text:
Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 3

Absolute truth
Does anyone have a reference for the following statement?

 * Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute truth.

From my understanding of agnosticism, I would think that this statement should be more like:

 * Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute knowledge of truth.

There is a huge difference between these two statements. I don't think I have ever heard any self described agnostics make a statement like the first; however, I have heard many agnostics say something like the second. millerc 21:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Feel free to make the change, but I will say the rewording seems awkward. Could you perhaps phrase it more eloquently whilst preserving your meaning? I had a rather different tract before, leading one to believe agnostics were relativist/possibly postmodernist, which you are clearly moving away from, and perhaps rightly so. Citations/verifiability would be great, but regardless preserving prose is likewise necessary. Sam Spade 22:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * How about Many agnostics are people who do not believe it is possible to have absolute knowledge of truth? Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The sentance written by Bryan sounds good. Since no one has yet complained I think I will place it in the article.  There might be postmodernists who call themselves agnostics, but I don't think postmodernists make up a substantial subset of agnostics, as might be implied by the word many. millerc 01:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it reads well the way it is now, thank you. Sam Spade 04:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

gods
It was absurd to have an article on agnosticism that did not link to god. I’ve linked it. I’ve used a lower case g, despite my better judgment. If you can think of a way of linking the article to god without using the word god, be my guest. Banno 21:09, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good job Bryan
that was actually a particularly agreeable compromise. The only trouble is their all the same link. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. Shouldn't the final two be delinked? Should we illustrate the distinctions/distinguishing traits of these alternate terms? Sam [Spade] 05:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, they aren't all the same link; deity redirects to list of deities, which I think is a reasonable way of indicating that Agnosticism is referring to "all of the above" rather than any one specific deity. The two links to god look hard to avoid due to Wikipedia's handling of capitalization. Bryan 05:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Atheism vs. agnosticism vs. skepticism
A question for those versed in the semantics of the above words. What do you call a person whose philosohical outlook encompasses the following?

 * Does not know whether there is a god (in any sense)
 * Is quite sure that he does not believe in any god as defined by religions known to him
 * Can't accept omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience
 * Is willing to accept that there may be more between heaven and earth than we now know
 * Does not make any claims about the unknowability or otherwise of any potential god

It seems to me that this position does not fall under the heading of either atheism nor agnosticism. So what is the word for this position? Cheers Io 14:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds to me like a weak atheist with a few specific classes of god falling under strong atheism. Also a weak agnostic, with respect to the unknown-but-not-necessarily-unknowable aspect of gods not possessing omnipotence, omnipresence or omniscience. Bryan

 * Thanks for your reply. So all taken together I'm a middling atheagnostic? There has to be a better word for it. :-)
 * Cheers Io 16:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * PS: Summing up, I think I could say: "Define god, then I'll tell you, whether I could accept him/her/it." That would qualify as weak agnosticism, wouldn't it? Io 17:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why be obsessed with self-categorization? Banno

 * It's hardly an obsession. It's just that I have followed discussions on the subject, on and off, and got the impression that there are as many interpretations of labels as there are debaters. It was more of a linguistic question than anything else. Cheers Io 15:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Forgive me if the question sounded a bit rude. I was actually still thinking of the strange table that used to be here, and is now over at theism. It attempts to label the range of possible beliefs with regard to faith and the existence of god. It seems that seeking a label is a common approach to the topic. Banno 16:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * No offence taken. The quest for labels is, I believe, a characteristic of being human. After all, if someone asks where you're from, you mention the country and possibly the city. If someone asks about politics, you have a label handy (although apparently terms like liberal and conservative mean different things on the opposite sides of the Atlantic). Religion is also a subject that naturally turns up in conversation, but ask a Christian, and he has the terms ready, but a non-believer has to qualify his position with an interminable string of adjectives. It's inconvenient. And I've looked at the table you mentioned. I agree, it is strange, and as far as I can see, of limited value. But still, as I can gather, there's no term for any but a very few positions. (Part of my interest in this is, of course, that English is not my native language. If the experts disagree, what are you to do?) Cheers Io 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question on distinction
I was wondering what the terms are for distinguishing between these two characteristics.
 * 1 non-commital disinterest no claim to have any special knowledge admitting ignorace.
 * 2 Belief that no-one can know, i.e. rejection of the idea that anyone can know.

It seems to me that agnostic has ben used by different people for both reasons and it occurred to me that English is not such a limited language so as not to be able to distinguish between the two. 1 is not a belief system because the only faith involved is in tangible knowledge though admitting limitation in personal knowledge. 2 is a belief system with a pillar of faith i.e. to believe in the ultimate limitation of knowledge in a specific regard. Hope someone can help me out here.Zestauferov 05:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * AIUI, (1) is called weak agnosticism and (2) is called strong agnosticism.   — Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge Belief
It needs to be more clear that atheism and agnosticism do not belong in the same catagory. Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak atheism or theism; Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak agnostic or not agnostic. Everyone who is agnostic is also either atheistic or theistic. This point needs to be made more clear imo. About.com explains the definitions very clearly.

[ Chubtoad 2004-07-21t22:09z ]

Intro POV
The second paragraph of the intro seems vaguely POV, talking about how one "ought to" react to certain claims. Not sure how to fix it. — Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neither involved a POV, since the ‘ought’ was couched inside a conditional statement. . But I changed it anyway. A bit of a shame, I think, because I like the word ‘ought’. It is a word we don’t to use enough these days, obligation being out of fashion.Banno 22:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agnosticism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. — LinkBot 10:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't quite make sense
I don't think the following makes sense:

 * For instance if agnostics claim that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth

I changed this sentance once before (see above), and someone else came along and changed it to something which doesn't make sense to me. The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. The first talks about knowledge of truth, and the second talks about absolute truth. My original change was also about belief, and you can have good reason to believe something to be true without knowing it to be true. Don't really want to get into a discussion about the semantic differences between belief and knowledge (that's for the epistomology article), but I think I'm going to change the sentance into something that makes sense to me. If anyone disagrees we can discuss... millerc 18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can’t really see the point of your objection. But perhaps it would be simpler just to remove “knowledge” from the first sentence? Banno

 * Can't see the point? Absolute truth (absolutism) != absolute knowledge of truth (a sort of anti-skepticism).  I can't make that much clearer.  Its not just easier to remove knowledge, because skepticism is about knowledge (see skepticism), not about metaphysical objectivism of any sort. Someone can claim to be skeptical without believeing or disbelieving in any sort of absolute truth (physical, moral, etc.).  The two are distinct philosophical questions.  So unless you are claiming that there exist some agnostics that base their "agnosticism" on a total rejection of any sort of absolute truth (in which case their "agnosticism" wouldn't be a form of skepticism, contradicting the article) then the "example" itself is non-sensical. millerc 20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The two sentences were written as an example of how the difficulties of scepticism would permeate agnosticism. Your present version does not perform this function. As it is, it seems pointless. It also includes a couple of weasels. Banno 00:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Without anyone to whom we can attribute a reference, the weasel terms are needed. Your version seems to make the blatantly POV claim that its just "obvious" what agnostics should believe.  My point is that not all agnostics follow the "logic" presented in the example. millerc 20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a curiosity... From the article:

''For example if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then this individual would be obliged to hold that the statement there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute truth.''

If absolute truth is not possible, then wouldn't binary logic not apply, and hence logical contradiction would not be an absolutly true law? Using binary logic, which supposes that things are either unambiguously true or false, to disprove the supposition that things are never absolutely true doesn't really seem to work. Not that I really care, but this sort of philosophising always seemed more like a game to me, than anything worth while. :) millerc 21:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

..." if agnostics claim that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth."

