text:
Kingsclere

Kingsclere is a large village and civil parish in Hampshire, England.

Geography
Kingsclere is approximately equidistant 13 km from the towns of Basingstoke and Newbury on the A339 road.

History

Kingsclere can trace back its history to a place identified as belonging to King Alfred in his will between 872 and 888, the 'clere' possibly meaning 'bright' or 'clearing'.

Kingsclere formed part of the ancient demesne of the Crown. In his will King Alfred left Kingsclere for life to his second daughter, Ethelgiva, Abbess of Shaftesbury, and there are other mentions of it in Saxon charters. In 931 King Athelstan at a Witenagemot at Colchester granted 10 hides of land at Clere to Abbot Aelfric, and in 943 King Edmund bestowed 15 hides of land at Clere on the 'religious woman Aelfswith'. While sixteen years later King Edgar gave his thegn Aelfwine 10 hides of land at West Clere.

Local legend asserts that King John was troubled by a bedbug during a night in a Kingsclere inn, when prevented by fog from reaching his lodge at Freemantle Park on Cottington's hill. He ordained that the church should erect and evermore maintain upon its tower a representation of the creature that had disturbed his sleep. It is recorded that King John stayed at Freemantle Park on 8 and 9 September 1204

The 'Kingsclere Massacre'
On 5 October 1944, 10 black American soldiers belonging to a US Army engineering support group based at Sydmonton Court nearby, broke bounds to visit The Swan public house, but were ordered back by two MPs. On their return to base, the soldiers broke into the armoury, then returned to the village and laid siege to The Crown public house, where the two MPs were drinking. Both MPs were killed, as was the pub landlady.

Fairs
In 1218, the king ordered that the market which had been held in Kingsclere on Sundays should in the future be held on Saturdays. Warner, writing in the 18th century, mentions a well-frequented market on Tuesdays, and fairs the first Tuesday in April and the first Tuesday after 10 October. In 1848 the market was still held on Tuesdays, but had fallen very much into disuse, only a few farmers meeting at the Swan Inn with samples, and it probably ceased altogether about 1850. The fairs continued (c. 1911) to be held—on Whit Tuesday for pleasure on Ashford Hill and the Tuesday after Old Michaelmas Day for hiring servants and pleasure in the market place.

Inns
The former Falcon Inn, in Swan street, one of the oldest in Hampshire, is especially interesting as being at one time in the possession of William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, who in 1510 gave it to Winchester College upon trust for the maintenance and support of the scholars upon its foundation. The original 'Crowne' Inn is mentioned in the parish register in 1611 and the 'Golden Faucon' in 1628. The modern Crown Inn was built in 1853 and the Swan Inn dates back to well before 1848. Its sign proclaims it a 15th C. Rooming Inn.

In popular culture
The nearby Watership Down is the setting for the 1972 novel of the same name by Richard Adams.

Watership Down was also the site of the 1982 World Field Archery Championship put on by the Overton Black Arrows archery club from the nearby village of Overton.

The actress Lavinia Fenton, most famous for her role as the first Polly Peachum in John Gay's The Beggar's Opera, was lover and then wife of Charles Powlett, 3rd Duke of Bolton of the parish. Their eldest son, Rev. Charles Powlett, was briefly vicar of Kingsclere.

People from and associated with Kingsclere
Livelihood Countryside March]], 2002. Grew up at Stanton's farm.
 * Edith of Wessex (c. 1025 – 18 December 1075) Queen Edith, widow of Edward the Confessor.
 * Rosamund Clifford, the fair Rosamund, (before 1150 – c. 1176), a royal mistress, stayed at the royal residence at Tidgrove, on the southern side of the parish.
 * John de Lancelevy, lord of the manor of Hannington.
 * Peter Fitz Herbert, lord of the manors of North Oakley and Wolverton, held the church after Hyde Abbey.
 * Ranulf de Broc (sometimes Rannulf de Broc; died around 1179), and his son-in-law Stephen of Thornham (died c. 1214), possessors of the manor of Frobury (Frollebury).
 * Walter de Coutances, Walter of Rouen (died 1207), Anglo-Norman bishop of Lincoln and archbishop of Rouen.
 * King John (died 1216).
 * Richard of Cornwall, encaustic tiles bearing his symbols used to be in the chancel aisle.
 * William Melton (died 1340), 43rd Archbishop of York (1317–1340), held the manor of Kingsclere. Sir William Melton (died 1362), the nephew, obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne lands of Kingsclere in 1346, and was succeeded by his son, Sir William de Melton (MP for Yorkshire) who died in 1399.
 * William Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury, to whom the advowson was sold for 500 marks by Edward III in 1336. He then passed it onto the monastery of Bisham.
 * Pope Clement VI (1291–1352), (Pope 1342–1352), previously Peter, archbishop of Rouen 1331–1338, a.k.a. Peter III Roger de Beaufort.
 * William of Wykeham, (died 1404), bishop and local magnate (Burghclere, Highclere and Earlstone).
 * William Fauconer (died 1412), JP (Hants, 1407–1412), MP for Hampshire, 1407 and 1411, buried in St. Mary's.
 * Anne of Cleves, rectory and the advowson of the vicarage of Kingsclere fell again into the hands of the king, who in 1541 granted them to Anne of Cleves. On her death in 1557 they reverted to William, Marquess of Winchester.
 * Sir George Darcy, 1544 sold the manor to Sir William Paulet, Lord St. John.
 * Ingram Frizer, murderer of Christopher Marlowe. Born in Kingsclere 1561, died 1627.
 * Mary Johnson, a Negro, buried Kingsclere, 18 May 1713.
 * Various Dukes of Wellington owned some of Kingsclere and Wolverton. The great Duke of Wellington,(1769–1852), gave £300 towards the 1848 remodeling of the church.
 * Sir James Lancaster VI (c. 1554-1618) was an Elizabethan trader, privateer and philanthropist. Endowed Kingsclere £30 per annum.
 * Francis Cottington, 1st Baron Cottington (c. 1579 – 1652), possessor of Freemantle from 1631.
 * Anne Finch, Countess of Winchilsea (1661–1720), Anne Kingsmill, a.k.a. Lady Finch, gave a pulpit cushion.
 * William Mount (1753–1815) of Wasing Place and others conveyed North Oakley manor to Oliver Cromwell of Cheshunt Park, Hertfordshire, the last direct male descendant of Henry Cromwell, the Protector's fourth son, in 1787.
 * Sir Wyndham Spencer Portal, 1st Bt., (1822–1905), of Laverstoke, local philanthropist who paid for some of church's 1848 re-fit. A younger brother of Melville Portal.
 * Colonel Gervase Francis Newport Tinley, CB (1909), CMG. (Grahamstown, 1857 – Marseille, 18 February 1918).
 * Sir Rowland Arthur Charles Sperling, KCMG, CB (1874–1965), was a British diplomat. HM Minister at Berne; Sofia, and then Finland.
 * Colonel the Hon. George Hysteron-Proteron, CB (c. 1874–1942). Fictional character created by J. K. Stanford.
 * Lt. Col. John Keith Stanford OBE MC (1892–1971), Stanton's farm. Soldier, civil servant, writer and part owner of Stanford's Ltd, cartographer.
 * James Stanford, OBE, director general of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, and organiser of the [[Countryside Alliance|Liberty and
 * Martin Evans (1904–1998), cricketer and Royal Navy sailor
 * Ronald Alfred Goodwin, (1925–2003), composer, buried in St Paul's, Kingsclere Woodlands;
 * David Wynne (1926 – 2014), OBE, sculptor, parents buried in St Paul's, Kingsclere Woodlands, and sculpture in the church;
 * David Howell, Lord Howell of Guildford, opened the Kingsclere bypass on 13 September 1982.
 * Rev. David Shearlock, vicar of Kingsclere, 1964–1971;
 * Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lord Lloyd-Webber lives at Sydmonton Court, near Kingsclere.
 * Tom Croft England International Rugby Player grew up in Kingsclere.
 * Ralph Dellor, (1948 – 2017), cricket journalist.
 * Kit Malthouse, sitting MP for North-West Hampshire, which includes Kingsclere.
 * Stained glass in the Sanctuary, South Chapel, Chancel Aisle, Kingsmill Room by William Wailes (Transfiguration for Dr Thompson of Swan Street), and by Ward and Hughes (Marriage at Cana of Galilee).
 * Daniel Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere

Some renowned rectors

 * Walter de Mertone, rector in 1263 and later Bishop of Rochester (c. 1205 – 27 October 1277), and founder of Merton College, Oxford.
 * Robert de Wyville, rector 1326–29, then Bishop of Salisbury.
 * John Drokensford (died 9 May 1329), sometime rector of Kingsclere, and later Bishop of Bath and Wells.
 * Alexander de Bykenore (1260s? – 14 July 1349), sometime rector of Kingsclere, and then Archbishop of Dublin (1317–1349), Lord Treasurer of Ireland (1307–1309) and Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

