text:
Talk:Bob Parsons

Radio show merge?
http://www.radiogodaddy.com/ Bob Parsons' radio show
 * Has an article: Life Online with Bob Parsons. Merge with this? — Omegatron 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a seperate article is warrented. Ardenn  00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes it especially notable? His blog doesn't have its own article. — Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * His blog doesn't need its own article. What makes the radio program notable: Alexa traffic rank of 653,579, 36,000 results for a Google test. Ardenn  04:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexa is not a measure of notability, and his blog beats his radio show in the Google test, which is generally considered worthless for notability measurements, too. I don't really care whether his Internet radio show has its own article, but I don't see why it's especially notable.  Lots of bloggers have podcasts and Internet radio shows. — Omegatron 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * His radio show is on satellite radio and regular AM radio as well. I think that sets it apart. Ardenn  05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge of his radio show into this article. It's not like a Howard Stern size show, and would fit well within the article about the man himself. Jeffrey.Rodriguez
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. What are your contributions with us? Ardenn  23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your first and only edit? — Omegatron 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First and only as a registered user. I've contributed to a few articles previously, long time user though :) Jeffrey.Rodriguez 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I support a merge, the talkshow isn't that notable, I've asked around campus and in my classes and I've not come across anyone who's heard of it, I live in a city with a pop of 1mil and it's a rather large campus. Everything that is said in the radio article could be said here in it's own section just as easily and people could do "one-stop-shopping" instead of having to word it just right to get to it. My two cents. → ΣcoPhreek Δ 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also support merger - with the radio page being a redirect rather than a delete. there is not enough of a volume of text to warrant two articles Trödel  07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am against the merger. --The Mad Bomber (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reason? This isn't a blind vote. — Omegatron 23:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the text into this article - under Radio Show - unfortunately the redirect won't link directly to a section - but it is good enough I think. I would move the section up a bit - but not sure where (except above the guatanamo thing) since the rest are basically in chronological order. So I left it last Trödel  06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The merge is still disputed. I still think they should be seperate articles. *goes to find a fitting tag* Ardenn  06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm ok with leaving them seperate if we can't reach concensus - but the metatags need to go - as they have been on there for weeks (at least since May 13th). And such tags detract from the article - and it is common policy to avoid the long term use of such tags. See icon deletion where even unobtrusive icons are being debated as not being appropriate for the article space. If you want to leave the tag, mergedisputed on the talk page that is fine with me. Trödel  13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron's edits
The issue I have is:

1. You don't need to spell out what he said in his blog. It's sourced, people can read it for themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

2. I don't see why both issues can't be under a general controversies section.

Ardenn 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Spelling out what he himself said in his blog to cause criticism and then what he said in his later retraction is perfectly neutral. Put it back, please.
 * Pointing out how many "controversies" he has surrounding him is soapboxical. Simply labeling the incidents for what they are is the most neutral way.
 * "The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics." Biographies of living persons
 * "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales
 * — Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then work it in better? I think, and several people would agree, it violates WP:NPOV not to include a balanced argument. I'm open to other options. Ardenn  04:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A balanced argument about what?? — Omegatron 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both sides of Bob Parsons. To create an article just talking about the good things of Bob isn't neutral. Ardenn  05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is saying "he's been criticized as advocating torture" a good thing? — Omegatron 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Now describe why my version conflicts with that. — Omegatron 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The critisizm is factual and there's no valid reason not to include it. Ardenn  05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand at all. What did I do that removed criticism? — Omegatron 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't, its the interiptation. You want the direct quotes in it, while I feel a simple commentary is sufficient, and readers can visit the blog itself for the whole article(s). Ardenn  06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't readers judge the quotes for themselves? — Omegatron 06:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at it again. This debate is really just over the Gitmo section, not the Super Bowl one. Let me sleep on it. Ardenn  06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also about your use of the section heading "controversies", which I have shown you is recommended against by both a guideline and Jimbo himself. — Omegatron 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there another name we can use for it then? It just seemed unorganized without someting there. Ardenn  23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They're two unrelated incidents. They should just be named for what they are.  "Super Bowl Commercial" and "Guantanamo Bay".  For instance, see George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, etc.  See any "controversy" sections?  — Omegatron 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an awful article
I came here to see if the Bob Parsons running godaddy was the same one that started Parson's technology - and like nearly always - wikipedia had the answer; however, the state of this article is utterly deplorable. One blog comment is about half the words of the article. This is really a shame for an internet pioneer who has successfully started 2 companies, though I wish he wouldn't have sold out to Intuit - I still miss my Money Counts software as I struggle through Quicken's do it our way and we'll make budgetting as complicated as possible - but who can blame him.

Anyway I know nothing about him other than I loved the software - but I do know this article needs serious work. Trödel 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Put your money where your mouth is. If you think it needs work, do the research and add to it. Make sure it is verifiable and has cited sources. Ardenn  04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So write more. — Omegatron 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Advert concerns

 * This page now has two advert flags on it. I tried to be transparent in changes. Made it clear that I was affiliated with Go Daddy and that changes made were designed to adhere to Wiki's policy on neutrality. Citations were added to make article more fact-based. If there are concerns about specific passages still not being in "neutral point of view" can we discuss specifically, rather than simply adding new flags?? Am willing to make further changes in conjunction with other users. Have also appealed for assistance to Wiki editors on this matter. ParsonsRep —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * went ahead and dropped anything like advertising - i think the article is fine now. ninety:one 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsons Technology
There's not more than skeletal information on Parsons Technology, which perhaps should be a separate article. It mentions only one product, and leaves out major ones such as their tax software. It mentions the Intuit buyout, but does not mention that Intuit spit it back out a few years later. My recollection was that Intuit killed off the tax software and Parsons Technology reemerged with its other software intact, Bob Parsons was contractually prohibited from selling tax software for a period of time (a year?) and that he tried to resurrect that business on the Web after that period expired. I have no idea what happened to the company, but I see that the Bible software is out there on QuickVerse.com with an oblique reference, which is "The Parsons Church Division." Is that affiliated with Bob Parsons, was it merely named after him, or was it a coincidental reference to those with the clerical title? Why was Parsons involved in Bible software? If religion is a big part of his life, it's relevant if it plays a significant role in his business model. Hagrinas (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some improvements
have been made. References below Trödel  06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

comments

 * Good additions. Can you put the blog quotes back in, though? — Omegatron 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I am not sure what to do about the quotes - I got a copy of the articles off google cache but they are now gone - as I don't think those are necessarily the best quotes from the article to present a balanced (NPOV) view of his statements. Any suggestions? Trödel  18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For full disclosure, ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ISO Dates
Just a quick comment - I don't care that much on ISO dates - I just think it is nice for international users of Wikipedia. if we link the dates (there are different ways to do it - I like ISO because it is easy to remember) then the dates will show the way the user wants. see Dynamic dates for info - also m:Help:Preferences. The style guide indicates its a nicety from what I can tell see Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and surrounding topics. Trödel  14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ardenn, I am not sure why you keep reverting without discussion - however, it looks to me like the ISO date is supported by at elast a couple users - please help me understand why you don't want the dates to support international formats. Your first comment was that the change was useless (which I interpretted to mean that you felt it had no effect) - as explained above this change is "useless" to editors - i.e. there is no functional difference; however it has a positive effect for some users Trödel  22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * Worldtraveller 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Go Daddy
Full Disclosure: ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. We want the notice "This article or section is written like an advertisement." removed as we re-wrote the Go Daddy section to be more Bob-centric and fact based. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Please look up my IP. I'm in the Philippines---you hear that? the PHILIPPINES! If there was ever a crappy place where adverts were out of control, its here. And after looking over this article, I cannot find a single reason for the Advert lables. Nothing on here looks like an advertisement. Not a single damn thing. The only thing glaring outright is someones animosity at Bob Parsons and his accomplishments. There are few other people in a similar position as himself, however aside from that, find those few and see of their pages look like this. I have seen some but its always by people with agendas. Personally, I'm beginning to wonder at th editors in here that might have affiliations with verisign or some anti-war / anti-american movement. Look above and tell me that these freaks weren't getting all bent out of shape over the specific wording to reference the Gitmo comments so so so long ago. Is that still an issue? One person tries playing barracks lawyer to use technicalities to allow his paraphrasing to terms of a negative slant. Another, actually on the same side, becomes a pissant to quote directly, again with the point of negatively impacting the image of this living person.