I say 'there is no absolute truth' and do not see a problem. making that statement as an agnostic, i am 99% sure that statement is correct.

 * One could reasonably argue, from an agnostic point of view, that "absolute truth does not seem possible to confirm". Probably anyone actually trying to state that absolute truth cannot be known is simply committing the sin of sloppy phrasing, not actually adamant about their perfect certainty of the inability to be perfectly certain.

 * This makes the statement in question pretty much a straw man argumentKaz 18:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph has a very common epistomological mistake in it. There is a contradiction that if "there is no absolute truth" were "true", but that is not the end of the story. In "proving" that the statement is contradictory you have already assumed that it is false in your axioms. Therefore you did not prove anything! I learned about this in a higher level philosophy class as an undergraduate. There is a certain word that pertains to this, but I cannot remember it. It was something like a negative denial or statements that reference their own logical underpinnings or something. This paragraph should be removed unless this mistake is fixed. I will be polite and wait for reply before I delete this. --CHF

 * I believe that would be circulus in probando, or "begging the question". Kaz 00:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization"
From article, "... an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization."

Out of interest, can someone elaborate on this statement for me? (I'm interested because I consider myself agnostic and I do tend not to care much what others believe, but I've never really considered why this might be). Christiaan 13:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * This quip has a grain of truth, I think. If religious belief (as in membership of a community) where an important aspect of the agnostic’s life, they might better adopt either an atheist or a theist position, depending on their disposition. There is also little advantage to an agnostic in “converting” others, and such conversations often look like the agnostic is kicking puppies. In all truth, most of my jokes eventually get stomped by the humourless style Nazis; I’m pleased to see that this one is still here, but now that you have drawn attention to it, I guess someone will remove it in the name of POV or some other deity. Banno 20:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have a different analysis of this question. Agnostics do not necessarily claim that there cannot be a spiritual Truth, only that they, or perhaps humanity in general, cannot know with absolute certainty what any such Truth is. This does not eliminate the possibility that someone out there is correct, it only means that anyone who hits on the Truth is doing so at least somewhat by accident. Even if the Christian god exists, and imparts some message upon some guy, that guy cannot truly know that he's not hallucinated it, he must simply assume that he did not, that the visitation was real. Conversely, the agnostic realizes one cannot know which of the crazy prophet-wannabes out there is a real prophet.

 * Therefore agnostics have no incentive to attempt to convert other people to agnosticism. They're aware, on some level, that it's possible that any one person they might try to convert might, accidentally, be correct. Kaz 18:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with that assessment. This is not a question of truth or not, but of scientific proof, based on logic (yes, logic) and ie. science theory akin Karl Popper. Ie. If there is a being describing him/her/itself to be God, you could scientifically verify the various 'divine' powers the scriptures attribute to it. If this being could suspend the laws of physics, summon angels, show us hell etc. - and if 'we' (the media, the academia, the world) would be allowed to measure / quantify those various actions I think we could logically conclude to call this being God. All the scriptures of all religions 'unfortunately' tie God to objective reality, allowing me to make the above call for 'logical proof'.

 * On the other hand, it's logically impossible to disprove the existance of a God, since if God is a physical being, or, a measurable being, there will be no way to simultaniously search through ALL places of the universe. You'd only be possible to do that if the laws of physics were suspended - thus invoking the direct existance of a superior, metaphysical force itself. And, if God is not a member of the objective reality, you cannot disprove him anyways. --Feisar 05:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, belief != knowledge
I removed the following from the page:

...and that to deny the existence of God is also untenable

I know I will probably be reverted again, but to claim that agnosticism represents some "logical" middle ground between atheism and theism is false. Atheism is specifically a "lack of theism" (you're either a theist, or you're not). It seems that the people who understand this are more likely to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics, but that doesn't mean that all atheists reject the label of agnosticism.

 * I completely disagree with your comment on agnosticism not being the logical answer to both theism and atheism. Could you please further elaborate your argumentation? --Feisar 05:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He didn't say anything about agnosticism being the "logical answer" to both theism and atheism, and I'm not sure what that actually means. What he did say is that it's not a middle ground between them, because there simply isn't a middle ground between them. Atheism is the state of being without theism, so you're either an atheist or you're a theist. It's like trying to find a middle ground between "round" and "not-round"; those two groupings include all possible states, there's no such thing as "not round, but also not not-round." Unless we want to get into fuzzy logic and quantum computation, which is probably beyond the scope of what most people are thinking when discussing these matters. :) Bryan 05:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Bertrand Russell's essay "Am I Agnostic or Atheist" he explains that his belief in God amounts to the same as most people's belief in the "Homeric gods". That is he disbelieves (has no positive belief), thus would be considered an atheist by most people; however, he is agnostic because he has no infallable proof that God does not exist (and also no proof that the "Homeric gods" do not exist).

Also worth mentioning is the increasing focus of this article on God (as opposed to theism) which is just one theistic concept that, for historical reasons, has been broadened from the Christian conception of theism to include most other monotheistic deities in the English language. Agnosticism, as far as I know, is a statement made about all theistic beliefs, not just one historical trend. millerc 20:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What about qualifying the statement rather than removing it? Christiaan 21:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * With what? I would use the words "some agnostics", but then Banno complained about my previous usage of weasel words (see above).  Personally I don't think I'm using weasel words if we can explain what is meant by the word "some" in the article body.  Giving a specific citation might be good.  I don't know of any, and a quick search on Google didn't find any.  I'll keep looking, and if you're that concerned about the statement then maybe you might consider looking too? millerc 22:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On one, not uncommon representation of agnosticism, it is precisely a mid-point between atheism and theism. Provided one denies a rule of consistency, Bp > ~B~p, which is a common positioning Deontic logic, it is also easy enough to prove – see the archives for this site. But the present wording seems OK. Banno 03:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * And the representation of agnosticism as being a middle ground is largely held and promoted by theists (although there are some people calling themselves agnostics who also hold this view). It's perfectly ok to say something like this about agnostics, just like it must be explained in the atheism article that some people hold that atheism is strictly one interpretation of strong atheism (IMO strong atheism can be more a subtle understanding than most people give it credit), and that everything else is agnosticism.  But this is not the only interpretation, so it needs qualifiers, and would do better in the body of the article not in the introduction (which IMO should be as broad as possible).

 * In the archives, are you talking about this ? You're being somewhat cryptic.

 * For one, being logical is not the same thing as being rational. For example, one only has to understand the "invisible pink unicorn" or "teapot in orbit around pluto" analogies -- which I have never heard anyone call themsleves an "agnostic" over, and yet currently, it would be just as impossible to disprove either statement with evidence, as it would be to disprove a theological construct.

 * Secondly, you can't be exact with inexact wording, the word god/God is ambigous (ever heard of the "god of the gaps"?), and theism itself is an extremely broad umbrella covering different religious beliefs. (1) You might not be able to deny theism as a whole (as it is literally redefined by every theist), but (2) you certainly can deny particular concepts which aren't based on any evidence, or might even go agianst available evidence (as does the fundamentalist protestant Christian god -- one of the entities usually named "God" -- who made the Earth and all existant "kinds" in six days). On (1) a person may describe him/herself as an agnostic-weak atheist; on (2) that same person might describe him/herself as a strong atheist with regards to a particular theological belief. millerc 18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kazvorpal's edits
Revision as of 05:11, Feb 9, 2005: Explaining a joke detracts from it.