Paulet/Powlett associations

 * William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester (c. 1485–1572), KG, a local magnate and statesman, of Old Basing and parts of Kingsclere.
 * John Paulet, 5th Marquess of Winchester.
 * Six Dukes of Bolton and their heirs, sometime patrons and owners of large parts of Kingsclere.
 * The Reverend Charles Powlett, (1728–1809), Vicar of Kingsclere, 19 July 1769 – 15 February 1773. Chaplain to his nephew dukes of Bolton. Cricket pioneer.
 * Thomas Orde-Powlett, 1st Baron Bolton, PC (1740–1807), MP (1780–1796). Governor of the Isle of Wight (1791–1807) and Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire (1800–1807), inherited (c. 1794) estates, including Hackwood Park, Bolton Castle and Bolton Hall, of the Dukes of Bolton through his wife, Jean Mary Browne-Powlett, love-child, natural, illegitimate daughter of Charles Powlett, 5th Duke of Bolton KB, PC (c. 1718 – 1765).
 * William Orde-Powlett, 2nd Lord Bolton (1782–1850) married (1810) Hon Maria Carleton (1777-1863), daughter of Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, KB (1724–1808). In 1848 Bolton gave £500 for the church's remodeling and £700 in particular for the chancel's restoration.
 * Lady Algitha Orde-Powlett (1847–1919) (from 1895 Lady Bolton) daughter of Richard Lumley, 9th Earl of Scarbrough, who married (1868) Hon. William Orde-Powlett (1845–1922), FSA, from 1895 the 4th Lord Bolton.

Racing associations

 * Many of the Dukes of Bolton were dedicated breeders and owners of race-horses. For most of the eighteenth century they had a race-course at nearby Kempshott.
 * Sir Francis Blake Delaval, KB (1727–1771), M.P. for Andover 1754–1768, married (1750), Lady Isabella Powlett, widow of Lord Nassau Powlett, M.P., son of second Duke of Bolton. Lived occasionally at Cannon Heath.
 * John Savile, 1st Earl of Mexborough (1719–1778), at Cannon Heath, where in 1766 Samuel Foote had his famous leg injury as a result of horse-play. Foote wrote many letters to David Garrick from Cannon Heath.
 * Duke of Cumberland (1745–1790), had some horses at Cannon Heath.
 * Sir John Lade, 2nd Baronet (1759–1838), lived occasionally at Cannon Heath circa 1805.
 * Sir Joseph Henry Hawley, 3rd Baronet (1813–75), racehorse owner, (operated in converted farm buildings at Cannons Heath, with a young John Porter employed as his private trainer, and later built a new yard in 1867).
 * John Wells (1833–1873), a.k.a. Wells the jockey.
 * John Porter, (1838–1922), great racehorse trainer, brought to Kingsclere by Hawley. Buried in St. Mary's churchyard. Church warden from 1899.
 * William John Arthur Charles James Cavendish-Bentinck, 6th Duke of Portland, KG, GCVO, TD, PC, DL, (1857–1943).
 * Frederick Stanley Butters (1888–1967), trained at Kingsclere 1934–1939, Park House stables then owned by Captain Arnold Stancomb Wills (1877–1961), of W.D. & H.O. Wills. (Brother of Frank Butters).
 * Lawrence Lee (1909–2011), designed a stained glass window for Peter Hastings-Bass in Kingsclere;
 * Evan Morgan Williams (1912–2001), jockey turned trainer. Sold the stables to Peter Hastings-Bass in 1953;
 * Peter Robin Hood Hastings-Bass (1920–1964), trainer;
 * Priscilla Victoria Hastings (1920–2010), owner and trainer. Director of The Tote. Daughter of Sir Malcolm Bullock (1890–1966), soldier and MP for Waterloo, 1923–1950, by Lady Victoria Stanley, daughter of Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby (1865–1948), soldier, Conservative politician (MP & Peer), diplomat and racehorse owner.
 * Ian Balding (1938–), trainer.
 * William Edward Robin Hood Hastings-Bass, 17th Earl of Huntingdon, LVO (1948–), trainer.
 * Clare Balding and her brother Andrew grew up in Kingsclere.

Some racehorses

 * Eclipse (1764-1789), Orme (1889–1915), Isonomy (1875–1891), Blue Gown (1865–1880), Ormonde 1883–1904), Flying Fox (1896–1911), Friar's Balsam (1885–1899), La Fleche (1889–1916), Paradox (1882–1890), Shotover (1879–1898), Common (1888–1912), Winkipop (1907–1931), Mid-day Sun (1934–1954), Mill Reef (1968–1986), Casual Look (2000-).

Other manors
The manor of Frobury is the western part of the modern parish of Kingsclere. In addition to Frobury the manors of North Oakley, Hannington, Sydmonton, Edmundsthorp Benham (Headley, and Beenham Court or Cheam School) and Ecchinswell used to be a part of the parish of Kingsclere.

Highclere, Kingsclere and Basingstoke Light Railway
The Highclere, Kingsclere and Basingstoke Light Railway was a proposed (circa 1896–1900) light railway connecting the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway (DNSR) with the London and South Western Railway (LSWR). Despite public support of the railway proposal, sufficient funding was never obtained and the idea was abandoned.

title: Kingsclere


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaro Taas

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exaro Taas
This user certainly likes pushing his un-verifiable fan fiction onto Wikipedia. Nufy8 01:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - in general I would vote merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters as per WP:FICT however given that there are no google hits for this one, which you would expect with even the most minor SW characters, I'm inclined to believe that this is simply fan-fic. However if someone can verify that this character did in fact appear in some game / movie / cartoon or book then I'll change vote to merge. -- Lochaber 09:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Google can't find anything about it, then this character probably is nothing more than a fanfic character.--Kross 11:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jasonglchu 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * May the Force destroy this article. — Chameleon 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Since when did encyclopedias document every character and fanfictional character from every movie and video game?--Major.T 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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


text:
File:AudioAdrenalineDon'tCensorMe.jpg

Summary
The cover of Audio Adrenaline's album Don't Censor Me.

title: File:AudioAdrenalineDon'tCensorMe.jpg


text: User talk:203.38.33.125

title: User talk:203.38.33.125


text:
User talk:NinjaKawn

=Mah PC= By the time I can afford 2 grand for this, I'll have to totally reselct all my parts (except probably the case, monitors and keyboard) wtf hax all my links are dead *updating them* alive:
 * DVD Drive/Burner

 * Power Supply

 * Video Card

 * Schwalloping awesome effin' keyboard

 * Mobo

 * Processor

Dead or not checked yet:

 * Case and Fan

 * Monitor

 * HDD

 * Heatsink

 * RAM

title: User talk:NinjaKawn


text:
John Finnis

John Mitchell Finnis  (born 28 July 1940) is an Australian legal philosopher and jurist specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is an original interpreter of Aristotle and Aquinas, and counts Germain Grisez as a major influence and collaborator. He has made contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and moral philosophy.

Finnis was Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy at the University of Oxford from 1989 to 2010, where he is now Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy Emeritus. He is also the Biolchini Family Professor of Law, emeritus, at Notre Dame Law School and a Permanent Senior Distinguished Research Fellow at Notre Dame's de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. He acted as adviser to several Australian State governments, especially Queensland and Western Australia, mostly on the States' relations with the federal Government and with the United Kingdom.

His practice at the English Bar saw him in cases in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. He is a member of Gray's Inn. He was appointed an honorary Queen's Counsel in 2017. In the 2019 Queen's Birthday Honours for Australia, Finnis was appointed a Companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia, the country's highest civilian honour, for his eminent service as a jurist and legal scholar. He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2023 New Year Honours for services to legal scholarship.

He has supervised several doctoral students including Neil Gorsuch, Justice Susan Kenny of the Federal Court of Australia, Robert P. George of Princeton University, and John Keown of Georgetown University. In 2013 George and Keown summarised some of Finnis's media work as "He has, for example, debated embryo research with Mary Warnock on BBC's Newsnight and with Jonathan Glover in the Channel 4 Debate; discussed euthanasia with a leading Dutch euthanasiast on the same channel's After Dark, and written on eugenic abortion in The Sunday Telegraph".

Early life and education
Finnis was educated at St. Peter's College, Adelaide, and the University of Adelaide, where he was a member of St. Mark's College. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree there, winning a Rhodes scholarship to University College, Oxford, in 1962, where he obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree with a thesis on the concept of judicial power, with reference to Australian federal constitutional law. Also in 1962, Finnis converted to Roman Catholicism.

Finnis is a friend of Aung San Suu Kyi, also an Oxford graduate, and, in 1989, nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize. Aung San Suu Kyi won the prize but did not receive it until June 2012, when she recalled how her late husband, Michael Aris, had visited her under house arrest and brought her the news "that a friend, John Finnis" had nominated her for the prize.

Publications
Finnis is an author of several philosophical works. His best known work is Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980, 2011), a seminal contribution to the philosophy of law and a restatement of natural law doctrine. For Finnis there are eight basic goods; life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability of friendship, practical reasonableness, religion and marriage. His Fundamentals of Ethics collect six Carroll Lectures Finnis delivered at Georgetown University in 1982. He has published five collections of essays: Reason in Action, Intention and Identity, Human Rights and Common Good, Philosophy of Law, Religion and Public Reasons. Below is a complete list of his publications.

 * Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980; 2nd ed., 2011. ISBN 978-0-19-959913-4.
 * Fundamentals of Ethics, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983. ISBN 978-0-87840-408-7.
 * Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism, with J. M. Boyle Jr. and Germain Grisez, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. ISBN 978-0-19-824791-3.
 * Natural Law, 2 vols (as editor), New York: New York University Press, 1991. ISBN 978-0-8147-2603-7 and ISBN 978-0-8147-2604-4.
 * Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991. ISBN 978-0-8132-0745-2.
 * Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0-19-878085-4.
 * The Collected Essays of John Finnis, 5 vols, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ISBN 978-0-19-968993-4.

Introduction
A unifying theme running through Finnis' writings is the importance he attributes to human freedom, as the ability to make decisions about the kind of life one wants to live. Such decisions involve choices among incommensurable basic goods, which practical reason must order to achieve desired ends. A mature exercise of freedom would avoid intentionally infringing any of the basic goods, and would in different ways and to different extents, foster their realization. At the collective level, we find a similar logic guiding the making of Laws (Natural Law and Natural Rights) and political decisions. In view of this, the discussion has been largely structured around notions of intentionality, prudence, moral choices, and notions of fairness. The discussion on Religion appeals to wider considerations. This is followed by a brief discussion of Finnis's Philosophy of Law. The last section summarises the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of Finnis' philosophy, as captured in his Fundamentals of Ethics. This selection of topics included in this short article cannot do justice to the vast corpus of Finnis' writings, encompassing philosophical, legal, political and religious topics, and argumentation with leading thinkers in those fields. The reader is directed to explore his writings.

Morality
On the basis of experience of facts, possibilities and outcomes, one easily understands basic forms of human good as good for oneself and other human beings, and one's will is fundamentally one's response to this understanding. "Ought" does not follow from "is", since the first principles of practical reasoning are not deduced logically but are understood immediately by the intellect. Morality is a consequence of reflecting on the basic goods as a whole and their implications for human flourishing. Finnis dismisses David Hume's identification of morality as a sentiment of sympathy leading to approbation or disapprobation, by noting that Hume also expected such sentiments to be recognised and agreed to by others. Thus, Hume's morality is based on reasonableness rather than sympathy, notwithstanding "Hume's formal and vigorous protestations to the contrary". Finnis identifies reasonableness with the disinterested and impartial perspective which seeks to understand what is best for everyone at a certain point in time. According to Finnis, Ludwig Wittgenstein "wavers on one of the central matters in issue in his meditations", since propositions of empirical fact are not necessarily true. Yet, Finnis defends the self-evidence of truth using formal logic by appealing to "retorsive arguments".

Intention
Finnis' writings evidence a keen concern to protect the individual from abuse by the institution, by highlighting the preeminence of the individual's subjectivity. Thus, using Plato's dialogue of the Gorgias, Finnis argues (against Jurgen Habermas's discourse ethics) that silence is ethical and meaningful since it is a locus of reflection and inner deliberation. He further argues (against extant UK Law) that the courts must distinguish direct intention from unintended side-effects, and cannot impute an intention based simply on foreseeability. "Of course, causing death as an unintended side effect is often an injustice, but that wrong is relative to the circumstances whereas the commandment protecting at least innocent human beings is not" The person who blows up a plane to receive the insurance money thereby killing the pilot, may not have intended to kill the pilot even if the pilot's death was foreseeable. On the other hand, Finnis charges with moral and legal responsibility anyone who consents to doing something conditionally on something else happening (preparatory intention) - as in the UK policy on nuclear deterrence, which includes the possibility of targeting civil populations in the event of a nuclear attack on UK cities. Finnis argues that Veritatis Splendor requires the adoption by the moralist of the perspective of the acting person. The implication is that no act in intrinsically sinful, rather its sinfulness is a function of the acting person's intention, will or purpose (in line with Aquinas' distinction between in genere naturae vs in genere moris). The traditional notion that means are intended in view of the end is thus rejected in favour of the distinction between intended ends (direct effect) and unintended side-effects (indirect effects). This explains, for example, why shooting out of a desire to kill the enemy is wrong whilst simply shooting to defend oneself is not. He further distinguishes between formal (intended) and material cooperation (side effects) in evil; voting for an amendment permitting abortion that has the effect of reducing the availability of abortion is not formal cooperation in the procurement of abortion, but may be material cooperation involving, for example, scandal to third parties. Finnis departs in several ways from Anscombe's understanding of intention.

Prudence
Finnis notes that Aristotle's discussion of prudence (Phronesis) fails to offer ethical guidance because it is concerned with the selection of means and fails to specify what the ends are; yet, Aquinas' solution of this problem has often been misinterpreted. Ends are the basic goods and prudence is concerned with deliberation both about them and about the means of achieving them, in both cases guided by practical reasoning. Virtue is not simply the outcome of synderesis but it also requires an attraction towards the end and the selection of means. The choice of some basic goods may result in the detriment or even the suppression of others, provided that the latter is not intended. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia are wrong insofar as they involve direct choices against the basic good of life, which they ordinarily do. Against Leo Strauss and others, Finnis argues that it is wrongful to intentionally take innocent life even in extreme situations in which the very existence of society is at stake. Following Aristotle, Finnis gives great importance to the basic good of friendship in his own deliberation because it involves disinterested love, which goes beyond a mere sense of obligation towards others, and is thus an ideal foundation for morality (contra Philippa Foot); however, this ideal remains imperfect unless it extends to friendship with God as a universalising principle. Finnis argues that eudamonia in Aquinas is the outcome of the harmonious development of all basic goods but that it cannot be achieved in this life (imperfect beautitude).

Moral Choices
By choosing not to become a murderer, Socrates shaped the World in the way he thought best - that it is better to suffer wrong than do it. Any attempt to justify Socrates's choice through looking at foreseeable consequences (consequentialism), or by commensurating good with bad (utilitarianism), or by comparing values with 'disvalues' (proportionalism), fail, as they would all conclude that two murders is worse than one. Kantian arguments also fail because they are concerned with the avoidance of internal contradiction through universalization. But logic cannot explain moral choices, which concern who one wants to be or become. Neither can Kant's claim that 'nature's end' should be respected, since by nature he meant the natural sciences. Finnis notes that Aquinas never sought to resolve moral problems on proportionalist arguments such as the notion of "choosing the lesser evil"; yet, Kant in his 'casuistical questions' falls into both intuitinism and consequentialism "like nothing so much as late twentieth-century academic ethics". Finnis claims that utilitarianism appeals to sub-rational desires (happiness, desire, sensible impulse, sensous motives...). Moreover, utilitarianism is not undermined by pluralism, since pluralism is neither concerned with truth or attention to evidence or insight, but rather with opinions - thereby resorting to lust, terror, self-preference or inertia as the basis for decision-making.

Fairness
Moral decision-making involves seeking integral human fulfilment by responding to "the reasons for action, the practical reasons, that each basic good provides". From this it follows that one must not intentionally do harm to others, or intend evil to achieve good; on the contrary, one must act fairly towards others. Fairness does not involve rational commensuration of goods vs bads; rather it is guided by the Golden Rule through commensuration of alternative options based on "one's own differentiated feelings toward various goods and bads as concretely remembered, experienced, or imagined" in view of integral human fulfilment (cf, the Aristotelian mature person of reasonable character). Analoguously, decisions about what speed to drive on a private road, or whether to have the institution of trusts in English Law, are made by communities not based on rational judgement but on decisions reached as aforesaid. Rival interpretations of the Law can be compared on two dimensions: the fit with the legal materials (e.g., precedent) and moral soundness. Hard cases occur when the best interpretation on fit is different from he best interpretation on moral soundness. Since fit and moral soundness are incommensurable, there cannot be a uniquely right interpretation of the hard case, and the solution must be achieved on the basis of fairness.

Religion
Religion is a free act to collaborate with God's expectations of our human flourishing. Friedrich Nietzsche's rejection of truth ‘by way of experiment’ speaks against the seriousness of his tenets, whilst Karl Marx's refusal to countenance questions about ultimate origins led to “the fantasy of self-creation”. Faith follows from the "rational necessity of adhering to those norms of rational inquiry and judgment needed... to overcome ignorance, illusion and error"; science seeks causes and treats chance as residuum of coincidence. An argument for necessity or causeless-ness of the Universe is not reasonable, since neither is discoverable in any of the Universe's component entities or states of affairs. Finnis rejects Richard Dawkins’ appeal to ever increasing complexity in The God Delusion and quotes Charles Darwin's 'conviction of the existence of God', which “follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with this capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity…I deserve to be called a Theist”. Divine revelation enhances and corrects the understanding of natural reason, so that there is epistemic interdependence, a reflective equilibrium, between the two. In ideal epistemic conditions (absent self-interest and passions), there would be broad consensus on matters of right and wrong, which supports the appeal to a higher ordering principle (God). The belief in God has implications for how we act in the World. John Dewey's conflation of knowledge with practical control undermines “human rights which had to be insisted on in the aftermath of Nazism and the like”. Since religious argument appeals to reasons, it is a valid exercise in public reason, and neither atheism nor agnosticism must be treated as the default position in public reason, deliberation, and decisions. Religion deserves constitutional protection and should be critically analysed by the courts for its soundness with general principles of natural reason. Rawls’ thesis could not stand against certain versions of Islam that would remove religious freedom (NB in n. 21 Finnis argues that Aquinas’ support for coercion against heretics was inherently unsound). Contra Augustine, Finnis argues that eternal life is not a beatific vision detached from our human experience but is the perfection of our morally significant choices

Philosophy of Law
Finnis's concept of Law is elaborated in Natural Law and Natural Rights. This section summarises some of his contributions in Parts one and two of his Philosophy of Law. In Part Three of his Philosophy of Law Finnis offers a critical account of legal reasoning (incl. notions of rights and analogical reasoning), and in Part Four he addresses the legal challenges posed by revolutions and the possibility of voting for unjust laws.

