text:
Norman Geisler

Norman Leo Geisler (July 21, 1932 – July 1, 2019) was an American Christian systematic theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He was the co-founder of two non-denominational evangelical seminaries (Veritas International University and Southern Evangelical Seminary ).

He held a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, the history of philosophy, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, ethics, and more. He was the author, coauthor, or editor of over 90 books and hundreds of articles.

One of the primary architects of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Geisler was well noted within the United States evangelical community for his stalwart defense of Biblical inerrancy.

Education
Geisler's education included a Th.B. (1964) from William Tyndale College, B.A. in philosophy (1958) and M.A. in theology (1960) from Wheaton College, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He had additional graduate work at Wayne State University, the University of Detroit, and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

Biography
Norman Leo Geisler was born on July 21, 1932, in Warren, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. He attended a nondenominational, evangelical church from age nine; and converted into Christianity at age of eighteen. He immediately began attempting to share his faith with others in various evangelistic endeavors—door-to-door, street meetings, and jail service, rescue missions, and Youth for Christ venues. Some of his conversations forced him to realize that he needed to find better answers to the objections he was hearing. He subsequently earned two bachelor's degrees, two master's degrees, and a Doctorate.

Geisler's decades of degree work overlap a professorial career begun at Detroit Bible College (1963–66) and continued at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1969–70) and Trinity College (1970–71). He was later Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88).

In 1981, Geisler testified in "the Scopes II trial" (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education). Duane Gish, a creationist, remarked: "Geisler was... the lead witness for the creationist side and one of its most brilliant witnesses. His testimony, in my view (I was present during the entire trial), effectively demolished the most important thrust of the case by the ACLU. Unfortunately, in my opinion, no testimony, and no effort by any team of lawyers, no matter how brilliant, could have won the case for the creationist side."

Geisler was formerly a president of the Evangelical Theological Society but left the ETS in 2003, after it did not expel Clark Pinnock, who advocated open theism. Geisler also was a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He served as its first president as well as the first editor of its journal, which was then called the Bulletin of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Additionally, he was the founder and first president of the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

In 1997, Geisler co-authored When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretation. He contributed to The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism.

In 2008, Geisler co-founded the Veritas Evangelical Seminary (now Veritas International University) in Santa Ana, California. The seminary offers master's degrees in theological studies, apologetics, biblical studies, and Divinity. Geisler served as Chancellor, Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Theology, and occupant of the Norman L. Geisler Chair of Christian Apologetics. He retired from this post in May 2019.

Personal
Geisler was married to Barbara Jean Cate for 64 years, and together they had six children: Ruth, David, Daniel, Rhoda, Paul, and Rachel. He died of cerebral thrombosis at a hospital in Charlotte, North Carolina on July 1, 2019, 20 days before his 87th birthday. Geisler's funeral was held at Calvary Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Ravi Zacharias gave the eulogy.

Apologetics
Geisler is known first and foremost as a classical Christian apologist. Between 1970 and 1990 he participated in dozens of public debates and gained a reputation as a defender of theism, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, and the reliability of the Bible.

Outline of Geisler's Apologetic Method
The first attempt to publish an outline of his apologetic method showed up in an appendix of his 1990 book When Skeptics Ask. The appendix is titled "Reasoning to Christianity from Ground Zero" and in it we see a high-level view of the holistic system of classical apologetics he had been developing over the years. The first outline contained fourteen points of argument:

 * 1) There are self-evident truths (e.g., "I exist," "Logic applies to reality").
 * 2) Truth corresponds to reality.
 * 3) Truth is knowable (all other views are self-defeating).
 * 4) One can proceed from self-evident truths to the existence of God.
 * 5) The argument from Creation (proceeds from "I exist")
 * 6) The argument from morals (proceeds from "Values are undeniable")
 * 7) The argument from design (proceeds from "Design implies a designer")
 * 8) God is a necessary Being (argument from being).
 * 9) My existence is not necessary (evident from the definition of a necessary Being).
 * 10) Therefore, theism is true (there is a necessary Being beyond the world who has created the contingent things in the world and intervenes in the world).
 * 11) The objection from the problem of evil can be solved.
 * 12) The objection to miracles can be solved.
 * 13) The Bible is a historically reliable document.
 * 14) History is an objective study of the past.
 * 15) There is great historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence to confirm the reliability of the Bible. (Corollary: The Bible gives a reliable record of the teaching of Jesus Christ.)
 * 16) Jesus claimed to be both fully human and fully God.
 * 17) He gave evidence to support this claim.
 * 18) The fulfillment of prophecy
 * 19) His miraculous and sinless life
 * 20) His resurrection
 * 21) Therefore, Jesus is both fully human and fully God.
 * 22) Whatever God teaches is true.
 * 23) Jesus (God) taught that the Old Testament was the inspired Word of God and He promised the New Testament.
 * 24) Therefore, both the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God.

The overview of his system was later streamlined slightly into a 12-point schema. As of 1999, it could be summarized as follows:

 * 1) Truth about reality is knowable.
 * 2) Opposites cannot both be true (The Law of Noncontradiction).
 * 3) It is true the theistic God exists.
 * 4) If God exists, then miracles are possible.
 * 5) Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of God through a messenger of God.
 * 6) The New Testament is historically reliable.
 * 7) As witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God.
 * 8) Jesus's claim to divinity was proven by miracles, especially the Resurrection.
 * 9) Therefore, Jesus is God.
 * 10) Because Jesus is God, whatever Jesus affirmed as true, is true.
 * 11) Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God.
 * 12) Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false.

These same twelve steps served as the framework for the chapters of the highly popular book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist in 2004 and in his 2012 book Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True.

Geisler's Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God (Theism)
As an evangelical Thomist, Norman Geisler contributed the following Thomistic argument for God's existence, which was described as "his own unique contribution to the cosmological class of argument for the existence of God," and which "he developed and refined over sixty years (1956 to 2015)."

The Argument Outlined in Seven Points

 * 1) Something exists (e.g., I do).
 * 2) Nothing cannot produce something.
 * 3) Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily.
 * 4) It exists eternally because if ever there was absolutely nothing, then there would always be absolutely nothing because nothing cannot produce something.
 * 5) It exists necessarily because everything cannot be a contingent being because all contingent beings need a cause of their existence.
 * 6) I am not a necessary and eternal being (since I change).
 * 7) Therefore, both God (a Necessary Being) and I (a contingent being) exist (= theism).

==== The Argument in Eighteen Points ==== The longer form of the argument in eighteen points is as follows:

 * 1) Being is. That is, something exists.
 * 2) Being is being. A thing is identical to itself.
 * 3) Being is not non-being.
 * 4) Either being or non-being. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
 * 5) Non-being cannot cause being. Nothing cannot cause something.
 * 6) A caused being is similar to its Cause.
 * 7) A being is either necessary or contingent but not both.
 * 8) A necessary being cannot cause another necessary being to come to be.
 * 9) A contingent being cannot be the efficient cause of another contingent being.
 * 10) A necessary being is a being of Pure Actuality with no potentiality.
 * 11) A Being of Pure Actuality cannot cause another being with Pure Actuality to exist.
 * 12) A being that is caused by a Being of Pure Actuality must have both actuality and potentiality.
 * 13) Every being that is caused by a being of Pure Actuality must be both like and dislike its Cause.
 * 14) I am a contingent being.
 * 15) But only a necessary being can cause a contingent being to exist.
 * 16) Therefore, a Necessary Being (of Pure Actuality) exists who caused me (and every other contingent being there may be) to exist.
 * 17) This Necessary Being of Pure Actuality (with no potentiality) has certain necessary attributes:
 * 18) It cannot change (= is immutable)
 * 19) It cannot be temporal (= is eternal)
 * 20) It cannot be material (= immaterial)
 * 21) It cannot be finite (= infinite)
 * 22) It cannot be divided or divisible (= simple)
 * 23) It must be an uncaused being since it is a necessary being
 * 24) It must be only One being
 * 25) It must be infinitely knowing (= omniscient) Being
 * 26) It must be all-powerful (omnipotent) Being
 * 27) It must be an absolutely morally perfect Being
 * 28) It must be a personal Being
 * 29) This being is appropriately called "God."
 * 30) Therefore, one infinite, uncaused, personal, morally perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful Being who caused all finite being(s) to exist exists. This is what is meant by a theistic God. Hence, a theistic God exists.