 * People, if you dont F*ucking like the guy, fine. Get on the intertubz and tell the whole world...put please keep you crappy little shots off of wikipedia...like adding those silly advert tags. What a bunch of children. I challenge anyone here to find advertisement material or promotional wording.210.5.75.10 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No torture reference at all?
I ended up on the Bob Parsons page after seeing him on a reality show and trying to remember the specific comments he'd made regarding the US use of torture. I was disappointed to find zero mention of it on this page (and, at the moment, no mention on the Go Daddy page). It's clearly one of the 2 or 3 most common things known about Bob Parsons, and it seems incredibly relevant to anyone doing research on him. Can there be some mention, and quoting of his statements, even if under a disclaimer that they were later retracted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebug (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim employee
I have removed this entry because there's no source, completely failing verifiability. Do not re-include this section into the article without citing published sources. Basileias (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Go Daddy Group Inc. wrongfully terminated a Muslim employee from Morocco for complaining of discrimination and must pay the man $390,000 in damages, a federal jury decided.

 * Your removal of the entry was unwarranted. Even a "citation needed" would not have been warranted. Wikipedia's policy clearly states that the latter is "used to identify questionable claims [emphasis mine] that lack a citation to a reliable source...."  A quick Google search on the first 10 words of that statement instantly comes up with a multitude of sources from major mainstream publications. There is no controversy over whether this happened. Nobody is claiming that it didn't happen. It's a matter of public record. The available sources are not obscure nor are the claims buried in other sources. The top search results are for sources that are articles about the specific ruling, not ones that merely mention it. Hagrinas (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. First, even if there were a reliable source added to verify the claim, it would still not be suitable for this article. To be usable here, the source would have to link the subject of this article to the action, with an indication that it was a significant event for the subject of this article. See WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize my comment is a little late to the table, but we must be especially vigilant as WP editors when dealing with a BLP. I agree with Johnuniq. If the controversy had a direct link to the controversy (e.g. he directed the termination, or he made a notable quote about the termination), then perhaps it would be better suited for his BLP WP page.Writethisway (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy
I deleted the controversy section. The eco- and animal-rights-sensitive editors here need to look at things with a cool head. Dr. Parsons is just another big game hunter. There’s nothing illegal about killing an elephant in Zimbabwe, in fact he did it with the full blessing of the authorities there. The morality of doing such a thing is of course subjective. This is only big news right now because PETA somehow only found out now about Parsons being a big game hunter, and decided to throw a big snit over it. — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK, 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Few people outside of Arizona ever heard of Bob Parsons before the elephant video. He appeared on multiple national news shows in regard to the incident. The claim that it is not relevant is a fringe position.Brmull (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is not NPOV because it gives copious space for Parsons to lay out his argument in his own words without giving equal space to critics. An attempt to flesh out the elephant controversy has been repeatedly deleted in an edit war. I'm of the opinion that leopard controversy should also be added, particularly as Mr. Parsons recently deleted it from his site and served Youtube with a takedown notice. I also strongly believe that Mr. Parsons remarks about torture of Guantanamo detainees should be included since they were widely reported.Brmull (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with TheHerbal. This is a manufactured controversy and is a weight issue.  Just because a couple of animal rights groups are up in arms doesn't mean it is controversal.  These groups are pretty extreme on their own and get upset about pretty much everything.  Arzel (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was just a PR guy on CNBC today, a week after the story broke, saying this scandal could destroy GoDaddy. According to him it has cost them tens of thousands of customers so far. That doesn't seem like a weight issue. That seems very significant. Certainly more significant than the quote from Bob Parson's about how he's earned every penny he has. Half the CEOs in America say the same thing.Brmull (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people agree that a blog is considered a RS regarding the person or organization that publishes that blog. Therefore HSUS.typepad.com is considered a RS about what the Humane Society said. I'm not going to revert it but I am determined to have NPOV in this section and not just 10 lines of what Bob Parsons says.Brmull (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP's shouldn't have controversy sections. The material should be worked into the body of the article. If you need an example, see the Mel Gibson article. This material needs to be re-worked.

''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.''

Controversy
On March 8, 2011, while vacationing in Labola, Zimbabwe, Parsons shot and killed an elephant that was scavenging through a local farmer's crops for food. After the kill villagers are shown harvesting the elephant's for its meat

In the video, Parson's states that, "Of everything that I do this is the most rewarding." Parsons stood by that sentiment, later stating:

 * "I kind of figured that this [backlash] might happen. So be it, I’m not ashamed of what I did.  All these people that are complaining that this shouldn’t happen, that these people who are starving to death otherwise shouldn’t eat these elephants, you probably see them driving through at McDonald’s or cutting a steak.  These people [Zimbabwe villagers] don’t have that option...The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops.

 * The tribal authorities request that I and others like me, patrol the fields before and during the harvest — we can’t cover them all, there are just a few of us — and drive the elephant from the fields. The farmers try to run the elephants away by cracking whips, beating drums and lighting fires.  All of this is ignored by the elephants.  When my team catch elephants in a field...we typically kill one of them and the rest leave for good.  After we kill an elephant the people butcher the elephant and it feeds a number of villages.  These people have literally nothing and when an elephant is killed it’s a big event for them, they are going to be able to eat some protein.  This is no different than you or I eating beef...''

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Senior Vice President Dan Matthews told CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight that "we have taken our business with Go Daddy and gone elsewhere, and that's what we're encouraging other people to do." Basileias (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * If you want to rename the section "Allegations" instead of "Controversy," as in the Gibson article, I have no objection. If you want to whitewash all criticism of Parsons I object.Brmull (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Controversy sections invite people with an axe to grind about the subject. Accusing other editors of trying to keep negative information out of articles, censorship, having a hidden agenda or otherwise acting in bad faith you shouldn't do if you don't have good evidence. Basileias (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Did some cleanup of some botched markup in this thread. Controversy sections are common and this individual would be a pure controversy subject, like Terry Jones if it were not for his other activities. The action with the elephant certainly is notable having received world wide coverage and perhaps should simply be listed as the Zimbabwean Incident. Also note that the butchering of the bull was accompanied by rock music, didn't see that noted and it's part of what has incensed PETA and others. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Nope, controversy sections are not common in BLPs. You may want to take note that the example you cited isn't a BLP. You mis-titled the 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy to "Terry Jones." That's not a BLP. Basileias (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I didn't "mistitle" Basileias, I purposely linked to show an example of pure controversy. As for your other counterfactual statement, will let it stand, your position is fairly clear from the above and your vociferousness on this invites investigation. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT. Such edits are unproductive at best and counterproductive on average. Please refrain from further editing in this manner. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An article of "pure controversy" is definitely permissible, and that may be proper for this issue with Parsons. They generally don't go into BLP's. This incident can go into the BLP if it was reworded and shorted. I think a couple of sentences is enough. I'm paraphrasing, but something like "Bob did A, PETA protested," would be very proper. Basileias (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I suggest this as a better image, it's on top in google image search and apparently is public domain. I know the one there is the one he puts on his biz, but it's common to show celebrities at their best where possible. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings about this, but don't you think living persons should be portrayed as close to their current appearance as possible?Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Stone is one example of a BLP which has a "Controversy" section. A search brings up a few hundred others.Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not going to put up new edits only to have them constantly reverted by the "Bob did A, PETA protested" folks. The burden is on them to put up something and then we'll work on it. If that doesn't happen I'm inclined to flag this article for NPOV dispute.Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at that Oliver Stone article again. An issue has been raised in it because there's a controversy section. It's regarding the same issues I've been trying to communicate to some of you.
 * I would encourage you to take your case here. Basileias (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to take your case here. Basileias (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Submitted the following request for administrator help:

''Parsons, who is CEO of GoDaddy.com, was recently in the national news for videotaping himself killing elephants and a leopard in Zimbabwe. PETA and the Humane Society called for a boycott of GoDaddy. Some editors of Parson's page have repeatedly reverted any attempt to mention this event, while refusing to offer their own compromise wording. Editor/administrator input is requested to decided whether the event should be mentioned, whether it should be part of another section or its own section, and how the wording will be determined. Thanks!''

In the meantime I flagged the article for POV dispute until the issue is resolved.Brmull (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * How's this coming? The BLPN thread seems to have died down.   Will Beback    talk    02:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been 40 hours since the last comment, I'm importing the latest version to Bob_Parsons. If there is no objection, 48 hours after that I will remove the NPOV flag and close the noticeboard thread.Brmull (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeing this through. Despite the "wiki" name, it's often best to handle issues on Wikipedia slowly instead of quickly. Process is product.   Will Beback    talk    09:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

comment
Hi, I saw the section at the BLPN and came to have a look, I don't see much of a reason to add this here, it is more at home on the Go Daddy article as PETA withdrawing their business with Go Daddy makes in a bit noteworthy there. At the most a carefully worded sentence, such as ... and the way the article is currently it would neen its own header - I don't think it worthy of one but if need be then..Animal rights should suffice and is neutral enough description of the issue....