Positive laws do not acquire their authority from conceptual coherence (in fact, contradictory laws can coexist) or derivation from an established process. Instead, their authority derives from morality; Law "occupies the same place in the world as morality: […] what I should do and what type of person I should be". This is the central (or most meaningful) feature of the Law, against which the improvement of any legal system is predicated. Individuals will only obey specific laws that work against their interests or are unjust, if they consider the overall system of Law to be fair (the Golden rule) because it supports shared interests grounded on the promotion of basic goods. Unjust laws are not laws in the proper sense, "though they may still count in reasonable conscious deliberations, and certainly warrant attention and description". Against Joseph Raz, Finnis argues that morality is not external to the Law since the Law makes moral pursuits (e.g., cooperation among people) possible - "the Law presents itself as a seamless web" of people and transactions. A specific law or legal determination is an application of a general moral principle that can take many different forms. Thus, the process of practical reasoning leading to the elaboration of laws is not like "the omelette that can be made by following a recipe" (a concept further developed in Finnis' critique of Dworkin's Law's Empire ). Finnis rejects the following as valid accounts of legal practical reasoning: the Economic Analysis of the Law, Game Theory, the Co-ordination problem, Kant's rationality, and John Rawls' original position. Against H. L. A. Hart, Finnis rejects "survival" as a central feature of the Law: "human rationality can also reflect that the arbitrariness involved in unrestricted self-preference is itself a deviation from 'rationality'...". He further rejects Hart’s theory of action, so that normativity follows from reasons not decisions. In his Grand Tour of Legal History, Finnis shows that the Natural Law tradition offers a superior account than Legal Positivism of every aspect of Law, including the meaning of rights, authority, legal methodology, institutionality, tort law, contract law, criminal law, international law, and so on. Finnis argues that the definition of Law "cannot be resolved by any purely ‘analytical’ technique aspiring to be neutral", it must "engage to some extent in reflexion on the moral order…" with implications for anyone involved in the making and application of laws. Hart's internal point of view only makes sense as a method in social science if it presupposes the understanding of the basic goods. Patrick Devlin's "positive morality" cannot serve as a foundation for the Law because it is simply a set of opinions held by a group of people, lacking critical reflexivity. William Blackstone’s notion of natural law served no purpose in his conception of law because it is impoverished, as it took "the naked individual in his state of nature as the standard". Max Weber dismissed natural law because he refused to accept the objectivity of values, that is, their accessibility to the intellect (as did Hart ). Finnis provides an account of positive law according to Aristotle and Aquinas, and engages in a sharp critique of postmodernism and critical legal studies as failing on their own terms.

Fundamentals of Ethics
This book sets out the ontological and epistemological foundations of Finnis' work. This includes rejection of the notion that human goods result from human desires, in favour of the view that they are actualizations of, and participation in, basic goods. Thus, "epistemology is not the 'basics of ethics'" (p. 21), rather ethics is concerned with reasoning about basic goods as experienced by the individual. Robert Nozick's metaphor of the 'experience machine' shows that desires cannot guide ethics, since no one would choose a lifetime of pleasure over one of achievement. People are attracted to the basic goods in the search for "perfection", rather than Humean satisfaction. Thin theories of the good that pretend to satisfy the needs of everyone, such as that offered by John Rawls, result in a thin account of practical reason. Finnis rejects arguments from queerness and naturalism that would deny objectivity to statements of value. Such objectiviy can be compared to that of colour: "postboxes in England are seen as red because they are red..."Red postbox" is not short for "red to human beings postbox" (p. 65). Redness is an 'anthropomorphic category'" (i.e. distinct from the object itself but still objectively true and valid). Finnis proposes the "transparency of reason", so that 'I think that p (since...)' is transparent for 'It is the case that p' or simply 'p'; and associates this line of reasoning to the nature of questions of (rather than about) conscience. Practical reasonableness operating along eight or nine basic requirements offers an intermediate principle that bridges the gap between basic goods and values. Finnis defends the possibility of freedom, the positing of which already involves an exercise in freedom (whether to believe in it or not). Any choice among basic goods must involve the exercise of freedom, since they are incommensurable. Such choices create vital commitments (through the expectation of consistency in future choices and actions) until such time as an incompatible choice is made (involving repentance from the previous choice). Choosing is apprehended by the intellect not only as A or B but much like knowledge or understanding, as involving a choice of character. The book also contains an extensive methodological critique of Kantian and utilitarian ethics.

Critics
In his book on Finnis' student Neil Gorsuch while at Oxford University, John Greenya has described Finnis's views by stating: "Some of John Finnis's views are very controversial. For example, in defending his long-held position against same-sex marriage and same-sex coupling, he once compared them to bestiality."

Philosopher Stephen Buckle sees Finnis's list of proposed basic goods as plausible, but notes that "Finnis's account becomes more controversial when he goes on to specify the basic requirements of practical reasonableness". He sees Finnis's requirement that practical reason requires "respect for every basic value in every act" as intended both to rule out consequentialism in ethics and also to support the moral viewpoint of the Catholic Church on a range of contentious issues, including contraception and masturbation, which in his view undermines its plausibility.

Finnis's work on natural law ethics has been a source of controversy in both neo-Thomist and analytical circles. Craig Paterson sees his work as interesting because it challenges a key assumption of both neo-Thomist and analytical philosophy: the idea that a natural law ethics must be based upon an attempt to derive normative (or "ought") statements from descriptive (or "is") statements.

According to Andrew Sullivan, Finnis has articulated "an intelligible and subtle account of homosexuality" based on the new natural law, a less biologically based version of natural law theory. Finnis argues that the state should deter public approval of homosexual behaviour while refusing to persecute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, basing this position not on the claim that homosexual sex is unnatural but on the idea that it cannot involve the union of procreation and emotional commitment that heterosexual sex can, and is therefore an assault on heterosexual union. The following excerpts, for example, come from his 1994 essay "Law, Morality, and 'Sexual Orientation'": In short, sexual acts are not unitive in their significance unless they are marital (actualizing the all-level unity of marriage) and (since the common good of marriage has two aspects) they are not marital unless they have not only the generosity of acts of friendship but also the procreative significance.

...The plain fact is that those who propound 'gay' ideology have no principled moral case to offer against (prudent and moderate) promiscuity, indeed the getting of orgasmic sexual pleasure in whatever friendly touch or welcoming orifice (human or otherwise) one may opportunely find it. Finnis earlier argues in the article that same-sex activity "cannot express or do more than is expressed or done if two strangers engage in such activity to give each other pleasure, or a prostitute pleasures a client to give him pleasure in return for money." Sullivan believes that such a conservative position is vulnerable to criticism on its own terms, since the stability of existing families is better served by the acceptance of those homosexuals who are part of them. Other scholars, such as Stephen Macedo and Michael J. Perry, have also criticised Finnis's views.

A Selection of Articles and Video Lectures

 * Aquinas' Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy
 * The Profound Injustice of Justice Posner on Marriage
 * Natural Law: The Classical Tradition PDF (Internet Archive)
 * The Priority of Persons PDF
 * The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations PDF
 * Law, Morality and "Sexual Orientation" PDF
 * Law, Morality and "Sexual Orientation" PDF

Video lectures

 * God and Man
 * Religious Liberty

title: John Finnis


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salerno (horse)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salerno (horse)
The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), and Pleven (horse) were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni ☯ 01:52, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Keep. What are you proposing as the basis for deleting this?  It seems fine to me. It looks like the person created it off line and cut-and-pasted because it had "smart quotes" (to use Microsoft  Word's term).  I have done that myself.  In any event, the solution to a suspected copyvio is not putting the article on VfD. - DS1953 02:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see persuasive reason to delete. --Tabor 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and categorize. If you think it's a copyvio, go to WP:CP and speak with the regulars there on how to substantiate that. Radiant_ >|< 09:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, look fine to me. In any case looking suspicious is not a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons above. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't forget to assume good faith. An article isn't a copyvio til it can be proved it is (and even then, vfd is not the page to take it to). Until then, it's just a well-written article. --InShaneee 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Apple bong

I have a general idea of what to write about, but I don't know how to make it suitable for the encyclopedia. Please rearrange and edit mercilessly. CancerOfJuly

Pictures
Better pictures would really help this article. If anyone is feeling artistic, please help out.