Geisler's Argument for Biblical Miracles
Geisler addressed the debate over biblical miracles in multiple works, including Miracles and the Modern Mind, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, and Twelve Points Which Show Christianity is True. In I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist, Geisler along with his student Frank Turek claim "since we know that God exists, miracles are possible. Any argument against miracles that can be concocted, including that of David Hume, is destroyed by that one fact.  For if there is a God who can act, there can be acts of God (miracles)." This claim is reiterated in Geisler's work Miracles and the Modern Mind, where he claims "If a theistic God exists, then there is no reason to rule out the possibility of miracles."

Geisler argues in Miracles and the Modern Mind that miracles are possible, credible, rational, not unscientific, identifiable, not mythological, historical, not antinatural, distinguishable, and actual. Geisler further argues miracles are essential to Christianity and are definable. Concerning whether miracles are actual, Geisler makes the claim that "[t]he very cosmological argument, by which we know God exists, also proves that a supernatural event has occurred. For if the universe had a beginning and, therefore, a Beginner [...] then God brought the universe into existence out of nothing [...] But ex nihilo creation out of nothing is the greatest supernatural event of all. [...] So, the surprising conclusion is that, if the Creator exists, then the miraculous is not only possible but actual."

In Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True, Geisler presents the following criteria for a valid miracle which confirms a truth claim is genuinely from God:

 * 1) The events must be truly supernatural.
 * 2) There must be multiple miracles.
 * 3) The miraculous events must be connected with some truth claim in the name of God.
 * 4) The miraculous events must be unique.
 * 5) A predictive element is helpful in confirming a divine claim.

In Miracles and the Modern Mind, Geisler takes the above criteria and presents the following argument:

 * 1) Only Christianity has unique miracle claims confirmed by sufficient testimony.
 * 2) What has unique miraculous confirmation of its claims is true (as opposed to contrary views).
 * 3) Therefore, Christianity is true (as opposed to contrary views).

Criticism of C. S. Lewis
Geisler was a critic of C. S. Lewis' higher critical view of the miracles recorded in the Old Testament, claiming Lewis "[relegated] many Old Testament miracles to the realm of myth." In Is Man the Measure? Geisler provides C. S. Lewis' writings as an example of Christian humanism, in which Lewis' views on the Old Testament and its miracles are also subject to criticism.

Theology
Geisler was a conservative evangelical scholar who wrote a four-volume systematic theology which was later condensed into a 1,660 page one-volume tome.

Biblical Inerrancy
He defended the full inerrancy of the Bible, being one of the co-founders and framers of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" (1978) and editor of the book Inerrancy (Zondervan, 1978). His notoriety as a defender of the Bible started to grow after co-authoring (with William Nix) General Introduction to the Bible (Moody Press, 1968, 1986) and From God to Us, revised (Moody, 1974, 2012). He co-authored Defending Inerrancy with William Roach (Baker, 2013) and proceeded to start the blogsite https://defendinginerrancy.com with William Roach and others. He wrote the foreword to the book Explaining Biblical Inerrancy (Bastion Books, 2013), a compilation of all of the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, Biblical Hermeneutics, and Biblical Application, the official ICBI commentary on the first statement by R. C. Sproul, and the official ICBI commentary on the second statement by Norm Geisler. The last book Norm wrote was Preserving Orthodoxy (Bastion Books 2017), which explains how to "maintain continuity with the historic Christian faith on Scripture" and gives Norm's perspective on the inerrancy-related controversies he had been engaged in with Robert Gundry, Clark Pinnock, and Michael Licona.

Calvinism
Geisler considered himself a "moderate Calvinist", as expressed in his book Chosen but Free (Harvest House, 2001) and Systematic Theology, in One Volume (Harvest House, 2012). Geisler in his book Chosen but Free distinguishes his moderate Calvinism in many ways from more extreme views of Calvinism, he summarises his view of the five points of Calvinism thus: This form of moderate Calvinism has been taught by multiple Dispensational Calvinists such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie. Norman Geisler argued that his view of election strongly resembles also that of Thomas Aquinas.

Election
Norman Geisler spoke of election being "in according with" God's foreknowledge instead of being "based on" his foreknowledge, along with being unconditional for God, but conditional for man. To explain how he understood his doctrine of election, Geisler used the illustration of a young man contemplating on if he would propose to one of two ladies. This man then chooses to propose to the first one because he knew that she would respond to the action, while he does not propose to the second woman because he knew that she would not respond. Geisler thus believed that God effectually calls those whom he knows will respond to this call.

Perseverance of the Saints
Geisler also distinguished his view of the perseverance of the saints from the extreme Calvinist view. Geisler believed that an elect person would not be lost even if they die in sin, he strongly protested against the view that one cannot be sure that he is one of the elect until he gets to heaven. Unlike some Calvinists, Geisler understood warnings in the New Testament such as that in Hebrews 10 as pertaining to a loss of eternal rewards, instead of speaking of false believers.

Dispensationalism
Norman Geisler believed in dispensational premillennialism, however he criticized progressive dispensationalism, ultradispensationalism and hyperdispensationalism. Geisler disagreed with the rejection of the human author's meaning in biblical exegesis taught by progressive dispensationalists, saying that although God knows more about the topic and sees more implications in any given text, the text cannot mean more than the human author intended.

Philosophy
Geisler was a self-described evangelical Thomist as it pertained to his philosophical commitments. In the first volume of his Systematic Theology, Geisler affirms Thomism as superior to atomism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism as it pertains to their respective responses to the Parmenidean dilemma of the one and the many. Geisler further evaluated Thomism in light of evangelical Christianity as well as the compatibility between the two in his work, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. When interviewed by Christianity Today in 2002, Geisler gave his evaluation of Thomas Aquinas which was juxtaposed by Christianity Today against Ronald Nash's previous 1974 article wherein Nash described Aquinas as "unsuitable for a biblically centered Christian philosophy." Geisler also held that a consistent Thomist need not be a Roman Catholic, and that Thomism did not necessarily lead to Catholicism, a claim which Geisler's contemporaries, (such as R. C. Sproul), also held.

Ethics
Geisler wrote two significant books on ethics: Christian Ethics and The Christian Love Ethic. He provided his perspective on ethical options, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, biomedical issues, capital punishment, war, civil disobedience, sexual issues, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, ecology, animal rights, drugs, gambling, pornography, birth control, and more.

Of the six major ethical systems (antinomianism, situationalism, generalism, unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism, and graded absolutism), Geisler advocated graded absolutism, which is a theory of moral absolutism which affirms that in moral conflicts we are obligated to perform the higher moral duty. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but clarifies that a moral absolute, like "Do not kill", can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like "Do not lie". Graded absolutism is also called "contextual absolutism" but is not to be confused with situational ethics. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the "greater good view", but is not to be confused with utilitarianism (see also prima facie right).

Geisler believed the American Revolution was not justified by the standards of either the Bible or just war theory. However, he was not a pacifist, believing that defensive wars are justified but revolutions are not.

Works
The following is a list of books authored, co-authored or edited by Norman Geisler.

