text:
26th Daytime Emmy Awards

The 26th Daytime Emmy Awards were held in 1999 to commemorate excellence in daytime television programming from the previous year (1998). The main ceremonies were held May 21, 1999, at The Theater in Madison Square Garden in New York City and were televised live by CBS. Memorable moments that occurred at the ceremonies included the ABC soap opera General Hospital winning a record number of Daytime Emmys with a total of eight, and Susan Lucci's first-ever win in the Outstanding Lead Actress category after losing a total of 18 times. Winners in each category are in bold.

Outstanding Drama Series

 * All My Children: Jean Dadario Burke
 * Days of Our Lives: Ken Corday
 * General Hospital: Wendy Riche
 * The Young and the Restless: William J. Bell & Edward Scott

Outstanding Lead Actor

 * Peter Bergman (Jack Abbott, The Young and the Restless)
 * Eric Braeden (Victor Newman, The Young and the Restless)
 * David Canary (Adam Chandler/Stuart Chandler, All My Children)
 * Anthony Geary (Luke Spencer, General Hospital)
 * Robert S. Woods (Bo Buchanan, One Life to Live)

Outstanding Lead Actress

 * Jeanne Cooper (Katherine Chancellor, The Young and the Restless)
 * Elizabeth Hubbard (Lucinda Walsh, As the World Turns)
 * Susan Lucci (Erica Kane, All My Children)
 * Melody Thomas Scott (Nikki Newman, The Young and the Restless)
 * Kim Zimmer (Reva Shayne, Guiding Light)

Outstanding Supporting Actor

 * Stuart Damon (Alan Quartermaine, General Hospital)
 * Michael E. Knight (Tad Martin, All My Children)
 * Christian LeBlanc (Michael Baldwin, The Young and the Restless)
 * Kristoff St. John (Neil Winters, The Young and the Restless)
 * Jerry verDorn (Ross Marler, Guiding Light)

Outstanding Supporting Actress

 * Jennifer Bassey (Marian Colby, All My Children)
 * Sharon Case (Sharon Newman, The Young and the Restless)
 * Beth Ehlers (Harley Cooper, Guiding Light)
 * Kathleen Noone (Bette Katzenkazrahi, Sunset Beach)
 * Kelly Ripa (Hayley Vaughan, All My Children)

Outstanding Younger Actor

 * Jensen Ackles (Eric Brady, Days of Our Lives)
 * Jason Winston George (Michael Bourne, Sunset Beach)
 * Jonathan Jackson (Lucky Spencer, General Hospital)
 * Bryant Jones (Nate Hastings, The Young and the Restless)
 * Joshua Morrow (Nicholas Newman, The Young and the Restless)
 * Jacob Young (Rick Forrester, The Bold and the Beautiful)

Outstanding Younger Actress

 * Sarah Brown (Carly Benson, General Hospital)
 * Camryn Grimes (Cassie Newman, The Young and the Restless)
 * Rebecca Herbst (Elizabeth Webber, General Hospital)
 * Ashley Jones (Megan Dennison, The Young and the Restless)
 * Sherri Saum (Vanessa Hart, Sunset Beach)
 * Heather Tom (Victoria Newman, The Young and the Restless)

Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team

 * All My Children
 * Days of Our Lives
 * General Hospital
 * Guiding Light
 * The Young and the Restless

Outstanding Drama Series Directing Team

 * All My Children
 * Days of Our Lives
 * General Hospital
 * The Young and the Restless

Outstanding Music Direction and Composition

 * Richard Stone, Steven Bernstein, Tim Kelly, Julie Bernstein and Gordon Goodwin (Animaniacs)
 * Bruce Babcock, Harvey Cohen, Charles Fernandez, Ron Grant and Thom Sharp (The Spooktacular New Adventures of Casper)
 * Mark Watters (The Lionhearts)
 * Shirley Walker (The New Batman Adventures – "Legend of the Dark Night")
 * Lolita Ritmanis (The New Batman Adventures – "Little Girl Lost: Part 1")
 * Michael McCuistion (The New Batman Adventures – "Judgement Day")
 * Robby Merkin, Danny Epstein, Dave Conner, Christopher Cerf, Sarah Durkee, Tony Geiss, Gail Sky King, Stephen J. Lawrence, Jeff Moss and Paul Jacobs (Sesame Street)
 * Julie Bernstein, Steven Bernstein, Tim Kelly and Gordon Goodwin (Pinky and the Brain)

Outstanding Sound Mixing – Special Class

 * Tom Maydeck, Robert Hargreaves, Pat Rodman and John Hegedes (The New Batman/Superman Adventures)
 * Benoît Coaillier and Jean Christophe Verbert (Arthur)
 * Dick Maitland and Blake Norton (Sesame Street)
 * Tom Maydeck and Pat Rodman (Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain)

Outstanding Sound Editing

 * Dave Howe, Thomas McGurk and Michael McAuliffe (Bill Nye, the Science Guy)
 * Christopher Harvengt, Kim Naves, James A. Williams, Jason W. Jennings and Tiffany S. Griffith (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: The TV Show)
 * Neil Cedar (The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss)
 * Tim Isle and George Haddad (Young Hercules)
 * David Appleby, Tim O'Connell, Todd Beckett and Tony Van den Akker (Galileo: On the Shoulders of Giants)
 * Yuri Reese, George Haddad and Dick Hansen (Young Hercules)

Outstanding Single-Camera Editing

 * Felicity Oram, John Reul, Michael Gross and Darrell Suto (Bill Nye, the Science Guy)
 * Jeff Warren, Mike Lee and Rik Morden (Edison: The Wizard of Light)
 * Gary Stephenson (The New Yankee Workshop)
 * Dena Mermelstein, Juantxo Royo, Douglas Schuetz and Steve Pequignot (Reading Rainbow)
 * Bill Howe (This Old House)

Outstanding Game Show

 * Hollywood Squares
 * Jeopardy!
 * Wheel of Fortune
 * The Price is Right
 * Win Ben Stein's Money

Outstanding Game Show Host

 * Ben Stein & Jimmy Kimmel (Win Ben Stein's Money)
 * Bob Barker (The Price is Right)
 * Tom Bergeron (Hollywood Squares)
 * Pat Sajak (Wheel of Fortune)
 * Alex Trebek (Jeopardy!)

Outstanding Children's Series

 * Erren Gottlieb, James McKenna, Elizabeth Brock, Jamie Hammond, Hamilton McCulloch and Bill Nye (Bill Nye, the Science Guy)
 * Brian Henson, Jocelyn Stevenson and Joan O'Connor (Jim Henson's Animal Show)
 * Linda Ellerbee, Rolfe Tessem, Wally Berger and Mark Lyons (Nick News with Linda Ellerbee)
 * Twila Liggett, LeVar Burton, Tony Buttino, Cecily Truett, Larry Lancit, Orly Wiseman, Stacey Raider and Ed Wiseman (Reading Rainbow)

Outstanding Directing for a Children's Series

 * Michael Gross and Darrell Suto (Bill Nye, the Science Guy)
 * Steve Feldman, Fred Holmes and Jim Rowley (Barney & Friends)
 * Alan Zdinak and Paul Zehrer (Blue's Clues)
 * Ed Wiseman, Larry Lancit and Mark Mannucci (Reading Rainbow)
 * Lisa Simon, Emily Squires, Ted May, Steve Feldman, Reggie Life and Victor DiNapoli (Sesame Street)

Outstanding Children's Animated Program

 * Arthur
 * 101 Dalmatians: The Series
 * Doug
 * Animaniacs
 * Pinky, Elmyra, and the Brain

Outstanding Special Class Animated Program

 * Steven Spielberg, Tom Ruegger, Rusty Mills, Liz Holzman, Charles M. Howell, Gordon Bressack, Jed Spingarn, Wendell Morris, Tom Sheppard, Earl Kress, Andrea Romano, Russell Calabrese, Kirk Tingblad, Mike Milo, Nelson Recinos and Charles Visser (Pinky and the Brain)
 * Peter Hastings, Prudence Fenton, Matthew Knox, John A. Smith, Bryan Evans and Scott M. Gimple (One Saturday Morning – How Things Werk)
 * William Joyce, Michael Hirsh, Patrick Loubert, Clive A. Smith, Fabrice Giger, Corinne Kouper, Pamela Slavin, D. Scott Dyer, Guillaume Hellouin, Stephen Hodgins, Patricia R. Burns, Mike Fallows, Peter Sauder and Ben Joseph (Rolie Polie Olie)
 * Louie Anderson, Ahmos Hassan, Thomas L. Wilhite, Willard Carroll, Matthew O'Callaghan, Russell P. Marleau, John Lanza and Bert Ring (Life with Louie)
 * Jean MacCurdy, Alan Burnett, Paul Dini, Glen Murakami, Bruce Timm, Hilary Bader, Stan Berkowitz, Rich Fogel, Bob Goodman, Hiroyuki Aoyama, Curt Geda, Kenji Hachizaki, Butch Lukic, Toshihiko Masuda, Dan Riba, Andrea Romano and Yuichiro Yano (The New Batman/Superman Adventures)
 * Jean MacCurdy, Tom Minton, James T. Walker, John Behnke, Rob Humphrey, Jim Peterson, Karl Toerge, Andrea Romano, Charles Visser and Al Zegler (The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries)

Outstanding Performer in an Animated Program

 * Rob Paulsen (Pinky, Pinky and the Brain)
 * Dom DeLuise (Itchy Itchiford, All Dogs Go to Heaven: The Series)
 * Ernest Borgnine (Carface Caruthers, All Dogs Go to Heaven: The Series)
 * Louie Anderson (Louie Anderson and Andy Anderson, Life with Louie)
 * Jeffrey Tambor (Hank, The Lionhearts)

Outstanding Makeup

 * Anna Lujan, Chanty La Grana and Keith Crary (Leeza)''
 * Richard Penna and Gina Riggi (Sally Jessy Raphael Show)

Lifetime achievement award

 * Bob Barker

title: 26th Daytime Emmy Awards


text:
Chopard

'''Le Petit-Fils de L.-U. Chopard & Cie S.A., commonly known as Chopard''', is a Swiss manufacturer and retailer of luxury watches, jewellery and accessories. Founded in 1860 by Louis-Ulysse Chopard in Sonvilier, Switzerland, Chopard has been owned by the Scheufele family of Germany since 1963.