Instructional tone of voice
The subject matter and facts seem on point, however the tone is too instructional. Could be rewritten in a more general objective manner.

from VfD
On 10 June 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Apple bong for a record of the discussion.

title: Talk:Apple bong


text:
Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology

Untitled
Whoa! This article is a bit short eh? Do we even need it? Does it qualify for Wiktionary?

Shanekorte 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup intro
Check out the difference.

You'll note that User:Reddi, subject to his ways, decides that cleaning up spelling, grammar, and syntax is not to be kept. I ask him to explain himself on the talkpage.

--Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Please do not feed the trolls". JDR 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Requests for comment/Reddi for more details on the kind of conduct that Reddi is engaging in as above. --Joshuaschroeder 17:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Trying to NPOV intro
While Reddi continues his campaign to rid Wikipedia of my edits, I will continue to ask him to explain his reasoning for changing my edits here. --Joshuaschroeder 18:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased and factually incorrect
See, for example, Ned Wright's critique of Quasi-steady state which is fairly damaging. The advocates haven't been honest or forthright in their advocacy and we need to make sure the readers know this. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Link? --James S. 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * link --ScienceApologist 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is still biased. It makes grandiose claims about physics and cosmology (and the qss model itself) that are not substantiated by the references. --ScienceApologist 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To which claims, in particular, do you refer? --James S. 16:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Points of bias
I have highlighted the points where I see the bias in this article:

The idea relied on the Machian theory of gravity first as a foundational element in the theory. -- this is not neutral point of view. There is no "Machian theory of gravity", there is only a postule of Mach's that extends the kinematic invariance of GR into dynamical invariance. It is controversial to claim that this is a theory of gravity or that it can really be "foundational" to anything more than idle speculation.

 * This claim has been removed. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A foundational element is that the origin of inertia is intimately tied with a long range scalar interaction between matter and matter. -- see criticism above, but this sentence is even more problematical. Not only is there no indication from the qss papers quoted that such is the case, it isn't clear from the papers that such a view of inertia is required even assuming Narlikar has a point.

 * This is a factual accuracy dispute, not an allegation of bias. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

R Sachs, J V Narlikar and F Hoyle researched and arrived at the exact solutions of the basic equations that gave simple homogeneous and isotropic models (such as in The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Analytical Solutions of Field Equations and Their Relations to Observations ). -- definitely biased. The homogeneity and isotropy posited were for a particular view of the universe: namely one that did not have a higher density -- points that seem to be in contradiction with the observation of a CMB associated with a higher-density universe. Any way you cut it, this sentence is biased against the major measurements of homogeneity and isotropy in the Big Bang which is the CMB.

 * It is clear from definitions that QSS includes and in not necessarily distinguisable from big bang cosmology; therefore any claims of big bang cosmology are attributable to QSS as well. This is not, therefore, a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * See the critism offered by Ned Wright for why this doesn't work. QSS does not subsume Big Bang predictions -- they make different owns according to their own papers. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The production of light nuclei have been researched by F Hoyle, G Burbidge and J V Narlikar and by Burbidge and Hoyle . -- Highly debatable. While the reference does deal with nucleosynthesis, it doesn't address the full spectrum of nucleosynthesis observations.

 * As above, QSS includes big bang cosmology, so this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The referenced discussion is different than Big Bang nucleosynthesis, so this is valid. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The process of structure formation was achievable through a "toy model''" (by Ali Nayeri, Sunu Engineer, J. V. Narlikar, and F. Hoyle) and may offer a viable choice to the "standard" hot big bang cosmology. '' -- Come on. How can someone claim that a "toy model" can be a viable "choice" (is that supposed to be "alternative")? If you cannot see the bias here, I don't know how to begin a conversation.

 * This is a content accuracy questions, and seems to be supported. Is there any evidence that it is not in the cited reference? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No, this is bias claiming that it is a "viable choice". --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

''With recent evidence indicating that the universe is accelerating, the quasi-steady state had previously predicted the universe would be accelerating. '' -- This is not verifiable through the reference given. It is wholly a fabrication as far as I can tell. (See also, Ned Wright's criticism of this point).

 * Again, since QSS includes big bang cosmology, this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You have yet to include a cite to back up your contention. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

''A group of researchers commented on the details of an alternative mechanism of the generation and maintenance of anisotropic Planckian radiation background. The theory has been developed to incorporate the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and other astronomical observations.'' -- Biased because it doesn't illustrate the absolute limited extent to which this idea has been attempted and how it has failed miserably on a few different fronts (including isotropy -- see above).

 * Citation by over 30 peer reviewed publications is not "absolutly limited" because the number of citations continue to grow (by the way, try Thompson's Science Citation Index for better coverage than the free web services.) --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * 30 publications about qss's interpretation of the CMB? This is plain false. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The quasi-steady state concept claims that the radiation as diffuse starlight has been absorbed and emitted continually by objects in space, but critics have pointed out that such radiation would not be as isotropic as what has been interpreted via CMB observations. -- It's worse than just a "critics have pointed out". The COBE measurements in no way correspond with an integrated starlight model which can get isotropy in the most generous models to 10% only.

 * Because QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology, there is no evidence to support this. As above, it is simply an invalid dispute.  A content issue at best, but not bias my any stretch of the imagination. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Again, you haven't shown that qss as developed by Hoyle et al. subsumes the Big Bang. It is biased to portray these statements in such a light. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Other aspects of the Universe, especially where the big bang has proved inadequate, -- excuse me, where has the Big Bang "proved inadequate"? Is this supposed to be an example of unbiased reporting?

 * Are you seriously claiming that big bang is completely consistent and coherent. There are large gaps in big bang cosmology, including issues of dark matter and general accuracy based on the limitations of instruments.  This is not bias, it is the plain fact. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The Big Bang is completely consistent and coherent since it is a scientific theory. Dark matter isn't a "gap" and the advent of precision cosmology has made "instrument limitation" points a fallacy. It is definitely biased to state that the Big Bang has "proved inadequate". By whose reckoning? God's? --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

may be explained at a later time (such as to remove the singular beginning, -- A singular beginning is not necessarily predicted by the big bang. This is plainly incorrect.

 * Source? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Try any of the extensions beyond the Big Bang including the cyclic universe. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

obviate the problem of accommodating old stellar populations, -- not a problem as determined by consensus (see globular cluster problem on the Big Bang page).

 * An alternative explanation is hardly bias. This doesn't even qualify as an inaccuracy; it simply states what QSS adherents have stated.  That is the purpose of an encyclopedic article. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Except there is no problem with regards to old stellar populations. This is an inaccurate statement. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

derive a model for dark matter, -- as though the Big Bang doesn't have one in Lambda-CDM?

 * Neither bias nor an inaccuracy. Are you so fundamentalist about the hegemony that any alternative hypotheses are to be bannished from the encyclopedia?  You might have a point if it were possible to distinguish this particular alternative from the hegemony you champion. This claim is pathetic. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The article as currently written seems to claim that the Big Bang doesn't have a model for dark matter. It does. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

and develop more fully the true origin of large-scale structure of the cosmos). -- clearly biased, weasling that there is a "true origin" that present cosmologists are barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

 * Occam's razor demands that QSS be preferred. The only bias in evidence here is this claim's against QSS. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You are wrong about Ockham's razor as has been pointed out by numerous editors below. I'm sorry that you fail to see this, but it is a plain and simply fact. "True origin" implies taht QSS is closer than the Big Bang -- an obvious point of bias. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There you have it, the bias problems in the article. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Entirely unconvincing. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Your remarks seem to evince an ignorance of cosmological subjects. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of this part of science, but don't impose your ignorance on the rest of the editors please. And do not continue to remove tags that can attract attention to this horrendous article. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Big bang is special N=1 case of QSS
QSS cosmology is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. This is clear from first principles: Consider two big bang-like creation events so distant that their light cones do not intersect. Observers in either would, by definition, be unable to distinguish their local single creation event from the two in existence.

Because the confidence interval over the shape of space includes positive (hyperbolic, open), zero (flat, Euclidean, open), and negative (closed) curvatures, the possible existence of open topologies does not allow QSS to be ruled out.

Therefore, big bang cosmology is a special, N=1 case of quasi-steady state cosmology, and any attempt to claim that QSS is controversial is false on its face, because it includes the N=1 big bang case.

