text:
Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 2

Moved from talk:philosophy of science

On the topic of scientific accountability it would be more helpful to refer by name to real scientists or proponents of the educational campiagns mentioned rather than vaguely asserting "many scientists" are engaged in this or that.

---

EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.

Lakatos
The paragraph on Lakatos was at best contentious. Can anyone provide a reference that supports the claims made? Otherwise, leave it out. Banno 10:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) But Lakatos was not one. By all means, add some material on new historicism if you wish, but let's at least attempt to make the stuff here truthful. Banno 10:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Lakatos in particular, but this sort of theory is quite real. I don't believe it for a moment, but there are some historians and sociologists who do.  They're called Social Constructionists. Isomorphic 10:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I jumped in without figuring out what was going on. A paragraph mentioning social constructionist perspective still seems appropriate though.  I'll remove Lakatos' name if he's not one, or if that's debatable.  Would that be ok?  Isomorphic 10:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So you would let the lie stand until you can find evidence it is wrong? Doesn’t he get the benefit of the doubt? Lucky he’s dead, or Wiki might be up for slander… Banno 10:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Maybe you misunderstood me. I suggested taking Lakatos' name out of the paragraph, and leaving it as a discussion of the overall social constructivist position, with no specific names listed.  That way the entire Lakato issue is avoided, and the social constructivists are still represented. Is that ok?  Isomorphic 10:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, I’d already removed his name from the paragraph. But the paragraph remains pejorative. Who are these nasty social constructionists? What are the ideological assumptions they seek to justify? No specific names, and no specific facts. If the paragraph is not actually going to say something, should it be here? It’s not NPOV, friends… (Banno)
 * OK, I'll try a rewrite. Still not going to have specific names, since I don't know the history, but I think I understand the position well enough to state it in an NPOV manner.  Tell me what you think of it, and edit if you wish.
 * Isomorphic 11:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A much better job – well done. I’ve taken the liberty of making the weaker case slightly stronger, basically to be a bit more provocative in the hope that the reader will investigate the link. social construction gives a reasonable account. Since the acceptance of new scientific theories is, by definition, a social phenomenon, the stronger version shouldn’t be too controversial (famous last words?).Banno 10:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks, glad you approve. I don't really object to your edit, but let me explain why I stated the weaker position that way.  That version came from some comments by a historian of science whose talk I attended a few weeks ago.  I included it as a compromise position of sorts, because to most scientists social construction is an alien mindset.  They would find the extreme position not only unpalatable (since to a scientist's way of thinking, science would be a waste of time if there were no objective truth to seek) but entirely absurd.

 * You say that the acceptance of scientific theories is by definition a social phenomenon. I agree that there's a social factor, but I don't see how this is "by definition" a social phenomenon and neither will anyone else in science.  Scientists think in terms of theories, data collection, and experiments.  They aren't likely to think of anything in science as being primarilly a social phenomenon.  They might agree that such factors have an effect, but it wouldn't necessarilly occur to them.  As a case study, in the talk I mentioned above, some of the other physics majors actually didn't comprehend what social construction was when the speaker explained it.  The idea was too strange to them.  It took a flurry of questions before it sank in, and then they were confused about why someone would ever believe this.

 * I figured that with a gap in thinking that large, it might be useful to present a middle ground. Stating only the more extreme positions is more likely to cause immediate dismissal than it is to provoke thought.

 * All that said, it's not that big an issue. It's ok as is, and I'm off to work on other things.  :-)
 * Isomorphic 08:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

social construction
Cool, Isomorphic. You make a very pertinent point.

Since we now have three different ‘levels’ of social construction, it might be worth setting them out and looking at the differences.

The “strong” social construction denies the existence of an objective world against which theories can be tested, replacing it with a social construct. The “weak” social construction, as in your post before my modification, holds that acceptance of a theory is not necessarily dependant on social factors. The “Middle” position in the present article has it that social factors play a role in the acceptance of theories.

What does it mean for a scientific theory to become “accepted”? More pointedly, who is it that does the “accepting”? Surely it must be the scientific community, which surely must be a social entity? In this sense, the “acceptance” of a theory must be, almost by definition, a social phenomenon. None of which implies that the theory does not, at least in some way, “correspond to the facts”.

If this is correct, then the “weak” version of social construction is unsustainable, since it implies that acceptance can occur without some social phenomenon also occurring. Social acts, such as peer review, repetition of experiments, and so on, are crucial to the acceptance of a theory.

Hence my changes to your post. Banno 19:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Sure, but if this what you mean by "social construction", then absolutely everything humans talk about also is a "social construction", and then the term becomes totally meaningless. The term only has a useful meaning if it has some specific definition. (That is not my criticism alone; this is a common criticism of people who use terms this way.) The term "social construction" only has a meaningful definition if it can be used in contrast to things that are not social constructions! RK 01:47, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

RK, either I’ve misunderstood you, or I agree with you - I’m not sure which. The weak version of social construction would have it that Mars is not a social construct, but that theories, myths and observations of Mars are social constructs. The strong version would have it that Mars itself is a social construct (because all we really have, they might say, are the theories, myths and observations). Isn’t it worth making this distinction, if only to point out the poverty of strong social constructivism? Take care, for if you really wish to maintain that everything people talk about is a social construct, you may find yourself agreeing with strong social constructivism… Banno 19:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,
 * If I may add a comment to RK's comment, I would note that I have said essentially the same thing in a slightly earlier post reacting to one of yours. A distinction without a difference may be true but is of no use, philosophically or otherwise. Perhaps a different mental model may help. What science does is to prune the bush of possible theories by using observations (ideally carefully designed ones) as prunign scissors. That human (or ...other...) mind(s) are involved seems tautologically true and so a distinction without a difference until we encounter Intelligent Ants or our cats start talking to us about the space time continuuum they encounter. Feline relativity might be something extraordinary.
 * Anyway, having pruned the bush of all possible theories (ranging from the Mummies did it, to Newtonian mechanics, to UFOs on NH highways, to Mumbo Jumbo's behind it all, ...) using some observation many theories will always be left. Some are not experimentally testable and so will always be 'available' if not usefully so, others will have yet to be tested, and still others will have been tested but not to failure. I can't take many of those left seriously, but it is in some idealistic sense a defect of resort experiment as prunig shears that no experiment can rule out all the stuff that appears to me to be nonsense. So many theories, so few experiments (and experimenters)...
 * Thus, in a philosophical account of what science is, the spasmodic pruning of untenable (after some experimental result or another) theories from the possible_theory bush is the critical issue, as this is the fundamental difference between science and all else. Opinion matters -- though only to the extent of reasoned understanding -- and no theory is ever true or, probably even, totally accepted. In the current news, there are some biologists/medical folk who disagree that the weight of the remaining_after_pruning theories leaves HIV as the most likely cause of AIDS. Which is adopted (by whatever reasoned, or unreasoned, process) has consequences when political positions result in limitations or exclusions on this or that treatment. If the conventional opinion is right, political backing of the HIV_does_not_cause_AIDS school will result in more death more quickly; and in large numbers too -- this is not a question which can be debated until all are gently led to conviction. As the lawyers say, time is of the essence. On the other hand, if the conventional view is wrong, much time and resources will have been wasted going down the wrong path. NO social or political construction can distinguish between the two positions (ie, theories); only one or more experiments can do so. In the field of human disease alleviation engineering, only actual science can provide guidance to a more effective course. In this instance, science has not found a universally accepted theory. And so what? That's not the point of it. The point of it is to increase the accuracy of fit between nature and our theoretical account of it; it is only observational pruning of formerly possible but no longer tenable theories that increase the quality of that fit.
 * It was once thought, clearly in retrospect only by the wildly misguidely optimistic or arrogant, that there was little left for science (at least the physics end of it) to do. The available theories covered just about everything. Perhaps this will come to pass someday, but even in physics, that day seems to have been rather seriously receding of late. Until that day comes, or some better way of finding theories that fit observation better than what we've got comes along, science (ie, experimental testing and rejection of failed theories) will be our best approach.
 * I don't see that social construction (weak, medium, or strong) accounts for much that matters in the a philosophical account of science.
 * Which is more than RK had to say on the topic, but perhaps he will agree with some or all (?!) of what I've said here.