Chopard is best known for making high-quality Swiss watches and jewellery, and its clients have included Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. The company is headquartered in Geneva and has a site in Fleurier, Canton of Neuchâtel, that manufactures watch movements.

Early history
The company founder, Louis-Ulysse Chopard, was a Swiss watchmaker who grew up in Sonvilier, a town in Swiss Jura. In 1860, he established his L.U.C. manufacturing company in Sonvilier, having observed that it was more profitable to market a finished watch than to just make the mechanical movement.

After Louis-Ulysse's death in 1915, the company was taken over by his son Paul-Louis and grandson Paul-André. The company specialised in making pocket watches and ladies’ wristwatches. In 1921, Paul-Louis moved the company operations to a larger town, Chaux-de-Fonds, in the Canton of Neuchâtel. In 1937, at that time a company of 150 employees, the company relocated to Geneva. This enabled the movements made by the company to be certified with the Geneva Seal, a mark applied only to watch movements made in the Canton of Geneva. Paul-André took over the company in 1943.

In 1963, having no children wishing to continue in the business, Paul-André Chopard sold it to Karl Scheufele III, a German goldsmith and watchmaker from Pforzheim, who was seeking a watch movement manufacturer exclusively for his own business.

Recent developments
In 1974, the Chopard factory moved from the center of Geneva to Meyrin-Geneva and in 1976 the company started making watches that contained its signature free-floating diamond behind sapphire glass. In the 1980s, the company expanded into making sports watches for men and diamond jewellery for women.

In 1996, the company established its own complete watch movement manufacturing facility in Fleurier, in the Swiss Canton of Neuchâtel. Prior to that time, all Chopard's movements had been assembled from third-party components. The movements made in Fleurier were intended for the high-end watches in the Chopard range.

In 2010, the company celebrated its 150th anniversary, by which time the company's estimated sales were €550 million in total (of which €250 million were from watches) with about 100 stores around the world.

In 2014, Chopard recorded sales of CHF800m (US$915m) and had roughly 2,000 employees worldwide, of whom 900 were working in Switzerland. The European Patent Office lists more than 20 references to Chopard since 2002.

In 2015, French actress Marion Cotillard designed a bracelet for Chopard's Green Carpet Collection made of ethical Fairmined-certified gold.

In December 2018, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) released a report assigning environmental ratings to 15 major watch manufacturers and jewelers in Switzerland. Chopard was given a below-average environmental rating as "Lower Midfield", suggesting that the manufacturer has only taken a few actions addressing the impact of its manufacturing activities on the environment and climate change. Since 2013, Chopard has been promoting its products as using ethical and sustainable gold; implementing this practice with the company's full product line remains a long-term objective.

In 2020, Cotillard designed her own sustainable jewelry collection for Chopard entitled "Ice Cube Capsule". She designed seven items curated from Fairmined-certified ethical gold and diamonds.

The company produces around 75,000 timepieces and 75,000 jewelleries each year, and is an active member of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH.

Auction record
A Chopard "Happy Diamond" wristwatch was sold in auction by Christie's for around US$1.67 million (CHF 1,685,000) in Geneva on November 10, 2015. The watch has quartz movement and carries a pink marquise-cut diamond, weighing approximately 2.62 carats, and a blue marquise-cut diamond, weighing approximately 1.48 carat.

Sponsorship
Chopard is a corporate partner of:
 * The Mille Miglia car rally since 1988.
 * The Cannes Film Festival since 1998, sponsoring the Trophée Chopard prize and making the Palme d’Or trophy. To commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Cannes Film Festival and the 20th anniversary of their partnership, Chopard created a special Palme D'Or adorned with 'Fairmined' diamonds.
 * The Historic Grand Prix of Monaco as official timekeeper since 2002.

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

title: Chopard


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Kelly Penguin Girl"

 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 Speedied as a recreation of previously-deleted content by Zoe. android 79  15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Kelly Penguin Girl"

 * Kelly Penguin Girl was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-31. The result of the discussion was "delete".  For the prior discussion see Votes for deletion/Kelly Penguin Girl.

Seems not to qualify for notability, unless her podcast is heard by 5000 people. Can we quantify the number of listeners of podcasts? Zoe 05:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into the Linux show. Trollderella 06:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Trollderella. Nateji77 07:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote to merge to a nonexistant article. And a podcast is also nn.  Again, the criteria is 5000 listeners.  Zoe 07:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Zoe, is it really necessary to have a running commentary of what you think of every vote I make? I think we should create the article, kicking the subject up a level, and keeping the factual and accurate material, as per the deletion policy. You disagree, that's great, you voted. Let's leave it at that. Trollderella 07:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's necessary to comment on every incorrect vote, when the vote is in opposition to deletion policy. But then, you think every road in the world should have an article, so why am I surprised that you think that every podcast in the world should have its own article?  And I have to ask again, what article do you want to merge this into?  Zoe 07:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to merge it into Linux User Show, as per deletion policy. I don't think I want to spend any more time discussing this with you, I don't think it's very productive. Why don't we both go and spend some time writing articles? Trollderella 07:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you "merge" into a nonexistant article? And I have to ask again, how many people hear that podcast?  If it's less than 5000, then it fails WP:CSD.  Zoe 07:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * By creating the article, and moving this information into it, along with more, if possible. If it were not likely to lead to more dogged pursuit by you, I would do it myself. I have no idea how many people hear the podcast. Leave it alone - we've both voted, please let others with different opinions to yours be. Trollderella 07:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the name, VfD is a discussion, not a simple vote-tallying. Zoe is doing what's natural – attempting to further discussion and figure out your point of view. Also, I feel compelled to remind you, again, that moving or copy-pasting content from a VfD'd article is not wise. android  79  18:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kelly is the quick-witted, funny, counterpoint to Jon's geek-oriented presentation of the Linux operating system for new users. is a complete POV statement and without that all that's left is the fact she's a co-host and the external link. I've got nothing against reviving it and merging if the article on the show is ever created, but right now, I'd have to vote delete based on CSD A1. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established Sliggy 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreation of previously-deleted article. Not notable. Merging to a non-existant article is a nonsensical vote; I think you mean "move" or "rename". android  79  12:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, could you tell us if the previously-deleted article had substantially similar content to this one? android  79  18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * For you to decide for yourselves:
 * Kelly Penguin Girl: Kelly Penguin Girl makes regular appearances on the Linux User Show, a fantabulous podcast. Popularized the term ...
 * "Kelly Penguin Girl": Kelly Penguin Girl is Jon Watson's co-host on The Linux User Show podcast. Kelly is the ...
 * Both articles are 2 sentences long with the same external link. Uncle G 19:31:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
 * Create Linux User Show, Merge, and then Delete "Kelly Penguin Girl". CAPS LOCK 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not possible. That would require a redirect from "Kelly Penguin Girl" to Linux User Show. android  79  18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification: you can only merge and redirect. Merge and delete is incompatible with the GFDL (see Guide to Votes for deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 07:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per android. Dottore So 18:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the notice at the top of this page indicates that this is a recreation of a previously-VfD'd article, I am going to be bold and speedy delete. Zoe 19:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * That CSD criterion only applies to substantially similar re-created articles, which is why I asked Uncle G to check the old page's history. If you would be so kind as to do that, we can avoid having this article end up at VfU. android  79  19:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on Uncle G's response above, I believe this was an appropriate speedy deletion. android  79  19:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Gman2337

Welcome!
Hello,, and 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, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Thatdog 05:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gman2337


text: File:The Cure Concert.jpg

title: File:The Cure Concert.jpg


text:
Gustavo Rojas Pinilla

Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (12 March 1900 – 17 January 1975) was a Colombian army general, civil engineer and politician who ruled as 19th President of Colombia in a military dictatorship from June 1953 to May 1957.

Rojas Pinilla gained prominence as a colonel during La Violencia, the period of civil strife in Colombia during the late 1940s and early 1950s that saw infighting between the ruling Conservatives and Liberal guerillas, and was named to the cabinet of Conservative President Mariano Ospina Pérez. In 1953, he mounted a successful coup d'état against Ospina's successor as president, the extreme right-wing Laureano Gómez Castro, imposing martial law. Seeking to reduce political violence, he ruled the country as a military dictatorship, allying himself with trade unionists, implementing infrastructure programs, and extending female suffrage. He was forced to step down due to public pressure in 1957.