There is no evidence that N<2. Therefore, QSS is a noncontroversial cosmology. Because QSS includes big bang cosmology at N=1, therefore QSS is also a notable cosmology, and should be treated as such. --James S. 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no evidence that N>1, and therefore, by Occam's Razor, the simplest case of N=1 is preferred. Any claim to the contrary, if provided without evidence, is controversial. --Carnildo 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Occam's razor is on the contrary position, because a unique N=1 is a more complicated idea than the thought than simply N>0. If an event happens exactly once, it requires an additional complicating reason that it is limited to one time only, because all other manifestations of physics allow multiple similar events to occur.  The fact that an event being limited to one unique instance only is more complicated means that Occam's razor supports QSS. --James S. 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * From what I understand, what you are describing isn't exactly a qss but may be closer to a multiverse or a m-brane hypothesis. --ScienceApologist 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Multiverse cosmology includes the "many worlds" of quantum physics, so I would agree with that if the Terrestrial Planet Finder hadn't just been abandoned. I think QSS is more well defined.  I also think it has been more formally developed, as a cosmology in the large instead of a cosmology and a state machine to go along with it. However, I am inclined to agree. --James S. 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Your remarks are rather cryptic, I'm not sure what you think that the TPF has to do with any of this, but QSS as you are envisioning it is another version of different "domains" or "brane collisions" resulting in separate "big bangs" for different parts of the "total universe". This type of speculation of quantum cosmology is not part of the standard base of scientific inquiry and it certainly isn't qss as envisioned by Hoyle or Narlikar. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds more like the cyclic model than the QSS model. You'll notice that the cyclic model is not on Template:Cosmology. –Joke 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Are you serious? "two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes [which] collide periodically in a higher dimensional space" has nothing to do with observers in one or more big bang creation events in the same open space.  If you have any actual reasons that the cyclic model is at all applicable to qss cosmology, then please state them. --James S. 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was applicable to QSS. I said it was applicable to your fatuous N=1 argument. In particular, may I suggest you have a look at, section 8. Or Richard Chase Tolman's oscillatory universe. This idea is not unique to QSS, that is my point. –Joke 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Why do you think that the N=1 vs. N>0 argument is fatuous? Do you think there is a way for observers within big bang and QSS cosmologies to distinguish between them? --James S. 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, because if the QSSC were just the same as the big bang, then the theory would be unfalsfiable (or, rather, the two would be the same theory, we additional unnecessary philosophical apparatus on QSSC). That is what I thought was fatuous. The fact is that the QSS model gives a different origin for the CMB and the light elements, so it is, in principle falsifiable (and most would argue that it has already been falsified). –Joke 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * QSSC is not "just the same" as a unitary big bang, it is similar, and the degree of similarity depends on the relative distance of creation event(s). I don't think you are using the word "fatuous" according to its definition.  The light elements are only different to the degree that the creation events have had intersecting light cones, and even then, the extent that they would change nucleic abundance ratios is completely variable.  We do not know whether distant quasars are creation events from colapsed "big crunch" events, or something else. Saying that something is "in principle falsifiable" simply because it depends on something else which you assume is exactly N=1 true, even though you only have evidence that N>0, is wrong. --James S. 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

James' edits
James, your edits go well-beyond your points about N>0 and do some very inappropriate things to the article including removing the dispute tag without addressing the concerns above, removing the point about Machian gravity even though there is a reference to is, and adding in what seems to be your own opinion about QSS being a more general case of the Big Bang. Verifiability demands that you show us a citation to a source that claims what you are saying, so I ask you to do that now rather than revert. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * A source would be any person capable of deducing from first principles that QSSC includes big bang cosmology because observers within either are unable to distinguish between the two and because Occam's razor demands the simpler N>0 case when there is no evidence that the more precise N=1 is more accurate. That is a truth from thought experiment alone. I can not believe that I am the only person to recognize this obvious truth, but I do not have a peer-reviewed citation yet.
 * There has been no evidence presented that my deduction is incorrect, and I agree to look for a peer-reviewed source. --James S. 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, unless you have a source, your suggestion qualifies as original research. Find a source and we'll find a way to report about it on the page. The standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia isn't whether someone can present evidence that your deduction is incorrect but rather whether there is a source for your information. This is policy of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you admit, then, that you have no arguments against the deduction other than that it may be original? --James S. 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * What I do or do not admit is irrelvant. You need to back up and read the policies linked to above. I am perfectly willing to include material that is backed up by verifiable sources. That's the way writing the encyclopedia works. This is not the appropriate forum for presenting arguments about various points Against the Mainstream. Try the Universe Today messageboard if that's what you want to do. --ScienceApologist 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Further references are unnecessary for facts which clearly follow from already-cited references including the definitions of the cosmologies. No evidence has been presented to the contrary, and there is no evidence that anyone can not easily see how the inclusion of big bang within the less precise and indistinguishable QSS logically and plainly follows from their definitions which are already supported by sources. --James S. 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So then it should be very easy for you to point to one of the references which state that the Big Bang is a special case of qss. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag
Both the POV of the article (see above comments) and the factual accuracy (see above comments) is disputed. Please resolve the issues by modified the disputed prose listed two sections above. Do not remove the tag otherwise. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I dispute that there are any remaining POV issues; those listed above are simple content accuracy disputes, not allegations of bias. I will continue to include a more user-friendly, explanatory tag.  It is sad when a reputable researcher's adherence to hegemony puts him the the unenviable position of arguing against simple logic, trying to claim that existing citations of definitions are insufficient for basic deductions from the facts they plainly state. --James S. 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is clearly a dispute going on as we are having a discussion. Do not remove the tag again. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, because the treatment is balanced, with neither a preponderance for or against. Occam's razor provides great certainty that the notability must be at least that of big bang cosmology's. None of the recent inflationary scenarios I've seen published suggests that N must be 1. --James S. 02:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please do not remove the tag as you have failed to once again answer the criticisms here. --ScienceApologist 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * What issues of bias (not fact) do you believe exist in the article as it is now? --James S. 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please see . --ScienceApologist 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Firstly, you mixed in factual disputes with allegations of bias. I responded to all of the allegations of bias, and there are none which you have since replied to.  Therefore I am removing the tag -- again.  If you put it back, please enumerate the remaining bias problems which you believe remain below. Even if any remain, I remind you that you have heavily edited the article, and your opinion of the worthlessness of the cosmology is quite apparent.  I am most interested in what you believe is so far opposed to your point of view that it renders the article biased. --James S. 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You can do your own redaction. Bias remains, and it is important that it is removed from the article. If you would like a specific example, I will provide it. --ScienceApologist 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, please. Also why did you remove, "QSS proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers' to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation."? --James S. 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"this is factual, verifiable, undisputed"
Really? The only Grigori Slepak I found on Google is a graduating senior in Florida. Art LaPella 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I was trying to re-insert the cosmic iron whiskers paragraph, not the vandalism. Fixed. --James S. 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic iron whiskers
Since such things have never been observed, we need to describe what the proposal actually is (that is, an attempt to cover the backside of people who are pathologically skeptical of the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You have got to be kiding; that's about as biased as anyone could possibly get. Why don't you just edit Heaven to explain that it's an attempt to repress the fear of death?  Sure, it may be, but saying so is very much your point of view.  Until there is evidence one way or another, it is an alternative hypothesis.  Or do you have a source saying it's a backside-covering attempt?
 * The description I added is neutral: "Quasi-steady state proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers,' condensing out of iron ejected from supernovae, to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation." with a reference including the URL.
 * Also, when the cosmology template and another fixed width template such as POV are side-by-side, they overlap in narrow windows because they are both fixed width. --James S. 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I am more than willing to explain cosmic iron whiskers in terms of QSS as an idea based on no observations. But the wording you proposed was preposterously in violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no claim that such iron is not falsifable, and because based on the local amount of metal, I see no evidence that such 'whiskers' could not represent the well known "dark matter" required to explain Hubble constant observations (last I read, it was 73% unexplained), I am removing the "pseudophysics" category, by definition. I am using this account because I am logged in to a for-pay station, and for other usual reasons, as has often been suggested by those with whom I have interacted in the past. Sorry if this has been inconvenient, but this is the 2nd-place cosmological theory after the big bang, and if the scientific method is to be expected to operate, competing theories are required. JamesAgain 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see any justification for restoring this article to the cosmology template. In order for a theory to be called scientific, it does not need competitors. It merely needs to be falsifiable (see Karl Popper). You merely need to be able to prove it wrong. The big bang has passed all the tests we've found, so far, although the idea has changed with the introduction of dark matter, dark energy and inflation. However, each of these new entitites has had multiple opportunities for falsification. In particular, with inflation, the prediction of a nearly-scale invariant spectrum of primordial perturbations has been exactly borne out, as confirmed by WMAP, SDSS and other experiments. The others, too, have multiple independent sources of experimental confirmation.