 * A General Introduction to the Bible  (Moody, 1968)
 * Christ the Theme of the Bible  (Moody, 1968 | Bastion Books, 2012)
 * Ethics: Alternatives and Issues  (Zondervan, 1971)
 * The Christian Ethic of Love (Zondervan, 1973)
 * Philosophy of Religion (Zondervan, 1974)
 * From God to Us  (Moody, 1974)
 * * To Understand the Bible Look for Jesus (1975, reprint and retitle of Christ: The Theme of the Bible)
 * Christian Apologetics  (Baker, 1976)
 * A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Baker, 1977)
 * The Roots of Evil  (Zondervan, 1978) (Second edition, Zondervan, 1981)
 * Inerrancy (Zondervan, 1979)
 * Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective  (Baker, 1980)
 * Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics  (Baker, 1981)
 * Biblical Errancy: Its Philosophical Roots (Zondervan, 1981 | Bastion Books, 2013)
 * Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible  (Zondervan, 1982)
 * The Creator in the Courtroom “Scopes II “: The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial (Baker, 1982)
 * What Augustine Says (Baker, 1982 | Bastion Books, 2013)
 * Is Man the Measure?  An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Baker, 1983)
 * Cosmos: Carl Sagan's Religion for the Scientific Mind (Quest, 1983)
 * Religion of the Force  (Quest, 1983)
 * To Drink or Not to Drink: A Sober Look at the Problem (Quest, 1984)
 * Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today's World Views  (Here's Life, 1984)
 * Christianity Under Attack (Quest, 1985)
 * False Gods of Our Time : A Defense of the Christian Faith  (Harvest House, 1985)
 * A General Introduction to the Bible, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (Moody, 1986)(Third Edition with revisions and expansion underway as of 2019 with projected publish date in 2021.)
 * Reincarnation Sensation (Tyndale, 1986)
 * Origin Science (Baker, 1987)
 * Philosophy of Religion  (Expansion and Revision of #5. Baker, 1988| Bastion Books, 2021?)
 * Signs and Wonders (Tyndale, 1988 | Bastion Books, 2019)
 * * Worlds Apart : A Handbook on World Views  (Baker. Reprint and retitle of #22)
 * Knowing the Truth About Creation (Servant, 1989 | Bastion Books, 2013)
 * The Infiltration of the New Age  (Tyndale, 1989)
 * The Battle for the Resurrection (Thomas Nelson, 1989 | Bastion Books, 2013)
 * Apologetics in the New Age  (Baker, 1990)
 * Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking  (Baker, 1990)
 * When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences  (Baker, 1990, 2013)
 * Gambling: A Bad Bet (Fleming H. Revel, 1990 | Bastion Books, 2013)
 * The Life and Death Debate  (Greenwood, 1990)
 * In Defense of the Resurrection  (Quest, 1991 | Bastion Books, 2015)
 * Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal  (Baker, 1991)
 * Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions  (Baker, 1991)
 * Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles (Baker, 1992 | Bastion Books, 2012)
 * When Critics Ask: A Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Victor, 1992)
 * Answering Islam (Baker, 1993)
 * Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker, 1995)
 * Love is Always Right  (Word, 1996)
 * Creating God in the Image of Man?  (Bethany, 1997)
 * When Cultists Ask  (Baker, 1997)
 * The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism  (Harvest House, 1998)
 * Legislating Morality  (Bethany, 1998)
 * Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker, 1999)
 * Chosen But Free : A Balanced view of God's Sovereignty and Free Will  (Bethany, 1999)
 * Unshakable Foundations (Bethany, 2001)
 * Why I Am a Christian : Leading Thinkers Explain Why they Believe  (Baker, 2001)
 * The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism  (Kregel, 2001)
 * Living Loud: Defending Your Faith (Broadman & Holman, 2002)
 * Answering Islam, Updated and Revised (Bethany, 2002)
 * Who Made God?  (Zondervan, 2003)
 * Is Your Church Ready?  Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic Life  (Zondervan, 2003)
 * I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist  (Crossway, 2004)
 * Systematic Theology, Vol. 1  (Bethany, 2002)
 * Systematic Theology, Vol. 2  (Bethany, 2003)
 * Systematic Theology, Vol. 3  (Bethany, 2004)
 * Systematic Theology, Vol. 4  (Bethany, 2005)
 * Bringing Your Faith to Work: Answers for Break-Room Skeptics  (Baker, 2005)
 * * Correcting the Cults: Expert Responses to Their Scripture Twisting   (Baker, 2005, reprint of #….)
 * * Why I Am a Christian : Leading Thinkers Explain why They Believe (revised for Baker, 2006)
 * Integrity at Work : Finding Your Ethical Compass in a Post-Enron World  (Baker, 2007)
 * Creation  and the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom  (Crossway, 2007)
 * A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Baker, 2007)
 * Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely about Right and Wrong  (Crossway, 2007)
 * Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith  (Crossway, 2007)
 * Conviction Without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith  (Harvest House, 2008)
 * The Apologetics of Jesus: A Caring Approach to Dealing with Doubters   (Baker, 2008)
 * Conversational Evangelism (Harvest House, 2008)
 * Is Rome the True Church? (Crossway, 2008)
 * * The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (Baker 2008, reprint of #43)
 * * Making Sense of Bible Difficulties (Baker, 2009, abridgement of #43)
 * Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will  (third edition, revised and expanded, Bethany, 2010)
 * Christian Ethics, Second Edition (Baker, 2010)
 * If God, Why Evil?  (Bethany, 2011)
 * Systematic Theology in One Volume  (Bethany, 2011)
 * Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scriptures for a New Generation   (Baker, 2012)(Revision and expansion underway as of 2019 by Bill Roach will include much of Norm's thought and writings on the defense of inerrancy between 2011 and 2019.)
 * Reasons for Belief : Easy-to-Understand Answers to 10 Essential Questions  (Bethany, 2012)
 * Reasons for Belief Study Guide (Bastion Books, 2014)
 * A Popular Handbook of Biblical Archaeology: Discoveries that Confirm the Reliability of Scripture   (Bethany, 2012)
 * The Big Book of Christian Apologetics   (Baker, 2012) (Minor revision of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)
 * * Christian Apologetics  (revised, Baker, 2012)
 * Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True  (NGIM, 2012)
 * Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Application with Official ICBI Commentary (Bastion Books, 2013)
 * * The Christian Ethic of Love (2012, a minor revision of #4)
 * From God to Us (Moody, 2012) (a major revision and update of #6 with some additions from #25.)
 * Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence  (Bastion Books, 2012)
 * * The Roots of Evil, Third Edition (Bastion Books, 2013. A Minor revision of #4)
 * Should Believers Make Ashes of Themselves? Cremation, the Burning Question  (Bastion, 2013)
 * * Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten?  (Bastion Books, 2013. Revision and expansion of #37)
 * The Atheist's Fatal Flaw  (Baker, 2014)
 * The Jesus Quest: the Danger from Within  (Xulon, 2014)
 * The Bible's Answer to 100 of Life's Biggest Questions  (Baker, 2015)
 * The Shack: Helpful or Hurtful?  (Bastion Books, 2011)
 * Teacher's Guide to Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True (NGIM, 2012).
 * Beware of Philosophy  (Bastion Books, 2012)
 * A History of Western Philosophy: Vol 1: Ancient and Medieval  (Bastion Books, 2012)
 * A History of Western Philosophy: Vol 2: Modern and Contemporary  (Bastion Books, 2012)
 * * A Handbook on World Views: A Catalogue for Worldview Shoppers  (Bastion Books, 2013) (A minor revision of Worlds Apart)
 * * Biblical Inerrancy: The Historical Evidence  (Bastion Books, 2013)(A minor Revision of #15)
 * * What in Cremation is Going On? (Bastion Books, 2014) (Abridgement of # 86)
 * The Official Study Guide to I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Xulon Press, 2014)
 * The Religion of the Force  (Bastion Books, 2015) (Update and expansion of #19)
 * God: A Philosophical Argument  (Bastion Books, 2015)
 * Evidence of an Early New Testament Canon  (Bastion Books, 2015)
 * Romans in Logical Form (Bastion Books, 2015)
 * Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate (Wipf & Stock, 2016) (review)
 * How to Know God  (Bastion Books, 2016)(In English and Spanish)
 * A Prolegomena to Evangelical Theology  (Bastion Books, 2016)
 * A Popular Survey of Bible Doctrine (Bastion Books, 2015)
 * A Prolegomena to Evangelical Theology (Bastion Books, 2016)
 * The Bible: Its Origin, Nature and Collection: NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine, Book 1 (NGIM.org, 2015)
 * The Doctrine of God: NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine, Book 2  (NGIM.org, 2015)
 * The Doctrine of Christ: NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine, Book 3  (NGIM.org, 2016)
 * The Doctrine of Creation: NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine, Book 4  (NGIM.org, 2016)
 * The Doctrine of Angels & Demons: NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine, Book 5  (NGIM.org, 2016)
 * Preserving Orthodoxy: Maintaining Continuity with the Historic Christian Faith on Scripture  (Bastion Books, 2017)
 * Somewhere Under the Rainbow: A Christian look at Same-Sex “Marriage” (Bastion Books, 2017)
 * Having Fun Under the Sun: A Study of Ecclesiastes (Bastion Books, 2018)
 * The Collected Work of Norm Geisler, Volumes 1-5 (Bastion Books, 2019) Vol. 1 (1964-1979) | Vol. 2 (19xx-19xx)| Vol. 3 (19xx-19xx)| Vol. 4 (19xx-19xx)| Vol. 5 (19xx-19xx)
 * *Conviction without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith (NGIM.org, 2021)(An unrevised republishing of #73)
 * Is Man the Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism and Transhumanism (Bastion Books, 2021? – Forthcoming)(A major update to and expansion of #18)

title: Norman Geisler


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jackoff

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 20:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Jackoff
Vanity, vulgar, semi-nonsense. Delete. Chatoyant 17:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, not just semi-nonsense. Leithp 17:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC
 * Speedy delete. Attack page, fake name; originates from WWE Championship when a vandal changed wikilink to Chris Jericho to this. HollyAm 17:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as no assertion of notability (+ possible attack). -Splash 17:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Vanity. McPhail 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
David Twohy

David Neil Twohy (born October 18, 1955) is an American film director and screenwriter. He is known for working on science fiction-action films, most notably Vin Diesel's The Chronicles of Riddick series.