Rojas Pinilla founded the National Popular Alliance (ANAPO) in 1961 in opposition to the National Front, the power-sharing agreement which the Conservatives and Liberals had brokered after he had been deposed. He contested the 1970 presidential election but was defeated by the National Front candidate, Conservative lawyer Misael Pastrana Borrero. However, Rojas Pinilla and his supporters alleged that the election had been fraudulent and illegitimate; the results caused ANAPO supporters to form M-19 guerilla movement, which would contribute to the country's insurgency unrest in the second half of the 20th century.

Early life and education
Rojas was born in the city of Ohio, Boyacá, on March 12, 1900, to Julio Rojas Jiménez and his wife, Hermencia Pinilla Suárez. Spending his youth in Tunja, Villa de Leyva, and Arcabuco, he studied at the Tunja School of Presentation and earned a secondary degree at the Normal School of Tunjasu Leiva.

After graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1917, he entered the José María Córdova Military School in Bogotá as a cadet in 1917, graduating as a second lieutenant in 1920. In 1923 while serving in Manizales, Caldas, he was promoted to lieutenant in the army. He became dissatisfied with the army and in 1924 he requested permission to retire from active service. He continued his education at Tri-State College in the United States, where he obtained a degree in civil engineering in 1927 while working the assembly line at a Ford factory.

Returning to Colombia, he started taking part in the construction of highways and other works of engineering, managing the construction of the highway from Belén to Socha.

Military career
In 1932, Rojas returned to the Army as Colombia went to war against Peru over the region. Recommissioned as a captain, he was posted to the 1st Artillery Group in Bogotá. In 1933, being assigned to command the coastal batteries of Buenaventura, a port city that was believed to be vulnerable to Peruvian attack. Buenaventura never came under attack, but the war concluded that year with the Rio Protocol, which recognized Colombia's claim to the disputed territory.

In 1936, he became the lead engineer of the army's ammunition factory; that same year, he was sent as an envoy to Nazi Germany, in order to obtain necessary machinery for munitions production in Bogotá. On his return to Colombia, he was named chief of the factory's technical department. In 1943, he visited the United States to secure weapons and other material, this time in the form of Lend Lease aid during the Second World War.

During this period, Rojas Pinilla also served as director of the Artillery School (from 1942) and assistant director of the School of War (from 1944). In 1945, he was named as Director General of Civil Aviation (at the time, an agency of the Ministry of War). It was there where he presented his project for airports in Colombia under the title "Landing Strips in Colombia," which served as a dissertation for his promotion to colonel of the Army; he would subsequently bring this initiative into being with the El Dorado Airport.

La Violencia
In 1946, now a colonel, Rojas was nominated as commander of the First Brigade in Tunja and in 1948 was named commander of the Third Brigade in Cali. There, he gained major recognition in the country for having managed to appease the rebellion that happened in this region as a consequence of the assassination of the popular leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán on April 9, 1948, for which he was honoured by the incumbent Conservative President Mariano Ospina Pérez. On October 11, 1949, he was promoted to Lieutenant General and on October 19 assigned to the Army General Staff.

The ascension of Rojas in the military occurred during a schism in the ruling Conservative Party, between the moderate "Ospinists", supporters of the outgoing president, and the "Laureanists", supporters of the extreme right-wing Laureano Gómez Castro who was elected in 1950. Gómez was highly unpopular with Liberals, and even many Conservatives did not trust him to stem the escalating violence. Rojas himself belonged to the "Ospinist" camp, as evidenced by his promotion by Ospina over other officers with longer service time. On December 3, 1949, Rojas was appointed as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. in the government of President Mariano Ospina Pérez.

In 1951, he was nominated as a delegate for Colombia to the United Nations in Washington, and as such he inspected the Colombia Battalion, then attached to the American 21st Infantry Regiment fighting in the Korean War. Rojas took offense at the overseas posting, which he interpreted as an intentional slight on Gómez's part, and returned to Colombia in September 1952.

In 1952, he was ascended to General of the Army and appointed as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Colombia by Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez, who was serving as interim president while Gómez took a leave of ill health. When Gómez returned to office, he ordered the immediate removal of Rojas; the Minister of War Lucio Pabón Núñez, an ally of Rojas, resigned rather than comply with the order.

Coup d'etat
At this point, Ospina resolved to move decisively against Gómez. The former president contacted Rojas, who was at his finca in Melgar, on June 13, 1953. Rojas, who had been waiting for the situation to erupt, took the Caldas Battalion to the Casa de Nariño and, with Gómez nowhere to be found, offered power to interim president Urdaneta. Urdaneta, however, refused to take power without Gómez's resignation. At this point, Rojas and the coup plotters hesitated, apparently unsure of their next course of action. The testimony of Minister of War Pabón, corroborated by Urbaneta, described the confusion of the next few minutes:

"I told Rojas... "there is no choice but for you to assume power, otherwise anarchy will reign." I opened the door of the office where Dr. Ospina and Dr. Urdaneta were speaking, and I told them: "I have come to tell you that General Rojas has just assumed the Presidency of the Republic." Dr. Ospina got up and with a markedly Antioquian accent told me: "Well, given the facts, there is no remedy in this case other than to accept it." I told them, "I think you should be the first to offer your support." I took the two of them to Rojas and I surprised him by saying: "Dr. Ospina and Dr. Urdaneta have come to offer you their support, aware that you have assumed the presidency." Rojas didn't know what to do. General Berrío Muñoz began to applaud and all the people applauded and thus Rojas was elected, very democratically."

Shortly after the bloodless coup was consolidated, it emerged that Gómez had fled with his family to New York City, solidifying Rojas' assumption of power. The coup was supported by the Ospinist Conservatives as well as Liberals, who hoped that Rojas would reestablish peace and political order in the nation.

Presidency
Rojas was the first president of Colombia to assume power through a coup d'état since José Manuel Marroquín in 1900, during the Thousand Days War, and the first to hold power with an active military commission since Santos Acosta overthrew Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera in 1867. He was military dictator of Colombia from 1953 to 1954, when he was officially designated President of Colombia. The National Constituent Assembly, by its Legislative Act Number 1 of 1953, appointed him as President of Colombia without a popular election.

Initially, the Rojas government hewed a moderately-conservative line, and he appointed many Ospinists to his cabinet. Nevertheless, he earned the confidence of many Liberals when he announced amnesty for political prisoners and guerillas, and promised to lift censorship restrictions that had been imposed on the press. Almost immediately, Liberal guerillas began to surrender en masse. Liberal poet Darío Echandía called the whole turn of events a “coup of public opinion”.

Rojas enacted legislation that gave women the right to vote. He introduced television and constructed several hospitals and universities and the National Astronomic Observatory. He was also a strong supporter of public works and infrastructure, promoting and conducting projects such as the Atlantic railway, the hydroelectric dam of Lebrija, and the oil refinery of Barrancabermeja. He also allied himself with organized labor, forming the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, or CNT, as an independent alternative to the two Liberal and Conservative-dominated unions.

The government's development programs alienated certain members of the industrial and mercantile sectors, who were especially displeased with the higher taxes that were imposed to fund the president's projects. Rojas' detractors compared his "demagogic" economic programme to the rule of Juan Perón in Argentina. Opposition from the Conservatives and the Roman Catholic Church forced Rojas to shutter the CNT in 1955.

The Liberals, on the other hand, viewed Rojas' rule as increasingly authoritarian. His promises of freedom of the press were not kept, and Liberal newspapers critical of the government were again shuttered. Rojas established a national radio station which consisted mostly of government-sponsored Catholic propaganda. Thousands of radios were distributed across the country, but these radios could only tune to the government-controlled station, Radio Sutatenza. Rojas also established a national gun permit system, making it more difficult for Colombians to obtain a gun.

From 1955, the Colombian economy began to struggle, as the price of coffee fell on the international market and the country entered a balance of payments crisis, forcing a loan from the IMF. The Rojas government was also embroiled in scandal after the Colombian Navy was accused of negligence, in an episode chronicled by Gabriel García Márquez in El Espectador.

Through the armed forces, Rojas communicated that he planned to rule for at least one more president term, until 1962. As opposition to his regime deepened, Liberal leader Alberto Lleras Camargo met with the exiled Conservative Laureano Gómez in the Spanish city of Benidorm in July 1956, signing a memorandum committing both their factions to "a return to juridical normalcy." Over the course of several months, figures like Ospina, Urdaneta, and Guillermo León Valencia all joined the "Pact of Benidorm," pledging to oppose Rojas' intended reelection by the Constituent Assembly.

Shortly after making his bid for reelection, Lleras and the Liberals called for a general strike starting on May 6, demanding Rojas resignation. On the morning of May 10, Rojas announced that he would cede power to a military junta of five military officers: General Gabriel París Gordillo, General Rafael Navas, General Luis E. Ordóñez, General Deogracias Fonseca and Admiral Rubén Piedrahita. The junta ruled until 1958, when a plebiscite re-adopted the 1886 constitution; Lleras was elected president that same year.

Post-presidency
After resigning the presidency, Rojas went into exile in the Dominican Republic, under the protection of dictator Rafael Trujillo. Loyalists to Rojas opposed the military junta's plan to turn over control to a civilian government, and attempted to prevent the 1958 elections from going forward with an attempted coup d'état. The coup ultimately failed, and Lleras assumed power as the first president of the National Front.

Elections of 1962
In the election of 1962 Rojas ran for the first time as the presidential candidate of his newly created ANAPO opposition party. He came in fourth, but his result was nonetheless declared invalid due to him being a former coup leader.