 * ww

Ww, hope you don’t think this rude, but do you think you could attempt to keep your posts down to under 500 words? Otherwise we will quickly find we will need to archive much of the material here. Banno 19:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ww, you have used phrases such as 'asymptotically approaching socially approved reliability', and 'it is the reported experience of the species which is determinative', which appear to be somewhat veiled references to social phenomenon. Yet you also appear to maintain that social phenomena do not play a part in science, and so in philosophy of science. I have been unable to see how you reconcile these apparently contradictory views. Banno 19:45, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,
 * I wondered if you would pick up on that. If you reread the post you will see, I hope, that portion to be referring to ordinary day to day -- NOT scientific -- determinations. I gave an example or two of ways I behave that I have not personally experimentally tested in response to an earlier post of yours questioning reliance on experiments not personally conducted. In an earlier post I even referred to Kahneman and Tversky and their demonstrations of universal inherent biases in our 'reasoning' (which I suggest we ought not to expect to find duplicated in detail in Intelligent Ants, should we ever meet them; yet we would expect them to understand science unless such knowledge is innate within them which would raise other questions entirely) which make our uncorrected determinations (social or individual) chancy. That comment fits here; please incorporate it by reference. And I gave an example of a similarly social construct which does not lead to anything I would recognize as worthwhile -- racial / ethnic prejudice. All in contrast to the next section in which scientific -- not socially constructed -- positions are illustrated. Sorry you missed that intent.
 * Indeed, it was exactly the 'socially constructed' nature of those positions which I was attempting to illustrate. Social construction has no mechanism of corrective feedback to distinguish between the first sort of positiona nd the second sort. Science, within its limited purview (NB, experimentally testable theories only) does.

 * As for posts less than 500 words, well... I'll try. These issues are not easily compressed. The number of posts on this topic -- brief or not, including yours, is an illustration. That's why, taken together, this discussion page has been archived so frequently.

 * Reactions?

 * ww

Sorry, my friend, I don’t understand what it is you are saying.Banno 02:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,
 * I repeat my earlier offer. If you can suggest which aspect of what I've posted you don't understand, I'll try to make an attempt to clarify. A blanket misunderstanding leaves me unable to do much more than repost.

 * ww

I am having difficulty in seeing why you think what you have written answers my questions. In my 13th December, I asked you what it means for a theory to be 'taken for the moment as the way things are'? You provided an answer that involved 'asymptotically approaching socially approved reliability if neither truth nor workability' with the caveat 'this is not scientific, but merely practical'. Do you wish to claim that the acceptance of a scientific theory by someone who has not tested it is not part of science? Such a position would surely be untenable, no?

So, assuming you do not hold to such a view, I'm perplexed as to what it could mean for a scientific statement that one has not personally tested to be 'taken as the way things are' without some social context. Frankly, it just appears that you are bending over backwards to avoid admitting social phenomenon into scientific method.

More recently, you say 'social construction has no mechanism of corrective feedback to distinguish between the first sort of position and the second sort' – but I can’t see where you say what the two positions are. What I have described in the article as 'weak' social construction does appear to include the possibility of corrective feedback. Banno 21:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-- Banno, Sorry to have taken so long to reply; I managed to miss your post.

With limited time, no one can personally experimentally vet all theories in science. One may vet only some small subset of them. In the strictest sense, one's input in evaluating some theories fit to observation is limited to personally conducted experiments. But this is a foolish strictness. I can believe that Smith is a reliable experimenter and does not lie in reports of those experiments and so I will, as a matter of practice, include the data from them in my theory evaluations. Jones on the other hand has not been so reliable and lies like a riverboat gambler in his published reports of personally conducted experiments.

I believe, based on your posts, that you will concentrate on the 'social nature' of my relations with Smith and Jones as characteristic of science. I would disagree. My relations with S and J, whatever they are, are common to my relations to others in my role as a fashion designer. NOT characteristic of science. What is characteristic is that, whatever experimental results I decide to take seriously (and however I include them in my deliberations), I refer to them in those deliberations. In my role as a fashion designer I need take no input from any source into account. If I can convince people to go back to fashionable palm fronds in the Arctic, there is no constraint on my efforts inherent in fashion. Not so in science. It works (or rather engineering derived from its theories) works, and that's the nub.

The 'first sort of position' is those activities without a required and inherent reference to nature (eg, through experiment), and the 'second sort' is all those which do. If they do it the way science does (ie, using experiment as theory bush pruning shears), then those activities are science. Even fashion design might be scientific if a way to resort to experiment could be developed. I rate the chances as essentially zero in any rational world, but ...

Your weak social construction seems to me to be tautological (it's humans doing this stuff, after all, and they can't be expected to act like anything else; we are not Mr Spocks (nor Intelligent Ants either)), and to entirely neglect the characteristic aspect of science, namely reliance on experimental test, and ultimately, nothing other than experimental vetting, to prune out inadequate theories.

Hope this helps.

ww

 * You appear to think that science being a social enterprise and being reliant on experiment are mutually exclusive. Why? Banno 10:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,
 * Not quite. Science, in my view, is a social enterprise. It is done by humans (at least so far, not counting the cats who are doing something else altogether) and everything those creatures do is -- tautologically as far as I can see -- a social matter. This is a distinction without a difference and not particularly useful, nor interesting. What _is_ significant is that, unlike other social enterprises, the 'standards of performance' for science do not rest on the social nature of what humans doing science in association with others do. Science is, I believe, unique amongst human activities in that it relies on such an external standard.
 * It simply doesn't matter what social arrangement might exist or be created or be enforced to support, eg, spontanteous generation of mice or maggots or bacteria. Nor what social trends (politics, religion, economic, academic, folk, ...) support or oppose that position. It turns out to be wrong -- by an external standard, Experimental observation. That it took something like 200 years for most people concerned to come around after Redi's experiments, and 100 some after Spallanzani's, and rather less after Pasteur's is interesting -- and perhaps worthy of study -- but is not science and changes nothing of importance. It is merely the workings of what Kuhn pointed out (and in some sense Planck well before him) -- the sociology of science as practiced by humans. Presumably others (eg, my notional Intelligent Ants of some posts ago) would have a different sociology.
 * I believe that it is one (if not the primary) of the tasks of any philosophy of science to account for that difference, for it is a distinction which matters. To stress that science -- being, more or less, what scientists do -- is a social construction simply evades that task. To do so simply stresses what I think is best called a distinction without a difference at most, and when insisting that science is no different than say 'architecture' or 'the history of the Incas' or 'the deconstruction of literary texts', is plainly useless and furthermore, wrong.
 * There is something different about science. It is, uniquely, so psychologically/socially/politically/economically important that many who have no particular interest in it or any aspect of it, per se, are interested in the political and social status that has been accorded it (a social phenomenon) as a result of that difference. Thus we have 'history', 'sociology', 'non-experimental psychology', ... claiming to be sciences and attempting to act and sound like sciences. Or some philosophers explaining how there isn't anything special about it after all. It's all an illusion or an opression produced by.
 * In an earlier era Marx, among many others, were concerned to understand how society works 'scientifically'. He, and they, developed what they claimed, and perhaps even believed, 'scientific' accounts of history and its inevitable laws. Many of them mutually exclusive. To the extent that anyone looked at what was actually happening, none of those laws matched reality at all well. For instance, Communist Revolution happened not among the industrial working class (in say the UK) as Marx' laws claimed they inevitably would, but among peasant societies. And may very well have happened for reasons having little to do with any law of historical developement discovered by Marx. Exceptionally gifted political manipulators like Lenin and Trotsky or Mao, for instance; combined with particularly inept opposition like Nicholas or the Chinese warlords. Their attempts were a sort of scientism, and however useful/useless/destructive/advanced/appalling/inspiring/... were not science for no one was then was (or has since been) able to credibly propose a way to experimentally test any of them or any aspect of them. Much less carry out such an experiment.

 * Again, I hope this helps. Sorry it took so many words.

 * ww

If I understand, you say science is a social enterprise, but since this observation does not serve to differentiate science from other social enterprises, it is irrelevant. You contend that the science’s 'standards of performance' are in some way external to these social aspects. You also contend that it is experimental testing that distinguishes science from non-science.

The implication is that experimental testing is not a social enterprise.

What reason do you have for thinking that experiments are not as embedded in culture and theory as any other part of science? Observations are statements, and as such involve language, and surely are therefore social? The only way I can see to maintain your position is to ignore the psychology and philosophy of perception.

In essence you attempt to distinguish science from non-science by juxtaposing the empirical base and the social enterprise; this fails because the distinction cannot be maintained. The empirical base is a part of the social enterprise.

Kuhn and Feyerabend pointed to similar failures in the methodological approaches to the demarcation problem. No method is sufficient to justify, or even explain, scientific progress.

Note, please, that this does not imply that observation is nothing more than a social construct. Experiments can still be used to decide between competing theories, but there are no hard, rational rules on which that decision can be based, only the socially guided choices of individuals. These choices are as much a part of the 'scientific method' as falsification or induction.

Sadly, this conversation, although interesting, is not directly relevant to the article. Wiki is not a discussion forum and although I’ve enjoyed playing Socrates, I think it’s time we finished the discussion, in order to keep these pages free for comment directly relevant to the article. Or perhaps moved it to another forum - can you suggest one? Banno 22:12, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) --

The two criticisms of Falsification previously listed are curious. I would be interested to see a reference to a critique of falsification based on denying the excluded middle. Not the least because a lot more than just falsification relies on this principle. The second comes close to Kuhn, but does not quite get there. Better to leave Kuhn to a different section Banno 10:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is a passage on the weak social constructivism I don't understand:

''The crucial issue for this account is justifying this correspondence. It is important, therefore, to consider how scientific statements are justified.''