Early life and education
Twohy was born in Los Angeles County, California. Attended Palos Verdes High School. He attended college at California State University, Long Beach, graduating with a degree in radio/television/film.

Career
His most notable filmmaking credits have been writing The Fugitive, Waterworld, and GI Jane, but he is mostly known for writing and directing The Arrival and most entries in the Chronicles of Riddick franchise.

He has a cameo in Below as the British captain of the rescue ship.

Riddick: Furya, the fourth installment of The Chronicles of Riddick was announced in February 2023. Twohy has written the script and will direct the film.

title: David Twohy


text:
Skullhead

Skullhead was a nationalist Oi! band from the Newcastle area. It was part of the Rock Against Communism (RAC) movement.

History
Formed in Consett in March 1984, their debut album White Warrior was released in 1987 (released by United Records, a subsidiary of Rock-O-Rama Records). The line-up on the album was Kevin Turner (vocals), Tim Ward (guitar), ‘Spin’ Brown (bass) and Nick Shaw (drums). Skullhead joined the National Front's White Noise Club, and when most of other British RAC bands left to join Blood & Honour, Skullhead remained with the White Noise Club till its end. The band’s second LP Odin’s Law was released in 1991 by United Records. The line-up for this LP was Turner (vocals), Craig Bond (guitar), Pete (guitar), ‘Spin’ Brown (bass) and Raish Carter (drums). Carter had previously been in punk band Red London. The LP was produced by Martin Cross, who later was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The band’s final live appearance was in Brandenburg, Germany in 1992.

Turner spent 1989 as an inmate of Acklington Prison, and received a jail term in 1991 for grievous bodily harm after assaulting a man in Consett. Bond was jailed in December 1993 for a racist attack on a group of students in Sunderland. He pleaded guilty to violent disorder. Bond, who was already serving a nine-month sentence for an assault on an anti-fascist, got another three years. Skullhead split-up in 1993. Following the split Turner became a techno MC using the moniker MC Techno T.

Turner reformed Skullhead in 2001 with Frazer Robinson on guitar, Russ on bass and Sticks on drums. Robinson had previously played in north-east RAC band Warhammer. They did a small tour of Germany, Slovakia and Switzerland and recorded an album titled Returned to Thunder, which was released the following year.

Discography

 * White Warrior LP (United Records, 1987)
 * White Noise - We Want the Airwaves 12-inch EP with PALAZARD (A-side "Look ahead" by Skullhead; B-side "Red Light Runaway" by Palazard) (White Noise Records, 1988)
 * Blame the Bosses / Celtic Warrior; Unemployed Voice 7-inch EP with VIOLENT STORM (Third Way, 1989)
 * Odins Law LP (United Records, 1989)
 * Rose of England / Townmoor festival 7-inch single (Street Rock 'N' Roll [sub-label of Rock-O-Rama Records], 1989)
 * Blame the Bosses / Look Ahead 7-inch single (Street Rock 'N' Roll, 1990)
 * Cry of Pain LP (United Records, 1991)
 * Victory Or Valhalla Mini-LP (Rebelles Europeéns, 1992)
 * Ragnarok (Victory Or Valhalla) full-length CD including R.E. LP + demos (ISD [Ian Stuart Donaldson Records], 1994)
 * Return To Thunder CD (Backstreet Noise Music, 2002)
 * Victory Or Valhalla CD (2002)
 * Return To Thunder LP (PC-Records, 2003)

Compilations

 * No Surrender vol. 4 (songs: Yuletide, Memories) LP (Rock-o-Rama, 1990)
 * Gods of War vol. 4 songs: No more brothers war, Skinhead rock band) LP (White Power Records, 1991)
 * Blood & Honour vol. 1 (songs: Push on, Hang the I.R.A.) CD (ISD, 1994)
 * White Resistance vol. 2 (songs: Rock'n'Roll resistance, Fighting for victory) bootleg CD (C 18, 1997)

title: Skullhead


text:
Meadowbrook Terrace, Florida

 Meadowbrook Terrace is an unincorporated community in northern Clay County, Florida, United States, just south of the border of Jacksonville. The community is combined with Bellair and North Meadowbrook Terrace, to form the census-designated place of Bellair-Meadowbrook Terrace by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Communications
The ZIP code that serves the community is 32073, and the local area code is 904.

title: Meadowbrook Terrace, Florida


text: Talk:Robert Foster

title: Talk:Robert Foster


text:
Talk:Vienna Boys' Choir

Untitled
what famous band did they sing with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.52.14 (talk • contribs).

Abuse
Is there anything new about abuse? The current section seems open-ended but I don't want to change it without consensus due to its sensitivity. Andrewman327 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vienna Boys' Choir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927143916/http://www.wsk.at/jart/prj3/wsk_website/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1184916523214&reserve-mode=active to http://www.wsk.at/jart/prj3/wsk_website/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1184916523214&reserve-mode=active
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222045958/http://www.wsk.at/jart/prj3/wsk_website/main.jart?rel=en to http://www.wsk.at/jart/prj3/wsk_website/main.jart?rel=en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vienna Boys' Choir


text:
Losartan

Losartan, sold under the brand name Cozaar among others, is a medication used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension). It is in the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) family of medication, and is considered protective of the kidneys. Besides hypertension, it is also used in diabetic kidney disease, heart failure, and left ventricular enlargement. It comes as a tablet that is taken by mouth. It may be used alone or in addition to other blood pressure medication. Up to six weeks may be required for the full effects to occur.

Common adverse effects include muscle cramps, stuffy nose, dizziness, cough, high blood potassium, and anemia. Severe adverse effects may include angioedema, low blood pressure, and kidney problems. Use during pregnancy may result in harm to the baby. Use is not recommended during breastfeeding. It works by blocking angiotensin II.

Losartan was patented in 1986, and approved for medical use in the United States in 1995. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. It is available as a generic medication. In 2021, it was the eighth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 55million prescriptions. A version combined with hydrochlorothiazide is available which, in 2021, was the 87th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 8million prescriptions.

Chemistry
Losartan potassium is chemically described as 2-butyl-4-chloro-1-[p-(o-1H-tetrazol-5-ylphenyl)benzyl]imidazole-5-methanol monopotassium salt. Its empirical formula is, and its molecular weight is 422.9.

Losartan is generally marketed as the (basic) potassium salt of the aromatized negatively charged tetrazole, called "losartan potassium". The molecule has an extended biphenyl group with a tetrazole which is being used in place of the carboxylic acid as a bioisostere.

Medical uses
Losartan is used for hypertension, including in people with left ventricular hypertrophy (enlarged heart muscle), and kidney dysfunction among type II diabetics. It may also delay progression of diabetic nephropathy. It is a suitable pharmacological agent for the reduction of renal disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and microalbuminuria (>30 mg/24 hours) or proteinuria (>900 mg/24 hours).

Although evidence shows calcium channel blockers and thiazide-type diuretics are preferred first-line treatments for most people (due to both efficacy and cost), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist such as losartan is recommended as first-line treatment in people under the age of 55 who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor. One study demonstrated losartan was superior to atenolol in the primary prevention of adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction or stroke), with a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality for a comparable reduction in blood pressure. The maximal effects on blood pressure usually occur within 3–6 weeks of starting losartan.

Adverse effects
The most common adverse effects for losartan in adults are upper respiratory infections, dizziness, and back pain. People with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may experience diarrhea, fatigue, low blood pressure, low blood glucose, elevated potassium, chest pain, or allergic reaction. Losartan should not be taken by people who are diabetic and taking aliskiren. Anemia may occur, due to inhibition of the renin–angiotensin system. As with other angiotensin receptor blockers, losartan may injure the liver, although this effect appears to be rare. Electrolyte imbalances may occur in people with kidney problems who take losartan. Adverse outcomes do not differ by sex, age or race.