Revision as at 05:17, Feb 9, 2005: Removing the example to a new paragraph, removing the phrase "for example" and then excusing the result as "sloppy phrasing" detracts so much from the point that it is really not worth publishing the result. if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are indeed in danger of contradicting themselves. I note that the sentence is couched in a conditional (the "if...then..." bit), and so is not a straw man - which would require something like "all agnostics think that..." so who was the straw man to whom you referred? Revert until you explain. Banno 09:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * The article is not supposed to be a forum for your own effort to refute agnosticism. The argument you present is fallaceous on its face, nit-picking phrasing by assuming an interpretation which obviously would not be intended by the speaker. To make a negative statement about absolutes is to inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute. Your little argument is meaningless, not addressing any serious agnostic stance at all. This makes it a straw man, and it shall not stand as you had it. Kaz 00:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a first. I have often been described as agnostic and occasionally describe my self in that way. What fun, to be accused of attempting to disprove agnosticism! Kaz, I throw my hands up in despair. The point of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism - do you deny this? All I can do is repeat that the statement you think is an criticism is a conditional, and therefore does not say anything about what agnostics actually believe. I've no idea what "To make a negative statement about absolutes is to inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute" might mean. Banno 09:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * In attempting to "prove" that agnosticism is a form of skepticism, you attempt to disprove any other form of agnosticism, and you present a fallaceous statement in the stead of a valid form of the same argument. Agnosticism can be based on the premise that spiritual truth cannot be known, regardless of the criteria chosen. It can also be a sort of active indifference. What's more, skepticism can be the belief that absolute knowledge seems impossible, which is indeed possible without any inherent contradiction.

 * But, ultimately, the problem with your argument is simply that you're presenting an inherently contradictory statement and acting as if it proved something more than poor phrasing. One can phrase the presentation of any philosophical poorly enough that it becomes flawed. That says nothing about the actual philosophy. One can say of solipsism that "it's impossible to know what exists, therefore nothing does", which is nonsense, but this is just poor phrasing, again. One can more appropriately say "there is no apparent way to absolutely prove what does or does not exist, so the existence of all is left unproven".

 * Why would one seriously present a poorly phrased argument when attempting to define a philosophical position which has a more logical version of that argument available and commonly used? Kaz 00:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kaz and Uni
Kaz, you've lost me completely - so please, take me through, step by step, and say what is wrong with what I've written. Which particular statements have I presented that are contradictory? Which statements are fallacious? It's sort of a tradition to do that sort of thing in a philosophical debate. Banno 06:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but this isn't the college classroom where you were programmed in philosophy, this is an encyclopedia entry. It's supposed to explain what agnosticism is, not play silly little head games of misdefining the word and then complaining about it. I don't see how you could be unaware of what we're discussing...perhaps you should refer back to previous paragraphs, and the edit's you've been reverting, since this isn't a test being given by your professor.

 * So the problem here is that you flunked college, and have a chip on your shoulder. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, no, the problem is that guys like me don't fail classes, but we also don't get sucked into the head games of the teachers' efforts to define our world by their criteria, either. Immitating your college courses in the real world is not going to pan out very well for you...Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's well over twenty years since I went to college: using what I learned hasn't turned out too bad, thanks for asking... ;-) Banno 10:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * You are insisting on putting a fallaceous statement in the article; "absolute truth is not possible", and then complaining that it's a fallaceous statement. But there's no reason to do this in an article defining agnosticism, however exciting your teachers found it to catch you up in logical fallacies in order to teach you they were wrong. Readers want to get the definition, not be taken on a little dance of mistake and correction.

 * One area you didn't do very well at is logic; nowhere in the article was it asserted that "absolute truth is not possible". The assertion was, as I have said several times, couched in conditional: "if an agnostic claims, as might a sceptic, that absolute truth is not possible, and therefore that knowing the truth about god is impossible, then they are in danger of contradicting themselves."  The purpose of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism; it does this by giving an example of fallacious sceptical reasoning that might be common to both. The argument derives from arguments against Ayers "all utterances about god are nonsensical" the agnostics utterances are, too. See for example the article on agnosticism in the Encyclopedia of Unbelief.Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is precisely where you are tripping up. There is a contradiction between the claim "there is no absolute truth" and [b]your[/b] axioms (which is the standard for prepositional logic). But that only shows contradiction between the you and the skeptic. By saying "suppose the claim were true" you are working with your axioms. Your axioms presuppose "there are absolute truths" in the sense there exists A, such that A is true. The skeptic cannot say "suppose the claim were true", because his axioms do not allow such statements. The skeptic can only say "suppose the claim were very likely" and the skeptic will never reach a contradiction. I certainly agree that this is confusing at first, but in time you can figure it out and it will become apparent. So in summary Kaz is right, but this is a stumbling block for many. I don't know where to get good reading material on this, but these ideas date back at least to the early Jain philosophers. Also you cannot prove either logic true, you can only determine self consistence in their own framework. --CHF
 * Prepositional logic? This is presumably some new form that allows you to take "knowing the truth is impossible" and replace it with "knowing the truth is unlikely" and think that you have made progress? The ideas you posit here are common in philosophical neophytes. Yes, this argument form does assume what it is attempting to disprove - it's called a reductio ad absurdum. As for proof of logic - well, log into any philosophy forum and look at the old posts and you will find plenty of discussion in which such things are suggested by the naive.Banno 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Prepositional logic. You know the basic If P then Q stuff you learn in Logic 101. I suppose I should have said prepositional boolean logic or something. As for progress, I do not care, they are just different frameworks with different axioms. (Are you aware that there are many kinds of logic?) Both are self-consistent. The nonskeptical logic is certainly more easy to do calculations with, while the skeptical logic is what a natural scientist actually entertains. Secondly a reduction to absurdity is not the same as arguing from the premise, which is the fallacy you are commiting. None of this matters however as you have decided to be a troll and have delusions of being more knowledgable on the subject than both of my logic professors. Farewell.--CHF

 * It's called propositional logic (note the "o"). I trust that your Professors know a proposition from a preposition? I think it best if I discontinue this discussion, since arguing with you is too much like kicking a puppy. Banno 07:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes my bad english proves my argument is bad. Nice ad hominem there. I'd like to see you continue this argument Cantonese. You obviously knew what I was talking about.
 * My apologies. But if you use a patronising tone, expect to be patronised in return. Perhaps your time would be better employed in working on the Cantonese Wiki. Banno 19:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the purpose is for you to needlessly show that it's "a form of skepticism", as if that's the only thing it can be, when that's not the case. And it's apparent that you failed reading comprehension, since you seem not to understand that I said you put a fallaceous statement in the article. You deny it, and then go on to say that's precisely what you did. There's no need for you to set up hypothetical situations in order to knock down straw man fallacies uttered by some imaginary agnostic. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You greatly misunderstand what was written there. But I suspect that your problem is with your understanding of scepticism - you seem to think that saying that agnosticism is a form of scepticism is a bad thing. I suppose, given that you misunderstand so badly, it needs a re-write. Sceptics deny that knowledge is possible. If one denies that spiritual knowledge is possible, which we seem to agree is what an agnostic does, then one is a spiritual sceptic. You seem to associate something very negative with scepticism; but what is actually presented is a defence of agnosticism in the face of the commonest critique of scepticism: that it leads to a complete denial of knowledge. Take care before you delete it, since you may be leaving the article open for more strident critics.Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * But you are an example of how summarising a common argument in an encyclopedia can lead to misunderstanding given the readership. When I have time, I will introduce Ayer's argument, which is still fairly common, and the counters to it. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * An encyclopedia definition of a single word is not a place for such schoolboy exercises. It would be more appropriate for you to refer to the relevent logical positivism entry, or write a more specific one under the appropriate name, than to march readers through it here. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think agnosticism best defended in the agnosticism article. (Are you aware that your attack is entirely ad hominem? as it stands, you still haven't said what the problem is with the article - beyond the repeated accusation that I have asserted something that a "schoolboy" would see I have not. As such, your comments, amusing as they are, do nothing to help improve the article.)Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Additionally, you are insisting on defining agnosticism exclusively as the denial that absolute knowledge of gods is impossible, when in fact it can be any system of decision which brings one, even temporarily, to the conclusion that one doesn't know what the spiritual Truth is. Not to mention that gods, per se, are not the topic, but spirituality in general. Kaz 16:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Where did I assert this? I did indeed say: "The central claim of agnosticism is that knowledge of God is inherently unachievable or must always remain uncertain," pointing to both weak and strong agnosticism indirectly in the same sentence (rather neat, I thought). Indeed, if you care to examin the history of the articel, I have been at pains to generalise the definition beyond the mere existence of god. So the points you attempt to make here are entierly hollow. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, because one can be agnostic without believing such knowledge to be either unachievable or perpetually uncertain. One can believe that people simply have not yet discovered a means of determining such knowledge, or that they, personally, are unable at this time to decide for themselves. There's no need for the grant-grubbing claims of extremes and absolutes of your academic experience. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So just take out the "must always" and replace it with an "is". Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph and definition
Since Kaz's edit removed links to god I'm partially reverting them. This makes for a difficult and long construct, but gives Kaz the chance to state his preferred definition. The sentence could be split into two, but I think that would render the definition ambiguous. Any one got an idea? Banno