Does it mean that it is difficult to justify this correspondence? If so, then why? Or does it mean that justifying this correspondence is interesting for the proponents of this approach? If so, then why?

For whom it is important to consider how scientific statements are justified? For "them" or for "us"? Andres 10:32, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which deals with the study of science (in the sense of "natural science"). Must it be "The philosophy of science" rather than just "Philosophy of science"? Why should philosophy of science be restricted to natural science? Is there some other field known as "philosophy of social science"? JWSchmidt 21:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The philosophy of science includes the philosophy of ALL science including the philosophy of social science (an unwritten article). The intro needs fixing...currently it is biased toward the philosophy of natural science when the philosophy of science is actually much broader. B 22:02, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * JWS and BoNo, I'll stick my head up, risking snipers, and try to give an answer. 'Science' is used to mean many things, and so has no meaning in some sense; philosophy of science accordingly can be philosophy about any of those many things and also is a big terminological mess. I'll simply finesse the terminological problems by acknowledging them and move on. There, that was easy, wasn't it?
 * I would point out that the experimental sciences (eg, physics, chemistry, experimental biology, meteorology, ...) and the observational sciences (eg, astronomy (some of which is physics), planetary science (some of which is also physics, some chemistry, some meteorology, ...), ...) are fundamentally different than such things as history, descriptive biology, some parts of psychology, ... In the one group it is clearly possible to directly test theories about what's going on by conducting an experiment, and in the second (sometimes) by indirect test by experiment, and (also sometimes) still more indirectly, by 'unplanned' experiment observing events elsewhere. In the last group, experimental test is not possible.
 * I can conduct the Michaelson-Morley experiment again any time I want to (assuming the funding, of course) and so can anyone else (likewise modulo funding). Observationally, I or anyone else can watch for novae and try to indirectly test some theory about them. But no one can ever rerun the Middle Ages to test some theory about why the Renaissance developed where and when it did.
 * This boundary between the natures of experimentally testable stuff and nonexperimentally testable stuff is pretty clear. Though some deny there is a boundary at all; their reasoning is not persuasive to a good many folks. And so we have on the one hand a philosophy of experiment and its connection to understanding, to theories, and so on. And on the other hand, we have a philosophy of opinion (eg, you think Marx' understanding of history is better than Adam Smith's, but both are loony according to Carlyle, and theologians pretty unanimously think all three (and you too) have missed the boat by wide margins). In the first philosophy, my theory that gravitation operates by a inverse 4th power law will be simply dismissed by any and every experiment showing producing results which are impossible for a 4th power law. (ie, Newton was right!, it's an inverse 2nd power law). And my theory will be of no further consequence to any thinking observer.
 * In the second philosophy, Carlyle's theory that individuals determine all not only can't be disproved in any meaningful sense, but even if it goes out of 'style' amongst those who study history, it can come back. Nothing can quite ever be discarded in such disciplines. Thucycides approach to the causes of events is still a live issue; the idea that light things fall more slowly than heavy things is deader than the dodo. This is why natural science (the first philosophy sort) isn't too preoccupied by its own developmental history, while disciplines of the second philosophy type are.
 * Does this help answer either query? I'm going to put my head down again real quickly....
 * ww 15:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Thought I might point out that you can’t re-run the big bang or the evolution of birds. Does this mean that they are not scientific? Also, your inverse 4th power law is less like Carlyle’s theory and more like my theory that history is determined by the beating of butterfly wings. Banno 18:50, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Banno, True you can't rerun BB or bird evolution, and thus my distinction between experimental sciences and observational sciences. No possible experiment can disprove your butterfly theory about history, while any of many can (and have) so treated my inverse 4th power law. The butterfly theory is, as nearly as I can see, just on a par with Carlyle's about the causes of historical events. Did I miss something? ww 16:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently, Ww. One of the principle results of Philosophy of science is that it is simply not possible to disprove any theory. With suitable ad-hoc additions, your theory can be made to correspond to the facts. It is presently the case that method is insufficient to differentiate science from other activities.

 * Coming back to the point in hand, if science includes the social sciences, why not philosophy of science? Banno 21:17, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Banno, As has long since become clear, I do not agree that it is not possible to disprove any theory. At least for experimentally accessible theories. If you think that philosophy of science has demonstrated that ('a principle result'), then as I have suggested in the past, we two have a serious disconnect. And I would suggest that whoever reached that principle result, or who thinks it's a principle result, is in error. As for observational sciences (in the distinction I made above) the situatioin is more difficult, since intentional designed esperiments are impossible. I would agree that no theory can be disproved in other cases (eg, history, your butterflies, much of psychology, politics, fashion design, ...). And I disagree that it is presently the case that method is insufficient to distinguish...

 * I do not think that it is appropriate to state as certainty, as you do and have, that the (more or less) Popperian/Peirceian position is 'simply' untenable, without merit, is the case that it is false, and so on. I do not believe that 1) it is that simple, or 2) the arguments against it (from the various authorities you cite) are sufficient to demolish. I have been listening to assorted posts on this point (mostly from you in recent months), and participating in dialogue (mostly with you) on this point, and have yet to hear anything that is compelling. Much that is essentially scholasticism, lots of authoritativly phrased statements of your position, and so on, but nothing which causes a change in reasoning. You have suggested that any further discussion with me is pointless on at least one occasion, but this is not very compelling arguement either. There are thus, in my view, persistent blocks between us, as it appears to me that there is little actual meeting of minds in discussion, much less progress in any direction.

 * Let me suggest two accounts which may provide some grounds for thought. The first is an account of the discovery of radioactivity by Bequerel and others (by A S Romer, title escapes me, but it is available in a Dover edition) and Bad Science (author escapes me), an account of the furor surrounding cold fusion. Sorry about the bibliographic lacunae. Neither has a theoretical axe to grind in the philosophical sense as both are essentially journalism, but both recount the actions, reasoning, and opinions of multiple scientists actually conducting science. They constitute windows of a sort into the scientific process 'as she is actually conducted'. They raise the, at least for me, critical question, what makes science different from other stuff that we humans do? I think they also provide an inductive (sorry about that, Hume) case for believing that it is the way science proceeds -- the scientific method -- which is the distinguishing mark and which can be seen both positively and negatively in both accounts. Thus an answer to the question why is science special? And, I personally thing, an answer to the question why does science work?

 * On your second para. I went to some trouble to avoid using the word science in my longish post above, precisely to avoid merely terminological conundrums of the type you present here. I would disagree that the social sciences are sciences, but given the multiple meanings the word science has acreted in ordinary usage, and in particular the discussions of those who wish to been seen as scientific, I think there can be no practical settlement of your puzzle. ww 14:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply Ww. Perhaps as the philosophical sands shift some way will be found around the problems posed by Quine and others. I know of none at present, no one else has presented any, and it is fitting that the encyclopaedia reports that this is the case. If, however, I have overstated the case in any of the articles, please correct my error.

 * I have great sympathy for the idea that science is somehow special. However, it appears that there is now way of expressing this in terms of a method. Perhaps there are other ways to express the difference. Banno 21:47, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

ideology vs idea
Terms are only pejorative in context. The context in which "ideology" is used to characterize the -isms it is not pejorative and more precisely characterizes the complexity of the -isms than does "idea". B 21:07, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back, B. I disagree, of course, and think that "ideology" implies a deprecation of the subject. but if you want to revert, I won't object. Banno 21:16, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

This was previously on scientific philosophy, its largely nonsense, but has one point that may need incorporating. Duncharris 16:22, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Scientific theories which are believed to be unprovable in laboratory experiments are called scientific philosophy. Mostly by scientists not agreeing with them. A prominent example of this is the String Theory which is hoped to become a theory of everything but remains unproven. The difference between scientific philosophy and a hypothesis is, that a hypothesis should be falsifiable. By its nature of being unprovable this is not the case for scientific philosophy.

scientific realism
I have edited the separate page on scientific realism to separate scientific realism from naive realism, which I think can be easily shown to be different. I am recitent to edit this main page though without some comment.

 * The only difficulty now is that we have two articles – scientific realism and naive empiricism – that appear to treat the same topic. Banno 23:15, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Analysis and reductionism
Once again these two had become confused. They are quite distinct concepts. I’ve reverted to an earlier version of this section, with a few additions. Banno 23:41, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Falsification
Once again, the law of excluded middle has intruded into this section. I repeat, I would be interested to see a reference to a critique of falsification based on denying the excluded middle. Not the least because a lot more than just falsification relies on this principle. Nor does this argument appear in falsifiability, the main article on the topic. Banno 00:08, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Whose Razor?
"Ockhegm or several other spellings" -- I've seen several spellings of Ockham's name, true. But this one is new to me. Are we sure the "g" isn't just a typo? --Christofurio 18:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it before, either - perhaps he was one of the lost ring-bearers...yes, my precious! Banno 19:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only Occam and Ockham (the latter preferred in both) are in the Encyc of Phil and the OED. Personally, I would consider the OED to be authoritative and suggest that this other one is a mistake, a prank, or so uncommon as to be more confusing than helpful.icut4u

Pittsburgh HPS
I removed the link to the History and Philosophy of Science Department at the University of Pittsburgh from the links section. I really don't care if this article contains links to departments that study philosophy of science, but I thought if it did the list ought to be more complete (i.e. more than one program). If someone is interested in composing a more complete list and putting them back into the article, a good place to start might be here. --Kzollman 23:57, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 2


text:
Garet

Garet may refer to:

 * Jedd Garet (born 1955), American sculptor
 * Garet Garrett (1878–1954), American journalist
 * Garet Jax, a fictional character
 * Garet, character in Golden Sun role-playing games

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

title: Garet


text:
User talk:Dougp

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you created the article ruthless. In general, articles that involve definitions of words fit better in the Wiktionary. Other than that, I hope you have good future contributing to wikipedia. --Icelight 23:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dougp


text:
User:Philosofool

Philosofool occasionally wanders around Wikipedia creating and editing entries on topics that he knows something about.