Pregnancy
In October 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a black box warning that losartan can cause fetal toxicity, and should be discontinued as soon as pregnancy is detected. Using losartan while pregnant could result in fetal injury or death.

Overdose
Overdosing would most likely result in decreased blood pressure, which could manifest as an increased heart rate, dizziness, feeling light headed, or loss of consciousness. Mice studies showed that lethality occurred at about 44 to 170 times the maximum recommended dose after the mice weights were taken into account.

Interactions
Losartan may have adverse interactions with phenobarbital, rifampin, or fluconazole, possibly inhibiting its blood pressure-lowering effects.

Contamination
Between November 2018 and September 2019, the FDA announced multiple recalls of tablets containing losartan by Sandoz, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Hetero Labs, Camber Pharmaceuticals, Legacy Pharmaceutical Packaging, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Vivimed Life Sciences, and Macleods Pharmaceutical Limited due to detection of one of the possible carcinogens N-nitrosodiethylamine, N-methylnitrosobutyric acid, or N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).

Mechanism of action
Losartan is a selective, competitive angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT1) antagonist, reducing the end organ responses to angiotensin II. Losartan administration results in a decrease in total peripheral resistance (afterload) and cardiac venous return (preload). All of the physiological effects of angiotensin II, including release of aldosterone, are antagonized in the presence of losartan. Reduction in blood pressure occurs independently of the status of the renin–angiotensin system. As a result of losartan dosing, plasma renin activity increases due to removal of the angiotensin II feedback. Renin is released from the kidneys when there is reduced renal arterial pressure, sympathetic activation, or increased sodium delivery to the distal renal tubule. Renin then acts by converting angiotensinogen to angiotensin I; angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) converts angiotensin I to angiotensin II; angiotensin II causes vasoconstriction and aldosterone release. Aldosterone serves to retain sodium from the distal renal tubule. Sodium retention ultimately results in increased blood pressure. Therefore, the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonists like losartan result in blocking the downstream effect of renin, angiotensin II, and ultimately decreasing blood pressure.

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists include losartan, valsartan, azilsartan, candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, olmesartan, and telmisartan. They all have the same mechanism of action and potentially inhibit the actions of angiotensin better than ACE inhibitors, such as lisinopril, because there are other enzymes than ACE that have the capability of producing angiotensin II.

Losartan is a uricosuric. As a specific inhibitor of the urate transporter 1 (SLC22A12, URAT1), losartan blocks the uptake of uric acid into cells, thus leaving more available in the bloodstream to be filtered and excreted by the kidneys. Because losartan can cause hyperkalemia, individuals should not use potassium supplements or salt substitutes containing potassium without appropriate monitoring by a physician.

Pharmacokinetics
Losartan is well absorbed following oral administration and undergoes significant first-pass metabolism to produce the 5-carboxylic acid metabolite, designated as EXP3174. About 14% of an oral dosage is converted to this metabolite, which is long-acting (6 to 8 hr) and a noncompetitive antagonist at the AT1 receptor, contributing to the pharmacological effects of losartan. EXP3174 is 10-40 times more potent in blocking AT1 receptors than losartan. In addition, the binding to the target enzyme is pH-sensitive, and the negatively-charged tetrazole ring, which is similar in size to the negative carboxylic acid derivative, may contribute to the activity of the drug.

Losartan's bioavailability is about 33%.

Metabolism is primarily by cytochrome P450 isoenzymes CYP2C9 and CYP3A4. Peak plasma concentrations of losartan and EXP3174 occur about one hour and three to four hours, respectively, after an oral dose. Both losartan and EXP3174 are more than 98% bound to plasma proteins. Losartan is excreted in the urine, and in the feces via bile, as unchanged drug and metabolites. About 4% of an oral dose is excreted unchanged in urine, and about 6% is excreted in urine as the active metabolite. The terminal elimination half lives of losartan and EXP3174 are about 1.5 to 2.5 hours and 3 to 9 hours, respectively.

Losartan and other angiotensin-receptor antagonists exhibit fetal toxicity and should be avoided during pregnancy, particularly in the second and third trimesters.

title: Losartan


text:
Talk:Space group

very confusing
"By way of example, the space group of quartz is P3121,..."

"In the international short symbol the first symbol (31 in this example) denotes the symmetry along the major axis "

This makes no sense at all. Surely "P" is the first symbol. If P isn't being counted as a symbol, then what exactly do we mean by a symbol? I'm trying to gain some understanding of this topic, and this article (like so many others on the subject) seems incomprehensible, to such as extend that even some of the most basic terms like "symbol" seem to be being used in a unconventional way with no explanation of their meaning in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.110.106 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to read Hermann–Mauguin notation Bor75 (talk)

Accessibility for lay readers
How can I mark this page as 'needs to be clearer for a lay person'? Its good, but some of the english seems to be wrong, and not being an expert I am not able to fix it...

"with a threefold screw axis projecting on one face, and two fold rotation axis another."

Is this simply

"with a threefold screw axis projecting on one face, and two fold rotation axis on another."

?

It isn't clear where this information comes from given the space group.

--Dan|(talk) 17:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I fixed this. The 3 and 2 are in the notation, the subscript indicates that it is a screw axis.--Patrick 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs attention
I've added the attention tag to this article. I believe the article is factually correct, but it is very unclear to me (and I have some knowledge on the subject). To a lay-person it would be completely unreadable. I might get around to doing something about it myself, but I'm sure there are more qualified people out there. If I do it, I might miss out on some of the mathematics. (actually I'm quite sure I would)O. Prytz 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It is an advanced topic. Can you be more specific about what is unclear?--Patrick 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That's a crap reason. Space groups are used daily by chemists, some of whom struggle with calculus, never mind abstract algebra - so I hardly think it's so advanced it can't be made comprehensible.  Specific problems with the article: Undefined jargon: enatiomorphus, Bieberbach theorems (also, why it that plural, when it says a single thing?), chiral, Z, semidirect.  I can't work out what the difference is between a 'space group'  and a 'space group type'.

 * A space group is a symmetry group or symmetry group type. To avoid ambiguity the term "space group type" can be used. E.g. a change of angle between translation vectors does not affect the space group type if it does not add or remove any symmetry, but the symmetry group is different.--Patrick 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The phrase 'only part of the point groups' is ambigous due to bad grammer (does it mean a section from an arbitry point group is relevent, or that only some of the point groups are?). Who cares about affine space groups? Who cares about symmorphic space groups? The article splits the space groups down by 1D, 2D 3D in about three different places.

 * For each subject there is a split. A separate article about the 2D case also exists: wallpaper group.--Patrick 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That's just the points I can note since my original draft. There's still a bunch of outstanding issues from that:  Schoenflies notation not covered; talking about screw axis and glide plane (are they specific to 3+D?), rather than a list of all the operations (Porobably best done by a simple list, where each term links to an article?).

 * Screw axis and glide plane are special in not being point groups.--Patrick 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The crystallographic stuff really aught to be clear that it applies to only 3D space groups.