 * The word "god" is not appropriate in the most direct part of the definition, because that's not what agnosticism is about, except as a side-effect or symptom. It would make more sense for it to say "spiritual truth (including the existence of any God or gods) is knowable".

 * To center around "the existence of god(s)" is a very simplistic approach. It's certainly what someone thinking solely about their own Christian upbringing might think first, but is really irrelevent to the whole definition. Again I cite Buddhism as an example of a spiritual stance that need not even include a deity at all.

 * But practical example is irrelevent...if one is expressing uncertainty as to any way to determine spiritual Truth at all, then the infinite possibilities in which there's something spiritual, but not a deity, are of equal value to the ones in which there is. Kaz 00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gnosis
It's clear from the Shorter Oxford that Gnosis in English is used to refer to spiritual knowledge, but that it derives from the Greek word γνώσις, investigation or knowledge. I have never seen a source that stated that the Greek word refers exclusively to spiritual knowledge. If there is one, cite it here. Banno 22:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

See also the Wiki article Gnosis. Banno 23:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * All of the Gnosis entries verify the fact that the word refers to spiritual knowledge or enlightenment, not just any information.
 * Oh, for heaven's sake, read the first line of Gnosis! from the Greek word for knowledge! It's in English (or more correctly since the Gnostics that it has taken on the spiritual emphasis; But in the etymology the Greek meaning is the relevant one! This is certainly one of the silliest arguments in which I've been involved! Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hell, it would make no sense your way...agnostic means "knowing nothing"? No, it means "without spiritual knowledge". It was not used for people in the Know-Nothing party in the middle of the 19th century, but for people denying spiritual knowledge.

 * Yes, it does - "agnostic" means without spiritual knowledge. No doubt about it. You are right. well done. Very clever of you. BUT the word was invented as an amalgam of the Greek "a" and "Gnosis", and IN GREEK Gnosis means "knowledge"!Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dictionary.com entry for gnosis...verifying the "spiritual knowledge" version Kaz 00:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does, and that's because in ENGLISH it has that meaning. But not in Greek. See how, about six lines down, the reference you cite says:

 * [Greek gnsis, knowledge, from gignskein, to know. See gn- in Indo-European Roots.]

 * that is, the word comes from the Greek word for "knowledge" - get it?
 * The purpose of an etymological entry is to show the origin of the word...
 * Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

What?
"For some, the central claim of agnosticism is that it is not possible to be certain what spiritual ideas or philosophy are true, while for others it is that the such knowledge is either uncertain or subject to doubt." (my emphasis)

So, in what way does not being certain that some idea is true differ from thinking that they are uncertain or doubtful? What is this sentence supposed to say?Banno 01:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks to me like the first statement is saying "I can't know for certain that this is true, ie, it is impossible for me to ever know this under any circumstances", and the second statement is saying "I don't know for certain that this is true" without the categorical denial that it is possible to know whether it's true given other circumstances. Bryan 05:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps - I've re-written it in an attempt to make this explicit. Banno 10:34, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 3


text:
User talk:David f1976

Hi, first of all welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this:. Four tildes ( ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I noticed your comments on the Liverpool F.C. talk page- one of the policies of Wikipedia is to Be Bold, so please go ahead and make changes to the text if you are certain of the inaccuracies. It is constantly being reshaped, and if someone disagrees with you then they will contact you and you can discuss it. :) - sars 22:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:David f1976


text:
Talk:Runway

Runway lengths comparison
A scale / length-line of runway lengths would be interesting, including typical, min and max for landing small, private jets, large, space shuttle, etc. -GregU - [68.50.254.221 at 22:30, 24 July 2005]

 * Not as easy as you might think. In addition to the myriad aircraft types, there are other variables, such as aircraft weight (within the same type), temperature, altitude, wind, etc. In my edit in the article I touched on several examples of length required vs aircraft type—some I know from experience, some I can give an educated guess.

 * For example, VBG (Vandenberg AFB), EDW (Edwards AFB), and TTS (Shuttle Landing Site at Kennedy) all have 15,000 ft of pavement. I don't know the actual requirement of the shuttle, but from what I know of other large aircraft, plus the fact that the shuttle has limited aerodynamic braking (split rudder), limited drag (parachute is small and only deployed for a short time), well known limited wheel braking capability, no reverse engine thrust, landing weight in excess of 100,000 lbs, exceptionally high landing speed (well over 150 kts), it would be no surprise to me to learn that it needs a healthy percentage of that 15,000 ft.

 * Generally speaking, the shuttle is probably the only aircraft for which landing length is the more important consideration. Most aircraft can land on runways too short to take off from.

 * But, to summarize for you (but not worth trying to put in the article), small, single engine aircraft can, at sea level, probably comfortably work in and out of a 1,000 ft runway. Even some light twins could do that.

 * As you move up to medium (turbo prop) twins, such as King Airs, you'd probably want to double that for routine operations.

 * Small business jets would probably need 3,000 ft for regular operations.

 * Large business jets on up to jetliners weighing on the order of 250,000 lbs or less will pretty much need 6,000 ft or so.

 * Heavy jets (those weighing 300,000 lbs or more) almost certainly need at least 8,000 ft or more.

 * But it depends. I once saw a Korean Airlines 747 use every bit of Runway 32R (13,000 ft) at ORD one day, obviously with a full load of fuel on its way to Seoul. Similarly, I saw a Northwest Airlines 747 use every bit of Runway 32L (10,000 ft), and blew a couple of tires landing, inbound from Narita (Tokyo).

 * I've seen a 747 go in and out of FLL (Ft. Lauderdale—9,000 ft of runway), and MDW (Chicago Midway) handles everything but the heavies with 6,500 ft. That's quite a range.

 * But none of that is cast in stone. On a snowy day at MDW a 737 might not be able to get it stopped (witness last month). If KAL hadn't had 32R to use at ORD, they wouldn't have been able to go with a non-stop fuel load—they'd had to load partial fuel and stop at ANC (Anchorage), or if it had been 10° warmer, even 32R wouldn't have been long enough.

 * I hope that addresses some of your thoughts. 216.76.216.195 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Good piece of information and thanks for this detailed explanation. But you should have left your identitiy in this page, instead of leaving an automatically generated IP address. Guess you work in an airport.