My Sandbox

title: User:Philosofool


text:
Stanislav Andreski

Stanisław Andrzejewski (or Stanislav Andreski) (8 May 1919, Częstochowa – 26 September 2007, Reading, Berkshire) was a Polish-British sociologist. He is known for his indictment of the "pretentious nebulous verbosity" endemic in the modern social sciences in his classic work Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972).

Andrzejewski was a Polish Army officer. During the German-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 he was taken prisoner by the Soviets. He escaped to Britain and fought against the Germans on the Western Front in Władysław Anders' Polish II Corps.

At the University of Reading, United Kingdom, he was a professor of sociology, a department he founded in 1965.

Works
His books include:

 * Military Organization and Society (London, Routledge & Paul, 1954, 2nd edition 1968)
 * Elements of Comparative Sociology (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964). Published in the United States as The Uses of Comparative Sociology (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1965)  Theoretical perspectives grounded in concrete examples.
 * The African Predicament: A Study in the Pathology of Modernization (London: M. Joseph, 1968). Tough-minded social criticism informed by the wider context of Andreski's sociological knowledge. E.g. Andreski notes the conditions of an escalating feedback spiral of distrust which—a few years after the publication of this book—led to Idi Amin's expulsion of the East Asian ethnic community from Uganda.
 * Parasitism and Subversion: the Case of Latin America (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966)
 * Social Sciences as Sorcery (London: Andre Deutsch, 1972)
 * Prospects of a Revolution in the U.S.A., (1973)
 * Syphilis, Puritanism and Witch-hunts (1989, Macmillan Press, Ltd., London). Includes an appendix on the lessons one might apply from this history to the AIDS epidemic.
 * Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships (1992, London). A collection of articles written in the 1970s and 1980.

title: Stanislav Andreski


text:
Talk:Donauinsel

Untitled
as it lies in the 22nd District of Vienna named Kagran This is not right: The 22nd district is called Donaustadt. Kagran is a part of Donaustadt.

As long as there's no discussion here, not even a statement, there shouldn't be a tag on the article. I also wonder what on earth could be POV about the description — that lots of people have a great time there? If there's anything to criticize it's the fact that it's (almost, partly) a copyvio (see external link) and that important facts are still missing.  23:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Donauinsel. 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/20070929122556/http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/wasserbau/hochwasserschutz/donautech.html to http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/wasserbau/hochwasserschutz/donautech.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626041844/http://www.donauinsel.at/images/dieinsel13_480.jpg to http://www.donauinsel.at/images/dieinsel13_480.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donauinsel. 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/20120708071310/http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/wasserbau/donauinsel/inselinfo/plan.html to http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/wasserbau/donauinsel/inselinfo/plan.html

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) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donauinsel


text:
Talk:Cordonata

Merge Capitoline Hill
Separating this from the Campidoglio (a redirect to Capitoline Hill is a Wikipedism. It's the stairs to the Campidoglio, folks. The Cordonata has no separate being, no individual raison d'etre. And the very point of the stairs is precisely that the Campidoglio is not the "the heart of pagan Rome", as this text states, but now turns the sacred hilltop round to face Renaissance Rome. If this point is not currently made insistently enough at Capitoline Hill, let us improve it. But this is a classic and quite specific example, demonstrating how, by dividing up topics meaning is lost. --Wetman 23:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC).

Merge removed
I am sorry to contradict the author of this merge, but that on Capitol is only one ("Cordonata Capitolina") among the thousands of cordonate in Italy. Moreover, in Rome itself the Cordonata per antonomasia is not the capitoline one, but that on the Quirinal hill, which gives the name to a road too(Via della Cordonata).

alex2006 15:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cordonata


text: File:Joseph Vann.gif

title: File:Joseph Vann.gif


text:
Greg MacPherson

Greg MacPherson (born 1973) is a Canadian singer-songwriter based in Winnipeg, Manitoba. MacPherson performs both solo and with a backing band.

MacPherson's sixth album, Mr. Invitation, was released on March 30, 2010, and was longlisted for the 2010 Polaris Music Prize.

MacPherson co-owns Canadian indie label Disintegration Records. He has previously released albums on G7 Welcoming Committee Records, and more recently Smallman Records. The independent record label play/rec, based in Copenhagen, has released a compilation LP in Europe. His two most recent albums, Disintegration Blues in 2011 and Fireball in 2013, were released on his own Disintegration Records following the demise of both G7 Welcoming Committee Records and Smallman Records.

Fireball was a longlisted nominee for the 2014 Polaris Music Prize.

In 2017 MacPherson collaborated with Rob Gardiner in the project Figure Walking, whose debut album The Big Other was a longlisted nominee for the 2017 Polaris Music Prize.

Discography

 * The Year of The Record Break (1997)
 * Balanced on a Pin (1999)
 * Good Times Coming Back Again (2002)
 * Maintenance (2004)
 * Night Flares (2005)
 * The Sun Beats Down (2006)
 * Mr. Invitation (2010)
 * Disintegration Blues (2011)
 * Fireball (2013)

title: Greg MacPherson


text:
Georgie Porgie (producer)

Georgie Porgie is the stage name used by the American house music producer and musician, George N. Andros, from Chicago, Illinois. He first had an entry on the US Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart in 1994, and reached #1 for the first time in 2002 with "Love's Gonna Save the Day," a song that was written in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In 2003, his song "I Love I Love" also hit #1 on the US dance chart, a third dance #1 came in 2005 with "Sunshine." In the UK Singles Chart he has had three entries with "Everybody Must Party" (1995), "Take Me Higher" (1996), and "Life Goes On" (2000).

He joined with Joi Cardwell for the duet, "It's Over", in the fall of 2006. In December 2006, he performed at the Long Island Kids in Action conference in Farmingdale, New York, where he performed his single "Sunshine." The release, "I Believe" became his fourth chart-topper in 2007. "Can You Feel That Sound" became his fifth U.S. dance chart topper in late 2008.

title: Georgie Porgie (producer)


text: User talk:70.187.183.37

title: User talk:70.187.183.37


text:
Talk:Sacrifice (Motörhead album)

Album info
I don't see the point of copying the whole text from White Line Fever. If you're gonna put information from it, at least give it good rewrite. Roda 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think derogatory things about living people are put better in other people's words. WP:BLP has a real problem with people being unfairly portrayed.--Alf melmac 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not refering to the part of the text which is about Wurzel, but this part:

The band went into the studio with some great songs, Lemmy recalls, although "Sex and Death" was written in ten minutes on the last day of recording, "In Another Time" was altered beyond all recognition and there were three sets of lyrics for "Make 'Em Blind". Dee and Campbell didn't realise that "Out of the Sun" was only two and half verses and had rehearsed it as such so Lemmy added another section when nobody else was around, with him playing bass and Jamie, his guitar roadie, playing guitar, he then gave the others a tape of it — when Würzel played it in the rental car, Lemmy says he nearly drove of the road. "Make 'Em Blind" came from improvisation, Campbell did the solo in one take, falling over the couch and onto his back, laughing uproariously. Lemmy states that the album contains more nonsense than most of the previous album, the lyrics don't mean anything you can really get a hold of, but that they convey the mood, especially the title track and "Out of the Sun". "Dog Face Boy" is about Campbell, but Lemmy decided that only after having written it, likening the line "Poor boy out your mind again/ Jet plane outside looking for another friend" to Campbell's habit of quickly hitting town and looking for fun after getting off the plane Roda 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's only really close from the words Lemmy states, which I thought was ok as he was stating it, I have changed the intermediate syntax. I thought there were enough s, its certainly not word for word though. I make the book having 200 or more words covering going into the studio to Campbell falling over, the above section is less than a 100 words.--Alf melmac 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sacrifice (Motörhead album)


text:
Operation Zeppelin

Operation Zeppelin may refer to:

Military
A military operation during World War II:

 * Operation Zeppelin (espionage plan), a 1941–45 German scheme to recruit Soviet POWs for espionage behind Russian lines
 * Operation Zeppelin (deception plan), a 1944 Allied scheme to divert attention from the invasion of Normandy