 * The term crystallographic is also used in other dimensions, such as 2D.--Patrick 02:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * A mention of the magnetic space groups would be useful. Syntax 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All those 1D, 2D 3D verbosities all over the place are a very bad way of writing a readable article. Give a relevant example, if necessary, rather than making such silly lists. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your objections against discussing and comparing 1D, 2D, and 3D, are weird.--Patrick 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It might work in some places, I don't argue. But you tend to overlist things, and you do it way too often. That destroys continuity in many places. Your edit style transforms a well-written prose into unreadable lists of technicalities, and I am not the only (or the only two or three) persons to complain about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If the article contains more information than you currently need, the section and paragraph structure makes it fairly easy to skip parts when studying the article. More verbose prose is not always better than compact list style.--Patrick 10:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * See this old version of space group for how many headings you have.
 * I am pleased to hear that you are happy with the new headers. Note that your favorite section (recently added old version) is the longest and may need some subheaders.--Patrick 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * At least one piece of advice for the future. Do not replace elementary content with more abstract one. Do not rewrite articles from a higher mathematics/group theory point of view. If needed, add to articles. Using your favorite quote, "do not remove information". You seem to react vehemently each time I delete one of your technicalities from articles. So please don't delete elementary information, that one is so much more valuable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have not deleted much content, and it was not very clear and elementary either. I agree that an elementary part is useful.--Patrick 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I want to bring back some of the text from an older version of this article which I belive gives a more understandable explanation of the concept of space groups. Most of the current text could be kept in a section on group theroy. Also, I'm wondering if the sections on screw axes and glide planes should be removed. Glide plane has its own article but screw axis doesn't. If no-one objects the next couple of days I'll make the change. O. Prytz 20:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Be my guest please. The recent version (which you don't like, and me neither) is written by Patrick, who while technically gifted, has a talent for starting with plain words articles and obfuscating them with technical jargon which few people besides himself understand. If you feel that some pieces of that technicality are not salvageable, just delete them, as you said. They will be in the history if anybody wishes to work on that later. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Glide plane does not have its own article, but you can create one, or move the text to glide reflection. Similarly you could split off the article screw axis.--Patrick 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah, you're right, glide plane doesn't exist. Should there be a separate glide plane article in addition to the one on glide reflection? O. Prytz 07:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it can be covered in glide reflection.--Patrick 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please don't be encouraged by Oleg to carry out unhelpful deletions.--Patrick 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * One can think later where to move the content. First, of all, let us worry about transforming the article into something readable. Using an older version as a starting point looks like a good idea to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I can see that we're probably going to have a disagreement on this. But Patrick, how do you feel about retrieveing some of the text from the old aricle and using that as the first portion, and then moving most of the current text to a section on 'group theory'? O. Prytz 07:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually I'm going to disagree with the idea of pulling out an old version, and tweaking it. I think that it would be better to design some basic structure, and then draft up an article to match that structure from the content present.  Then drop that draft in over the current article.  So, as a starting point, howable sections on: Introduction; Mathematical Origin; 3D space groups (subsections: symetry elements, notations); Types of space groups.  That does give a lot of prominance to the 3D groups, but I think that is warrented, given thier use. Syntax 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Too late buddy, now we have the old version on top, plus the new version under. So what is needed is how to integrate things well.

 * I would oppose any huge rewrites without prior discussion on the talk page if anybody would consider doing so. Let us take things easy and discuss things in advance. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Syntax: I think you're being a little too critical here. Some people do care about affine and symmorphic space groups and I think it's good that these things are covered. Personally I don't care much about this, I'm more concerned with practical use. But it's there, let's keep it. Some work _is_ needed on both parts though, I'll see if I have time sometime later today...O. Prytz 06:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of the symmetry operation x y z = -x -y -z, called an "inversion center" or "center of symmetry". While it could be considered a subset of improper rotation (rotoinversion rather than rotoreflection, in this case) it is usually classed by itself. The presence (or absence) of an inversion center is an important way to classify space groups in X-ray crystallography for a couple of reasons. The article would be much improved by at least mentioning this. M.Dickman 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes
I've brought back some old text and put it at the start of the article under the heading 'Space groups in crystallography'. All the text from the previous version is still there, but I've put it under the heading 'Group theory'. I don't propose keeping things exactly as they are now, but Patrick: what do you think of structuring the article along these lines? O. Prytz 07:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok.--Patrick 10:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good! I belive this arrangement will work. I also agree with most of the changes you've made to the beginning of the article, but I'll probably make some small changes eventually. O. Prytz 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I would suggest forking off most of the text in "group theory" as mathematical treatment of space groups or something like that, leaving here a shorter, and more elementary version. I believe this is the only way of keeping all the text Patrick wrote, as it is really big, and it does not read as well as the much smaller first section. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * And some text could go to screw axis. I believe we have enough material to write a nice article on that, where we can expand a bit beyond what is now in space group about screw axis. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the group theory text still 'dominates' the article a bit, but I'm not too worried. However, I agree that we should move the parts about screw axis and glide plane. O. Prytz 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a look at the first part of the article and want to suggest some changes. I haven't made the changes to the article itself yet, but rather copied the text here and edited that copy. I've added sections and rewritten a little bit. Regarding notation: the old version stated that two types of notation are used: the Paterson notation and Schönflies. I believe it should be Hermann-Mauguin and Schönflies. I haven't found refrences supporting the name "Paterson notation", although I don't have the International Tables in front of me. Other than that, I've only corrected an error in the description of glide planes. What do you think? O. Prytz 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it is fine to move it over, then we can more easily check the differences. The example should link to Rhombohedral and we should explain how it fits in in that page. More examples would be better too.--Patrick 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've changed the first section to my edited version. I haven't added the things you suggest yet, but I agree that more examples would be good. O. Prytz 11:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More changes
I've created the articles Screw axis and Glide plane using some of the text from this article. These articles are stubs and should be expanded somewhat so please go ahead. I hope they don't need to get too mathematical, we should at least keep an introductory text at the level of the current text.

As a follow up, I've removed the screw axis and glide plane paragraphs in the group theory section of this article. Hope that's ok. Patrick: would it be at all possible to shorten the group theory text any further, and instead refer to another article?O. Prytz 12:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not think that is needed, many artices are longer, and there is not a clear subtopic suitable for splitting off.--Patrick 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with related articles
There are a number of other articles (and redirects) which to me seem to confuse various topics related to crystal symmetry. Here are some examples:

 * Bravais lattice redirects to Crystal system. This is incorrect. A crystal system refers to the lengths and angles between the lattice vectors. There are seven crystal systems: triclinic, monoclinic, orthorhombic, tetragonal, trigonal, hexagonal and cubic (there is an alternative definition giving hexagonal and rhombohedral instead of hexagonal and trigonal). A Bravais lattice is a combination of one of these crystal systems with a lattice centering (P, I, F etc). There are 14 bravais lattices. The two are clearly related, but should have separate aricles. The current Crystal system article mixes the two together.

 * Crystal class redirects to crystal system. This is also incorrect. The term crystal class is related to (eqivalent to?) the term point group, or crystallographic point group if you will.

 * Unit cell redirects to Crystal structure, which at best is inaccurate. A redirect to Bravais lattice would be more correct, although there probably should be a separate article.

 * The Crystal structure article contains several inaccuracies related to the points mentioned above.

I'll probably start editing several of these articles, so this is a heads up to anyone wanting to follow up and check the changes I make. I'll do my best to check all changes with the Iternational tables of crystallography and other sources, but there's bound to be some inaccuracies in the things I do. O. Prytz 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Some time ago I have combined several pages into Crystal system, because of the strong relationships, and the convenience of having all this related information in one place. A redirect is not a claim that two subjects are the same, but it leads to the article where the subject is covered.--Patrick 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I will argue that one has to be really careful with merging articles. You see, a big article has the disadvantage of being hard to look up information in it. Also, you never know when the next editor comes along, and decides to trim some things. That may be a very reasonable decision, but that next editor may not know that plenty of other articles redirect to this one.

 * That is to say, if you do want to create one single article to treat a lot of stuff, that's fine with me. However, wiping a bunch of non-trivial, well-written articles and making them into redirects to this one, may be a mistake. It never hurts to have clear (even if small) articles about individual concepts, even if there exists also an article reflecting the big picture and duplicating that information to that extent. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That is fine. Some tables can be put in templates which are called from more than one page, see also Talk:Crystal system.--Patrick 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * See my comments on the crystal system talk page... O. Prytz 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed attention tag
I removed the attention tag as I think the article has gotten a lot better. Some work is still needed though. What do you guys think? O. Prytz 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The article refers to Space group notation that is not fully explained, i.e. R and others.--Shakujo 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Space groups in protein crystallography
there are almost 230 unique space groups describing all possible crystal symmetries. but when it comes to protein crystallography why there are only 32 space groups considered??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligeno (talk • contribs) 08:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

اناميسي من ليبيا احب بشلونة واتمنا لسبيستون النجاحوالتوفيق واتمنا الفوز لبرشلونة امام هرنان —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.5.62 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The key idea is that (naturally occurring) proteins are chiral. Therefore, a protein crystal cannot have exact mirror symmetry, which eliminates most space groups as possibilities.

 * Proteins are chiral because they're composed of chiral amino acids; the alpha carbon atom (Cα) is chiral in almost all amino acids. Exceptions include glycine (Gly) and some rare amino acids such as 2-aminoisobutyric acid (Aib).  Other carbon atoms in amino acids can be chiral, e.g., Cβ in threonine and isoleucine.