SPJ June 20, 2006

Metric measurements
Many readers now understand metric measurements more easily than imperial ones (if they really understand the latter at all!) so it would be nice to have all measurements in feet converted to metres (can anyone, even an American, really visualise 15,000ft? How long is that in miles? in chains? whatever?) The same goes for weights, by the way!
 * I can easily visualize 15,000 feet — not saying that meters aren't better (since they obviously are), but when you've grown up with imperial measurements, you can visualize them pretty easily. —Cleared as filed. 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What if measurements were listed in both imperial and metric units? It would make the article easy to read for everyone.

The standard measurement for the United States and the FAA is in feet. Put it in both or put it in feet, but this "if they really understand the latter at all!" is narrow and biased. I can visualize 11,800 feet just as easily as I can 36 feet (the length of 1R/19L at Fairbanks International Airport and the width of 18/36 at Galt Airport in Illinois respectively). Mercer5089 17:34 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Is this why there's a "worldwide view" tag at the top of the page? Acdx 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Imperial units are still used as a standard in international aviation for many things. Altitude is called out in feet. Distance can be measured in either feet or nautical miles. Speed is in knots (usually, some small planes might still use MPH or KPH). The only people I know who didn't do this was Russia, but since the fall of the Iron Curtain I think even their international pilots had to learn Imperial.

There are some exceptions to this. For instance, weight can be in kilos or pounds, and viability (but not traveling distance) can be in statute miles or kilometers. Barometric pressure units also very from country to country. Same for fluid loadings. But aside from the runway weight loadings section, this article really doesn't address any of those things.

For the layman from a metric country, I can understand putting metric in parenthesis, but its ridiculous to call this a "worldview violation" if its the standard actually used. Kensuke Aida 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The ICAO standard is to use units of feet for runway measurement. See Annex 5 of the ICAO International Aviation Standards publication. There is no validity in arguing that this article is not "worldview" compliant. There is only one "view" applicable to aviation, and that is the "ICAO view" which says that runways and altitude are measured in feet, travel distance is measured in nautical miles, visibility is measured in statute miles, airspeed and windspeed are measured in knots, force and weight are measured in pounds, and English is the official language of Air Traffic Control. ehidle 68.44.13.149 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I found an error in the text, in the section that refers to the thickness of the pavement. It indicates "For heavy-duty commercial aircraft, the pavement thickness, no matter what the top surface, varies from 10 in (250 mm) to 4 ft (1 m), including subgrade.". While 10 inches is conventionally equated to 250 mm, 4 feet is definitely NOT 1 meter (3 feet, 3 inches is much closer to 1 meter). Can someone correct the thickness to whatever it is? (either 1 meter or 4 feet, which would be 3 ft 3 inches or 1200 mm, respectively). Also, subgrade is the material supporting the pavement. I understand this refers to the SUBBASE (which is the gravel layer underneath the bituminous/concrete pavement), not the subgrade (which is the actual soil/rock material supporting the pavement section). 50.240.160.214 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sections of a runway
This page should probably have information on "sections" of the runway. For example, I added blast pad. - Noclip 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers assigned to runways
Can anyone please clarify how the number of a runway is determined, when the landing is from opposite direction? The mail article says "Each runway can be used in either direction, and hence has two numbers. Runway One Zero becomes Runway Two Eight when used in the opposite direction". How is this done? 360-100 is 260 that is it would be runway 26. Penguin s 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your method of calculation (at least the one I think you're using) is not correct. It gets you two runways, one from east to west and the other west to east, but both either from south to north or north to south (try your method on runway 18 or 17 to see how it fails). You should add 18 (for 180 degrees) mod 36 to get the other direction of the runway.

Can you please clarify in simple terms how to calculate the runway numbers? My method is wrong, I know. Penguni_S 24 July 2006
 * I've tried to make the article a bit clearer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Runways are given a number corresponding to their magnetic heading. There are always two runways for a given strip, 180-degrees apart. The least significant digit is not used. For example, KLOM has runways 6 and 24, corresponding to magnetic headings of 60 and 240, respectively. ehidle 68.44.13.149 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It can also be the heading in degrees true. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No, runway headings are always magnetic. The runway number is determined by rounding the magnetic heading to the nearest 10 and dropping the least significant digit.  A runway with magnetic heading 267 and true heading 262 would be marked as runway 27, not 26.  Rvbuilder 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Table 1.7, Differences from ICAO Standards in the NavCanada AIP Canada (ICAO) states "5.2.2.4 Runways within Canadian Northern Domestic Airspace are designated with reference to the true azimuth because magnetic compasses are unreliable in the area" (p. GEN 1–48). An example of using true headings is runway 17T/35T in Resolute Bay, Canada (see ). Crowston (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The article states: 'Runways are generally numbered according to the approach direction'. I can imagine that readers could interpret this as that runway 09 would be the runway where the planes approach from the east, which would obviously be wrong. I suggest discribing is as the 'departure direction'.

 * I changed it now to use the word "heading". Does it look a bit clearer? Also to Rvbuilder, some runways in the arctic are in degrees true. It's mentioned in the article and can be seen here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal to add a runway at Heathrow by extending the current runway (Heathrow Hub). I haven't been able to find anything about how such runways should be designated. I would guess that one is rounded down and the other rounded up, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know for sure or know of another example? Actually, they also propose moving where on the extended strip the two runways start and end, which sounds operationally complex. Crowston (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The article says: "A runway can normally be used in both directions, and is named for each direction separately: e.g., "runway 33" in one direction is "runway 15" when used in the other. The two numbers always differ by 18 (= 180°)." what is not true... there are "bended" runways like here http://www.airports.de/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,36/ (04 - 21) so I'd replace "always" with something less strict. Ruru (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a way to represent the use. A runway can be used in either direction but numbering describes the direction of travel. Landing in a exactly eastward direction 90 degrees (west toward east) the runway is 09 the same runway used in a westward direction (east traveling west) would be 27. Below is an example of how runways could be numbered. The left is a common numbering scenario for 3 runways with designation of Left, Center, and Right. The problem has existed if a 4th or 5th were added? Some choose to modify the numbers to the closest equivalent degree and keep the L, C & R.  Some just don't use L, C & R because of the potential confusion on left and right when looking at the runways from the ATC perspective and potential for error when directions are relayed over radio. 08 >          <25 09L>        <27R       09L>    <27R           08>        <26  *(arrows indicate the direction of takeoff or landing) 09C>       <27C       09C>    <27C           09>        <27 09R>       <27L       09R>    <27L           10>        <28 10 >          <29 66.176.171.241 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Candidate for the "longest runways" section
One of the runways at Gromov Flight Research Institute/Zhukovsky Air Base has a length of (at least) 5 kilometres and would easily get into that section. Some data can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/zhukovsky.htm.

 * How about Area 51? One of its runways is over 20,000 ft. long. However I believe much of that is on the dry lake bed and much of the length is deactivated do to it not being needed, - Mohaas05

 * Here is a project for an endless runway, because it is round TGCP (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Error in lengths? (in section: Runway Markings)
Could someone knowledgable proofread and correct the following passage in the Notes subsection of the Runway markings section? The given feet (175) do not correspond to the given meters (270):

 * If a runway has Precision markings on both ends, touchdown zones within 175 ft/270 m of the midpoint are omitted, to avoid pilot confusion over which end the marking belongs to.

