the 2003 NBA draft. He played his first three years for the Dallas Mavericks before being traded to the Indiana Pacers. Daniels then signed with the Boston Celtics in 2009 and the Milwaukee Bucks in 2012.

High school career
Daniels attended Edgewater High School in his hometown Orlando, Florida, before transferring to Mt. Zion Christian Academy for his senior year.

College career
In his four-year career at Auburn, Daniels played 111 games, averaging 13.8 points, 5.6 rebounds, 2.6 assists and 1.9 steals in 28.7 minutes per game. In 2003, Auburn reached the Sweet 16 where Daniels averaged 23.3 points and 7.0 rebounds in three games, including an impressive 27-point, nine-rebound performance in a close one-point loss against the eventual national champion Syracuse.

Daniels graduated from Auburn University with a degree in Sociology in just three-and-a-half years. He averaged 18.4 points, 6.2 rebounds, 3.3 assists and 2.3 steals per game as a senior, and was named to the All-SEC second team as a senior and team MVP as a sophomore, junior and senior.

Dallas Mavericks (2003–2006)
After going undrafted in the 2003 NBA draft, Daniels joined the Dallas Mavericks for the 2003 NBA Summer League and later signed a one-year deal with the Mavericks. Daniels was mostly a third-stringer during his rookie season, used only when victory was all but sure. In the short minutes he was on the floor however, he showed flashes of brilliance. When Steve Nash was out with a stomach flu, head coach Don Nelson plugged in Daniels as the starting point guard and the rookie delivered with a near triple-double finishing with 14 points, 9 rebounds and 9 assists followed by a 16-point, 7 rebound and 8 assist game.

Although his reign as a starter was cut short, Nelson grew tired of the team's lackluster play following a third-straight loss and decided to bring back the classic small ball line-up in a 118–88 triumph over the Orlando Magic on March 28, 2004. This line-up had the 6'9" Antoine Walker at center and Daniels at shooting guard, and was the permanent starting five member until their post-season demise. Daniels averaged 19.7 points, 6 rebounds and 5 assists during that 10-game stretch.

In July 2004, Daniels re-joined the Mavericks for the 2004 NBA Summer League and later signed a six-year, $38 million contract with the Mavericks.

Indiana Pacers (2006–2009)
On July 12, 2006, Daniels was traded to the Indiana Pacers in exchange for Austin Croshere.

On June 30, 2009, the Pacers announced their decision to not exercise their team option on the final year of Daniels' six-year contract, making him an unrestricted free agent.

Boston Celtics (2009–2012)
On September 1, 2009, Daniels signed with Boston Celtics.

On February 6, 2011, while the Celtics were playing against the Orlando Magic, Daniels collided with Magic guard Gilbert Arenas and suffered a bruised spinal cord. Daniels laid motionless on the floor for several minutes before being taken away on a stretcher. He gave the Boston crowd a thumbs up sign, and after arriving at a Boston Hospital, regained movement of his arms and legs.

On February 24, 2011, Daniels was traded, along with cash considerations, to the Sacramento Kings in exchange for a 2017 protected second-round draft pick. On July 1, 2011, he became a free agent, departing the Kings before playing in a game for them.

On December 9, 2011, Daniels re-signed with the Boston Celtics on a one-year deal.

Milwaukee Bucks (2012–2013)
On September 25, 2012, Daniels signed with the Milwaukee Bucks.

Tattoos
Daniels is noted for having several tattoos inscribed on different parts of his body. The tattoos range from a detailed map of Florida that covers his entire back, a caricature of a man blowing his head off with a shotgun on his lower right arm, and Chinese characters on his other arm which were intended to represent his initials, but translate to English as "healthy woman roof". Also, he has an entire Bible verse on his chest, which he used to read to his paralyzed grandmother.

Rap career
Outside basketball, Daniels also has a career in the hip-hop industry, going by his stage name, "Q6". One of his top singles is "Come Here Nikki". Daniels has collaborated with many artists including Torrence "Lil Boosie" Hatch.

Coaching career
In retirement, Daniels has also begun to coach. He is currently serving as an assistant men's basketball coach at his alma mater, Auburn University.

title: Marquis Daniels


text:
User talk:Minidiez

Project Wasted.com

Verifiability
Hello Minidiez. I've reverted [ your edit] to 'John Abbott College' because you did not provide any references to prove the information. Because Wikipedia is an attempt at a reliable encyclopedia, reliable references are very important for new information. For more information, please see Verifiability. If you need help or have any questions or comments, feel free to respond here or leave a note on my talk page. — {admin} Pathoschild 20:05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 11 of 12
A tag has been placed on 11 of 12 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Non-dropframe (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Minidiez


text: Category:Districts of the Northwest Territories


text:
Pavel Podkolzin

Pavel Nikolaevitch Podkolzin (Павел Николаевич Подкользин; born 15 January 1985) is a Russian former professional basketball player. Formerly, he played in the NBA and the NBA Development League. He is a 2.26 m tall center.

Pro career
Podkolzin made his debut with Lokomotiv Novosibirsk, in the Russian second division, during the 2001–02 season. In December 2001, he signed with Italy's Metis Varese, for whom he played from 2002 to 2004. He was selected by the Utah Jazz in the 2004 NBA draft and promptly traded to the Dallas Mavericks for a future first-round pick in the 2005 NBA draft. He was originally available for selection in the previous year's draft, but withdrew due to acromegaly, a pituitary disorder. Podkolzin was considered to be a high draft pick in the 2004 draft because of his size, blocking ability and strength, but he was chosen late in the draft. Podkolzin averaged 6.0 rebounds in 14.0 minutes in his first two Las Vegas Summer League Revue games. On 5 August 2006, he was waived by the Mavericks after appearing briefly in just six games spanning two seasons.