Animal rights
In 2011 Parsons was criticized by PETA and environmentalists after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest.[1][2]
 * NOTE: This discussion seems to have moved here for the time being.Brmull (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit waring
I can see the talk page is being ignored on this recent issue with the insertion of these edits.

He has recently been under media scrutiny after posting a video of himself slaughtering elephants in Zimbabwe while on vacation.

Parsons has recently been under pressure for hunting elephants in Zimbabwe. He refers to them as 'problem elephants'. PETA and other activist groups have made it a mission to boycott GoDaddy.com for his actions.

I think a moratorium on this issue is warranted because of the continual insertion of edits that clearly violate the WP:BLP.
 * The issue is being addressed. See Controversy section above.Brmull (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New section: Animal rights
Instead of "criticized" I'd like to propose "denounced." I know it's late, but I think it's a lot less cliché'd if that makes sense. Today, everyone is "criticized" but denounced seems a bit more clear and to the point, at least to me. Let me know what you think. Now common Brmull, you've got to admit after hashing out a better write up this is a lot better than what was originally there. ;-) I'm sure it's not agreeable to everyone but what's there now is much, much more professional. Basileias (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your change is good. Thanks.Brmull (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nadja Rescue
A brand new account, probably opened just for this purpose, added to our proposed section. I'm not sure it really added to what it looks like we may settle on.

Additional pictures have surfaced on the internet showing Bob Parsons with slaughtered animals such as a Gnu and young Zimbabwe Elephant. The website also posted photographic evidence proving there were other ways to "protect farmers' fields" without killing severely endangered animals. - 	- 	- 	-
 * work = Killi.net
 * accessdate = 2011-04-13
 * title = Animals Bob 'Godaddy' Parson has Slaughtered
 * url = http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoessays/2011/godaddy/
 * I don't think this new information is well-sourced enough to include here. If it gets picked up by reliable media sources we can reconsider it.Brmull (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know, I am new to making edits and was not trying to get in an edit war. I am still trying to figure out the ropes. I would like to add that there are new pictures surfacing that do need serious consideration. Parsons has been allowed to give his point of view, but evidence suggesting other circumstances is out there. Photographs don't lie. If you don't want to include the articles, that is one thing, but why not post the pictures and videos and let the public decide how to interpret them. Parsons is clearly standing over some endangered species. So post them, then you don't have to worry about people stating "opinions." It is starting to feel like Parsons is controlling and manipulating the media and using his influence to stop facts from surfacing. Please consider posting the video and pictures. Best, Nadja RescueNadja Rescue (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Nadja Rescue

 * Thank you for your followup. You're welcome to continue making edits through wikipedia. However let me cut and paste something in regards to this issue:

 * This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it...

 * One other thing on sources, the source you supplied looks self-published. For a living person and if the material can be critical or perceived as such, it needs to be sourced from the strongest possible third party source. What I mean by third party is the writer has no vested interest in the subjects success or failure. There's also the issue of copyright. I question whether that website has sought proper copyright of the photos. I hope this helps and you not deterred from participating in wikipedia, but when it come to living people its an area that edits can be touchy and need to follow strict rules. Basileias (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Even though this thread is three years olde, may I note that rules should not override common-sense and "thinking 'outside the box', being moderately creative" which, I think, is a pillar of wisdom in Wikipedia editing, is it not? The article here looks great to me. I'll read it over, again and again, to see if I can contribute to excellence! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I agree with prior advice to the new WP editor.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bob Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140213024508/http://gawker.com:80/5870851/has-godaddys-elephant+killing-ceo-finally-gone-too-far to http://gawker.com/5870851/has-godaddys-elephant+killing-ceo-finally-gone-too-far
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220043153/http://gawker.com/5787676/meet-godaddys-ridiculous-elephant+killing-ceo?tag=godaddy to http://gawker.com/5787676/meet-godaddys-ridiculous-elephant+killing-ceo?tag=godaddy

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request
I have a conflict of interest and won't edit this article. I'd like to request that the following edit requests be reviewed and implemented if they are acceptable. Both references are the same but I don't know how to combine them.

In the Bob_Parsons section, please add this sentence to the top: Parsons is a registered Independent.

Please also add this sentence to the end of that same section: On April 25, 2023, Parsons told Esquire that he no longer supports former U.S. President Donald Trump, stating “I did vote for him, but I'm no longer a fan.” He explained that his opinion on Donald Trump changed with the insurrection along with reading various books on what happened during Trump’s presidency and how he ran his office. “The number one thing I care about is our country and who's going to do the best job. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Independent. I just want this country to be what it can be.” He added that in retrospect, the U.S. president that he thinks most highly of is former U.S. President Barack Obama. MusicJunkie14 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) MusicJunkie14 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A link to the interview in Esquire where the subject discusses his views on that subject was placed in the newly-created External links section. Regards, Spintendo  07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I've added an appropriate sentence to the prose and removed the external link. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for addressing my second request. I'm reposting my first request.

In the Bob_Parsons section, please add this sentence to the top: Parsons is a registered Independent.

Also, please add the following to the end of the political section. (I fixed a typo in the source name): He added that in retrospect, the U.S. president that he thinks most highly of is former U.S. President Barack Obama. Thank you. MusicJunkie14 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented. STEM info  (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bob Parsons


text:
Telem

Telem can be any of the following:

 * In the Hebrew Bible:
 * a porter of the temple in the time of Ezra (10:24).
 * a town in the southern border of Judah (Josh. 15:24); probably the same as Telaim.
 * Telem (1981 political party), a former political party in modern Israel
 * Telem, Har Hebron, a Jewish communal settlement in the West Bank
 * Benjamin Telem, Israeli Major General and Commander of the Navy
 * Telem (2019 political party), an active Israeli political party

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

title: Telem


text:
User:Neopolo

Neopolo is a god of water, ice wind and light he is said to have been the brother of apollo

title: User:Neopolo


text:
Talk:Sieve

Missing link
http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ is no more, I added the link to the archive.org page.

Stefano Giunchi from forli, italy

When is a sieve a sieve?
Are all sieves used for cooking really either colanders or chinoises? Isn't a sieve something fairly clearly defined in of itself? Peter Isotalo 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Straining about strainers
I have the same question about strainers. I think the whole three pages need to be reworked. FiveRings 19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Strainer into Sieve?
If nobody objects, I'm going to do this FiveRings 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to another name
This article is about food/drink and is presently named sieve. There are many many links to sieve that have nothing to do with food and/or drink. I think it might be a good idea to move this page over to Sieve (food) or Sieve (food and drink) and repair the links that describe "sieve" in the context of a kitchen to that article. This would allow Sieve (disambiguation) to be moved to Sieve. I'm not sure if I'm selecting a good name here to move this article to, so I'll wait a bit (a week or so) to see if there is are any other suggestions or comments. + m t  21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Then Sierra Morrison had a baby girl at the age of 13 yeas-old.
 * An idea, certainly. But how many of the derivative meaning of sieve are based on this underlying sieve? This is the fundamental one. This is unlike many disambiguation pages where things just happen to have the same name or abbreviation. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A sieve is not a filter
The article begins by saying, "A sieve, or sifter, separates wanted elements from unwanted material using a filter such as a mesh or net."

Researching the etymology of filter as coming from Medieval Latin filtrum "felt," --felt being the material through which impurities were strained from liquid, and understanding the construction of felt to be non-woven fabric (it's matted together by heat, moisture, and pressure, instead of being woven or knitted), we can deduce that a sieve is NOT a filter, as the construction of its screening mechanism IS woven--digitally organized & orderly, not messy and haphazard.

I propose a sieve be referred to as a screen, perhaps, but not a filter.

I may seem to be nitpicking, but that's what wikipedia is about, right? Achieving clarity. : )

Anyone have insight that contrasts what I am proposing?

Pietro79 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

--update--

I have exchanged the word "filter" for "woven screen", as I believe this more accurately describes a sieve (for reasons mentioned above). 24.84.229.90 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge strainers into stainless steel strainer
Since similar merges have been mentioned here before, and the relevant strainer page redirects here, I would like to draw your attention to my proposal to merge strainers into stainless steel strainer. I would appreciate any feedback you might have at Talk:Stainless steel strainer. --David Edgar (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sieve


text:
Bangbae station

Bangbae station, also known as Baekseok Arts University station, is a subway station on the Line 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. The station is located in the Bangbae neighborhood of Seocho District, Seoul. The tomb of Grand Prince Hyoryeong, the second son of King Taejong—the third monarch of the Joseon Dynasty—is located to the northeast.