Other uses

 * A DC Comics storyline involving STAR Labs returning Electrocutioner and other supervillains to Limbo

title: Operation Zeppelin


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoDuro

 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 NO CONSENSUS. Essjay ·  Talk 22:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

EcoDuro
Blatant advert - creator is the company chairman --Doc (?) 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion. Niteowlneils 04:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep valid listing of a company in the Company section. Ronreed 04:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I am the Chairman, but I am a legitimate creater of articles for the benefit of Wikipedia (see my other articles...Cindy Cohn, Preferred Stock, American Alpine Club) and I plan to continue to add to this and articles about other companies with sustainable products and solutions. This Company has patents that appear to change improve sustainability (as do our one or two competitors, which will also be added by me this weekend with issues around sustainable logistics).  Why does it matter if the author is related as long as the author discloses themselves (which I have done, by using my actual name as the user). I ask this sincerely, since I intend to spend my time on Wikipedia focusing on the business sections. Ronreed 04:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviewing the deletion policy, there is no reason stated for "self promotion". There is a reason for vanity, which I tried to avoid by trying to express the facts in a neutral way and to describe the importance of the business to a broader market, as described in the VANITY PAGE discussion.  Also, this is not an advertisement, since I specifically tried not to discuss specific products of the Company.  If you believe this could be writtin in a more neutral fashion, then perhaps we should edit it accordingly.   Lastly, this Company will have additional importance as I focus on Michigan Business, since I intend to develop more information around venture backed companies in Michigan.  I started with the one I know well, but intend to develop profiles around others in Michigan (Arbor Text, Supply Tech, Handy Lab, Nephros Therapeutics, Nano Bio, among others).  I have proposed to others in Michigan that we use Wikepedia as a place to build our history of venture backed businesses.  Please leave comments about my comments, since I am a new user and am eager to learn and want to be a productive contrutor.  Ronreed 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a legitimate company. ElleBigelow 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I am also, curious why it matters whether he is affiliated with Company or not. I assume it will be more accurate if he writes about it.  Also, I looked in the Company listings and it seems that the more entries in there, the better.  I looked, he is correct, there is no "self promotion" category (other than in the Vanity guidelines which caition, but don't explicitly restrict) in the deletion policy.  ElleBigelow 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made some changes that make it less like an advertisement (taking out some of the promotional things about the product and making it more generic).
 * Unfortunately, I think no matter how you phrase it, it's not going to matter much because the company simply is not notable. This is really what the "advertisement" shorthand is about, though admittedly it is shorthand: A Microsoft article by Bill Gates would no doubt be accepted, and if Bill hyped up his company, that could be edited out rather than deleting the article.  However, if someone writes an article hyping up a small, unknown company, the assumption that this person is taking advantage of a free opportunity to advertise has usually turned out to be correct.  Sometimes, even if evidence of notability is not presented in the article or easily Googled up, it can still be shown... people will cheerfully change their votes in that case, once they're shown it.  The rule simply is that the company has to become notable before we write about it.  It's an encyclopedia, not a business directory.  If you plan to write further articles, please keep this in mind; your insights on business matters in general or on major Michigan businesses will be really valuable; your insights on specific startup companies, probably not so much.  It is nothing at all against you or your company, it's just a question of what the project is about.  Dcarrano 06:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the feedback.  It sounds like a contributor needs to produce some evidence any company's notablity.  Perhaps we could start a conversation about the "notability test or guidelines". Certainly, Microsoft is inutitive at this point, but where did it cross the line from being a little software company started by a few friends to being "notable".  I guess the real question is for whom will the Company be notable?  I understand the objective of Wikipedia is to focus on an informational resource and not a "pure play" advertising resource, but I suspect we are still in early days here and the Wikicommunity is still relatively small compared to the potential audience that will someday use the resource.  Although I've heard about it, I listen to NPR and watch for these kinds of projects.  I have a sense, that as Wikipedia matures, Wikipedia will become part of any suject matter expert's tool kit.  An expert in any field will someday mention, as part of their creidibility, that they are a wikipedia contributor on a topic.  I can envision being at a conference in the next could years and seeing someone introduced as "Ms. So &So is blah, blah blah and noted wikipepdia contributor.  The point is that the nature of participation in Wikipedia by experts will become self-promotional.  While I think the wikicommunity has to watch this closely, I believe the benefits to the experts will also improve the value of this resource.  Further, I believe that some of the information that may seem insignificant to a small group of people today (like a paper pallet company with patents issued in the major industrial countries of the world) may be some of the seeds that draw in an entirely new part of the Community.  Therefore, I would be cautious about the "notability test".  One person's unnkown company is very possibly the leading emerging player for a new industry that is not yet represented on Wikipedia, but should they be drawn into the Wiki by, say a reference to the site by some of these companies (EcoDuro plans to point to WikiPedia for packaging industry info and to help education people information on the established/emerging standards and technologies).

 * I'll try here, to make the case for EcoDuro meeting the notability test. At this point, the Company has been asked to present at three major venture capital conferences in the last fourteen months.  The Company has been issued patents (another topic, but should Companies list their patents).  Its products have been tested by the two leading packaging in the US (one of which is the leading in the world, Michigan State University).  Articles are being written about it by notable sustainability investment writers example The World is Changing author Jamais Cascio.  One of the leading investors, was formerly the Chairman of MeadWestvaco who is also helping to drive technology transfer for sustainable packaging and products in other Companies (Pollywood).  The Company is in a rapidly changing.  "After delays, misfires and more government bureaucracy than most care to remember, 2004 appears to be the year that many major world markets will get serious about implementation and enforcement of the global IPPC standard for solid wood packaging", by Pallet Profile Dec 2003.  I imagine this all looks pretty boring to most people, except for a few fun facts.

 * Pallets are about an annual $19 Billion industry.
 * “[Big City Forest] says the national recycling rate for wooden pallets, crates, and packaging is about 10%, with the majority ground into low-value applications like fiber or chips and more than half of the ground wood burned for fuel. BCF estimates that harvesting just the discarded wooden packaging in big U.S. cities would conserve about 300,000 acres of virgin timberland a year. The 88 million pallets discarded annually in the 49 largest urban areas contain about 1.5 billion board feet of usable lumber, or roughly three times the amount of virgin timber used to produce all the hardwood flooring sold in the U.S. every year. -- source: [http://web.indstate.edu/recycle/9619.html
 * Since the 1980s, the primary increase in the use of lumber is for Pallets. According to the US Forest Service, No major technological changes or innovations were expected to slow this growth. Source: USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory.

 * For these reasons, the EcoDuro company is starting to get more notable and most importantly, Companies like Ocean Spray, GE Medical, Pfizer have begun using products that don't spread insects and are recycleable/repulpable. Thanks again for comments.  Again, the question is whether a "Notability Test" is a proper test for the Wikipedia and if so, what are the guidelines for notability?  Best Regards to all.   Ronreed 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Well written article, honestly. No? Redwolf24 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as there's no advertising in it, why begrudge the man his article?Robludwig 21:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * CommentSince it has been seven (7) days and the votes to keep outweigh votes to delete (4/3 excluding the vote from the author -me, there is still a vote 3/3), I am going to remove the VFD notice on the page. I assume this is the process according the VFD guidelines.  Thanks for everyone's thoughtful consideration (including the votes to delete). --Ronreed 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the process. Admins close the vfd. --  Etacar11   02:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is well-writte, even the author's argument on whether the company is notable or not. As he has pointed out, we don't know if this company "will be the leading emerging player", at this point it isn't and it is not notable. However, I encourage the author to keep writing, I see the quality of his writing, but it is not written in a NPOV, "unique engineered", etc. --Vizcarra 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I used the word unique due to the patents that are in place. I assumed propose that patents make the pallet "unique" as opposed to other pallets that are "standard" according the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association).  Standard wood GMA pallets make up most of the 1 billion pallets used in the US.  Thanks for your comment by the way, but I still don't know about the "notability standard", but I think it is my challange to pursue this discussion elsewhere on the general VFD pages.  We've started the process of creating a Business, Economics & Finance Portal and I believe this issue of notability will emerge again, since I intend to encourage people to put up information about business.  I guess the general question for the Wikipedia is "where are the edges of the information that is desired for Wikipedia"?

 * Comment Sorry for taking changing the VFD. Thanks for correcting it.  I'm learning, however slowly. --Ronreed 00:24, 22 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..

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoDuro


text: Template:Campaignbox Nanboku-chō Wars

title: Template:Campaignbox Nanboku-chō Wars


text:
A.C. Green

A.C. Green Jr. (born October 4, 1963) is an American former professional basketball player. Nicknamed "Iron Man", he holds a National Basketball Association (NBA) record for most consecutive regular-season games played with 1,192. Green played for the Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat. He found most success with the Lakers, with whom he won three championships in 1987, 1988 and 2000, and was named an NBA All-Star in 1990.

Green was born and raised in Portland, Oregon, attending Benson Polytechnic High School and Oregon State University. He was inducted into the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame in 2003.