 * A crystal of an achiral polypeptide such as (Aib)30 or (Gly)30 or (Aib-Gly)30 could exhibit a space group with a mirror symmetry. However, such molecules generally wouldn't be counted as proteins, since they seem unlikely to fold in the usual sense.   The (Aib-Gly)n molecule might be an interesting system to study, however, since it shares some similarities with silk and might fold into beta sheets.  Proteins (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the lead appropriate?
"A definitive source regarding 3-dimensional space groups is Hahn (2002)."

Is it appropriate to recommend a textbook in the lead? I haven't seen another article have such a line in its lead; it almost seems like an advertisement. Is there any objection to me removing it? JHobbs103 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It is more a handbook than a textbook, really. Honestly, there is not much of a market for two compendia of all the spacegroups and their symmetries and whatnot, so I doubt that there is anything comparable (disclosure: I do not think I added that text, but that is the book I use). Certainly coming from the IUCR gives it a certain gravitas. I changed it to the title of the book, but I am not terribly wedded to keeping the mention if you think it really detracts from the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Classification in small dimensions - adding additional statistics?
I'm considering adding to that table how many:

 * Arithmetic crystal classes
 * Crystal systems

I propose this explanation of the difference between arithmetic and geometric crystal classes: A geometric crystal class is for a point group considered in isolation, while an arithmetic crystal class is for a point group with some orientation relative to the lattice. The distinction between arithmetic and geometric crystal classes is easier to visualize in two dimensions, in the wallpaper groups. I'll list them by geometric crystal class (point group), with arithmetic crystal classes in sublists:
 * C1: p1
 * C2: p2
 * D1:
 * Reflection line oriented along a lattice direction: pm, pg
 * Reflection line oriented halfway in between lattice directions: cm
 * D2:
 * Reflection lines oriented along lattice directions: pmm, pmg, pgg
 * Reflection lines oriented halfway in between lattice directions: cmm
 * C4: p4
 * D4: p4m, p4g
 * C3: p3
 * D3:
 * Reflection lines oriented along lattice directions: p31m
 * Reflection lines oriented halfway in between lattice directions: p3m1
 * C6: p6
 * D6: p6m

A problem with adding these statistics is the headers -- they would grow even larger than they are now. I am thinking of using abbreviations and moving the full headers to a list below the table. That list may itself be a table, with links to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpetrich (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done both. For the small-dimension table, I turned most of the column headers into abbreviations, because the full text makes them too wide. IMO, the resulting table is much cleaner-looking, even though it has more columns.

I have found a problem, however. Discrepancies between various published and stated values in the numbers, especially for 6 dimensions. Could someone with good journal access please review the literature on the subject of these numbers? Some of the relevant articles are paywalled.

Lpetrich (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I used International Tables (2006), page 720. I think they contain the most updated information. I changed some numbers for 6-dimensional space: 7103 -> 7104, 85308 -> 85311 (+30), 28927915 -> 28927922 (+7052).

 * I also changed the Table again - I hope, it is better to remove all explanations from the table to space after the table, because anyway, people mostly would be interested in numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor75 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fedorov vs. Fyodorov
In the interest of clarity, it would be helpful to pick a single transliteration of Фёдоров, at least with respect to the internal consistency of the article. There are several reasons to use Fyodorov instead of Fedorov:

 The Cyrillic letter ë has the phonemic value /jo/ or / ʲo/ not /ɛ/ The | version of the article prior to my first edit contained five instances of Fyodorov and three of Fedorov The wiki link for Fedorov is marked-up as [[Fedorov|Yevgraf Fyodorov]] The wiki link goes to the page titled "Yevgraf Fyodorov" The article for the surname is titled "Fyodorov" "Fyodorov" lists the person in question and Yevgraf Fyodorov Fedorov redirects to Fyodorov A Google search for |"Yevgraf Fyodorov" OR "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fyodorov" returns 12000 results Google auto-corrects "Yevgraf Fedorov" OR "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fedorov" to "Yevgraf Fedorov" OR "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fyodorov" The Google search for |"Yevgraf Fedorov" OR "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fedorov" returns 29 results

In summary, Fedorov lacks internal consistency within Wikipedia and is by far the rarer spelling.

99.196.225.79 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I know that Cyrillic letter ë has the phonemic value /jo/ or / ʲo/ not /ɛ/, but when Fedorov's works were published in German and English his name was spelled as Fedorov, because that time romanization of Russian was not phonetic.
 * http://www.amazon.com/Symmetry-crystals-ACA-monograph-Fedorov/dp/B0006CKHAU - Symmetry of crystals (ACA monograph): E. S Fedorov
 * http://www.minersoc.org/pages/Archive-MM/Volume_18/18-84-99.pdf
 * Fedorov, E. S. (1895). Theorie der Kristallstruktur.
 * His name was always spelled as "Evgraf Stepanovich Fedorov"
 * If you check references you just corrected, you will see, that in both cases it is also written Fedorov, not Fyodorov.
 * Yes, according to modern rules Romanization of Russian his last name should be spelled as Fyodorov (phonetically more correct), however, according to rules for persons Naming conventions (Russia) "If the person is an author of works published in English, the spelling of the name used in such publications should be used.",  If the person is the subject of English-language publications, the spelling predominantly used in such publications should be used. A preference is given to publications in the area in which the person specializes. Fedorov is a crystallographer. If you go to site of International Union of Crystallography http://www.iucr.org/iucr and search there you will not find any Fyodorov, but only Fedorov:
 * http://www.iucr.org/cgi-bin/newiucrsearch?query=fedorov&submit=search gives 19 results
 * while
 * http://www.iucr.org/cgi-bin/newiucrsearch?query=fyodorov&submit=Search gives 0 results
 * In other crystallography journals and in International Tables for Crystallography he is also spelled as Fedorov, not Fyodorov.
 * http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2F1.1627430
 * The article about Fedorov also should be renamed and corrected to be consistent with traditional spelling for this scientist - Evgraf Stepanovich Fedorov. I don't understand why somebody wrote there "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fyodorov, sometimes spelled Evgraf Stepanovich Fedorov". This is just a wrong statement.
 * Search in Google is not relevant for this case, partially because wrong spelling in Wikipedia dramatically influences the whole internet. Many sites just copy information from Wikipedia.
 * BTW, search "Evgraf Fedorov" OR "Evgraf Stepanovich Fedorov" gives more results, than "Yevgraf Fedorov" OR "Yevgraf Stepanovich Fedorov"
 * If you go to Google book search
 * Fedorov crystallography gives 19,400 results
 * |#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=Fyodorov+crystallography&oq=Fyodorov+crystallography&gs_l=serp.3...32084.38842.6.39153.10.9.1.0.0.0.43.324.9.9.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.jCXzE7YXLNc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45921128,d.cGE&fp=efb49122a5b8aca&biw=1600&bih=736 Fyodorov crystallography gives just 190 results

 * Even links from Fyodorov wiki page mostly give spelling as "Fedorov"
 * http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/749/fedorov.pdf
 * http://www.minsoc.ru/confs.php?cid=488 - Fedorov Session

 * In summary, I agree that Fedorov lacks internal consistency within Wikipedia and is by far the rarer spelling, but for this particular case spelling should be Fedorov, because it is conventional for this particular scientist to write his name as Evgraf Stepanovich Fedorov.

Bor75 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I changed *all* instances of Fyodorov to Fedorov per the historical, stylistic, and bibliographic guidelines.

 * 99.196.225.79 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you! Bor75 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Space group full names
I compiled a list of space groups with their full names, with spaces for readability, replacing redirect at list of space groups. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What is a space group?
I think the introdution should change to "

In mathematics and physics, a space group is the symmetry group of a configuration in space, usually in three dimensions. A symmetry group of R3 belongs to a space group iff the subgroup of all translations in that group is generated by 3 linearly independent translations and the symmetry group has only finitely many cosets of the subgroup of all translations in it. Two symmetry groups that belong to a space group belong to the same space group iff there exists a linear transformation R such that the function that assigns to each transformation T in the first symmetry group R-1TR is a bijection from the first symmetry group to the second symmetry group. Note that R-1TR doesn't necessarily have to be an isometry for all isometries T; it just has to be an isometry for all symmetry operations T of the first symmetry group. In total there are 219 such symmetry groups. For each space group, either all structures that belong to that space group are chiral or none of them are. Some authors consider chiral copies of a space group to be distinct, that is, there define a space group pretty much the same way except for replacing the criterion "there exists a linear transformation R such that" with "there exists a non-inverting linear transformation R such that". 11 of the members of the first definition of a space group can be split into 2 members of the second definition leaving a total of 230 space groups according to the second definition. Those 11 space groups are called chiral space groups. Although all structures that belong to a chiral space group are chiral structures, not all chiral structures that belong to a space group belong to a chiral space group. Space groups are also studied in dimensions other than 3 where they are sometimes called Bieberbach groups, and are discrete cocompact groups of isometries of an oriented Euclidean space.