Vicinity

 * Exit 1: Sangmun High School, Sindonga APT
 * Exit 2: Daewoo Hyoryeong APT
 * Exit 3: Isu Middle School
 * Exit 4: Tomb of Grand Prince Hyoryeong, Bangil Elementary School

title: Bangbae station


text:
Talk:Irresistible force paradox

All of this is hypothetical given its not possible anyways but my solution is this... (One object would take the path of least resistance), and then continue... Given that all atoms are moving at all times (above 0) even within the spear and shield. The spear, particle by particle, could technically (no matter how unlikely) undergo spontaneous quantum tunneling and continue on its path without having been "stopped" nor compromise the integrity of the shield. This is of course is only valid if the 2 forces are in fact physical objects. But hey, it's still technically a possible out come!

ok, small mistake
when it says: "Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars" it should be Jupiter,because Zeus NEVER created any star or star formation. trust me I am a professor from Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.66.67 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I got one more for ya. If Jupiter turns them both to static stars then the dog never catches the fox meaning it fails to catch what it hunts but the fox has still not been caught so Laelaps always catching what it hunts is false thanks to Jupiter himself and eliminates this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Show's Over
This isn't even a paradox, these are mutual exclusives. If the force is resisted, it's not irrestible. If the object moves, it's not immovable. It's like "What happens when a red object is a blue object?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.80.78 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Im that case, it is a purple object. Dracascot (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Theories told by physics students
who are these physics students? not only does this seem like a repeat of the alternative views right above, the answers are annoyingly retarded. More importantly, this is a philosophical paradox, not sure how a physics student can shed any more light on it than your average lay person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.183.150 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The most logical solution to this problem is that the force hits the immovable object and changes its direction. It's the same as throwing a ball off a wall, with the exception that in this case the ball continues to move in its new direction until it hits another immovable object. Neither one loses. There is no paradox. Only an equal and opposite reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.19.74 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer has to do with the law of non-contradiction. The very existence of an immovable object negates the possibility of an unstoppable force.

And vice versa. You can only have one or the other both physically and/or philosophically. It's like saying A & ~A coexist within the same statement. Thus contradicting the axiom of logic. Anywayz there you go. It's actually a rather well known solution.

also you won't find a verifiable claim because you are dealing with an axiomatic statement. By contesting the law of non-contradiction you are actively using it to disprove it which is why you won't find a verifiable falsifiable experiement that could tehoretically sovle the dillema.- DarkKnightBob —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKnightBob (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * to the idea that the force or the object changes direction. that either means the force is partially resisted or the object is partially moved. either way it can't be irresistable or immovable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Zen Solution
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

They make the sound of a clapping hand...

(Myrrdyn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.78.11.41 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Correct if you accept the twin-sided destruction theory...still LoL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.93.177 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're both retards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.174.90 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 * if they destroy each other they both don't live up to it. irresistable force means nothing can stop it. immovable means the object can't be moved. in both cases beign destroyed contradicts that. something like that means it was a powerful force meeting an equally resistant object. the problem is the adjectives that are absolute. just like the god examples and the greek dog. god can't be absolute if he can't do everything. creating something he can't oppose is something so if he can't do it he isn't absolute but then if he can then he isn't abosolute because he can't oppose it and so can't do everything. Laelaps was a dog that always gets what it hunts but Jupiter turned it into a static star while it was hunting a fox. since it can't ever move again it can't ever catch the fox and so it doesn't always get what it hunts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My Theory
Personally,I believe that it all depends on how irresistible a force is or how immovable an object is.(Setting everything else discussed aside) Basically,I believe one of three things could happen :

1)If Force is stronger than Object,Force would move Object. (F > O = M)

2)If Object is stronger than Force,Object would resist Force. (O > F = R)

3)If Force and Object are of equal strength,Force would penetrate and/or leave a hole in Object. (F = O = P)

This is what I believe anyway - R.G. (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * My thoughts exactly it makes sense that if both an irresistible force immovable object exist then they would not be able to measure each others existence and would have no effect on each other.Confront (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ummm... the two objects would go through each other... all forces that prevent two particles from overlapping are not infinite.173.180.214.13 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The whole point of this is that it's not talking about measurable forces you can quantify in some finite number, but described as an absolute rule. Saying whether the force or the object is stronger doesn't work in the same way you can't say whether one infinite quantity is greater than another (assuming they share the same Cardinal number.)  This is a problem of logic, linguistics, or philosophy, not realistic physics, as proper modern physics laws don't work when you put infinite amounts of force into the formulas.  You shouldn't try to answer about this spear or shield with anything from physics than you would questions like "If God can do anything, could God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"--108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

About WoW
I haven't played WoW, but if it's similar to other rpgs, a two-handed weapon cannot be used together with a shield; given that The Unstoppable Force is a two-handed mace and The Immovable Object is a shield, a player wouldn't be able to use both at the same time, which might be a referrence to the fact that an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist in the same universe. (You can infact find a two-handed mace-type hammer called to stoppable force in the game (but I am yet to see the movable object :P ) )

 * This is true, however in the expansion the Warrior class gets a talent called Titan's Grip, which also said warrior to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand. So... having this talent, holding The Unstoppable Force in one hand and the Unmovable Object in the other, can make another statement from Blizzard: only the bold should attempt to create this paradox. 65.218.200.126 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * check the stats on those. the character that dies is using the contradicted item. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Existence of irresistable force
I agree that no object is immovable, however, I would argue that not only do irresistable forces exist, but, in fact, all forces are "irresistable". The gravitational attraction from one atom in a hair on your head is acting on the Andromeda galaxy such that, absent a counter-force, the two will be inevitably drawn together (although this would take a nearly infinite amount of time to occur). So, what happens when you try to push a car and it doesn't move ? Well, if you could push without standing on the ground, then you would be pushing the car and the entire Earth, thus changing it's spin rate/direction (by an amount well below anything we can detect). This is because the friction between the car and the Earth has the two locked together, at least for that amount of force. However, since you are standing on the Earth, your feet are creating an equal irresistable force in the other direction, so there is no change at all, as the forces are balanced.

Another example might be the effect of the force of space dust on the Earth. Each particle exerts a tiny force on the Earth when it hits, increasing or decreasing it's rate of spin, or changing the direction of spin, depending on the relative velocity. Again, the effect of each individual grain is undetectable, but the collective effect, over billions of years, may be. This effect, along with the increase in mass of the planet, should on average slow the Earth's rotation over time. Other factors, such as the interaction with the Moon, larger meteors, and solar wind, may also contribute to the slowing of the Earth's rotation. StuRat 11:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is one force which may be considered irresistable - the gravity around a black hole. The interesting thing about this is that general relativity allows an object falling in to a black hole to consider itself stationary. This means an immovable object can fall into a black hole without contradicting either premise. -BadJim

One interesting thing to note about this paradox is that it is one that can be replicated virtually to see the effects. For instance, in the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, players have spawned boulders (objects that, due to their programming (or lack thereof), are completely immovable regardless of the situation) on the tracks of an AI-controlled trolley (which itself is programmed to be unstoppable by any barricade whatsoever, and cannot even be slowed). Once the trolley reached to boulder, it simply passed through it. While physically this would be impossible, it is interesting to note that it still allows both objects to retain their properties (that is, if you take 'immovable' by its literal sense and not as something that cannot be penetrated/broken etc.). This is pretty useless in real-world discussion, I realise, but it is food for thought if nothing else.