Early life
A.C. Green Jr. was born on October 4, 1963, in Portland, Oregon. Green was given the initials "A.C." like his father A.C. Green Sr. The initials stand for his father's mother Amanda and his father's father Chester. Green, who had regularly attended church with his family until allowed the decision whether to do so during his high school freshman year, became a born again Christian during a Fellowship of Christian Athletes weekend retreat during his senior year of high school. He never missed a class in his educational career.

College career
Green attended Oregon State University, where he finished second in school history in rebounding and fourth in scoring. He was an All-Pac-10 selection as a sophomore, and as a junior he ranked fourth in the nation in field goal percentage at .657. As a senior, he averaged 19.1 points and 9.2 rebounds and was named to the All-America Third Team. He was inducted into the Pac-12 Basketball Hall of Honor during the 2012 Pac-12 Conference men's basketball tournament, March 10, 2012.

Los Angeles Lakers (1985–1993)
The Los Angeles Lakers, fresh from winning an NBA championship, selected Green in the first round as the 23rd overall pick in the 1985 NBA draft.

Green led the Lakers in rebounding for six of his eight years on the team. Led by Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles captured back-to-back titles in 1987 and 1988, Green's second and third years with the squad. In the two campaigns combined, he averaged 11.1 points and 8.2 rebounds while shooting better than .500 from the field. Green also reached the NBA Finals with Los Angeles in 1989 and 1991. Green was named to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team in 1988–89, was voted a starter on the 1990 Western Conference All-Star Team and finished fourth in the league in field goal percentage in 1992–93 at .537.

Phoenix Suns (1993–1996)
Green left the Lakers in 1993 to sign with the Phoenix Suns as a free agent. The Suns had just reached the NBA Finals, losing in six games to the Chicago Bulls, and they viewed Green as the missing piece to their championship puzzle. Green posted a career-high average of 14.7 points per game in 1993–94, but the Suns were eliminated in the conference semifinals. In 1994–95 he again contributed double-figure scoring and solid rebounding for the Suns, but his playing time and contributions dipped in 1995–96; though he remained the team's second-leading rebounder. His streak of consecutive games played almost ended during a game with the New York Knicks when J. R. Reid intentionally elbowed him in the face. Green lost two teeth and sustained a head injury but was still able to continue on with his streak by wearing a protective mask and only playing a couple of minutes a game for a few weeks.

Dallas Mavericks (1997–1999)
Green, Sam Cassell, and Michael Finley were traded two months into the 1996–97 season to the Dallas Mavericks in a deal that brought Jason Kidd, Loren Meyer and Tony Dumas to Phoenix. In Dallas, Green brought reliable rebounding to the rebuilding Mavs. He tied Shawn Bradley for the team lead in rebounding in 1997–98 with 8.1 rpg, but his season highlight came on November 20 against Golden State when he played in his 907th consecutive game, becoming the league's all-time iron man, surpassing Randy Smith's mark of 906 consecutive games played.

Green played in his 1,000th consecutive game on March 13, 1999, against Vancouver, and finished the 1998–99 season at 1,028 in a row and counting. After 14 seasons in the league, Green had missed only three games, all during the 1986–87 season (his second in the league).

Return to the Lakers (1999–2000)
On September 1, 1999, Green was traded back to the Los Angeles Lakers for Sean Rooks and a 2000 second-round pick. During his second stint in Los Angeles, he won his last NBA championship with the Lakers by defeating the resilient Sacramento Kings in five games in the first round, his former team the Phoenix Suns also in five games in the second round and finally the talented Portland Trail Blazers in the Western Conference Finals en route to defeating the Indiana Pacers in six games to win the series and the 2000 NBA Championship, Green's third championship.

Miami Heat (2000–2001)
Green played his final NBA season with the Miami Heat where he was reunited with Pat Riley. The Heat made the playoffs, where they were swept 3–0 by the Charlotte Hornets.

Iron man streak
Green's 1,192 consecutive games played streak began on November 19, 1986, when the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the San Antonio Spurs in San Antonio. The streak ended with the last game of his career on April 18, 2001, when the Miami Heat defeated the Orlando Magic in Orlando. In addition to this streak, he also managed to miss only eight games throughout his entire playing career ( all five games of the Western Conference Finals during the 1986 NBA playoffs and three games at the start of his second season).

Personal life

Green is a devout Christian. He is known for proclaiming that he began and ended his NBA career as a virgin bachelor. He was also known to abstain from smoking or drinking alcohol, even refusing to spray champagne for the cameras after winning championships. During his rookie year, his teammates sent a woman to tempt him to compromise his commitment. In 1989, he established the A.C. Green Youth Foundation, which operates youth camps to promote abstinence until marriage. In 2000, he wore a green bear on his head while on the bench during basketball games to promote his foundation.

In 2011, he was awarded the Bobby Jones Award by Athletes in Action for character, leadership, and faith in the world of basketball, in the home and the community. Green's humanitarian efforts earned him a spot in the World Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame.

Green married his wife Veronique in 2002.

In 2015, Green was a judge for the 2015 Boost Mobile NBA D-League Slam Dunk Contest.

In 2017, Green signed to be the Director of Sports for the United Basketball Alliance of India.

Playoffs

 * Due to a mid-season trade ended up playing a career-high 83 games.

title: A.C. Green


text:
Goldtrix

Goldtrix were a British house music duo from London, England, consisting of producers Daniel Goldstein and Matrix. Goldtrix is a play on the artists names: Goldstein + Matrix.

In 2001, they released a cover of Jill Scott's "It's Love (Trippin')", which hit number one on the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart, and No. 6 on the UK Singles Chart in February 2002. Singer Andrea Brown provided lead vocals.

title: Goldtrix


text:
Promega

Promega Corporation is a Madison, Wisconsin–based manufacturer of  enzymes and other products for biotechnology and molecular biology with a portfolio covering the fields of genomics, protein analysis and expression, cellular analysis, drug discovery, and genetic identity.

History
Promega Corporation was founded by Bill Linton in 1978 to provide restriction enzymes for biotechnology. The company now offers more than 4,000 life science products used by scientists, researchers and life science and pharmaceutical companies. Promega has 1,601 employees. Revenue is approaching $450 million (USD) in 2019.

The privately held company has branch offices in 16 countries and more than 50 global distributors serving 100 countries. Promega Corporation also established the first biotechnology joint venture in China (Sino-American Biotechnology Co. in 1985).

The company has developed an on-site stocking system, which uses radio frequency identification (RFID) linked to the Internet to track and manage remote inventory. This resulted in the spin-off company Terso Solutions that specializes in the design and manufacturing of small RFID storage units.

In February 2020, Foreign Policy reported that Promega had sold equipment to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. In 2021, The New York Times reported that, despite bans, Promega equipment continued to be sold to police in Xinjiang.

Genomics
The company's portfolio began with products for genomics researchers and now includes cloning systems, luciferase reporters, and amplification products as well as the original restriction and modifying enzymes. The portfolio of amplification products includes the GoTaq family of polymerases, buffers and the Plexor quantitative PCR system.

Genetic identity and forensics
The company is one of two main suppliers of systems for genetic identification based on DNA analysis using short tandem repeats (STRs). Promega was the first company to provide kits for STR analysis of single loci. Along with Applied Biosystems, Promega participated with the FBI and other crime labs in validating STR loci that would eventually be selected as the core loci for the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), used for forensic DNA testing in North America.

The Promega PowerPlex STR systems were the first commercially available systems for STR analysis that contained all of the CODIS loci.

Proteomics
Promega was an early supplier in the cell-free protein synthesis field and is continuing to develop its portfolio in this area.

Integrated platforms
The company also sells their own Maxwell RSC and Maxwell RSC 48 Systems, bench-top automated purification systems for low and middle throughput research and diagnostic laboratories.

The Y-Chromosome Deletion Detection System from Promega also carries the CE Mark for use as an in vitro diagnostic device in the European Union.

title: Promega


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Men Win Fights

 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. Postdlf 05:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dead Men Win Fights
Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Icelight 23:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability established, no Allmusic page. --TheMidnighters 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Approximately 900 google hits indicates that the band is influential in the local scene. (WP:MUSIC 6). Pburka 01:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Criteria is "the most prominent representative of... the local scene of a city." That's not proven, so Delete.  Dcarrano 02:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The WP:MUSIC criterion is poorly worded and impossible to prove. Prominent representative should be sufficient, and 900 hits clearly indicates prominence. Pburka 13:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I ran into an edit conflict with Dcarrano (again!) saying the exact same thing. Those Google hits actually serve to establish lack of notability by being only local and not suggesting they are the most locally notable. -Splash 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC. Radiant_ >|< 09:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:50, 13 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:
Edward C. Prado

Edward Charles Prado (born June 7, 1947) is an American diplomat who is a former United States ambassador to Argentina from 2018 to 2021. He is a former United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Background
Prado was born in San Antonio, Texas on June 7, 1947. He received an Associate of Arts degree from San Antonio College in 1967. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Texas at Austin in May 1969 and received his Juris Doctor in 1972 from University of Texas School of Law.