In crystallography, space groups are also called the crystallographic or Fedorov groups, and represent a description of the symmetry of the crystal. A definitive source regarding 3-dimensional space groups is the International Tables for Crystallography ." to better explain what a space group is.

Can anyone find sources for any of the information I added? Blackbombchu (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Group vs Group Action
Comparing the definition of "group" in the context of this article to the mathematical definition of a group, the requirements of "space groups" are stated as properties of certain "group actions" of mathematical groups. For readers only familiar with the properties of a mathematical group, it would helpful to point out that term "group" in this article may often refer to what mathematicians call a "group action". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tashiro (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Space group


text:
The Know-It-All

The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World is a book by Esquire editor A. J. Jacobs, published in 2004.

It recounts his experience of reading the entire Encyclopædia Britannica; all 32 volumes of the 2002 edition, extending to over 33,000 pages with some 44 million words. He set out on this endeavour to become the "smartest person in the world". The book is organized alphabetically in encyclopedia format and recounts both interesting facts from the encyclopedia and the author's experiences.

It was a New York Times Best Seller.

Reviews
The satirist P.J. O'Rourke said of it: "The Know-It-All is a terrific book. It's a lot shorter than the encyclopedia, and funnier, and you'll remember more of it. Plus, if it falls off the shelf onto your head, you'll live."

By contrast, Joe Queenan in The New York Times Book Review contended that much of which Jacobs reported as remarkable discoveries, e.g. the tale of Heloise and Abelard and the assassination of Marat by a woman, were already common knowledge among educated people. Jacobs responded that "the ridiculously hyperbolic subtitle might have been a tip-off" of the book's ironic tone.

Similar feats
A.J. Jacobs was not the first to read the entire Britannica. The earliest recorded example was Fath Ali, who upon becoming the Shah of Persia in 1797, was given a gift of the 3rd edition of the Britannica. After reading all of its 18 volumes, the Shah extended his royal title to include "Most Formidable Lord and Master of the Encyclopædia Britannica". Roughly a century later, Amos Urban Shirk, an American businessman, read the entire 23-volume 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica over a period of four years. He then went on to read the entire 14th edition, spending on average three hours per night.

Biographer Ashlee Vance claims Elon Musk read the Encyclopædia Britannica twice.

Bill Gates read the entire World Book Encyclopedia in his youth.

title: The Know-It-All


text:
Keita dynasty

The Keita dynasty ruled pre-imperial and imperial Mali from the 11th century into the early 17th century. It was a Muslim dynasty, and its rulers claimed descent from Bilal Keita (also known as Bilal ibn Ribah), despite Bilal's mother possibly having been of Abyssinian origin.

Bilal Keita was a freed slave who accepted Islam and became one of the Sahabahs of Muhammad. Bilal Keita bears the distinction of being the first muezzin in Islam. According to Mandinka/Bambara accounts invented after their conversion to Islam and passed down by djelis (Muslim chroniclers), Bilal had seven sons, one of whom settled in Manden (Mandinka traditional territory). This son, Lawalo Keita, had a son named Latal Kalabi Keita, who later sired Damul Kalabi Keita. It was common in most royal dynasties to try to link their origins to some divine or religious personalities and was common across cultures and religions. Damul Kalabi Keita's son was Lahilatoul Keita and the first faama of the city of Niani. It is through Lahilatoul that the Keita clan becomes a ruling dynasty, though only over the small area around Niani.

There would be nine faamas of Niani prior to the founding of the Mali Empire. Its first mansa would be Sundiata Keita. This is when Mari Jata is crowned and Keita becomes a clan name. A couple of generations after him, his great-nephew, Mansa Musa Keita I of Mali, made a celebrated pilgrimage to Mecca. The dynasty he belonged to remained a major power in West Africa from 1235 until the breakup of the Mali Empire around 1610. Rivals from within the clan founded smaller kingdoms within contemporary Mali and Guinea. Today, the surname Keita belongs only to one royal family in Africa. Of the members of these modern "daughter dynasties", the late politician Modibo Keita and the musician Salif Keita are arguably the most famous.

title: Keita dynasty


text: Category:Polish schoolteachers

title: Category:Polish schoolteachers


text: User talk:213.41.1.226

title: User talk:213.41.1.226


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrer oliver salvador

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ferrer oliver salvador
Vanity, nn. Full name recieves no Google hits at all. Delete. Chatoyant 17:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. I tried various permutations of the name and added in finance & banking etc, but failed to find any relevant hits. Leithp 17:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails the WP:PROF test, and WP:NOT a memorial. -Splash 17:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sadly. Deb 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. -- Etacar11   23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 08:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User:Panscient

Panscient is the user name of Jonah Probell, an entrepreneur in the field of semiconductor intellectual property, particularly for microprocessors, digital video processors, and on-chip interconnect.

Early life and education
Jonah Probell was born at a young age in a remote place. His parents had respectable professions. He was raised under remarkable circumstances and had certain formative experiences as a child.

Jonah attended an American university. He graduated in 1998 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering with a particular focus on computer architecture.

Career
Jonah was an early employee of Lexra. After the company closed at the end of 2002 Jonah co-founded Ultra Data with Pat Hays and Pascal Cleve. Ultra Data developed the first programmable DSP capable of HD decode of H.264 video. Ultra Data's technology was acquired by Micronas in 2005. In 2006 Jonah joined ARC International as Director of Solutions Architects for the company's new video processor IP product line. In 2007 Jonah joined Tensilica as Mobile Multimedia Marketing Manager. In 2008 Tensilica cut development work on its video processor products and Jonah sought, unsuccessfully, funding for a general purpose RISC-DSP processor IP company. In 2010 Jonah joined Arteris, where he drafts patent applications and supports customers.

Pages created

 * Markman hearing
 * Tensilica
 * Slet (sporting event)
 * Sophia Tolstaya
 * Affinities
 * Feudal maintenance
 * Vertex (computer graphics)
 * Rig (fishing)

Interests

 * Political philosophy
 * Government policy
 * Law
 * Patents
 * Greater China
 * Languages
 * Word play
 * Sailing
 * Investment strategy
 * Photography
 * Digital video signal processing
 * Invention and academic publication
 * Wikipedia

Travel Log
Jonah has been to the following places

Nations
United States Canada Mexico Jamaica

Taiwan Japan Republic of Korea PRC

United Kingdom Switzerland Germany Spain France The Netherlands Belgium Italy Russia Ireland

Cities of the world

 * Tokyo
 * Osaka
 * Fukuoka
 * Seoul
 * Taipei
 * Hsinchu
 * Shanghai
 * Tianjin
 * Beijing
 * Hong Kong
 * Guangzhou

 * Moscow
 * Saint Petersburg
 * Florence
 * Lucca
 * Amsterdam
 * Ghent
 * Bruges
 * Frankfurt
 * Barcelona
 * Paris
 * London
 * Belfast
 * Dublin

 * Halifax
 * Boston
 * Concord, NH
 * New Haven
 * New York
 * Albany
 * Philadelphia
 * Montreal
 * Washington DC
 * Miami
 * Toronto
 * West Palm Beach
 * Knoxville
 * Cancun
 * Chicago
 * Milwaukee
 * Minneapolis
 * Omaha
 * Dallas
 * Austin
 * Tucson
 * Salt Lake City
 * Las Vegas
 * San Diego
 * Los Angeles
 * Seattle
 * Silicon Valley
 * Oakland
 * San Francisco

States of the USA
States not visited
 * Alabama
 * Alaska
 * Georgia (not counting the Atlanta airport)
 * Louisiana
 * Mississippi
 * South Carolina

Contact
Jonah Probell email: jonah ∂ probell.com

title: User:Panscient


text: User talk:81.178.201.68

title: User talk:81.178.201.68