When an irresistable force meets an immovable object you get an unmeasurable event. Nli10 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's anything "real-world" about this discussion (what objects are immovable? how do we know they'd fit with our current understanding of physics?), so don't worry; it's an interesting contribution. In fact, modeling such a situation on a computer is as close to the "real" thing as I expect one could get. And it makes me wonder...if such an event could occur, does the result depend on how well the universe is programmed?JMBrust 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As stupid as referencing GTA is for science, this is actually a great point. (a particular choice of words will demonstrate my vast scientific knowledge and credibility): Through quantum-like stuff, two things can be in the same place as their waves combine or something. I assume this means they can pass through eachother and junk. This may be the same thing as saying "an irresistable force and immovable object are the same thing", since we're reducing them both to energy waves. Of course, their irresistable nature may imply that the wavey things are already as wavular as they can be, but as you might be able to tell, I've like reached the limit of my own understanding or whatever. -- Vstarre 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No, when an irresistable force meets an immovable object, you get a lot of fireworks, an irresistable object, and an immovable force. --Carnildo 07:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Fireworks? Where would they come from? Sounds like a violation of thermodynamics to me.--- [ vstarre ] 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Again, I say there is no real paradox, because no object is immovable. (All unbalanced forces are irresistable, however.) StuRat 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That's not really the point. I don't believe it's about what currently exists. The paradox, in my mind, is the question: If a force that could not be stopped existed, and there was an object that simply could not be moved, what would happen? It's not about existing materials, not really. It seems like a lot of people are avoiding the question ("Well, it doesn't exist"). That's not the point. The point is, "What if?" I believe one of two outcomes would occur: a) both the force and the object are destroyed, or b), as mentioned above, the force would simply pass through the object. That's my humble two cents. Abyssalstudios (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just I throwing my opinion out there. It’s true that this can be taken from a rational or a theoretical point of view. Rationally, in my belief, an immovable object can't exist. As mentioned earlier, there is irresistible energy. Every atom and how ever far you wish to break it down has some effect on the rest of the universe no matter how minute. Energy can't be created or destroyed, just concentrated or displaced. Theoretically or speculatively, if you indeed had an immovable object, the energy could deflect off similar to light, my primary question in response was, what if the immovable object was much like a conduit. After further thought I realized that if it was indeed immovable than it couldn't be made of the same building blocks that construct the rest of the universe. So to me, energy/force, which ever you want to call it could not in fact pass through the object. So the only way the irresistible force/energy could collide with an immovable object without canceling each other our or being their own demise, is if it was refracted off, without actually being "resisted". Yes, probably to any scholar this sounds rather half-baked. It’s my logic so I apologize if anyone found this lack luster. -Sennune

If an unstoppable force were to exist, wouldn't it not be able to stay on Earth because it either: can't be moved by the Earth's rotation; or it would float because it can't be pulled by gravity. Unless gravity is the irresistable force which proves the non-existance of an immovable object? The-Rob 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the statement "The correct solution states that the paradox itself is a contradiction" (given a certain interpretation of what the question is actually asking) but isn't this a little POV? I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this, but I thought I'd put it out there. I'll do a quick, cheap fix, but I'm tempted to wholly rewrite a few parts of the "Solutions" section. Fortunately, I'm supposed to be working. JMBrust 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, so I gave in and changed a few things around. I tried to be faithful to the intent of what was originally written (and simply put it in a more logical order and, well, improve the style a bit). Maybe some of that stuff shouldn't even be there as is, but, eh. JMBrust 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional Solution
I always thought this was a simple question with a simple answer: Penetration. Don't over think the problem. --Razmear 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The annwer that I heard is that "The Immovable Object will be displaced in time." Don't know if anyone wants to include this answer in the article, though. Hi There 07:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A solution? If the unmovable object were immovable in relation to the universe, then the unstoppable object would take the immovable object and the entire universe with it.

If the immovable object was immovable in relation to the space-time continuum, expect either instantaneous destruction of the space-time continuum, or the unstoppable object going through the space-time continuum (i.e. through another dimension).

What if the unstoppable force was unstoppable because it had no matter? For lack of a better or more real world example, a ghost has no matter correct? if the said ghost was the unstoppable force, then it would simply pass through and the immovable object would not be moved. is that not a solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.77.63 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * wouldn't penetration still mean some part of the object was moved? lol being displaced in time is also movement. it is being moved unnaturally through time. also isn't a ghost still an object and not a force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Pop Culture addition
pretty sure Andre vs Hogan match at wrestlemania was referred to using this paradox... dont have the citation though.

sometimes, if you hit two objects together with the same amount of force, then they dont simply stop when they hit each other, but slide off of each other. perhaps the unstoppable force would simply "slide off" or keep going but kinda past it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.77.63 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

solution
if an irristable force hits an immovable object, both of which must have infinite mass, wouldn't the energy transfer cause the immovable object to begin moving as an irristable force in the opposite dirrection from which it was hit, and the irristible force to cease moving and become an immovable object? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.85.140 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * That is clever. However, there are different size infinities, see Infinity, they would have to equal eachother I guess. You're blowing my mind here.

 * the problem isn't what would really happen but that it can't happen since the adjectives are absolute. if the force stops and becomes an immovable object then it was resisted to the point of stopping. if the immovable object is turned into a force moving in the opposite direction then it was moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * If something has infinite mass, it would immediately collapse into a black hole with infinite size event horizon and destroy the universe. This question isn't meant to be answered with physics as it starts with things that can't actually exist to begin with.  The point is a logical contradiction with conflicting absolute rules being stated, which could apply to a lot of other things with a similarly natured contradiction, not the scientific behavior of any object that is actually real.--108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Dragonforce
A car of diamond, the hardest metal known to man, hits a wall of dragonforce, also the hardest metal known to man. What happens?

 * The car shatters. Diamond, while strong, is also quite brittle. --Carnildo 09:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Dragonforce? I believe the hardest metal known to man is Megadeth, hehe Lovefist233 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Diamond is not metal 196.210.230.2 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Hitting a wall with a hard enough object won't guarantee breaking it. Logically, steel is harder than wood and can cut through it.  But if you, for instance, have a sturdy wooden wall made out of big logs lined up sticking out of the ground, and try to cut through it by attacking it with full force with a kitchen knife, will it just slice right through it?  You'd probably just hurt your arm.  The hardness of something indicates whether you can cut or scratch one material with another, not whether you can break it.  If there's enough size and mass to it and a high enough force behind the impact, you can break a wall using something that's made of a less hard material (though I think there would be a non-zero amount of damage to the less hard object).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Paradox?
As I understand the word, the question under consideration is not a paradox--in fact, a question should by definition not be considered a paradox, although its answer (if one answer is apparent) may be paradoxical, and many questions can arise from trying to resolve a paradox. However, the more relevant concern that I have is that the word is only supposed to describe something that seems contradictory, but is apparently true. What "truth" is described in this puzzle? What you've got here is more of a weird, speculative philosophical quandary, which is difficult to answer to everybody's satisfaction because it involves a situation that: (1) is not well-defined (in the sense that it is not clear what "irresistible" and "immovable" mean--note BadJim's comment), and (2) might be impossible or inconceivable anyway, depending on what kind of event it's actually supposed to describe. Suggestions? JMBrust 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * 3 words. God is absolute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Physics is sloppy.
"Because the force is of infinite energy, as it moves through space, it will be "converted into" or "create" matter of infinite mass spontaneously." This is a totally imprecise and improper use of physics terminology. Force does not have energy, energy does not "create" matter, and scare quotes are not appropriate in technical language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.99.123.63 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here to add the same comment. I will add a "citation needed" tag. 86.6.7.11 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actual physics doesn't include anything with infinite amounts of force, mass, or energy. You can have infinite density, otherwise known as a black hole, but those have a finite mass or energy, and most otherwise generally applicable physics equations don't work when you get too close to those.--108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Pheonix Wright might be alluding to Kanji (one of the Japanese symbol sets)
Essentially, the Kanji for Halberd is 矛, the Kanji for Shield is 盾. However, when put together, 矛盾 means "contradict". Kinda like how "hot" means high tempurature, and "dog" is an animal, but "hot dog" is a food. I have not played the Japanese Version of the game however, so I personally can't confirm 100% that this is what Pheonix Wright actually alludes too... Nonethless, I do have two links that confirm this Kanji and fact. Link 1 and Link 2

Also, in episode 21 of "Trigun", the enemy "Hoppered the Gauntlet" retells this precise story. I assume it is one of those stories that is deep within Japanese Culture... but I haven't studied much Japanese either. But considering that it is technically part of their language and we have two confirmed references (Pheonix Wright and Trigun) -- 69.138.232.32 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (Dragontamer)

 * Its been a few days without a response, so I'll note this in the article. --69.138.232.32 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Dragontamer)

 * I am actually unsure of the translation of 矛 is. Google translates it as "pike", the wikipedia page on Kanji currently translates it as "spear", and finally the original link translates it to "halberd". The fact that these weapons are commonly confused in English further confuses the translation effort. I've left the edit as Pole weapon, which describes the class of weapons that pikes, spears, and halberds all fall under. --69.138.232.32 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * not japanese buddy. read the article. the only reason those 2 words mean contradiction in Japanese is because that's what it means in Chinese thanks to the Chinese idiom that explains why those 2 mean contradiction when put together. has nothing to do with hotdog lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Unstoppable and Irresistible Paradoxes are Separate
Unstoppable Force is force without limit.

Irresistible Force would be a force that is attracted without limit.

Split the wikipedia pages.