Prado served as an assistant district attorney in the Bexar County District Attorney's office. Thereafter, in 1976 he served in the Federal Public Defender's office in the Western District of Texas as an assistant public defender. In 1980, Prado was appointed to serve as a Texas state district judge in Bexar County. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Prado to serve as the United States attorney for the Western District of Texas. He continued to serve as the US attorney until he became a federal judge.

Federal judicial service
President Ronald Reagan nominated Prado to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to a seat vacated by Judge C. Frederick Shannon, Jr. He was confirmed by the Senate on March 30, 1984 and received his commission on the same day. He remained on that court until he was elevated to the court of appeals on May 13, 2003.

Prado was nominated on February 6, 2003 by President George W. Bush to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit created by Judge Robert Manley Parker, who retired on November 1, 2002. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 1, 2003, just under three months after his nomination. Prado received his commission on May 5, 2003. He retired from the Fifth Circuit on April 2, 2018, prior to taking office as U.S. ambassador to Argentina.

Community involvement
Prado has been a leader in numerous bar associations and law-related organizations. He has been a member of the Texas and San Antonio Bar Associations since 1972, including service as a President, and later Director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the San Antonio Bar Foundation. Prado serves on the Texas State Bar Crime Victims Committee, and was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Act Review Committee, from 1991 to 1993.

Prado also has been actively involved in community and charitable affairs as a member in community organizations such as: St. Mark's Catholic Church, the Witte Museum Community Advisory Committee, the Philosophical Society of Texas, the Rotary Club of San Antonio and Leadership San Antonio. Prado has reached out to children in the San Antonio community by conducting events in his courtroom as an introduction to the law.

He has received many honors and awards, including the following: St. Thomas More Award, St. Mary's University School of Law (2000); Outstanding Alumnus, San Antonio College (1989); LULAC State Award for Excellence (1981); Edgewood I.S.D. Hall of Fame (1981); Achievement Award, U.S. Attorney General (1980); Outstanding Young Lawyer of San Antonio (1980); and Outstanding Federal Public Defender, Western District of Texas (1978).

United States ambassador to Argentina
On January 17, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Prado to be the next United States Ambassador to Argentina. His nomination was sent to the Senate on January 19, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Prado testified before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

On March 20, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee. His nomination was confirmed by voice vote on March 22, 2018.

On May 8, 2018, Prado arrived in Argentina, and presented his credentials to the President of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, allowing him to perform his duties as the 56th U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. He left office on January 20, 2021.

title: Edward C. Prado


text:
Talk:Safety bicycle

Comment
"Ride in an upright position"? This seems backwards, as I see bicycles as described here as ridden leaning heavily forward while penny farthings would be ridden more upright. Leaning lowers center of gravity and, especially in bicycles with front wheel brakes, makes it much harder or impossible to fly over the bars without actually letting go of them and diving forward.

Paraphrase, someone
"The safety also made cycling much safer, and therefore much more popular, especially for women." Most the women I know would employ a lot of sarcasm at whoever wrote that. An etymological description would clear up a lot too. I have no clue about cycling, so I'm just commenting ;) 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)~

 * When the Safety bicycle came out the fashion for women back then was for long skirts and dresses, which made riding a Penny Farthing dangerous, as the skirts made getting on and off and riding much more awkward, with the possibility of getting the skirt tangled up in the bicycle. The Safety changed that, and with the advent of the 'ladies' frames - with the crossbar lowered or angled down towards the rear - that made it even easier for a woman wearing a long skirt to use.

 * BTW, that's why 'ladies' bicycles have a different crossbar arrangement - women (unlike men) sometimes wear skirts. The lower or angled crossbar was so that they could get on and off without showing their knickers.

 * Except of course, some men, even today, wear a kilt, in which case, the result could be even more unsightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The quote is an allusion which should be made more direct by a quote from a source. The popularity of the safety bicycle circa 1890 was a reflective of -- and a small contribution to -- the emancipation of women in the UK and US. The bicycle gave many women access to long distance transport which was not mediated by the men of the household, as cycling did not require the use of the household's working animals nor require per-use payment. The popularity of women's cycling lead to a modification of clothing -- the "rational dress" movement -- which again was reflective of -- and a small contribution to -- the increasing emancipation of women. A suitable source would be the materials of the exhibition “Pedaling the Path to Freedom.” Kenna Howat, National Women’s History Museum, June 27, 2017. Gdt (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed
I have removed the following from the article, because as far as I can tell it has almost no relevance to this subject:

 * In 1890, two recent graduates of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, Thomas Gaskell Allen, Jr and William Lewis Sachtleben, literally took the safety bicycle to the world when they set out to circle the planet on the new invention. The inspiration for their journey was Thomas Stevens' then popular Around the World on a Bicycle (1887-88). Stevens had used the much more dangerous 'ordinary' bicycle in his trip.

 * In 1890 they traveled across Europe from England and wintered over in Athens. In the Spring of 1891 the two began the most dangerous part of their journey, a trip through Central Asia rarely visited by outsiders. That portion of their journey was not completed until the fall of 1892 and is described in their (still in print) book, Across Asia on a Bicycle. As they traveled, they demonstrated the bicycle for the first time to people across Asia. Along the way, they became the first Americans to climb Mount Ararat in Turkey, reaching the top on July 4, 1891.

 * On June 3, 1893 they completed their around the world journey by returning to New York City. The 15,000 miles they traveled was at that time the "longest continuous land journey ever made around the world." Thomas Allen's much battered 1890 Huber Safety bicycle is now part of a science museum and is housed in Hanger L4 at Wroughton Airfield in Wiltshire, England.

Photo would be nice
Incidentally, why is this template supposed to go on Talk pages? It would seem more logical to have it on the article page where people would see it immediately, as with the various cleanup tags. 81.158.1.206 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Diamond-shaped frame not necessary
The "Cogent" Safety bicycle shown in the illustration does not have a diamond-shaped frame as mentioned in the definition of a safety bicycle. So I have removed this part of the definition.

Gary 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Safety" ?
Is it called a "safety bicycle" because it is somehow "more safe", or is it just the marketing department trying to spread FUD about other designs? If it is more safe, how is it more safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.236.153 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there marketing departments as such in the 1880s, and I think it is much more safe then the Penny Farthing bicycles that were popular before the Safety bicicles. Penny farthings are apparently prone to roll over foward, with a risk of the rider landing on their head. 82.45.205.96 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger
Usually, there is a proposal and discussion before a merger. I agree that some kind of consolidation was in order, but I'm not convinced that this was the right move. Is upright a subset of safety or vica versa? I get the "be bold" part, but I'm ready to ask for a source to confirm that all uprights are safeties. I'd believe that all safeties are uprights. I can already show that all recumbents are not safeties, according to the current definition given in this article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is safety commonly used anywhere? Not in the US in the shops where I've worked. Upright is the common term. I suspect that safety is really an obsolete and not very clearly defined term.
 * 2) The sentence "Safeties" are characterized by having two wheels of identical - or nearly identical - size, and a chain-driven rear wheel. excludes many recumbents and thereby suggests that recumbents are not safeties. I hope no one is considering merging recumbent into safety as well.

 * Yes, the term is not very common. Standard bicycles are pretty rare, and so the term safety bike is no longer needed. However, it is still the correct term for these bikes. Upright bicycle is basically a newer term for the same thing.

 * In that case, we need to find an expert in the field that has said so in print. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The reason I consider a recumbent a safety bicycle is that the rider is lower to than the ground than a penny farthing, and usually even lower than an upright bicycle. Reub2000 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Again, we're going to need an 'official' definition with a source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that safety bicycle is a technically correct name, and I am supper glad to see the articles merged, but I also question if merging to Safety bicycle as opposed to Upright Bicycle was the best move. I'm not going to say that it needs to be moved to Upright bicycle, but I would say that is my preference.  More important to me is that recumbent bicycles have been included here.  While recumbents are certainly more safe than a Penyfarthing, I don't think that makes them "Safety Bicycles".  It doesn't make sense to define bicycles in relation to (nearly non-existant) penyfarthings.   Merging to Safety and then including recumbent muddles the important distinction between uprights and recumbent.  I think it makes more sense to merge to Upright and then be able to contrast uprights with recumbents. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAIK, any bike that is driven by some type of drive train, be it a chain or drive shaft is a safety bicycle. Recumbent bicycles also borrow many other features from the upright bicycle, like freewheels and derailer gears.Reub2000 (talk)