Elections of 1970
In the election of 1970 he ran again for the presidency, with a populist platform. He was defeated by a narrow margin by Misael Pastrana, but alleged that this was the result of fraud.

The presidential election of April 19, 1970, was difficult and controversial. Rojas and Misael Pastrana Borrero were both running for office. Rojas seemed to be winning the elections until a nationwide malfunction of communication systems happened. After these were restored, the votes had already been counted. The results were very close, giving a slight margin in favor of Pastrana Borrero. The supporters of Rojas challenged the results and accused the government of President Carlos Lleras Restrepo of fraud. The case was brought before the Electoral Court, which ruled in favor of Pastrana Borrero on July 15, 1970, certifying him as President of Colombia. This alleged electoral fraud led to the formation of the 19th of April Movement.

Death and legacy
Rojas Pinilla died in Melgar, Tolima, on January 17, 1975. Rojas' daughter, María Eugenia Rojas, contested the 1974 Colombian general election as the leader of ANAPO, on an explicitly socialist platform. His grandson through María Eugenia, Samuel Moreno Rojas, would go on to serve as Mayor of Bogotá as part of the left-wing Alternative Democratic Pole, a successor party to ANAPO and M-19. Samuel Moreno, along with his brother Iván, would be arrested and charged with corruption in 2011.

Ideology
Though Rojas was himself a Conservative, his rule drew support from both sides of the Colombian political spectrum. His regime was characterized by populism, influenced by the policies and rhetoric of Juan Perón in Argentina. Rojas invoked the notion of a "Third Force" in society that could stand up to the "odious politicians" and "oligarchs" of the historic Liberal and Conservative Parties, by uniting the armed forces and organized labor. His efforts to formalize this "Third Force" into a political party were not successful.

After leaving power in 1957, Rojismo was crystallized by opposition to the National Front agreement. It drew from Peronism (which suffered a similar setback in Argentina after Peron was forced from power) as well as the ideas of French trade unionist Pierre Poujade, who attacked the parliamentary establishment and supported the interest of small business owners and the lower middle class. Rojas attacked the ruling elite, and especially the Conservative government of Guillermo León Valencia, as corrupt and cronyistic.

Historian Daniel García-Peña summed up Rojas' shifting ideological position and support bases:

"He came to power with the support of the Liberals and the Ospinist Conservatives against Laureanism, and with very close relations with the United States. However, once in power, he forged his own program (the Third Force) of Peronist inspiration, causing the Liberal and Conservative oligarchies to unite to overthrow him and establish the National Front. With ANAPO, he emphasized the social dimension [of his policies], attracting various left-wing groups — yet his attitude towards electoral fraud was rather timid and the birth of M-19 was more than anything a reaction to his passivity."

title: Gustavo Rojas Pinilla


text:
Plenary Councils of Baltimore

The Plenary Councils of Baltimore were three meetings of American Catholic bishops, archbishops and superiors of religious orders in the United States. The councils were held in 1852, 1866 and 1884 in Baltimore, Maryland.

These three conferences played major roles in the 19th century in the establishment of Catholic education in the United States. They also defined the roles and rules for the church hierarchy, the clergy and Catholic laypeople.

Historical background
The Vatican erected the Archdiocese of Baltimore in 1808, the first and only ecclesiastical province in the United States. At that time, the Catholic population in the country was under 30,000 and the majority of them lived in Maryland. All the Catholic dioceses were part of this province. From 1829 to 1849, the bishops attended seven provincial councils, all of them held in Baltimore. The bishops used the councils to establish uniform procedures and policies for the Province of Baltimore.

From 1830 to 1850, the Catholic population in the United States, fueled by immigration, grew from 24,000 to 1.1 million. In 1847, the Vatican erected the Archdiocese of St. Louis to accommodate growth. Within three years, the Vatican would erect three new ecclesiastical provinces in New York, Louisville and New Orleans. The explosive growth of the Catholic population led to fears and resentment among many Protestants. Many Protestant workers feared the loss of jobs and housing to newcomers. Nativist groups arose that fomented anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia, New York and Louisville.

Facing these challenges, the church felt a strong need for national meeting to unite itself. They needed a plenary conference covering all of the new provinces. During the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore, the bishops passed a resolution requesting that the Vatican sanction the holding of plenary councils in the United States. The Vatican granted the petition and appointed Archbishop Francis Kenrick of Baltimore as apostolic delegate, responsible for convening the first plenary conference in 1852 and presiding over it.

First Council (1852)
The First Plenary Council opened on May 9, 1852. It was attended by six archbishops and 35 suffragan bishops from across the United States. Bishop Kenrick was the apostolic delegate. Bishop Joseph Alemany of the Diocese of Monterey in California and Bishop Armand de Charbonnel from the Diocese of Toronto were also in attendance. The mitred abbot of St. Mary of La Trappe and the superiors of all the major religious orders were present.

As a starter, the council decided that the decrees of the seven provincial councils of Baltimore should apply to the entire nation.

Education
The major goal of the bishops in the First Council was the creation of Catholic schools in the United States. Teachers in many of the public schools were forcing Catholic students to read the Protestant bible and listen to derogatory information about "popery". When Philadelphia Bishop Francis Kenrick attempted to establish equitable treatment of Catholic students in the Philadelphia public schools in 1842, it served as a spark for the anti-Catholic Bible riots in that city in 1844. To avoid these problems and provide a sound Catholic education for their children, the council decreed that bishops must create a Catholic school for every parish and teach Catholic doctrine to children.

Trusteeism
Another area of concern with the First Council was trusteeism. This happened when the lay board of trustees of a parish contested the authority of its bishop. Major schisms had occurred in Norfolk, Virginia (1818) and Charleston, South Carolina, (1816) when Baltimore Archbishop Ambrose Maréchal fought with lay trustees over the appointment of priests. Bishop Francis Kenrick faced similar disputes with lay trustees in the 1830s in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania over the appointment of pastors and the ownership of parish property..

Legacy of First Council
The last session of the First Council was held on May 20, 1852. Pope Pius IX approved the decrees in September 1852 after asking for the inclusion of language on the celebration of certain feast days and Kenrick published them the same month. The First Council was viewed with alarm by many American Protestants, who feared that a strong Catholic hierarchy in the United States would give the pope more power in that country.

Second Council (1866)
By 1860, the Catholic population in the United States had doubled in less than ten years. The nativist reaction to the increase in the Catholic population spawned anti-Catholic riots in Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Baltimore and other cities during the 1850s. During this period, the need for Catholic schools had become more pressing as many states had enacted compulsory education laws for children. The end of the American Civil War in 1865 had brought about enormous political and social change in the nation and the church needed to adapt its policies to meet the new needs.

The Second Plenary Council opened on October 7, 1866. It was attended by seven archbishops, 39 bishops or their procurators, and two abbots. US President Andrew Johnson was an auditor at some of the sessions. Archbishop Martin Spalding of Baltimore served as the apostolic delegate.

The decrees of the Second Council are divided into fourteen titles and subdivided into chapters. The following topics are some of the topics that were covered:

Education
As with the First Council, the Second Council placed a great emphasis on Catholic education:

 * Title I calls for the establishment of parochial schools in all parishes.
 * Title IX recommends the use of Catholic teachers in these schools. For parents who could not afford the schools, the Council recommends the establishment of catechism classes in every parish to prepare children for their first communion and confirmation. Another recommendation was the establishment of industrial schools in dioceses for orphaned children and juvenile delinquents.

Conduct of priests
Title III set specific standards of conduct for priests:

 * They must dress properly.
 * They must avoid games and spectacles.
 * They should not introduce political messages into their sermons.
 * They should not act like bankers for their parishioners, holding money and paying interest on it.
 * They should "...avoid idleness as a pest."

Secret societies
Title XII forbids Catholic men from joining any fraternal society that requires an oath of secrecy. Pope Clement XII had specifically banned Catholics from joining any Freemasonry group in 1738 due to suspicions of the fellowship's activities. Title XII repeats this ban and adds bans on the Oddfellows and the Sons of Temperance.

Doctrine
Part of Title 1 focuses on new religious sects and philosophical movements that the Vatican considered to be heresies:

 * Indifferentism, a philosophical claim that all religions were valid if they promoted positive values
 * Unitarianism, a Christian denomination that believes Christ was not a divine being
 * Transcendentalism, a philosophical movement that believed organized religion corrupts the purity of the individual
 * Spiritism, a religious movement that believes in reincarnation of the soul. The Council said that such spirits are the work of Satan.

Legacy of Second Council
The decrees of the Second Council were approved by Pope Pius IX. As a result of the Second Council, hundreds of parishes across the nation started setting up their own schools. The draining of Catholic students from the public schools alarmed many school administrators, who also feared that state legislatures would start siphoning funding from their schools to the Catholic ones.

Third Council (1884)
The Third Plenary Council opened on November 9, 1884. It was attended by 14 archbishops, 61 bishops or their representatives, six abbots, and one general of a religious congregation, along with priests and other dignitaries. Some of the activities were open to the public. Archbishop James Gibbons of Baltimore served as the apostolic delegate.

The decrees of the Third Council are divided into twelve titles. The following are some of the topics covered:

Catholic university
During the 19th century, any American bishop who wanted a priest to go to a Catholic university would have to send them to one of the pontifical universities in Rome or to Catholic universities in Belgium or Austria-Hungary. Title V called for the appointment of a commission to establish a Catholic university in the United States. The Vatican chartered the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. in 1887.