The WoW reference and the Dark Knight reference have no place on the irresistible page, as they both in reference say Unstoppable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.251.46 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * In my lexicon "Unstoppable" = "Irresistible" as far as the object affected by it concerns. I think the current formulation is OK. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Answer
The Irresistable Force emmanates from the Immovable Object.

They are one and the same thing. They meet because the Force is radiating from the Object, which also contributes to making it Immovable.

This is a very old riddle, the philosophers who took it seriously would've been Sphinx lunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildstormSong (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Your answer is wrong. See below (Zeus)! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is the right answer even in the black hole theory that the force is left only to be combined with the object and expand together in effect, trust me I am a professor from Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.67.108 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativity
Just supposing the possibility of an immovable object and an irresistable force (I assume in the form of a moving object of infinite inertia), then, according to the principle of relativity, what you're really dealing with is two objects of infinite inertia colliding. Properly speaking, it's meaningless to say one is moving and the other is stationary, except relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. So there aren't two different kinds of things encountering each other at all. Just two objects of infinite mass or infinite velocity. Not sure if that solves anything, but it's worth noting. Torgo (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Zeus

 * Q: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
 * A: Zeus will intervene, see Laelaps (mythology)!

... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically: when contradictory-quality-paradoxes occurs, Zeus will petrify both participants having those contradictory qualities... or so Wikipedia says... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Zeus didn't solve anything. he just forced the dog to fail. since he made them static stars the dog can't move ever again so he can't catch the fox and the legend that he catches everything he hunts is proven false and he can't catch everythign he hunts. this paradox too can be solved if 1 of the 2 are proven false. if the object isn't immovable then there's no paradox. the force will move it. if the force isn't irresistable then there's no paradox. the object will resist it. doesn't solve the original paradox though because youre just forcing 1 to fail to make things neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Ultimately this answers the question of saying neither side can win the contest by having the contest continue forever without a resolution, having the hound continue to chase the fox forever as stars in the sky.--108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

the real answer
It's quite simple: the force will go through the object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.34.222 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gravity
Gravity is technically NOT a force. It is a physical property of space-time as defined by Einstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.59 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Semantics
The semantics explanation saying that is there is an immovable force there is no immovable object and vice versa does not seem to make sense or compare to a triangle with four sides. I am removing it unless it can be sourced or better explained how it does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.214 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering where this went. (Not sure where the four-sided triangle bit came from; that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.) How's this:

The semantic solution to the paradox simply posits that the concept of an immovable object cannot exist in a universe in which an irresistible force exists (and, conversely, that in a universe with immovable objects there can be no such thing as the concept of an irresistible force); to assume the existence of one is to imply the conceptual impossibility of the other, and so to present the idea of the two meeting is a fallacy. [The distinction of the concept of the object/force, as opposed to the object/force itself, is central here. Don't want to get too far into Kant, but the idea is that people in a universe with immovable objects, even if it could be proven that in such a universe no such forces exist, cannot even imagine irresistible forces, and vice versa.] 77.160.191.85 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Solutions?
There've been a lot proposed, shouldn't they be added to the page? Surely someone proffesional has offered a solution.

Besisdes, I think it's quite obvious. The unstoppable force bounces off and starts moving in another direction, without stopping. ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a bouncing off still implies a stopping, doesn't it? ;) When you throw an elastic ball against a wall, such as to make it bounce off, there naturally occurs a (short) span of time, where the ball stops, while "sticking" at the wall.

What happens, when two equal magnitudes (in this case they both appear to be infinite) collide with each other? Every time something like that happens, the result is a mutual offset. So, the only thing happening I can imagine is that, at the point of collision, the (once) irresistible force stops, while the (once) immovable object begins to move...

I have a certain difficulty with one sentence in the article: "An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe." Who wrote that? Can you, please, explain, how you know this is a finite universe? If, however, nobody knows, then why this sentence? Zero Thrust (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Omnipotence_paradox page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox) it says: "The problem is similar to another classic paradox, the irresistible force paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? One response to this paradox is that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no truly immovable object; conversely, if an immovable object were to exist, then no force could be defined as being truly irresistible." I feel that this solution should be represented on this article, considering wikipedia itself makes a reference to that particular solution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.10 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved this: "One possible solution is that the unstoppable force goes around the immovable object, allowing it to continue on its way while letting the immovable object remain stationary." here because, without a citation, it looks like origninal research. --81.23.54.142 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The unstopppable force, for all intents and purposes, goes through the immovable object. 121.127.203.225 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

the one solution to the problem, which actually makes sense.
Previous answers to this question don't make sense, because it then implies that one of the two really isn't what is declared to be. First off, an irresistible force is an unstoppable force, because an object has to resist it in order to stop it to begin with, and it can't be able to slow down, or speed up, because then its stoppable, and hence, resistible. An example of such is light, which is a force when you put logic into it, but that only exists because of matter, matter that an immovable object doesn't have. An immovable object can't exist because you can keep taking atoms and adding to it. However if such an object did exist, and an irresitible force nailed it, since its actually infinite small objects, the immovable object would explode. The atoms in the object moved, but the object it self didn't.

It's like in the Disney movie the Incredibles. The machine is an immovable object. The only thing able to destroy it was itself, which now could be considered an irresistble force. In other words, the machine was so dense, that only it can destroy itself, because it's own density gave it the energy needed. it really comes down to is whether a force needs to be equal to an object to move it, or greater then the object. Because if equal, then the force can move the object, if needed to be greater, then since both are infinite, and hence equal, the force is destroyed.

In the case of a perfect Pitcher and a perfect Batter in Baseball, the pitcher pitches the ball. The Batter hit's the ball, but the bat is destroyed, and the ball continues into the Catchers glove. Both records are kept and destroyed at the same time. In a perfect Defense and Perfect Offense senario, neither can be perfect, and hense it all really comes down to who is better. there are so many possiblities of senario's.

 * dude... if the thing exploded and all the atoms that made it up moved then it moved. the point is that it is immovable meaning it can't move not even an atom of it. so your object isn't immovable. if the bat breaks and the batter still gets a strike he didn't have a perfect hit record but the pitcher did still get him a strike so his record isn't tarnished. that 1 is just like the chinese original example. if the shield is pierced by the spear it wasn't a perfect shield and if the spear can't pierce the shield it isn't a perfect spear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Truth
An irresistible force is not an unstoppable force, and to declare something as immovable is to say it has reached an absolute zero. Even in an absolute zero an object will have space between the atoms no matter how infinitely big. An unresisted force (if it even has mass) would be able to use the spaces, no matter how small, to get through the object, no matter how infinitely big. A force utilizing these spaces an being untouched is, in essence, irresistible. That is what happens when these two meet, they pass one another an continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.36.8 (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Real Answer
They surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.14.253 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Inevitable
Taking the conditional statement 'what if' for its merits, we have to assume that both an immovable object and an irresistible force exist and meet each other.

It is quite easy. We imagine a universe in which it is true. Such a universe is one that has only one object in it. OK, it is not much of a universe, but that is not relevant here. In this universe, since there is no other force acting on the only object it contains, the object moves with constant speed. Since there is no other object to resist it, it exerts an irresistible force. In that sense, the object and the force 'meet' as being two aspects of the same event: the moving object.

In other words, if we imagine a universe where the 'what if' is true, then the conditional becomes a defining condition for the kind universe we are talking about. We only have to find one such universe that makes the statement true. Even if there are other universes that make it true, we have proven that the paradox vanishes in certain universes. Hence the statement is neither a contradiction nor a paradox (logically) in that universe. Many of the answers overlook that the obvious, that in our universe this statement can not be verified, but it can still be thought of as a property of some other universe.

Mathematics studies 'model theory' that creates models of certain sets of axioms. Contradictory axioms can not be modeled. But paradoxical statements could be modeled. For instance, the axiom of choice produces the Tarski paradox that describes how a solid ball can be taken apart in a finite number of sets and those finite number of sets can be put together (in a different way) to create two solid balls of equal volume as the one we start with. This is not 'strange', but a consequence of the axiom of choice, if it is assumed to hold in the standard model of geometry. It is only our intuition that does not conform with the logic of a statement. It is our intuition that does not allow us to agree with the logic of certain things.