 * As for the suggestion that the big bang is a "special case" of the QSS cosmology, this is absurd. The QSS cosmology introduces matter creation and an unobserved c-field to account for matter creation at each "bang". These are not features of the big bang cosmology. Occam's razor still applies – just because a baroque theory is equivalent to a simple theory in some limit (which I doubt is the case here) doesn't mean the baroque theory is preferred because it is "more general." Otherwise instead of general relativity we would believe in Brans-Dicke theory in which it so happens that $$\omega>40,000$$. –Joke 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Format Change
Can I suggest that the entire format be changed? I know it's a drastic suggestion, but this Wiki entry is an eyesore, it's but a bunch of cites. It reads like an appendix, not an introduction. This is suppose to educate readers of QSS, not bore them to death with just footnotes. :( FResearcher 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If you do, be aware that the sea of citations resulted from total edit war between mainstream scientists and minority opinions, and that each hotly disputed idea and sub-idea needed a citation. Any major change is likely to set off the war all over again, on this page and on other cosmology pages. Art LaPella 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed
This article has been merged to steady state theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.90.96 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

title: Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology


text:
Consolidation (business)

In business, consolidation or amalgamation is the merger and acquisition of many smaller companies into a few much larger ones. In the context of financial accounting, consolidation refers to the aggregation of financial statements of a group company as consolidated financial statements. The taxation term of consolidation refers to the treatment of a group of companies and other entities as one entity for tax purposes. Under the Halsbury's Laws of England, amalgamation is defined as "a blending together of two or more undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company, becoming, substantially, the shareholders of the blended undertakings. There may be amalgamations, either by transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company or the transfer of one or more companies to an existing company".

Overview
Consolidation is the practice, in business, of legally combining two or more organizations into a single new one. Upon consolidation, the original organizations cease to exist and are supplanted by a new entity.

Economic motivation

 * Access to new technologies/techniques
 * Access to new clients
 * Access to new geographies
 * Cheaper financing for a bigger company
 * Seeking for hidden or nonperforming assets belonging to a target company (e.g. real estate)
 * Bigger companies tend to have superior bargaining power over their suppliers and clients (e.g. Walmart)
 * Synergies

Types of business amalgamations
There are three forms of business combinations:
 * Statutory Merger: a business combination that results in the liquidation of the acquired company's assets and the survival of the purchasing company.
 * Statutory Consolidation: a business combination that creates a new company in which none of the previous companies survive.
 * Stock Acquisition: a business combination in which the purchasing company acquires the majority, more than 50%, of the Common stock of the acquired company and both companies survive.
 * Variable interest entity

Terminology

 * Parent-subsidiary relationship: the result of a stock acquisition where the parent is the acquiring company and the subsidiary is the acquired company.
 * Controlling Interest: When the parent company owns a majority of the common stock.
 * Non-Controlling Interest or minority interest: the rest of the common stock that the other shareholders own.
 * Wholly owned subsidiary: when the parent owns all the outstanding common stock of the subsidiary.
 * In an amalgamation, the companies which merge into a new or existing company are referred to as transferor companies or amalgamating companies. The resultant company is referred to as the transferee company.

Accounting treatment (U.S. GAAP)
A parent company can acquire another company by purchasing its net assets or by purchasing a majority share of its common stock. Regardless of the method of acquisition, the costs (including direct costs, costs of issuing securities and indirect costs) are treated as follows:
 * Direct costs, indirect and general costs: the acquiring company expenses all acquisition related costs as they are incurred.
 * Costs of issuing securities: these costs reduce the issuing price of the stock.

Purchase of net assets
Treatment to the acquiring company: When purchasing the net assets the acquiring company records in its books the receipt of the net assets and the disbursement of cash, the creation of a liability or the issuance of stock as a form of payment for the transfer.

Treatment to the acquired company: The acquired company records in its books the elimination of its net assets and the receipt of cash, receivables or investment in the acquiring company (if what was received from the transfer included common stock from the purchasing company). If the acquired company is liquidated then the company needs an additional entry to distribute the remaining assets to its shareholders.

Purchase of common stock
Treatment to the purchasing company: When the purchasing company acquires the subsidiary through the purchase of its common stock, it records in its books the investment in the acquired company and the disbursement of the payment for the stock acquired.

Treatment to the acquired company: The acquired company records in its books the receipt of the payment from the acquiring company and the issuance of stock.

FASB 141 disclosure requirements: FASB 141 requires disclosures in the notes of the financial statements when business combinations occur. Such disclosures are:
 * The name and description of the acquired entity and the percentage of the voting equity interest acquired.
 * The primary reasons for acquisition and descriptions of factors that contributed to recognition of goodwill.
 * The period for which results of operations of acquired entity are included in the income statement of the combining entity.
 * The cost of the acquired entity and if it applies the number of shares of equity interest issued, the value assigned to those interests and the basis for determining that value.
 * Any contingent payments, options or commitments.
 * The purchase and development assets acquired and written off.

Treatment of goodwill impairments:
 * If Non-Controlling Interest (NCI) based on fair value of identifiable assets: impairment taken against parent's income & R/E
 * If NCI based on fair value of purchase price: impairment taken against subsidiary's income & R/E

20% ownership or less—investment
When a company purchases less than 20% of the outstanding common stock, the purchasing company's influence over the acquired company is not significant. (APB 18 specifies conditions where ownership is less than 20% but there is significant influence.)

The purchasing company uses the cost method to account for this type of investment. Under the cost method, the investment is recorded at cost at the time of purchase. The company does not need any entries to adjust this account balance unless the investment is considered impaired or there are liquidating dividends, both of which reduce the investment account.

Liquidating dividends: Liquidating dividends occur when there is an excess of dividends declared over earnings of the acquired company since the date of acquisition. Regular dividends are recorded as dividend income whenever they are declared.

Impairment loss: An impairment loss occurs when there is a decline in the value of the investment other than temporary.

20% to 50% ownership—associate company
When the amount of stock purchased is between 20% and 50% of the common stock outstanding, the purchasing company's influence over the acquired company is often significant. The deciding factor, however, is significant influence. If other factors exist that reduce the influence or if significant influence is gained at an ownership of less than 20%, the equity method may be appropriate (FASB interpretation 35 (FIN 35) underlines the circumstances where the investor is unable to exercise significant influence).

To account for this type of investment, the purchasing company uses the equity method. Under the equity method, the purchaser records its investment at original cost. This balance increases with income and decreases for dividends from the subsidiary that accrue to the purchaser.

Treatment of Purchase Differentials: At the time of purchase, purchase differentials arise from the difference between the cost of the investment and the book value of the underlying assets.

Purchase differentials have two components:
 * The difference between the fair market value of the underlying assets and their book value.
 * Goodwill: the difference between the cost of the investment and the fair market value of the underlying assets.

Purchase differentials need to be amortized over their useful life; however, new accounting guidance states that goodwill is not amortized or reduced until it is permanently impaired, or the underlying asset is sold.

More than 50% ownership—subsidiary
When the amount of stock purchased is more than 50% of the outstanding common stock, the purchasing company has control over the acquired company. Control in this context is defined as ability to direct policies and management. In this type of relationship the controlling company is the parent and the controlled company is the subsidiary. The parent company needs to issue consolidated financial statements at the end of the year to reflect this relationship.

Consolidated financial statements show the parent and the subsidiary as one single entity. During the year, the parent company can use the equity or the cost method to account for its investment in the subsidiary. Each company keeps separate books. However, at the end of the year, a consolidation working paper is prepared to combine the separate balances and to eliminate the intercompany transactions, the subsidiary's stockholder equity and the parent's investment account. The result is one set of financial statements that reflect the financial results of the consolidated entity. There are three forms of combination: (1) horizontal integration: the combination of firms in the same business lines and markets; (2) vertical integration: the combination of firms with operations in different but successive stages of production or distribution or both; (3) conglomeration: the combination of firms with unrelated and diverse products or services functions, or both.

title: Consolidation (business)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, researchers

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge (2/3 in favour). Ingoolemo  talk  04:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