Marriage
Title IV established two decrees on marriage for Catholics:

 * Any Catholic who is married by a non-Catholic clergy is automatically excommunicated.
 * A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic only if the Catholic tries to convert their spouse and promises that any children are raised as Catholic.

The last session of the Third Council was held on December 7, 1884. The decrees were approved by Pope Leo XIII.

title: Plenary Councils of Baltimore


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy on jeff

 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Heavy on jeff
Classic band vanity. No Googles. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Classic Delete from me. bandcruft. --DrTorstenHenning 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No |ON|JEFF~C All Music entry and no Googles seems to indicate the claim it's got some serious radio air time is also wrong. It would show up on radio websites if it was true. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heavy on Delete PubLife 15:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * speedy Delete. *drew 23:07, 27 August 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:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing

WikiProject Boxing is a WikiProject which aspires to comprehensively cover and standardize articles involving anything related to the sport of boxing.

Scope
This Wikiproject aims to describe a template for new articles about boxing, both amateur and professional, and to unify currently existing articles.

Manual of Style (MoS)
In 2016, an all-encompassing Manual of Style for boxing articles was completed, and can be found at WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines. It has been designed with other similar style guides in mind, particularly mixed martial arts, albeit with many differences.

Activities in progress
Useful tags:
 * If you would like to participate, you can simply start by editing any boxing article, or join the project below and/or contribute to the discussion on the talk page.
 * If you find an article without an image, please list it at Requested pictures.
 * If you are looking for something to do, you can take a look at Requested boxing articles, Category:Boxing articles needing attention and Category:Boxing articles needing infoboxes.
 * Cleanup
 * Assess
 * If you find, create, or contribute to a boxing article, please paste WikiProjectBoxing onto the article's talk page and add a Wikilink to the page on Boxing.
 * If you find a stub article that has not yet been marked as a stub, add boxing-stub to the bottom of the article. It will automatically be included in the boxing stubs category, where you can find plenty of stub articles to expand if you are itching to do something.
 * Add  tags to the project template as needed.

Goals:
 * To standardize boxing articles in Wikipedia, in accordance with MOS:BOXING.
 * To improve Wikipedia coverage of boxing by adding, expanding and improving boxing articles.
 * To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia boxing articles.
 * Place all eligible boxers in.
 * Complete Boxing in the 1990s, and Boxing in the 2000s
 * Find ways to link to orphans and near-orphans (e.g. Puerto Rican-Mexican boxing rivalry, club fighter).
 * Many boxing articles need citations.

Templates

 * Template:Infobox boxer

Participants
This is a list of Wikipedians who are committed to this WikiProject. Please, feel free to join by clicking edit on the right, and signing your name at the bottom of the list with four tildes ( ~ ), with an optional comment. Also add this template to your user page if you want to, type   to produce:

 * Peter Rehse
 * Rob Graziano | TAlk Descendant of Dom Graziano (Friend of Rocky Graziano)
 * Gordon24fan| Talk
 * Yappakoredesho | Talk
 * Antonio The Prinz Martin | Talk
 * ArcTheLad | Talk
 * Maya Levy talk
 * Andman8 | TAlk
 * Watermint | talk
 * Mumblio 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)I'm a boxing writer and fan. Wikifanatic friend asked me to get involved.
 * jackboogie | talk
 * PassionoftheDamon 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RebSkii 06:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * --Vintagekits 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadzilla99 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Claudevsq 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1fletch 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I'm also an aspiring boxing writer. I've written a page for the Benn/Eubank rivalry.
 * east . 718
 * FoxLad 13:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I also like boxing.
 * Marty Rockatansky 03:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Andy mccabe50
 * Lil'Khan | Talk I watch & edit the pages of the Khan Brothers & made the boxer Haroon Khan 's Page
 * Twelsht | Talk
 * The K.O. King:Boxer (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jedi Kasra (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike SearsonBoxer and trainer.--Mike Searson (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan the Man1983 | talk Im a big Boxing fan and have done some work on a few boxing articles lately.
 * diamonddannyboy Coach
 * Jimbo[online] 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rvk41 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fastcarnyc (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wepesq (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)wepesq
 * Notjamesbond (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BillyJack193 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BlackpoolKickboxer2008, 10:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
 * s73v3n17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unak78| Talk 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * theuxed| Talk 06:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adamdaley Have done some boxing in the past and would like to start again. Adamdaley (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean (talk || contribs) 17:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yankees76 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kid_PacMan (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mk5384 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Joaquin008 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ukaz8702:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.Kennedy1 talk 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wakey82 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghost563 Prior joining, I created and have maintained Boxing in the 2010s and have written many boxer professional records. 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MaxPayne888 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FruitMonkey (talk) Welsh boxers, mainly from the earlier part of the last century
 * I like to update the boxer's article as their career is unfolding, if you would like any cooperation on building an article or info about a boxer from Quebec, let me know. Mattaidepikiw (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Manytexts (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I like to mos the page even if it's a stub - it looks stylish already; and wikify content
 * RonSigPi (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ongjf (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Auger Martel (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I would like to help edit boxing articles and also create some articles on those who are notable but do not have an article yet such as I have just done with Tyrone Trice. Cheers.
 * Maxim Stoyalov
 * PollShark (Talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 I am currently using BoxRec to update heavyweight and cruiserweight boxer's pages with an exhaustive record. See Archie Moore and Willie Pep.
 * Nffc700 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Updating fight records recently as well as cleaning up Chris Eubank, Jr. page. Looking for help to improve Mick Hennessy page.
 * Davemcarlson (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Working to accumulate information about historical pound-for-pound rankings and either compiling it as a list on a page (list of Ring Magazine #1 Pound-for-Pound boxers) or as a box at the bottom (like the ones for the world champions) listing the time that a fighter was listed as #1 pound-for-pound and who the previous and next #1's were. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please comment on my talk page if you have experience with this.
 * --BoxingGoMan (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Working on heavyweight, cruiserweight and light-heavyweight divisions, which I specialize in.
 * Tigerboy1966 I will try to improve articles with referencing issues. Mainly old, British stuff.
 * Guiller Apan (talk) 17 October 2012  I create and improve articles regarding Filipino Athletes. I created the page List of Filipino Boxing World Champions / Boxing in the Philippines in 2011 as a student. Primarily focuses on Philippine boxing. I will continue to be active again this year, I love writing for boxing.
 * Novis-M (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - I do boxing and am a big fan of the sport. I have edited several boxing-related articles and now I would like to focus on the heavyweight and super middleweight divisions, weight class articles, and amateur and Olympic boxing. There will be a lot of work in it, especially when AIBA started World Series of Boxing and is planning to start brand new AIBA pro boxing. There is a lot of confusion about it and the articles often don't meet Wikipedia standards. I will appreciate any help I can get from fellow users.
 * Michig (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * TwoNyce (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC) - If not provided I create professional boxing record section and update with upcoming fights.
 * Tellez Sr (talk)22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC) - From Los Angeles, been involved w/Boxing since the 1970s and looking forward to contributing to this WikiProject.
 * User:W. zelleyW. zelley (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MasterCalvin (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LawrenceJayM (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * C.dunkin (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * YacineDZ (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bándíttos (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Have dealt mainly with formatting and clean-up on boxers' lead sections.
 * Furious Mythical Beast
 * Benjamin Watt
 * Marajade75
 * IIISmokeyIII
 * Ruthless-paki (talk)
 * Ardyll Jay(talk)
 * Subtlemammoth (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Regularly update and create boxing articles.
 * Kidsoljah
 * JMichael22 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hayabu5a
 * Thrilho (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tbb 911Tbb 911 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC) came to update my great grandfathers Page, stayed to update and create far more.
 * Cookiecraig (talk) Craig 20:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Aspireforintelligence (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Usually update Filipino world champion-related pages, as well as the Lineal Champions list and usually contact TBRB and CBZ for clarifications.
 * Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Maintaining consistency of boxing pages by editing lead sections and record tables as per WP:BOXING/MOS.
 * Moiz Tariq (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thespearthrower (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Thespearthrower Mostly updating Alexander Povetkin, Kosei Tanaka and the heavyweight Zhangs, but I add whatever I know and correct grammar mistakes if I see them.
 * JTtheOG (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Been working on and creating boxing articles for a while now -- updating boxer's pages and adding record tables, editing lead sections to comply with WP:BOXING/MOS etc.
 * Rfkatz2005 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ply.T (talk)
 * CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I have added over 340 complete boxing records (35,000+ fights) as shown on boxrec.com for champions/colored champions/contenders/journeymen from the 1870s-present.
 * User:InfoMaintenance
 * ZenZekey (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Occasional boxing writer and huge boxing fan. Mostly update records
 * User:EssNS (talk)
 * User:EssNS (talk)

Related projects and pages

 * The parent of this WikiProject is the WikiProject Sports.
 * No descendant WikiProjects have been defined.

Similar Wikiprojects

 * WikiProject Mixed martial arts
 * WikiProject Kickboxing

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing


text: File:Macon County tn seal.jpg

title: File:Macon County tn seal.jpg


text:
Luis Corvalán

Luis Nicolás Corvalán Lepe (14 September 1916, in Puerto Montt – 21 July 2010 ) was a Chilean politician. He served as the general secretary of the Communist Party of Chile (PCCh).