Having said that, I repeat that the paradox vanishes in a suitable universe which satisfies the premises. I bet other contributors can find other universes in which the statement 'what if' under consideration here is true. I am curious to your replies. Bcurfs (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * so... the immovable object is moving? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Interesting observation there. Curiously, the words "immovable" and "moving" do not have to exclude each other. It seems that "immovable" means that it can not be moved out of its position or out of its uniform, resp. linear, movement. Keeping relativity in mind, we know that an object is said to be moving only relative to another object (or an observer). However, if there is only one object in the universe under consideration, there is no movement in the strictest sense (since there is also no observer). This means that without the loss of generality, the only object in the considered universe can be considered to be either moving or at rest, nevertheless being "completely inert" at the same time. Hence, the force it exerts is not interacting with any other object in the universe, and is therefore irresistible. Bcurfs (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Today, I considered the following two situations.
 * 1. My solution hinges on the fact that there's only one object in this universe, which nevertheless may adhere to many laws of physics, such as General Relativity Theory. However, if it also adheres to Quantum Physics, we still have a problem to resolve. In such a universe, if it is large enough, then, due to quantum fluctuations, other objects must exist, at least temporary, and these will inevitably interact with the "one object", much like Hawking Radiation, and thus exert force. So, this condition of one object must imply that the universe we're talking about is small enough for Quantum Fluctuations to cease, so perhaps its size is close to the Planck Length. If so, perhaps we can deduce the nature of this "one object"?
 * Related to this is:
 * 2. To define what it means that there is (only) one object, we must assume it is also stable. If it isn’t stable, then it can dissolve into smaller objects, which will nullify said universe as a “solution” to the paradox. On the other hand, if it is stable, and consisting of more than one constituent, we have the mystery of how it evolved. Did it always exist? If not, then said universe could be quite old. Perhaps it collapsed in on itself from gravity, and the object is heavy. But it can’t be as heavy that it emits EMR, because then it wouldn't be stable. Perhaps the last word isn’t said about this “solution”?
 * Bcurfs (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The force goes through the object
The force can also bounce of the object, bouncing off does not mean it stops --Sumirp (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Force applied to an object is met by a resultant force of the object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.153.114 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

X Ray
Some of my theories: 1: it goes DIRECTLY through the object and makes no hole ( like an x ray) but in this case a super crayon. 2: Bounces off 3: THINK ABOUT THIS CAREFULLY: Pinnichio said "my nose will grow longer" (AKA INFINITE LOOPISH SCENARIO) 4:Nothing happens because this can only occur in some awkward universe. Whatever the answer, this is a question that needs to be answered . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.61.197 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Pinnhochio saying his nose will grow longer is not a paradox; it is true. He is not restricted to only saying one word. A stronger form of the
 * Liar's Paradox is "This is a lie", although neither involve an infinite force or an infinite object.
 * 211.30.171.128 (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutual exclusivity
There seems to be a language problem between the first and second paragraphs. The beginning of para 2 states that the existence of an unstoppable force is mutually exclusive with the existence of an immovable object. However, the end of para 1 states that all unstoppable forces are, by definition, also immovable objects (and vice versa). These two statements are mutually exclusive (though the one in para 2 seems more logical to me). Can this be either explained or cleaned up? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

3rd paragraph discrepancy
The following two lines are found in the 3rd paragraph:

"as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass" "An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe."

These clearly contradict each other, the entire paragraph seems a bit ragged. Perhaps the last line should be removed, though I lack the Physics trivia to know if the first is true. Could anyone perhaps reference that? 196.210.230.2 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging this article with "Omnipotence Paradox"
I would like to propose that this article not be merged with "Omnipotence paradox" because they involve different assumptions. That assumes the same power is creating the stone and trying to move it, so that the concept of infinity in power is challenged, while this assumes an infinite power and an infinite stone and challenges the concept of the two meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.171.128 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose the move proposal for similar reasons. The Omnipotence Paradox is about _omnipotence_ (that is, whether omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible), whereas this paradox is an illustration of logical impossibility. Tevildo (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

2 answers found
The question is: "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" and that is it!

 * Do not attach to it labels such as phisics, universe, math, philosophy and other stuff like that. Stay on topic!

So as some of you already found, the two answers are:
 * 1) unstoppable force passes through immovable object - only if this can happen
 * 2) unstoppable force flows around immovable object - since object has limited size by definition and force doesn't

... and they cannot stop at equlibrium of infinities facing each other because the force is unstoppable.

This article doesn't realy answers well to this question and I guess it needs some rewriting. Most people search wiki for answers and not for the description and origins of the question or some phisics spin-off especially when main topic here is a question itself. And this was never question about phisics, please :-) --83.5.89.216 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) You are such a troll,LoL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.93.177 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

immoveable object VS unstopable force
This conversation is misguided and mistaken, the ideas and thoughts on the subject of immovable and unstoppable objects are improperly viewed from the start as large objects, the idea of the meeting of two powerful objects..this is in your mind.lets say the objects were small..the size of a baseball. NOT a baseball but the same size and the material was so hard it could not be penetrated in any way and moving at a steady speed (dosent half to be fast [i.e., doesn't have to be fast, ed.]) and it collided with an equal size ball shape that could not be budged under any circumstances..it becomes obvious that only the Lord knows the answer to this... perhaps they enter another dimension.. but there is an answer, its just that you and I dont know it. Barry Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.54.200 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 * If we were to answer all questions like this, concluding that we "just don't know it" (I call that an open door), the purpose of the question would be defeated, namely, to try and find that answer. The question is often the begin of a quest, and the answer once found the begin of a follow-up question. Question and answer belong together, but the final answer can never be that we don't know it (because it wouldn't be final). On the other hand, it may be helpful to consider the objects to be small as one possible context in which the question can be answered. The misconception is that there should be two objects (one exerting a force, the other unstoppable), suggested by the word "meet" . . . (see my solution under "The Inevitable") Bcurfs (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nature of the question
In this question, we're dealing with a force, and an object. An unstoppable or irresistible force isn't necessarily an unstoppable or irresistible object - I would think it more of a force like electromagnetism or gravity; furthermore, it's possible to slow such a force down without stopping it, or change its direction. An immovable object isn't necessarily an object that can be destroyed.

There are several possible correct answers (some already mentioned): The force moves through the object, the force changes direction or flows around the object, or the object is destroyed (converted into energy).184.166.28.136 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Mind Furk
The universe may be immovable. The universe may be unstoppable. Maybe it is impossible to move it from it's path? Maybe it's an unstoppable, immovable object. (Boom, mind furk.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.111.74 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also,
Who said an unstoppable force had to be solid? it could be a gas. once it reaches the unstoppable, it could simply go around it without slowing down. An immovable object could also be gas. and then something else, like gas could also just go through it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.111.74 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hulk vs. Mjolnir
Could the Hulk lift Mjolnir (Thor's Hammer) even thugh he is deemed not worthy.
 * The Hulk has great strength, but it's not normally said to be infinite.--108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The section about "omnipotence vs. omniscience" has a wrong conclusion
Omniscience does not mean "knowledge of the one unchangeable future" (which is then argued to conflict with omnipotence). It means (w.r.t. the future) "knowledge of all possible futures and the result of every change resulting from omnipotence" and is therefore not inconsistent with omnipotence. So the omniscient being knows what the future will be without its interference and also what change each interference would effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference
Reference #1 - http://www.jimloy.com/logic/force.htm - is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.42.210 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Irresistible force paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Newtons%20Flaming%20Laser%20Sword.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of preamble?
Hello all, I'm not seeing the relevance of the beginning of the article -

"Many believe this to be an impossible paradigm (see below) but it's the basis of nuclear fusion. In nuclear physics, nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles. The difference in mass between the reactants and products is manifested as either the release or absorption of energy. So, what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? The colliders combine and create energy.?

Especially since there is no citation about this being the basis of nuclear fusion. (In addition, from my understanding, the forces involved in nuclear fusion are neither unstoppable nor immovable). Furthermore, nuclear fusion is not mentioned elsewhere in the article either, and overall I can't really see a purpose to including this preamble. Are there any objections to deleting it? TheKenster (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess someone else had the same problem because the lead section of the article is now relevant. Issue resolved. TheKenster (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternative theory
They both combust. EJW1 (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What is immovable? What is Unstoppable?
This problem is in itself the answer to the origin of our universes origins. Before matter existed there were two forces one constantly moving one constantly static. when we think of that in practical terms we get friction friction equals energy. Energy can be converted to matter as E=MC² theorizes. What is more immovable than space and what is more unstoppable than time.