If it is supposed to be 175 feet, then it should be 53 meters, not 270. --Mareklug talk  20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Fixed: 900 ft/270 m, per: 2-3-3 e. Runway Markings, in http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0203.htm --Mareklug talk 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How is runway angle assigned?
I'm creating an article about an airport, and the sources say the angle is 02°. But another airports runway have number like 06/28, 36/18 etc and i dont understand how I can assign the angle for the airport I'm writing. can anyone tell me? Nielswik 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ice runway
Just found this interesting page: Runway of Williams Field 217.86.40.254 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-precision runways
This section needs something else but I just can't think what. When it refers to Radio beacons is it saying that the minimum required is an Non-directional beacon? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any system used must be recognized by FAA, an aircraft must be equipped to handle it and approach plates must be issued for approach. There is quite a number of equipment used today for non-precision approach and i suggest that "etc." may be quite useful. Not that I'm lazy, but non-instrument or instrument approach deserve for separate articles. Slawomir123 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Slawomir123
 * Actually the nondirectional beacon is probably the simplest and the oldest system used today and because of that it may be considered as "minimum".

 * Thanks. That's what I thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lighting
I think this article is a bit vague on the details of runway lighting, considering how important this is. For instance, I think (I'll need to confirm it) that runway lights can be turned on by the pilot clicking his radio button, or by requesting it from ATC. Also, some airports don't have that center light line down the runway. And some more details about the lighting at the end of the runway that tells you if you're at the proper approach altitude. Does anyone have anymore details? Thanks. 66.129.5.5 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Time permitting I'll try to add something on these lights, but the bottom line is contained in Aeronautical Information Manual (see references to the article. Slawomir123 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Slawomir123
 * Yest, the runway/taxiway lights may be turned on by a pilot at some airports and no, the ATC is unable to operate these lights.

5 403 m runway
Yes, LII is not an airport, but airfield (though nowadays it is used as a cargo airport), but it has 5,403 m runway. Would we add it? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Runway surfaces: sod vs grass
I noticed that this article talks about "sod" as a surface, and that the Runway infoboxes refer to "sod" and "grass" as surfaces. Are the two terms interchangeable when it comes to runways? --Zippy 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Not always. Grass could be just the natural growing field that a guy uses for his own private aircraft (And his own use). On the other hand sod could mean that it's a smaller private airfield that may have a lot of users who have had the sod laid down to provide a better surface. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * A "sod" surface is packed earth or soil, whereas 'turf' is a grass surface, ie., sod with grass growing on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Worldview and Citation tags
I am removing the worldview and citation tags from the main article. The article cites the FAR/AIM and the AFD, which contain the relevant information for runway markings. Further, the worldview tag is N/A because there is no subjectivity in aviation. The ICAO regulates international aviation and all countries have agreed to its standards. Runway markings are the same everywhere in the world, so it is not necessary to gather "opinion" from multicultural sources. Any authoritative source, such as the AIM or AFD, is going to have identical information to its international equivalent. Ehidle 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With the inclusion of meters in parentheses, and the fact that all figures are given in ICAO compliant units, the article is as worldview compliant as ICAO aviation itself. The FAR/AIM is definitely as authoritative a source as can be cited, so the citation tag is not necessary. If someone would like to add non-US sources, that would be welcome, but the citation tag is not needed. Rvbuilder 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Runway "09" Sample Runway
The runway used as a sample to explain the different parts of a runway is labeled "09," but I believe all runways under 100 magnetic are painted with one number only. So a runway of 070 degrees is written and called runway "7." --Matt 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes and no. If you look at Runway (2nd paragraph) it explains that while most US aiports do drop the leading "0", some such as Edwards Air Force Base do include it. Also airports in the rest of the world use the leading "0". Of course some runways, such as gravel or grass, may have no markings at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More USA-centric stuff on Wikipedia.... surprise surprise. The markings for that runway are to FAA standards (save the runway number), the ones in Europe are a fair bit different and perhaps it is worthwhile inserting another diagram to illustrate a stereotypical European layout (I know there are minor variations from nation to nation). Then that zero that is so annoying our American cousins can be removed... (Talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (GMT)

This is NOT USA centric...from ICAO Annex 14 "5.2.2.4 A runway designation marking shall consist of a two-digit number and on parallel runways shall be supplemented with a letter. On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways the two-digit number shall be the whole number nearest the one-tenth of the magnetic North when viewed from the direction of approach. On four or more parallel runways, one set of adjacent runways shall be numbered to the nearest one-tenth magnetic azimuth and the other set of adjacent runways numbered to the next nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth. When the above rule would give a single digit number, it shall be preceded by a zero." BrianSmith2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSmith2010 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed distance marks
One of the graphics of the runway contains the element marking with an arrow pointing to it, and a caption "Fixed distance marks", but searching the body of the article fails to reveal any reference to this. I don't think there's a description using other words, is there? --Mareklug talk 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag for cleanup
I removed this very old cleanup tag because the article seems well organized, well edited and "cleaned-up". I put it here in case others do not agree.--Markisgreen (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Removed cleanup tag as it still shows up on backlog. Washburn mav (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages
06-Dec-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 1 entry (topic "Removal of Worldview and Citation tags") into date order for 2007. Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarified runway numbering
06-Dec-2008: I have added some text to help clarify the calculation of runway numbers. The calculation idiom "(degrees divided by 10 rounded)" was added for readers with action-oriented memory, who find the calculation easier to understand than the phrase "whole number nearest one-tenth". The formulas "36 ~= 360/10, 9 ~= 94/10" were added for readers who prefer mathematical notation along with phrasing. In the past, I have reworded numerous articles that had been tagged "too technical" for general readers. Typically, showing some short examples, with alternate wording, will cover a wider range of readers. Keep it short, and few get bored. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Numbering at LAS
This is absolutely driving me crazy. Can anyone explain why the runways at LAS (Las Vegas McCarran) are 1/19 and 7/25 instead of what appears to be 3/21 and 9/27? This is the only airport I've ever come across with this extreme variance! Would this make for a good subsection?

 * See the article section about numbering based on magnetic, not geographic headings. 1/19 is ~25 deg geo, 12 deg mag. round(12 / 10) = 1.

 * 7/25 is ~90 deg geo, 77 deg mag. Perhaps when the runway was built, the mag declination was more than 15 degrees, causing the mag heading to be < 75 degrees, and they (understandably) have not wanted to change the designation. AlanM1 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RWY numbers always use the mag north, and they are frequently changing the RWY numbers, especially in the north, where a slight magvar deviation will cause a change. The RWY at DeadHorse is a good example, many of the FAA records havent even made the change. The RWY designation will almost always have the '0' to avoid confusion such as 7L. I have worked on airports all over the world, ICAO and FAA, and have not ever run across a '7', it will always be 07, as in a command cadence zero seven, always 2 part command. from ICAO Annex 14 "5.2.2.4 A runway designation marking shall consist of a two-digit number and on parallel runways shall be supplemented with a letter. On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways the two-digit number shall be the whole number nearest the one-tenth of the magnetic North when viewed from the direction of approach. On four or more parallel runways, one set of adjacent runways shall be numbered to the nearest one-tenth magnetic azimuth and the other set of adjacent runways numbered to the next nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth. When the above rule would give a single digit number, it shall be preceded by a zero." BrianSmith2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSmith2010 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Calvert Lighting System
The runway lighting system adopted by ICAO is the calvert system, the lighting section needs a reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.76.52 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Limited Geographic Scope
A significant amount of this article seems to be very USA-centric. Other parts of the article are written with an appearance that USA standards are somehow 'the norm' with other countries being 'variants'.--jrleighton (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

jrleighton has the way of it. There are many standards for aviation. The article should probably be renamed. The former name could still point to this article until other relevant documents are drafted. ~ Shawn (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Runway Incursions
"Runway excursion is the most frequent type of landing accident, slightly ahead of runway incursion." A lot of the terminology within the runway safety section is either inaccurate or misleading. Take the above quotation, for example. Incursions by themselves are not accidents. In fact, most runway incursions do not lead to accidents. They are typically just the result of pilot deviations or other equally rare operational errors. I suggest that the maintainers of this page research the terminology and locate new facts to give the safety section a better presentation. ~ Shawn (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Active Runway
"(or just the active in aviation vernacular)"

The expression the active may be part of the aviation vernacular for Air Traffic Controllers and Airport Administrators, but this cannot be generalized as "Aviation" vernacular.