Corvalán joined the Communist Party of Chile at the age of fifteen in the city of Chillán shortly after the fall of the dictatorship of Carlos Ibáñez del Campo in 1932. Trained as a teacher, after 1952 he became an elected member of the PCCh's Central Committee, and after 1958 served as its secretary-general. The party was outlawed from 1948 until 1958.

On 11 September 1973, General Augusto Pinochet led a military coup and Corvalán was among the many arrested. After the murder of Víctor Jara, he was the most prominent political prisoner in Chile. While in prison, Luis Corvalán was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize (for 1973–74). The Soviet Union launched an international campaign for his release and, on 18 December 1976, Corvalán was exchanged for a notable Soviet political prisoner, dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, and received asylum in the USSR.

Corvalán headed the Communist Party of Chile – both within Chile and whilst in exile – for over three decades, which coincided with the whole period of the Pinochet military dictatorship. Corvalán returned to Chile in 1990 after the end of the Pinochet regime.

Works

 * The Other Germany – the GDR. Discussions with Margot Honecker, in which Margot Honecker speaks about the history of the German Democratic Republic from her perspective.
 * Living Portrayal of Salvador Allende by Luis Corvalan. (Spanish language)

title: Luis Corvalán


text: Category:Sangh Parivar

title: Category:Sangh Parivar


text:
Languages of Luxembourg

The linguistic situation in Luxembourg is characterized by the practice and the recognition of three official languages: French, German, and the national language Luxembourgish, established in law in 1984. These three languages are also referred to as the three administrative languages, as the constitution does not specify them as being "official". As of 2018, 98% of the population was able to speak French at more or less a high level (usually as a second language), 78% spoke German, and 77% Luxembourgish (which is the most common native language).

Upon the founding of the country, French enjoyed the greatest prestige, and therefore gained preferential use as the official and administrative language. German was used in the political field to comment on the laws and the ordinances in order to make them comprehensible to everyone. At the primary-school level, teaching was limited to German, while French was taught in secondary education. The law of 26 July 1843 reinforced bilingualism by introducing the teaching of French in primary school.

History of language policy
German-French bilingualism dates back at least to the 12th century, when the territory of the Duchy of Luxembourg spread over the traditional Germano-Romance language border. The population comprised roughly equal numbers of Romance- and Germanic-speakers. Later, Burgundian, Spanish, Austrian and French rule favored the use of French. Also after 1815, under William I of the Netherlands, French was preferred to counter expansion of Prussia. However, after the Belgian Revolution, language policy changed in favor of German while French was maintained. Further, by 1839, Luxembourg had lost its Wallon and hence native French-speaking areas, so that nowadays, the dialectal foundation of the country is only Germanophone.

Luxembourgish
Luxembourgish (Lëtzebuergesch), a Rhinelandic language of the Moselle region similar to German and Dutch, was introduced in primary school in 1912. It is similar to Mosel-Frankish dialects like the dialects in Germany bordering Luxembourg, and the dialects in Moselle, France. Unlike its German counterparts, it uses many French loanwords, and is recognized as a separate language rather than a German dialect. The formalization of regional German dialects into national languages arose from the desire to impress a distinct national identity, not associated with the German state. In Switzerland, written German was maintained, albeit with some differences in vocabulary, differing strongly from the spoken Swiss-German speech which the average German cannot understand. In Luxembourg, the dialect was phonetically transcribed into a new language, and while Luxembourgish and a mix of other languages is spoken on the street, French is often the main language spoken next to German and sometimes Luxembourgish in shops or other commercial sites.

The first printed sentences in Luxembourgish appeared in 1821 in a weekly journal the Luxemburger Wochenblatt. The first book in Luxembourgish was released in 1829 by Antoine Meyer: E' Schrek ob de' Lezeburger Parnassus. Until the 1980s, the language had been used mainly for poetry and drama but has since become increasingly popular for fiction which now represents a significant contribution to Luxembourgish literature. Between 2000 and 2002, Luxembourgish linguist Jerome Lulling developed a lexical database of 185,000 word forms for the first Luxembourgish spellchecker, thus launching the computerization of the Luxembourgish language.

Constitutional revision
Until 1984, the official use of the languages was based on the grand-ducal decrees of 1830, 1832 and 1834, which allowed the free choice between German and French. French was preferred in the administration. Luxembourgish had no official status at all.

The constitutional revision of 1984 gave the legislature the power to regulate the language by law. On February 24, 1984, a law, passed by the Chamber of Deputies, made Luxembourgish the national language. Furthermore, this law recognizes the three languages of Luxembourg (Luxembourgish, French and German) as administrative languages. French remains the language of legislation, due to the application of the Napoleonic civil code in Luxembourg.

Participation in German and French language councils
Despite having German as one of its official languages, Luxembourg, which was not involved in devising the German orthography reform of 1996, is merely a non-voting observer in the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung (Council for German Orthography). The government of Luxembourg unilaterally adopted the reform and, due to its efficiency, it is well-accepted by the country's teachers. According to the Grand Duchy's largest newspaper, the Luxemburger Wort, Luxembourg does not perceive itself as a "German-speaking country" (the only national language is Luxembourgish) and thus had no right to take part in the council. Despite this, Luxembourg takes part in the annual meetings of German-speaking countries.

Luxembourg does however fully participate in the Francophonie, despite French only being an official, and not national, language. This might be due to the fact that Francophonie as an organization seeks to promote the use of the French language around the world, rather than regulate it, and thus includes many members that are not French-speaking, such as Romania and Greece.

Education
Luxembourgish is taught at pre-primary level, there is an introductory program in French since 2017/18. When Luxembourgish children are first taught to read and write in public schools, it is in German. The language of instruction in public primary school is German. Moreover, Luxembourgish is taught only one hour per week at secondary school and only in the first years. In secondary school, besides German, French and Luxembourgish, English is taught. Optionally Latin, Spanish and/or Italian in the Lycée Classique where most subjects are taught in French after 4e. At the university level, multilingualism makes it possible for Luxembourgish students to continue their higher education in French, German or English-speaking countries.

Press, police, public services
German and French are the primary languages for public service information. German is the main language of the written press and for recording police case files.

Other languages
Foreign-born people and guest workers make up almost half (47%) of the population of Luxembourg. The most common languages spoken by them, other than German and French, are Portuguese, English and Italian.

In addition to Luxembourgish, French, and German; English is frequently an acceptable language for use in and with government services.

Statistics
The following tables list the percentage of inhabitants who are able to speak a language natively or as a second language.

title: Languages of Luxembourg


text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 23

Nothingness After Death
How about the atheist belief that there's no life after death, but simply disappearance of consciousness and decay of body? Is that an integral belief of atheism? --Menchi 20:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Atheistic beliefs are not components of atheism. Atheism only concerns the existence of gods. An atheist is someone without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. That does not preclude atheists from holding nontheistic beliefs. Adraeus 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It can be argued (I have argued it, in fact) that the notion of life after death makes no sense from an atheistic standpoint; it can also be argued (and I've argued this too) that it doesn't make much more sense from a theistic standpoint either. Just as theists believe many things that don't really make sense, so do atheists. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Many Buddhists believe in life after death and/or reincarnation, without believing in a god. It's also possible to believe in ghosts and a spirit/astral realm without believing in gods, as many "New Agers" do. Also, many theistic religions have no concept of life after death - the ancient Hebrews are an example (see: Jewish eschatology). In short, atheism has nothing at all to do with life after death, even if there's a commonality regarding the supernatural.
 * MFNickster 19:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

But it's not clear to me (or, so far as I can see, to many people) exactly what the Buddhist notion of rebirth is — and certainly not clear that it can be accurately decsribed as life after death. The main problems are metaphysical, though there are ethical problems too.

In any case, as I said earlier, what makes sense and what people say aren't always directly correlated. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the point remains that atheism only has to do with belief in gods, and for that reason there is no "atheist belief" that there is no life after death. The fact that many religions promote that idea (and tie it in with god beliefs) is completely irrelevant to atheism and to this article.
 * MFNickster 02:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the problem stems from two defintions of atheist; one is "atheist" as in "one who does not believe in god"; the other is "atheist" as in "irreligious atheist", which is the most common usage of the word by laymen in the United States (and as far as I can tell elsewhere as well). Indeed, most of the latter category of atheists do not believe in life after death; they generally think it is oblivion, though I have also met many (including myself) who have no belief in life after death. The difference is kind of subtle, but basically the latter group doesn't believe they will live on after death, but they don't preclude the possibility of it happening. However, they also generally doubt that any religion has it right, and don't think it will be anything like Heaven or Hell. A number seem to hope for (rather than believe in) reincarnation or some similar afterlife. I've met a few, though, who genuinely don't want an afterlife, and just want it all to end.
 * I'd say generalizing afterlife beliefs for atheists would be pretty hard, because I doubt there have been any surveys done on it. Titanium Dragon 08:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you're talking about - a lot of atheists reject claims of life after death for the same reasons they reject the existence of a god: lack of evidence. It pretty much comes down to whether you believe the testimony given. In the case of many Christian sects, it is God/Jesus who grants eternal life and that's what ties the concepts together, but they don't necessarily go together. MFNickster 05:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's name names. A lot of atheists do indeed reject immortality or life after death for the same reason they reject belief in God. Nevertheless, there is at least one thoroughgoing atheist who did not: JME McTaggart. His atheism is of the strong variety, but he's been neglected by mainstream atheist writers (doesn't appear in most books on the subject) because of his unique brand of mysticism and denial of the reality of time.--Dannyno 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've known Atheist to believe in life after death. Heck I know of one who believes in ghosts. I humor such things but to me it's all nonsense. What I'm getting at is that you can believe in all sorts of silly things without believing in any god or gods. It can't be argued that atheist by default "believe that there is no afterlife" though I'm sure that most, in the least, are unconcerned with the idea and view it as unlikely (at the very least). LucaviX