 * Sadly, "As Far As I Know" is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If we're going to assert that any bike with a chain or shaft drive is a safety bicycle, we're going to need some published expert to say so. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * One such "established expert", Sheldon Brown, in his often cited glossary, says "Safety Bicycle: A conventional bicycle, with wheels of similar size and chain drive." That seems to eliminate most recumbents and shaft drive and making safety bicycles a subset of upright bicycles. Sadly, he does not give a definition of upright bicycle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * So, I propose that we rename this article to Upright bicycle and indicate that Safety bicycle is a historical name for a subset of upright bicycles. Also, diamond and step-through are the main types of upright bicycle frames, and chain and shaft are the main drive train mechanisms on upright bicycles. Finally, recumbents are the main alternatives to upright bicycles. Now if only I could find a source... -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Recumbent do use similar size wheel. I've never seen a recumbent where one wheel is vastly larger than another wheel. And the technology used for the drive train is less important here than the fact that it allows for the transfer of kinetic energy while amplifying the speed in the process. Reub2000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Really? Then cast your eyes on these beauties: -AndrewDressel (talk)

That all sounds really good to me Andrew. I'd really like to see those edits made. A couple little things though: I think the addition of the fact that historically they arose as an alternative to penny-farthings, and were at that time known as "safety bicycles" is important to include and I think it's more fair to say chains are the main form of drive train, with shafts as an alternative.--Keithonearth (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. Herlihy's Bicycle has pictures of the "Humber Safety Bicycle of 1884" with a front wheel about 1/2 the size of the rear wheel and the "Rover Safety Bicycle" of 1885 with a rear wheel 6 inches smaller than the front and "a complicated indirect steering mechanism." Henry J. Lawson, a British Engineer, apparently coined the term "Safety Bicycle" in 1876 as the name a machine on which "the rider sat nearly directly over the small front wheel, and shift[ed] treadles back and forth [to propel] a driving wheel of standard size just behind the saddle." Yikes. Herlihy often uses the expression "Rover-style safeties", presumably to distinguish them from other safeties such as the Humber and the Lawson. It seems that "Safety Bicycle" means whatever a manufacturer wanted it to mean: mostly to distinguish a new design from the then reigning high wheeler. I'm beginning to lean towards splitting the two article back apart. "Upright" describes the dominant form today, and "safety" appears to describe anything that wasn't a high wheeler when high wheelers were prevalent. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The two articles where merged because they described the same type of bike, just with perspectives from 2 different eras. If you would like to create a safety bicycle article describing other types of bikes, then be my guest.Reub2000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Workin' on it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Safety bicycle, former or current
The current version of the Oxford English Dictionary, arguably a reliable source, says of safety bicycle former name for the type of bicycle now in use, differing from the ‘Ordinary’ in the lower position of the saddle, whereby greater safety is afforded to the rider. Is there any source that confirms that safety bicycle is still the proper term for this type of bicycle? As it stands now, the current assertion is unsourced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sheldon Brown
 * A conventional bicycle, with wheels of similar size and chain drive. When the modern style of bicycle was replacing the high wheeler, in the late 1880's, the new style was mainly noted for its greater safety compared to the older design.

 * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
 * A bicycle with equal or nearly equal wheels, usually 28 inches diameter, driven by pedals connected to the rear (driving) wheel by a multiplying gear.

 * Although I have never heard the term applied to a modern bicycle due the lack of penny-farthings in use, this is the first time I've read anywhere that the term no longer applies to modern bicycles. Reub2000 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I had never heard the term applied to a modern bicycle either, which is why the final name of this article after the merger with upright bicycle caught my attention. The fact that neither of the two sources you found explicitely state that the term is obsolete does not mean that it is not. For example, Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. has this to say about aerodrome:
 * a landing field for airplanes that has extensive buildings, equipment, shelters, etc.; airport.
 * While the OED, which usually provides dated examples of usage, has this:
 * A place where a balloon or flying machine is housed; a hangar. rare. Now disused. and Originally: a tract of open ground set aside for aircraft to fly over in flight trials and flying contests (now disused).

 * So, it could simply be a matter of how much detail a source provides. However, far more damning to my point, is Effective cycling By John Forester
 * One path leads to the present safety bicycle...

 * Maybe it is not as former as I or the editors of the OED would like to believe, or some authors are attacted to antiquated expressions in the same way that some cyclists are attracted to antique bicycles and componentry. Is there any way we can weave all these details together in a readable fashion? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Beautifully done, Reub2000. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Since the lede is so short, and the new section looks pretty short, too, after I combined the two small paragraphs into one, perhaps we can just put it all back into the lede the way it is worded now. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Perhaps. I'm just glad that we've reached a consensus on the article. Anyways, do you know where the term 'low safety' came from? I haven't heard or seen it anywhere but this article? Reub2000 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No. I can't find it anywhere. There are just a couple of hits on google and they appear to be only to works of fiction. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's an interesting sample of the usages in books google has digitized. Pretty cool, you can really see the bike boom of the 1890s.  --Keithonearth (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Safety bicycle


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teha

 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. Postdlf 05:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Teha
A Quakenet-inspired neologism. Joyous (talk) 23:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:49, 13 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teha


text:
Mr. Block

Mr. Block is an American comics character, created by Ernest Riebe in 1912 and commemorated in a song written by Joe Hill. He is the protagonist of an eponymous satirical comics series which appeared in left-wing publications to sympathize with the common worker. Decades later Mr. Block gained historical importance for being a predecessor to underground comix.

Comic strip
Mr. Block, who has no first name, was created on November 7, 1912, by Ernest Riebe, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Block appeared that day in the Spokane newspaper Industrial Worker, smoking a cigar and wearing a checkered suit with a top hat. Subsequently, Mr. Block lost the fancy clothes but often kept a hat, ten sizes too small, perched on one corner of his wooden blockhead.

"Mr. Block is legion," wrote Walker C. Smith in 1913. "He is representative of that host of slaves who think in terms of their masters. Mr. Block owns nothing, yet he speaks from the standpoint of the millionaire; he is patriotic without patrimony; he is a law-abiding outlaw... [who] licks the hand that smites him and kisses the boot that kicks him... the personification of all that a worker should not be."

Eponymous song
Joe Hill wrote "Mr. Block" to the tune of "It Looks to Me Like a Big Time Tonight". The song, like the comic strip, is bitterly satirical about the AFL and the Socialist Party of America. Sometimes also called "Please Give Me Your Attention", it has remained a popular number through multiple editions of the Little Red Songbook.

title: Mr. Block


text:
User talk:BcRIPster

Archives
[ January 2007 – December 2007]

[ January 2008 – November 2009]

[ December 2009 – April 2014]

GameZero coverage
Hi BcRIPster, I feel bad that nobody has answered you at WP:VG/RS. I've been quite busy myself and I don't think there's consensus sufficient for including the magazine in the RS section yet, but your suggestion has given me the idea to go through and make a proper research of the older magazines I have with an eye toward determining which of the oldest online sources were notable and reliable back in the 90s and early 2000s. As I said in talk at VG/RS, I know there is coverage of old internet websites and hopefully it should produce some interesting topics to expand the video game journalism article. Anyway I just wanted to let you know that I anticipate this project will take me quite a while but I'll be keeping an eye out for mentions of Game Zero and I'll let you know if I run across anything in print. -Thibbs (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I know a lot of older paper magazines around the dawn of the internet liked to have a 1-2 page section covering what was "hot" online

Reference link to the related archived conversation for context. BcRIPster (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Howdy
Greetings, ! I've been here forever, and have seen your fingerprints here and there, but this is the first time I've taken time to read your userpage; wow, we have a lot in common. I was born one year off from you and have also been involved in the video game industry for a great deal of my career. But, unlike you, I was a game programmer. And, hey, my timezone is also GMT-7! Nice to see there are some other Wikipedians who cut their teeth on video games when they were still in their infancy (the games, not us). Anyhow, nice to see you around! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi Frεcklεfσσt! Thanks for reaching out. Yes, I've seen you around as well... you're quite the prolific editor. :) Unfortunately I never seem to have the time to be as active as I would like so I tend to only gravitate around a handful of pages where I feel that I can help make the best contribution with my time and perspective. But it's all good. Thanks again and cheers! BcRIPster (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Game Zero
Hi BcRIPster, I have been thinking about what you said back in January of last year, and I wondered if you were aware of WikiProject Websites/Early web history task force. Sadly the group seems to have gone defunct, but you might be able to contact some of the (former) participants still there to help you locate coverage of Game Zero that would allow it to be documented as part of the early history of the web. I am chronically short of time these days, but I still do intend to make an exhaustive search of the physical paper-based gaming magazines to see if I can find anything, and I'll definitely let you know if I find coverage. -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PD-US-patent-no notice Template
Please see Template_talk:PD-US-patent —Catsquisher (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see Template_talk:PD-US-patent-no_notice. —Catsquisher (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Video game lists by franchise has been nominated for splitting
Category:Video game lists by franchise has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest (and most likely final) issue of the WP:VG newsletter
 The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 14, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2023

Previous issue | Index

Project At a Glance As of Q4 2022, the project has:

 * 259 Featured Articles
 * 95 Featured Lists
 * 10 Featured Topics

 * 35 Featured Pictures
 * 1,862 Good Articles
 * 31 Good Topics

Content

 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements

 * Survey: How does WikiProject Video games determine character notability?
 * Some news regarding the status of the newsletter

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

Category:Video game gameplay has been nominated for merging
Category:Video game gameplay has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:BcRIPster