Years ago (decades, actually) the FAA went to great lengths to ban this expression from being used in radio communications phraseology because it is confusing, non-specific and it is behind many safety related incidents and accidents through the years. Thus, in radio communications, pilots and controllers MUST always refer to the runways in specific terms (Runway 15, Runway 09L, etc) so as to make it clear to which runway they are referring to.

 * I agree. I have deleted the offending text.  As well as being unencyclopedic language, the claim that this is aviation vernacular is not supported by any in-line citation, and is highly unlikely to be supportable by any authoritative source.  Dolphin  ( t ) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Runway Safety

 * "Runway excursion is the most frequent type of landing accident, slightly ahead of runway incursion. For runway accidents recorded between 1995 and 2007, 96% were of the 'excursion' type."

If runway excursions accounted for 96% of accidents, how is it only "slightly" ahead of runway incursion? 96% vs a maximum of 4% seems to be more than "slightly" ahead... 67.170.113.39 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AMASS prevented collision in 2007

 * "AMASS prevented the serious near-collision in the 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion."

After reading the article about that runway incursion, it seems that the system noticed the incursion, but it was not the reason it didn't result in a collision. The collision didn't occur because the departing aircraft lifted off just in time (while the landing aircraft stopped right at the intersection. As a side note, this mean that the system almost made the collision happen, since the arriving airplane stopped ON the intersection. Had there have been no HOLD order from the tower, the aircraft would've been past the intersection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.76.28 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Landing strip on skyscraper
Perhaps the GreenGru Airportscraper designed by Gerasimos Paulidis (see [http://www.next-architect.com/?p=67 ) can be mentioned ? 91.182.116.161 (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an idea only.--BIL (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reserve length regulations
Does anyone know how much longer should a runway be than the take-off/landing roll in order for an aircraft to be allowed to land on or take off from it? For example, if an airplane's take-off distance is 2000 m, how long should the runway be? Is there any regulation about it? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Runway. 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/20120118165015/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap2/aim0203.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0203.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617185432/http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/AGA/7-1.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/AGA/7-1.htm

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) 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Runway. 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/20120723004923/http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/_Library/Manual%20Aerodrome%20Stds.pdf to http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/_Library%5CManual%20Aerodrome%20Stds.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322045731/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322045731/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm

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) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tabletop runway
Notability fail. « « «  SOME GADGET GEEK  » » » (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, and speedy close. This is a deletion attempt disguised, very thinly, as a merge. Despite the brevity of the article on Tabletop runway, it already has enough references that a direct attempt at deletion would be unlikely to succeed. —Syrenka V (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but for a different reason - the content of Tabletop runway is poorly sourced (in quality, not number) - its three sources are all regional news articles pertaining to a single incident in 2010. Keeping that content in a separate article may improve the odds that someone decides to expand/improve it with better sources, or delete it entirely for lack of notability. Merely my humble opinion. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge- It's a type of runway that by itself fails on notability. Easy answer is to add it to the main concept article... Veryproicelandic (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Palm Springs International Airport photo Don Ramey Logan.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Palm Springs International Airport photo Don Ramey Logan.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 21, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-04-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mention circular runway idea
Mention circular runway idea and https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-circular-runway-concept-wouldnt-work-2017-3 Jidanni (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not significantly notable, this looks like a solution in search of a problem, and a deeply flawed "solution" at that, a cockamamie idea sparked by watching too many clickbait YouTube videos of "scary" crosswind landings. Thanks, but no. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Will it fly high, like a bird up in the sky?" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Runway thickness conversion error
I found an error in the text, in the section that refers to the thickness of the pavement. It indicates "For heavy-duty commercial aircraft, the pavement thickness, no matter what the top surface, varies from 10 in (250 mm) to 4 ft (1 m), including subgrade.". While 10 inches is conventionally equated to 250 mm, 4 feet is definitely NOT 1 meter (3 feet, 3 inches is much closer to 1 meter). Can someone correct the thickness to whatever it is? (either 1 meter or 4 feet, which would be 3 ft 3 inches or 1200 mm, respectively). Also, subgrade is the material supporting the pavement. I understand this refers to the SUBBASE (which is the gravel layer underneath the bituminous/concrete pavement), not the subgrade (which is the actual soil/rock material supporting the pavement section). 50.240.160.214 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was due to the way the rounding was set on the conversion. I've fixed it and some others. Moved your request to its own section at the bottom of the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Runway


text:
Ebba Segerberg

Ebba Segerberg is an academic and translator, noted for her translations of Swedish literature into English.

Segerberg is a Director of Communications at Washington University in St. Louis. She earned a Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley, Department of Scandinavian in 1999. She has contributed to The Dictionary of Literary Biography: 20th Century Swedish Writers.

Translator

 * John Ajvide Lindqvist, Let the Right One In, St. Martin's Griffin/Thomas Dunne Books, New York, 2008
 * Henning Mankell, One Step Behind, New Press ; Distributed by W.W. Norton, New York, 2002
 * Henning Mankell, Firewall, New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton, New York, 2002
 * Henning Mankell, Before the Frost, New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton, New York, 2005
 * Kjell Eriksson, The princess of Burundi, Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Minotaur, New York, 2006
 * Kjell Eriksson, The Cruel Stars of the Night, Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Minotaur, New York, 2007,
 * John Ajvide Lindqvist, Let Me In, Thomas Dunne Books, New York, 2007
 * Henning Mankell, The pyramid : and four other Kurt Wallander mysteries, New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton, New York, 2008
 * Kjell Eriksson, The hand that trembles : a mystery, Minotaur Books, New York, 2011,
 * Henning Mankell, The Shadow Girls, New Press, New York, 2012,

Other publications

 * Nostalgia, Narrative, and Modernity in Swedish Silent Cinema (author), Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, 1999

title: Ebba Segerberg


text:
Talk:Quebec Route 389

WP:RM
It was suggested that this article should be renamed Quebec route 389. The vote is shown below:

 * Can't find the talk page for this move - there are no clear links.
 * I say NAY on the move - the title convention for articles on Canadian highways is
 * (Province name) provincial highway (highway number). The page List of Quebec provincial highways is a long list of names following this convention.
 * Let's leave this article for 389 where it is and stick to the convention.

-GBC 22:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply Quebeckers call these things "Routes", so in Quebec usage these are ROUTES. It doesn't matter what the rest of Canada calls their highways, because that's what they call *THEIR* highways. What Quebec english speakers call their highways is what the articles should be named. This is why the category Physicians for the UK is different than that for the US. 132.205.94.174 00:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: California State Route 138 vs New Jersey State Highway 138. As you can see, CALIFORNIA calls their state highways as "routes" while New Jersey doesn't. If you wish to call Quebec Routes as Quebec Provincial Highways, I suggest you rename California State Route for consistency with other states 132.205.94.174 00:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: New Brunswick Highway 2 is the article title, not New Brunswick provincial highway 2; there goes your vaunted consistency of naming of Canadian articles 132.205.94.174 00:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Trans-Labrador Highway article is *not* at Newfoundland and Labrador provincial highway 500 132.205.94.174 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Route" is a common American identification. It probably is used somewhat in Canada, however, in most provinces, it is far more common to use "Highway".
 * What do English-speaking Quebeckers use? What do French-speaking Quebeckers used?  Perhaps it would be good to get a handle on this, then, before the articles on Quebec highways proliferate, adopt that standard for the province.
 * "Autoroute" is the unquestioned standard for the four-lane divided highways that are known as freeways outside the province.