In 2006–07, he played in the Russian Super League for Khimki BC and former team Lokomotiv Novosibirsk.

Russian national team
Podkolzin was a member of the junior Russian national basketball team that won the silver medal at the 2000 European Cadets Championship.

title: Pavel Podkolzin


text:
Learning by teaching

In the field of pedagogy, learning by teaching is a method of teaching in which students are made to learn material and prepare lessons to teach it to the other students. There is a strong emphasis on acquisition of life skills along with the subject matter.

Background
The method of having students teach other students has been present since antiquity. Most often this was due to lack of resources. For example, the Monitorial System was an education method that became popular on a global scale during the early 19th century. It was developed in parallel by Scotsman Andrew Bell who had worked in Madras and Joseph Lancaster who worked in London; each attempted to educate masses of poor children with scant resources by having older children teach younger children what they had already learned.

Systematic research into intentionally improving education, by having students learn by teaching began in the middle of the 20th century.

In the early 1980s, Jean-Pol Martin systematically developed the concept of having students teach other in the context of learning French as a foreign language, and he gave it a theoretical background in numerous publications, which was thus referred to in German as Lernen durch Lehren, shortened to LdL. The method was originally resisted, as the German educational system generally emphasized discipline and rote learning. However the method became widely used in Germany in secondary education, and in the 1990s it was further formalized and began to be used in universities as well. By 2008 Martin had retired, and although he remained active Joachim Grzega took the lead in developing and promulgating LdL.

LdL method
After preparation by the teacher, students become responsible for their own learning and teaching. The new material is divided into small units and student groups of not more than three people are formed.

Students are then encouraged to experiment to find ways to teach the material to the others. Along with ensuring that students learn the material, another goal of the method, is to teach students life skills like respect for other people, planning, problem solving, taking chances in public, and communication skills. The teacher remains actively involved, stepping in to further explain or provide support if the teaching-students falter or the learning-students do not seem to understand the material.

The method is distinct from tutoring in that LdL is done in class, supported by the teacher, and distinct from student teaching, which is a part of teacher education.

Plastic platypus learning
A related method is the plastic platypus learning or platypus learning technique. This technique is based on evidence that show that teaching an inanimate object improves understanding and knowledge retention of a subject. The advantage of this technique is that the learner does not need the presence of another person in order to teach the subject. The concept is similar to the software engineering technique of rubber duck debugging, in which a programmer can find bugs in their code without the help of others, simply by explaining what the code does, line by line, to an inanimate object such as a rubber duck.

A similar process is the Feynman technique, named after physicist Richard Feynman, in which a person attempts to write an explanation of some information in a way that a child could understand, developing original analogies where necessary. When the writer reaches an area which they are unable to comfortably explain, they go back and re-read or research the topic until they are able to do so.

Flipped learning + teaching
Traditional instructor teaching style classes can be mixed with or transformed to flipped teaching. Before and after each (traditional/flipped) lecture, anonymized evaluation items on the Likert scale can be recorded from the students for continuous monitoring/dashboarding. In planned flipped teaching lessons, the teacher hands out lesson teaching material one week before the lesson is scheduled for the students to prepare talks. Small student groups work on the lecture chapters instead of homework, and then give the lecture in front of their peers. The professional lecturer then discusses, complements, and provides feedback at the end of the group talks. Here, the professional lecturer acts as a coach to help students with preparation and live performance.

title: Learning by teaching


text:
Category:Towns in South Australia

This category contains articles about towns in South Australia.

title: Category:Towns in South Australia


text:
European Union Satellite Centre

The European Union Satellite Centre (EU SatCen; previously EUSC) is the agency of the European Union (EU) that supports the EU's decision-making in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including crisis management missions and operations. It provides products and services resulting from the exploitation of relevant space assets and collateral data, including satellite and aerial imagery, and related services. SatCen is headquartered in the Torrejón Air Base, located in the Spanish municipality of the same name, in the vicinity of Madrid.

The staff of the centre, headed by Director Sorin Dumitru Ducaru, consists of experienced image analysts, geospatial specialists and supporting personnel, recruited from EU Member States. Experts seconded from Member States work at the SatCen for periods ranging from six months to three years. Temporary staff are recruited as needed. SatCen assures technical development activities in direct support to its operational activities, as well as specialised training for image analysts.

History
The SatCen was founded in 1992 as the Western European Union Satellite Centre. It was incorporated as an EU agency on 1 January 2002.

In June 2014, a new Council Decision replaced the former Council Joint Action of 2001 to modify SatCen's mission, aligning it with the evolution of the user demand and the developments of the EU's space activities relevant to CFSP (ref. 1), making it an essential interface with the European Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT, ref. 2) community.

Ducaru became Director of SatCen in June 2019.

Production and users
In 2015, SatCen provided 1,348 products for the benefit of a large community of users, such as the European External Action Service in general, but especially the EU Military Staff, the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre and the Civil Planning and Conduct Capability, as well as EU member states and international organisations.

title: European Union Satellite Centre


text: Template:Asteroid-stub

title: Template:Asteroid-stub


text: User talk:204.168.97.199

title: User talk:204.168.97.199