(C. A. de Jong) 16/10/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.16.70 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

of course to solve the original riddle the immovable object turns the unstoppable force thereby one remains unmoved the other unstopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.16.70 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

if one exists then the other can't
if there is an unstoppable force then there is no immoveable object that can withstand it

same the other way around if there is an immoveable object then there can no be unstoppable force that can move it

if one exists then the other really can't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollojeffking (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you actually test this theory?
What happens when you throw a big ball at a concrete rock? Ball hits the rock with exactly 100 joules Rock is able to withstand exactly 100 joules 2601:247:C204:2950:C034:2A3C:5529:D303 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Line in "Applications" doesn't match the rest of what's in the article at all.
The "Applications" subsection currently says something about the question of an omniscient being and changing its mind, but everything else in the article doesn't mention omniscience at all, but rather talks about opposing omnipotent forces. Perhaps this made sense in relation to other content that has since been removed from the article, but as is doesn't make sense to be included. 108.86.123.92 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I came up with a theory of my own I haven't seen yet.
Sorry if someone thought this too and I just didn't see it. So, my idea of this is that any truly immovable object would have to be incredibly dense and large, and any truly unstoppable force would not only go through it, it would compress the immovable object further, causing it to collapse into a black hole. But, the object hasn't moved, and the force hasn't been stopped. Therefore, no parameters have been violated, and a real solution has been found. I did get the "force going through object" idea from here, but the black hole part I came up with. Please do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong about anything here. Thank you. MaxGamer07 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, So hear me out
By definition, a house is an immoveable object. Gravity is an unstoppable force. I win. 2601:182:900:96A0:B5AD:5ED:CDBC:F906 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's simple, the unstoppable force would change direction
Read the title 76.236.218.240 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Irresistible force paradox


text:
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mbarara

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mbarara (Archidioecesis Mbararaensis) in Uganda covers an area of 10,980 km2 in southwestern Uganda. As of 2003, of the 2.2 million citizens in the area 856,168 are members of the Catholic Church. The archdiocese is subdivided into 25 parishes, and has 114 priests altogether. The archdiocese is the metropolitan for the dioceses of:

 * (a) Hoima
 * (b) Fort Portal
 * (c) Kasese
 * (d) Kabale

The cathedral is the Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Mbarara.

History
The archdiocese dates back to the Vicariate Apostolic of Ruwenzori, which was erected on May 28, 1934 by splitting the Vicariate Apostolic of Uganda. On March 25, 1953 it was elevated to a diocese and renamed after its principal town Mbarara. 1961 territory was lost to the newly erected diocese of Fort Portal, and again in 1966 to the diocese of Kabale. On January 2, 1999 the diocese was elevated to an archdiocese. Before being an archdiocese the diocese was a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of Kampala.

Bishops

 * Vicar Apostolic of Ruwenzori
 * Bishop François-Xavier Lacoursière Missionaries of Africa (28 May 1934 - 25 March 1953 see below)
 * Bishops of Mbarara
 * Bishop François-Xavier Lacoursière Missionaries of Africa (see above 25 March 1953 - 20 April 1956)
 * Bishop Jean-Marie Gaëtan Ogez, Missionaries of Africa (11 December 1956 - 25 November 1968)
 * Bishop John Baptist Kakubi (26 June 1969 - 23 November 1991)
 * Bishop Paul Kamuza Bakyenga (23 November 1991 – 2 January 1999 see below)
 * Archbishops of Mbarara
 * Archbishop Paul Kamuza Bakyenga (see above 2 January 1999 – 25 April 2020), promoted as Archbishop on 2 January 1999, when Mbarara became metropolitan archdiocese.
 * Archbishop Lambert Bainomugisha (25 April 2020 – Present), formerly served as Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese since 2005.

Coadjutor Bishop

 * Paul Kamuza Bakyenga (1989-1991)

Auxiliary Bishop

 * Lambert Bainomugisha (2005-2020), appointed Archbishop here

title: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mbarara


text:
Bragar

Bragar (Bràgar, ) is a village on the west side of the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, 14 mi from the island's only town, Stornoway. Bragar is within the parish of Barvas, and is situated on the A858 between Carloway and Barvas.

Residents are mainly Gaelic speaking, and many work as crofters.

The village's best-known landmark is a whalebone arch, made in 1921 from the jawbone of an 80 ft blue whale which was beached on the shore the year before. The arch is located at the Lakeview residence, the home of Murdo Morrison (1867–1950). Bragar also has a post office, a war memorial, and a school.

History
A ruined Iron Age broch, Dun Bragar, stands in Loch an Dùin in South Bragar, 80 metres from the road and connected to the lochside by a causeway. In the mid-20th century local people took away many of its stones, and the structure is no longer safe.

The remains of a chapel, Teampall Eòin (the Temple of John the Baptist), built in the 15th century or earlier, lie inside a walled compound. This also contains a cemetery, now known as Cill Sgàire (Zechariah's cemetery) after Zechariah MacAulay who fell in a skirmish between the MacAulays of Uig and the Morrisons of Ness.

It is estimated that 2000 people are buried within the graveyard.

Notable people
Roderick Morison, the retained harper to Clan MacLeod at Dunvegan Castle, was born in Bragar in 1656. He wrote Òran Mòr MhicLeòid.

title: Bragar


text:
Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Die, Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Live Forever

Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Die, Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Live Forever is the second album recorded by post-rock band Explosions in the Sky, released on September 4, 2001. It is their first album released on the Temporary Residence label.

Cultural references
The track "Have You Passed Through This Night?" is one of the few Explosions in the Sky songs to contain any words: a sample of the narration from the film The Thin Red Line.

The track "The Moon Is Down" was based on The Moon Is Down by author John Steinbeck.

The artwork for the album, by David Logan, was inspired by the Angels of Mons.

Cultural impact
The band garnered a small amount of media attention as the liner notes of this album contained a picture of an airplane and the text "This Plane Will Crash Tomorrow". A rumor circulated that the album was released on September 10, 2001, the day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, but this is not true. According to Amazon.com, the album was officially released September 4, 2001, exactly one week before the attacks. An interview with Stylus claims the album was available as early as August 24, 2001. Members of the band told Stylus that they had the artwork and idea for the liner notes for over a year before the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The track title "With Tired Eyes, Tired Minds, Tired Souls, We Slept" was used as an episode title for an episode of season three of the television show One Tree Hill.


text: Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Uganda


text: Category:Images of Albania

title: Category:Images of Albania


text:
Samseong station

Samseong Station is a station on Seoul Subway Line 2. It serves the eastern area of Teheranno. Some of the more famous buildings near the station include World Trade Center Seoul, COEX Mall, Korea Electric Power (KEPCO) headquarters, Korea Air City Terminal (buses run from here to Incheon and Gimpo Airports, and vice versa), and Gangnam main police and fire stations. Due to security concerns, the station was closed during the G20 summit and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, as this station is directly connected with COEX.

The ridership of this station is very high, consistently ranking among the five most heavily used subway stations in Korea. The table below shows the average daily ridership between 2010 and 2012.

Although the name of this station shares its pronunciation with the company Samsung, the Hanja for the company (三星) and the station (三成) are different, so there is no relation between the two.

The 836-meter (914-yard) section of sidewalk along Yeongdong Boulevard from exit No.5 of this station, outside COEX Convention & Exhibition Center and ASEM Tower is designated as a smoke-free zone by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Vicinity

 * Exit 1: Gangnam Police Station, Park Hyatt Hotel
 * Exit 2: Russian Embassy of Korea
 * Exit 3: Hwimoon Middle & High Schools
 * Exit 4: POSCO Center, Daemyeong Middle School
 * Exit 5: Korea Air City Terminal, Hyundai Department Store, InterContinental Hotel Grand Seoul Parnas
 * Exit 6: COEX Mall (direct passageway), World Trade Center Seoul
 * Exit 7: KEPCO Headquarters
 * Exit 8: Gangnam Fire Station

title: Samseong station


text:
Kitzmiller

Kitzmiller may refer to:

People

 * John Kitzmiller (1913–1965), African-American actor
 * Johnny Kitzmiller (1904–1986), American football player and member of the College Football Hall of Fame
 * Karen B. Kitzmiller (1947-2002), American politician
 * Warren Kitzmiller (1943-2022), American politician

title: Kitzmiller


text:
Arama

Arama is a town located in the Goierri region of the province of Gipuzkoa, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country, in the north of Spain.

title: Arama


text:
Dangsan station

Dangsan Station is an elevated station on the Seoul Subway Line 2 and is an underground station on the Seoul Subway Line 9. The station is located on the south bank of the Han River in Yeongdeungpo-gu. Because the station is elevated, trains exiting to or entering from the north make use of the Dangsan Railway Bridge. As of April 2009, the platform has been outfitted with platform screen doors. Dangsan station is currently a transfer point between Line 2 and Seoul Subway Line 9. Several Korean TV series were shot in nearby locations, like Boys Over Flowers, Iris or My Girlfriend is a Gumiho.

Seoul Subway Line 2 has two-sided relative platforms, Seoul Subway Line 9 has two island platforms, and both platforms have screen doors.

title: Dangsan station