Removal of lots of links
I've just replaced a large number of links which were removed on the basis that "Wikipedia isn't a link-farm". That's something to bear in mind when deciding whether or not to add a new link, but it's not good grounds for removing links, and certainly not for such a wholesale removal. If there are arguments against including individual links, then we discuss it. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid that has again removed the links, still without the courtesy of discussing it here.  I've reinstated them until a proper explanation is given. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that them removed it again because you reverted my edit without cortesy of blurting a single word in the edit summary as if I am a random vandal. Meanwhile I thought I gave a very detailed explanation in the comments:
 * wikipedia is not link farm. if other encyclopedias contain useful info, put it here. Catholic encyclopedia is public domain. Use it.
 * please read External links and When should I link externally. If links have useful info, put it here
 * Over a time anons and other good-meaning contributions piled dozens of links here. Clearly, such a vast topic as atheism can command millions of webpages. And if 0.1% of them contain important info, we are looking at 1,000 ext links. You want them here?
 * This talk may be carried out at each and every broad page, where everyone feels himself an expert: religion, communism, capitalism, politics, democracy, etc.
 * The rules are both grounds for addition and for removal. Otherwise we will quickly will be overrun by spammers. And I shouuld have asked you why do you think the link to an internet radio station is so encyclopedic.

 * Here are two basic answers to your concerns, found in rules:
 * if a particular site (eg these internet radios) are notable, the please write an article about them. If not, goodbye link.
 * If a particular reference site contains useful information put it here. This concerns, in particular Catholic Encyclopedia, which is public domain, so you even do not have to trouble yourself with copyediting.
 * That said, I am restoring my edit. Please notice also that I removed less than half of the articles. I did not have an opinion about the remaining links yet. It is quite possible they are some spam, but I didn't touch them, although they look suspicious. mikka (t) 23:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to restore some of my deletions, if you provide serious reasons for their inclusion. I will take your word and will not argue, with the exception of internet radios and encyclopedias, allrefers, etc., against which I object most seriously. mikka (t) 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I'm afraid that I didn't understand your first comment.
 * 2) Unless you think that a single article froma single source is all that a reader needs, or that every piece of useful information and every argument and opinion can be cramnmed into one Wikipedia article, then it is only fair (not to mention NPoV) to point to alternatives.  the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, has a particular, PoV approach to the notion of atheism; we certainly don't want to present that here, and merely mentioning it isn't enough; the link  allows the reader to see for herself.
 * 3) If the link list looks like getting close to 1,000, then we can worry about it; slippery-slope arguments, however, don't convince me.
 * 4) If a link is spammed, then it can be removed; you haven't shown that any of the links that you removed were spammed, however.
 * 5) The internet radio station is relevant to the topic of atheism, and to various points made in the article. there is no Wikipedia policy against its inclusion.  Nor is there any policy against including links to encyclopædias, etc. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming here following a request for comment on the Pump. To be honest Mel, I would have to say most of the deleted links were a good call on mikka's part. Some of these, like the camp-quest.com site are blatant spam as self promotion. Others are very low quality (the cybamall.com site is dreadful) or just discussion forums.

As I see it, the only questionable deletions would be: Of course other folk might have different opinions. -- Solipsist 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * freethoughtradio.com - no particular reason not to link to a web radio. This one looks reasonably well done, presumably relevant and free (although I couldn't get it to work myself) - probably keep
 * Catholic Encyclopedia - most likely used as a reference at some point. The CE is generally good quality even though its often POV and can be out of date - best moved to the References section
 * Infidel Guy Radio Show - Another radio station, but this one is totally commercial and requires subscription - delete as spam
 * ExChristian.net - Its not totally irrelevant, but its not particularly well done. A bit POV to only support Christian->atheist conversion, but I guess exMuslim.net etc. don't exist. - borderline
 * Erkki Hartikainen lecture - reasonable credentials, but these lecture notes are incomplete and several sections are just bullet points - probably delete
 * I think the point is that mikka might have given these reasons from the beginning, i.e. arguing each deletion, saving this talk page from some more bad karma. begging the question, "why are atheists so grumpy?". dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm pretty cheerful! I get to spend that prayer time wikipedifying instead! Explodicle 21:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION
While I am not disputing the claim that atheism is popular religion among scientists according to polls, is it necessary for this claim to be in the introduction of the article? How is listing how many scientists consider themselves atheist relevant to the the introduction of atheism as oppossed to placed in the body of the article. By that argument, should the introduction to Christian include "majority of American presidents have been Christians and a majority of Western world leaders are Christian". Don't you see how this create a POV and is a subtle but devious endorsement of the religion? Shouldn't that apply here - anon.

 * Hmmm, you seem to have a different attitude to U.S presidents and other world leaders than any non-American I know. The claim that you make would be more likely to be a subtle (or not so subtle) criticism of the religion than otherwise. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Lol...what makes you think I'm a non-American? Because I used the term "Western"? Athough I sorta understand your point....nonetheless, I don't see how the percentage of scientists being athiesm is appropriate for the introduction. I can understand if the percentage of the world being atheist might be appropriate, but I have a feeling that wouldn't be sufficient to those who have a certain agenda and want to pick and choose how atheism is being introduced. The percentages should be moved to a different section. - anon

 * Yes that is POV. The introduction refers to rationalists and humanists. But this is a thautology. Rationalists (according to wikipedia) assert that the truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Secular humanists (which is the link in the introduction) assert that there is nothing supernatural. So no surprise that thaey are atheist. --pippo2001 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * A great many (most?) religious believers think that some at least of their beliefs are rationally grounded, and are prepared to offer arguments. Many believers hold that all central religious beliefs can be rationally demonstrated; indeed, the Catholic Church still says, officially:

 * If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty
 * from the things that have been made,
 * by the natural light of human reason
 * let him be anathema
 * (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)

 * So no, I don't think that it's tautological to say that someone who depends on reason is an atheist. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The Catholic Church is not the only alternative to atheism. --pippo2001 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that it was; I was giving a prominent example. But in any case, just one example is enough to showe that we're not dealing with a tautology — a tautology can't have any exceptions. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * atheism isn't a religion :) yes, the percentages should go to the article body. rationalism and humanism should be mentioned in parallel with atheism. It is true that secular humanist atheists are a bit of a tautology. dab (ᛏ) 22:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a link to Atheism, does that help? — Ambush Commander (Talk) 01:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Help to do what? What is the point here? That since scientists are atheists, there must be something true in atheism? It is one of the many aspects of atheisms. Not sure it deserves a place in the introduction. It is also wrong that atheism is a common position, for that matter. It is a small minority in western world, no matter how enlightned. --pippo2001 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What's you evidence for that? I don't mean people identifying themselves as C. of E. or whatever; we've been though that.  Many, many people treat their religion as a social organisation, and have no real religious beliefs. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The changes look good...but I'm not sure about the last senntence...."the view is "common"....that should definitely be reworded or explained clearly or quantitively. - anon

huh? nobody is saying "atheism is true". the intro is just summarizing the development (practically inexistent in 1700, widespread minority in 1900). "common" is unhappy and weasly. maybe "substantial minority in industrialized countries", but that is a bit awkward. I would have used "widespread" if I hadn't just said "wide spread" in the preceding phrase. That scientists are typically atheists doesn't make atheism any "truer", it just locates atheism on the philosophical landscape. Atheism is inseparable from the Age of Enlightenment, the rise of rationalism and natural science. A natural scientist as a person may of course be religious, but only in as much as he separates his religiosity from his profession. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

But don't you see that you are contradicting yourself? Above you claim that scientists should be quoted in the introduction to 'locate atheism on the philosophical landscape'. But in your edit you wrote: "if rationalism and atheism belong together, so does science and atheism". Do you want to claim that a scientist must be atheist to be consistent? I will not revert, it's up to you. --pippo2001 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course a scientist doesn't have to be an atheist to be consistent; science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of god (it merely narrows the gaps for those who appeal to a god of the gaps). That science and atheism are more often than not found together is a contingent fact, not a definition.  As a contingent fact, it belongs in the article.  (The same is true of atheism and philosophy, as well as of many other academic disciplines, but let's leave it there for the moment.) --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, science has to be atheistic to be consistent, in the sense that God may not enter scientific arguments. The scientist is of course a person, and may well hold personal belief in God, but in his work as a scientist he cannot make any argument based on this belief, so that for the purposes of his work he must be an effective atheist. The pious scientist may of course still argue that God is above science, and above comprehension, so that his personal belief need not be in contradiction to his work. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * this is a nonsense. science does not contradict the existance of God and it never will. Hence personal feelings on God and scientific inquiry may never overlap. --pippo2001 04:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That very much depends on your definition of God. It does and has contradicted the existance of numerous gods and even Gods. Many people don't really like to admit it, but science leads to a God of the Gaps, which is why so many fundamentalists are against science - because it is a very powerful way of explaining the world and leaves no space for a God. Science precludes the existence of certain types of gods, though it does not preclude the existence of a deist one nor a pantheistic one, though I'd argue the latter is not really the same sort of God as the meaning of the word when someone says they are an atheist. Titanium Dragon 08:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But you're rejecting something that he didn't say... On the other hand, your statement is historically and factually false; personal belief and scientific enquiry have often overlapped — religions have made many claims about the nature of the world that have conflicted with scientific evidence and theories. If one's belief in god is bound up with the claims made by a set of texts or other teachings, then finding that those claims are sometimes false might well affect one's belief in god. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I think that the inclusion of most scientists being atheists is significant, as indeed many people think of the scientific community as atheistic, and rightly so. However, I'm not entirely sure if it was inserted to be NPOV or inserted as an argument to authority. Modern atheism originated among intellectuals, particularly scientists, and it is a major cause of strife in the US and is breeding anti-intellectualism among the more religous segments of the country, helped along by their fundamentalist leaders who wish for the rejection of science and who use the overwhelming atheism among the scientific community in an attempt to boost their arguments against science. Some claim they misunderstand science, but I'd argue they mostly misrepresent it. But that is neither here nor there. I think that it should probably stay in the intro paragraph. It should definitely be mentioned in the article though, if it isn't mentioned in the intro, as it is notable. Titanium Dragon 08:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