 * The above unsigned by 03:33, 25 July 2005 Gcapp1959

 * Using the example of Quebec Route 117, which passes the town of Ste-Agathe
 * Hwy117 search
 * 76 hits
 * Rte117 search
 * 927 hits
 * 132.205.3.20 19:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * for Route 389 vs Highway 389 ,
 * Google search "Route-389 Quebec" results in 539 hits
 * Google search "Highway-389 Quebec" results in 143 hits
 * 132.205.3.20 19:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the MTQ uses "Route 389" online. I suggest Route 389 (Quebec) for ease of use with the pipe trick. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quebec Route 389


text:
Akuma (band)

Akuma were a Canadian punk band from Montreal, founded in 1998 by former Banlieue Rouge member Safwan Hamdi. According to a post on the Facebook page of Rock My World Canada, "the band distinguishes itself through its opposition to neoliberalism, both through its lyrics and through its actions."

History
The original line-up was Safwan Hamdi (guitar and vocals), 'Simon' (bass and background vocals), 'Sylva' (drums), and 'Mark' (guitar, background vocals). It was this line-up which created the group's first album, 100 Démons, released in 2001. Mark and Simon left the band and were replaced by 'Sébastien' (bass) and 'Yannick' (guitar).

In 2004, the band released the album Subversion through Pavillon Noir.

In 2006, the band released ...Des Cendres Et Du Désespoir (Ashes and Despair).

One of Akuma's songs appeared on a compilation released by the 1999 Festival Polliwog, which was an annual Montreal punk-metal festival. The band played the Festival d'été de Québec and the 2001 Vans Warped Tour. There was a 2002 tour of France with Tagada Jones and Oberkampf; Akuma's last show was in 2008. While their website is still active, there have been no posts since that year.

Discography

 * 100 Démons (1998), Union Label Group
 * Subversion (2004), Pavillon Noir
 * ...Des Cendres Et Du Désespoir (2006), Pavillon Noir

title: Akuma (band)


text:
Talk:Kentucky Route 1770

Untitled
Hmmm... Perhaps a list of Kentucky State Highways (or any state's highways) should be compiled and any mention of a State Highway should be redirected to it. I dunno, perhaps this page should be deleted, but I really don't like the red links. DannyMac

title: Talk:Kentucky Route 1770


text:
Adolph Kiefer

Adolph Gustav Kiefer (June 27, 1918 – May 5, 2017) was an American competition swimmer, Olympic competitor, the last surviving gold medalist of the 1936 Summer Olympics and former world record-holder. He was the first man in the world to swim the 100-yard backstroke in under one minute. Kiefer was also an inventor of new products related to aquatics competition.

Early life and education
Kiefer was born as a son of German immigrants in Chicago, Illinois, and there attended Roosevelt High School (1936). He then attended the University of Texas at Austin (1939) and Columbia College, Columbia University (1940).

Early record breaking
Kiefer became the first man to break the one-minute mark in the 100-yard backstroke while competing as a 16-year-old in the Illinois High School Championships of 1935, swimming 59.8 seconds. His 1936 Illinois state championship backstroke time of 58.5 seconds was the Illinois state high-school record until 1960. On April 6, 1940, Kiefer set another world record, swimming the 100-yard backstroke in 57.9 seconds. He broke twenty-three records after breaking the one-minute backstroke mark. Kiefer set a world record for the 100-meter backstroke of 1:04.8 on January 18, 1936, at Brennan Pools in Detroit, Michigan.

Summer Olympics in Berlin
Eighteen-year-old Kiefer represented the United States at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Germany. On August 14, Kiefer won the gold medal in the men's 100-meter backstroke. He set new Olympic records in the first-round heats (1:06.9), the second-round heats (1:06.8), and the event final (1:05.9). His Olympic Record would stand for over 20 years, finally broken by David Theile in the 1956 Summer Olympics.

Later swimming career
Kiefer returned home a national hero, and began traveling with other U.S. Olympic medalists on a tour of Europe, China, Japan, and South America, during which he challenged other swimmers in those locations to individual races.

In over 2,000 races, Kiefer lost only twice. At the National AAU swimming championship in April 1943, University of Michigan All-American swimmer Harry Holiday, Jr. finally went head-to-head with world-record holder Kiefer. Holiday beat him in the 150-yard backstroke at the AAU meet. The defeat was the first for Kiefer in eight years.

In his first two months of varsity competition, Holiday broke two of Kiefer's world records, lowering the 100-yard backstroke mark to 57 seconds and the 200-meter standard to 2:22.9. In August 1943, the NCAA also recognized Holiday as the holder of the new world record in the 150-yard backstroke with a mark of 1:31.5. Shortly thereafter, Kiefer was asked to audition for the role of "Tarzan", but joined the U.S. Navy instead.

In the navy
Kiefer joined the U.S. Navy as a Chief Petty Officer in late 1943 and was initially assigned to the physical fitness and swimming division of the United States Navy's Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) as a Chief Athletics Specialist. When the Navy realized that it was losing more lives to drowning than to enemy bullets, Kiefer was appointed to a committee to set new guidelines for safety and training. He quickly moved through the ranks, becoming Officer in Charge of Swimming for the entire U.S. Navy, training over 13,000 navy swim instructors to do the "Victory backstroke", a term Kiefer coined himself. Victory backstroke was a simplified version of the modern backstroke that allowed novice swimmers to breathe easily (on their backs) while leveraging what Adolph considered to be a more buoyant stroke style for novice swimmers. Victory backstroke was performed with both arms underwater, sweeping down simultaneously (instead of using alternating arms), while using a freestyle kick. The American Red Cross would later add Victory Backstroke to their swim training protocols.

By the war's end, he had reached the rank of Lieutenant, Senior Grade.

Business career
In 1947, he established Adolph Kiefer & Associates, Inc. in Chicago, which has provided swimmers with training, safety, and competition equipment. His brother, Edward Kiefer, was responsible for the development of the nylon tank suit in 1948 and debuted the first nylon swimsuit supplied to the U.S. Olympic Swim Team—a marked improvement over the wool and cotton suits available at the time.

Kiefer subsequently devoted himself to community service, especially combining swimming and philanthropy. In the 1960s he worked with Mayor Richard J. Daley to build swimming-pools across the inner city of Chicago, providing the facilities needed for thousands of children to learn to swim. Kiefer actively supported Swim Across America, a nonprofit organization that raises funds for cancer research, and participated in SAA public swimming events well into his 70s and 80s.

Later life
Kiefer was an "Honor Swimmer" member of the inaugural class inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame in 1965. In 1966 he patented the first design for a no-wave, non-turbulence racing lane.

In 2008 Kiefer celebrated his 90th birthday in Omaha at the 2008 U.S. Swimming Olympic Trials, where he awarded medals for the 200-meter backstroke. On June 27, 2012, he celebrated his birthday again in Omaha at the 2012 U.S. Swimming Olympic Trials—by awarding the medals for the 200-meter backstroke. In 2013 USA Swimming named Kiefer the "father of American swimming" in recognition of his contributions to American swimming.

On the morning of May 5, 2017, Kiefer died at home in Wadsworth, Illinois, at the age of 98.

Family
In 1941, Adolph Kiefer married Joyce Kainer. Together, they had four children: sons Dale and Jack, and daughters Kathy and Gail.

title: Adolph Kiefer


text:
Muhammad Mueenuddeen II

Muhammad Mueenuddeen II was the sultan of the Maldives from 1886 to 1888. On 16th of December of 1887, he accepted British protection and the country became a British protectorate within the British Empire while retaining the local monarchy.

title: Muhammad Mueenuddeen II