September 11, researchers
What little is in this article is in David Ray Griffin, along with a bunch more wackiness Frjwoolley 01:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why there should be article on September 11, researchers. As pointed out, David Ray Griffin already has an article. Since the VfD nomination. another name (Eric Hufschmid) has been added.  This should all be merged under 9/11 conspiracy theories.  This article should not be redirected to that page, however, because the title purports to be all 9/11 researchers, not just conspiracy theorists. - DS1953 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * More and more wackaloons researchers are getting added; I agree with DS1953 — Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frjwoolley 03:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge: as suggested above. This article is titled poorly, and as DS1953 noted can carry the wrong connotation. Strikes me more as attempts by conspirowackos to gain credibility. --Durin 04:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. --Xcali 04:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Aside from all the abusive ad hominem attacks by voters so far, the page provides a good overview of various authors who have written on the subject.  Whether or not you agree with what they have to say (or have even bothered to read it) they are notable.  They have written books which have sold many thousands of copies and have been endorsed by many prominent activists, professors, organizations, etc.  If you don't think the page is properly titled, then that's an issue for "pages to be moved," not vfd. Blackcats 10:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not uncommon for conspiracy believers to argue vehemently for their points. It doesn't change the reality that the article carries the wrong connotation and should be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Durin 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems you’re making yet another ad hominem attack. (And here I thought that “conspiracy theorists” were the ones who made logical fallacies.)  Repeating your opinion does not make it any more a "reality," and like I said if you think there's a problem with the title then the move process can take care of that.  And BTW, I was not arguing "vehemently."  As anyone who knows me will attest, you'll know if I get "vehement" ;-)  Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Stating that a group of people argue vehemently is an ad hominem attack? I think you don't understand the meaning. Regardless, your response doesn't address the point. As with my comment below, to do this article appropriately to include all viewpoints would result in an immense article. The list, as it stands now, is all people who do not agree with official conclusions. Thus, the content is more appropriate for the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Please observe that I haven't voted to delete the content; merely merge it. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Calling people "conspirowackos" is ad hominem. So is calling them "conspiracy believers."  Everyone believes that 9/11 was due to a conspiracy - the only debate is who was doing the conspiring.  Responding to an argument by saying that people "argue vehemently" is a non sequitur.  I apologize for not making it more clear which of your fallacies I was referring to. Blackcats 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Noted, and not responding. You've devolved this into an argument that has little to do with the VfD. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge to bits, then delete. JFW | T@lk  11:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep: the magnitude of fallout from the events of 9/11 clearly merits a catalog of the who's who among 9/11 researchers Ombudsman 16:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then you won't mind if I include references to every single PhD the government has used in its investigation, yes? --Durin 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your levity is appreciated, Durin, even if not refreshing, given the gravity of the tragedy at issue. Of course, adding researchers who have tried in vain to keep alive the Bush administration's deceptive and disproven conspiracy theories, linking Iraq to 9/11 and to stockpiles of WMDs, would be very much welcome (short of spamming); bring 'em on, to coin a phrase.  Merging into an article including the term conspiracy is patently absurd, however. Ombudsman 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally the term "September 11th researchers" has been used to mean researchers who believe there was complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11, but if you would like to change your vote and include some of the more notable researchers hired by the government to uphold the official conspiracy theory (that a cabal of Muslim zealots living in caves in Afghanistan hatched a successful plot to defeat the world's most powerful air -defense system using box-cutters) then I would not object. The article could easily include a section for those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity and one for those who don't.  That's what Wikipedia is all about - presenting both sides of an issue and letting the readers decide for themselves. Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If I were to include the people as I suggested, per the current way in which the page is laid out, the page would greatly exceed recommended article length. My suggestion was intentionally tongue in cheek, and should have been read as such. The list of people researching 9/11 is immense, too much so for Wikipedia to have an article titled as this one. The article thus is inherently going to be biased towards conspiracy theories. As such, it deserves to be merged. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was well aware that that you were being rhetorical. I simply decided to call your bluff.  I am quite serious about what I said though, so long as like Ombudsman said, you don't spam the article with hundreds of insignificant individuals.  It should only include the most notable researchers from each side - with two categories - those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity in 9/11 and those who don't.

Blackcats 04:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then we should also be analyzing the significance of the people who are currently in the article if we go that direction. Before doing that, some metric needs to be established for how to count as significant. Anyone can publish a book; there are lots of companies that will enable you to publish, so that is not enough of a metric. Referring to WP:MUSIC #3 as a possible guideline, then we'd need two or more books from a major publisher by the author. The list of government investigators is very long, but their qualifications and notability are no less than most of the people currently on this list. Regardless of what you or I think, it's very clear from the current vote that this article will be merged; currently 9 merge 4 keep. If the article passes VfD as 'keep', then we can discuss metrics. Failing that, I'll refrain from commenting further. My vote for merge stands. Good day. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge — Chameleon 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The page should but kept, as a list of 9/11 researchers is an important thing to have. It should also include a list of government researchers, to maintain npov. Zelmerszoetrop
 * Merge as above. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 'keep or merge maybe but please do not erase this Yuckfoo 23:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. carmeld1 04:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Kevin Baastalk: new 20:59, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Joseph Forsyth Johnson

Joseph Forsyth Johnson (1840 – 17 July 1906) was an English landscape architect and disciple of John Ruskin. He "played a pivotal role in introducing the notion of naturalistic planting."

Early life
Johnson was English, and was possibly born near Liverpool. His Scottish maternal grandfather John Forsyth was a florist. His great-grandfather was William Forsyth, a botanist who co-founded the Royal Horticultural Society in 1804.

Career
Johnson worked for the Manchester Botanical Garden as a flower arranger in 1867. He had a successful career designing the grounds for several large houses in England, Ireland, and Russia. In 1868, he became the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Belfast, Ireland. While there, he oversaw the Horticultural Exhibition in 1874. In January 1877, he announced that he had left his position with the Royal Botanic Gardens and was seeking positions as a landscape gardener or in the improvement of landed property.

In the late 1870s and early 1880s, he worked for the Alexandra Palace near London, as the director of horticultural exhibits.

He was a horticultural judge for the Amsterdam International Exhibition in 1877, the Paris Exhibition in 1879, and the Brussels Exhibition in 1880. In 1882, he arranged the Lord Mayor's Rose Show at Mansion House.

He subsequently set up a landscape gardening shop at 90 Bond Street in London around 1883. He advertised "competent gardeners and workmen sent to all parts."

After relocating to the United States in 1885, Johnson eventually established a practice in New York City from which he oversaw numerous East Coast projects, from Maine to Florida. He was a fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society.

Prospect Park
He went to the United States in 1885 where he was employed by Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York as superintendent of horticulture. The park was overgrown and he planned to create several vistas so the entirety of the large park would be visible. This would have necessitated the removal of a large number of trees, which proved unacceptable to the community. As a result, Johnson was terminated from the project.

Inman Park
A recommendation in 1887 by New York florist Peter Henderson convinced Joel Hurt to bring Johnson to Atlanta to work on his streetcar suburb, Inman Park. Johnson's design for the 130 acres of Atlanta's first suburb included winding streets, open spaces, and parks inspired by Frederick Law Olmsted.

Piedmont Park
Johnson joined Hurt again for Piedmont Park, the site of the Cotton States and International Exposition, a world's fair that was held in Atlanta, Georgia.

Latta Park
In 1891, he designed Latta Park in Charlotte, North Carolina. The park featured two large pavilions, pleasure drives, ponds, and a grove of shade trees. Latta Park remains today but is smaller in size.

Cloverdale
In 1892, he may have designed the neighborhood of Cloverdale in Montgomery, Alabama.

Cumberland
in June 1906, Johnson was hired by the Real Estate and Securities Co. to design a building park in Cumberland, Maryland. The park was located at the intersection of Green Street and Fayette Street.

Publications

 * The Natural Principle of Landscape Gardening: Or the Adornment of Land for Perpetual Beauty. Belfast: Archer and Songs, 1874
 * Residential Sites and Environments, Their Conveniences, Gardens, Parks and Planting. New York: A.T. Delamare, 1898
 * "The Laws of Developing Landscape, Showing How to Make Thickets and Woodlands Reveal Their Natural Beauty," Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 29 (1904–1905): 595–624

Personal life
Johnson married Elizabeth Trowsdale (born 1832) on 12 January 1861. She was a housekeeper at Gilling Castle in Yorkshire. They had six children: John Forsyth Johnson (born 1861), Charles (born 1862), Georgiana Mary Alice (born 1864), Elizabeth (born 1868), Joseph and Christina (born 1873).

He moved to America in 1885 with Frances Clarke, a 26-year-old linen draper's assistant who was included on the ship's passenger list as his wife. They had three children: Roy Albert Johnson (1886–1939), Cecil Forsyth Johnson (1887–1951), and Edwina Johnson Mundy (1891–1969).

Johnson's great-grandson by his first marriage was the British entertainer Bruce Forsyth (1928–2017). Forsyth appeared on the BBC One genealogy television show Who Do You Think You Are? researching his great-grandfather Joseph, in particular any information relating to his American family. Despite the question of bigamy arising in this documentary, there is no record for Johnson's marriage to Frances Clarke, although she is shown to have been recorded as both Frances Clarke Johnson and Frances Forsyth Johnson.

Johnson's American family was informed that he had died while traveling to Great Britain and had been buried at sea. In fact, he had abandoned his American family just as he had previously abandoned his English wife and children. In reality, he returned to England to visit his family there, later going between England and the United States several times over the next years.

He was a Mason, having been a charter member of the Epping Lodge and a member and officer of the F. and A. M. in London.

In 1906, Johnson died at the Brooklyn Hospital in Brooklyn, New York at the age of 67. He was buried at Evergreen Cemetery in Brooklyn with Masonic honors. He died with only $389 to his name after living for several years in a hotel, leaving no last will or testament.

After visiting his great-grandfather's unmarked grave at Evergreens Cemetery, Bruce Forsyth commissioned a headstone for Johnson's grave.

title: Joseph Forsyth Johnson


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleven (horse)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pleven (horse)
The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), and Pleven (horse) were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni ☯ 01:55, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

 * Keep for my reasons stated at Votes for deletion/Salerno (horse). - DS1953 02:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any persuasive reason to delete this. --Tabor 03:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No copyvio proven although it would be good if the author could provide a source or sources. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looking suspicious isn't particularly a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is the creation of an anonymous editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia with good articles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is silly. If you're going to write a series of articles on similar subjects, it makes perfect sense to use a template article and change whatever details need changing for the specific article. Have a look at some of the articles on suburbs of New Zealand cities that I created - they used a set format. So of course four articles created within a few minutes on different horses will look similar. Grutness...  wha?  07:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.