POV complaint might be misdirected, but...
I am an atheist, myself. And I agree that the charge of POV simply for the lack of links is missplaced. However, I do agree with a general complaint about the links having been actively removed. Whether I find the arguments in Plantinga's article particularly convincing does not detract from the fact that he holds a chair in philosophy at Notre Dame -- by no stretch of the imagination an insubstantial credit. The McGrath article I found fascinating for a number of it's comments in credit of atheism. I, personally, think the article is improved with the McGrath link, and is in no way harmed by the Plantinga link. Rather than disputing the POV complaint, I'd rather like to hear the strong reasons that the links should have been removed. Parker Whittle 05:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the 2 links referenced above. The article is certainly not harmed by adding links critical of the atheist position; I find the links of high quality, even if I disagree. It is certainly common to have such links. Check out Creation Science. Parker Whittle 19:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Positivists
The sentence "According to logical positivism, "Does god exist?" has the same status as "What colour is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no answers." is rather misleading. The Positivists' explanation of the two sentences would be very different: the latter is, as it were, analytically nonsensical — if one understands the words and the syntax, one can see that the question involves a category mistake (days of the week aren't the sorts of things that can be coloured), and so one cannot say that relevant experience is impossible, because there is none; someone who argued that the question was meaningful wouldn't merely be philosophicall mistaken but cracked. The former, on the other hand, makes enough sense that one can meaningfully say that no relevant experience is possible; it is, as it were, sythetically nonsensical. On this view, believers aren't cracked, just philosophically mistaken.

Note also that most of the positivists accepted that statements can have meaning aside from cognitive (or factual, or descriptive) meaning; they can have emotive meaning, for example. "God exists" and "god doesn't exist" can both have emotive meaning, whereas "Saturday is yellow" is simple nonsense. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the section necessary at all? It struck me as odd that this information was suddenly here in the middle of the page. It's true that logical positivism implies atheism, but I don't think it's important enough to mention in this article. It's not as if logical positivism was specifically aimed at refuting religion; they think many (most?) sentences are meaningless. Furthermore, it's a pretty weak position anyway. Has anyone (noteworthy) even been a logical positivist in the last 50 years? 212.9.22.233 09:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, you're probably right. If there aren't any protests, I'll be bold, and remove it.
 * 1) There are a couple of living positivists, though their positions are mostly modifications of the original versions. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Czech Republic statistics
The numbers are valid (though the methodology of the census could be questioned). It has been discussed before here and it would likely deserve article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 13:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What like an article on religion in the Czech Republic or perhaps even atheism in the Czech Republic? Go for it!. Dunc|☺ 14:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Laziness and lack of time. Pavel Vozenilek 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"reified"
I [removed] the word "reified" from the section on mysticism/esoteric interpretations of god. Mystics and esoterists would maintain that it is the exoteric, normative theists who are reifying (making into an object or thing) the Absolute into a personal god. Thus the claim that esotericists are reifying when they think of the divine as the Absolute is POV. --goethean ॐ 15:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition
I'm sorry if this has been raised before, but I think the definition could be clearer. At the moment the position of weak atheists who have nonetheless actively rejected belief in God is not adequately distinguished from people who do not have a belief in god but have not rejected such belief - this might apply to people living in societies without theistic religion (or otherwise brought up that way), or to very young children or babies, or to animals. Both sets of people "do not believe" as allegedly distinct from "believe that not..", yet it would seem important to make the role of rejection explicit. A weak atheist does not merely lack theistic beliefs, they have rejected them, just like 'strong atheists'' have.

I was tempted to try and clarify this myself, but then I thought it might be better to raise the issue here first. --Dannyno 11:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And it's a good thing you did. This has been argued over and over and I believe the current page represents the consensus. Please review the page history, you'll see what I mean. Andre ( talk ) 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dannyno should realise that this distinction between strong and weak atheism is a central part of Internet discussions of atheism, and has assumed an importance there that goes a very long way beyond either its usefulness or its tenability. In fact the distinction is vague and open to multiple definition, is almost entirely irrelevant to most of the real issues (hence its absence from any works in the philosophy of religion of which I'm aware), and seems more to do with allowing people to draw up battle lines than anything else.  My advice is: don't get involved.  Back away slowly, and then run like hell. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, having reviewed the archives properly (newbie alert!) I can see similar debates have been had before, so I will cool my boots. By the way, although I agree that the weak/strong distinction does have a common rhetorical use esp. in Internet discussions (alt.atheism FAQ etc), there is a basis in the literature - it's the kind of distinction Flew was making in "The Presumption of Atheism" and elsewhere with his "Stratonician" form of atheism, i.e. defending a position analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to "proven innocent". I'm pretty sure Michael Martin makes the distinction too, as does George Smith, from memory. But, though most atheist writers in history have not wanted to commit to a "god definitely doesn't exist" position, a few have. So yes, there's a rhetorical function to the distinction but whether or not it is ultimately tenable is not something an encyclopedia entry needs to pass judgement on. It's in the literature and should be reflected in the entry.  We're not writing an apologia.  Anyway I won't insist on starting any old arguments again, but I will make sure I participate if it comes up in the future :-)--Dannyno 08:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to check Mike Martin's book, but I'm not denying that there's host of distinctions that can be made, some of them being useful in very specific cases — it's just that I don't think that any of them is of general philosophical interest, and none of them corresponds to the weak/strong distinction found here and on Usenet.

 * I beg to differ. Look at the literature from Flew onwards and going back to apologists like Holyoake and Bradlaugh: the distinction has been both philosophically and rhetorically important. If you do check Martin's "Atheism: a philosophical justification", you will find the contents are in two sections. Part 1 is "negative atheism", and Part 2 is "positive atheism".

 * I did some digging in my book collection, and the best summary of the situation is in Bill Cooke's history of the Rationalist Press Association, "The Blasphemy Depot" (2003). Talking about assaults on atheism by "agnostics", he notes: "From the vantage point of a hundred years, we can see that he debate about the relative merits of agnosticism over atheism suffered from a high level of confusion as to the nature and purpose of both positions. It was only in a series of seminal works of atheist philosophy from the 1950s to the early 1990s that these confusions were laid to rest. This literature has established forever the intellectual respectability of atheism. What was so helpful in these books was the distinction made between positive and negative atheism. This distinction had implicitly recognised before the 1950s, and underlay the division between those who preferred the term 'agnostic' to 'atheist'.  Joseph McCabe was the first person to specifically allude to the distinction, but it was until Antony Flew in the 1950s and 1960s that it was authoritatively articulated."  I can confirm that McCabe draws the distinction in his Rationalist Encyclopedia of the 1940s.  But also, and this is often overlooked, the commonest generalist dictionary definition of atheism is "denial or disbelief" in the existence of God - which allows for the positive/negative distinction too. Ample justification for including it, but also for making it clear.   So much for not restarting the argument, sorry folks. --Dannyno 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Pantheism and irreligion
Much as I hate to dredge up the whole pantheistic thing again, but honestly, I don't think that section is really appropriate in the greater context of the article. It seems utterly tangential and unimportant, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of it. It seems kind of choppy as well. Essentially, I think its unimportant because if you define God to be the Universe, then you aren't speaking of the same meaning or word; as such, I think it would be appropriate to remove the paragraph. It is a supernatural belief (maybe), but it doesn't strictly fall under the definition of atheism. Also, I'm fairly certain that mostly its just farcical; if it isn't pantheism, then its simply an exercise in trying to heighten their God above other gods by using different terminology, which is a moot distinction to atheists who reject gods in general. I think we should nix the section. Also, as a more general comment, in the US most of the time when it is used by laymen atheist not only implies not believing in a god, but that the person is an irreligous atheist. This should probably be pointed out in the article as well; it currently points out that atheism is not synonymous with irreligion, but in common usage it often is. Titanium Dragon 08:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

More views on Athiesm
There is NO Christian view on athiesm in the article, don't you think it's a good idea to put it there?
 * There should always be a balance to maintain NPOV, but what do you mean by "Christian view" of atheism? Anything you can add that is factual would be helpful, just keep in mind that commentary and rhetoric would be out of place here. MFNickster 19:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 23