text:
Talk:Introduction to Philosophy

Active Approach
I think this book gives some great background on philosophy, it has good information but lacks any diagrams or pictures and is relativly dull other than that good job Wikilife (talk)

-- Honestly, I am working on this book as I push through my own side-studies of philosophy. Ever more I am finding it harder to put philosophy in a context of a text book. More and more I am seeing that it is something that you have to do and experience. So, while making this I had the wrong premises in mind, and I apologize for this action. I plan on working on the Wikiversity level of Philosophy. I fear that a text book will only fall short on giving a description of philosophy unless to be given set of readings of what philosophy is and reflections on them. I wish to all the best of luck with this book. --Destrogal 18:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am taking a new approach on this. The old version of this text was completely incomprehensible and strayed far from what I would consider an introduction. Although this is the first step and there is much to be edited, I would like to continue working in this manner until the end of each part. Afterwards, it would be easier for me to edit. That is, when I have more time to take in each idea and pay more attention to its own attention to the subject. Also, I will be trying to transform these discussion pages into a comprehensive discussion on Philosophy.

In addition, I would like to keep many articles and work from them, but there shouldn't have been a simple posed questions: What is philosophy? Why study philosophy? -- These are junk. We should explain the nature of philosophy to begin with. Where it came from, how it is interpreted, who started it, etc. If anyone has an objection, please email me at destrogal@gmail.com --Destrogal 21:09, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Old comments
I agree with the other comments. Also, I think the structure of this book needs to be re-worked. There should be a number of subsections, as each current section is quite large in scope. The arrangement itself could use a little re-arrangement, which I'll gladly get to when I have a chance. The links are fucked, they'll all have to be changed from basic pages (why would there be a wikibooks/philosophy_of_religion ??) to links "within" this book, e.g. wikibooks:introduction_to_philosophy:philosophy_of_religion. Ugh. --Daniel April 29, 2004

Why is there no mention to aesthetics? KIZU 09:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The introduction mentions a commitment to logic but there doesn't appear to be a logic section

In the various philosophy courses I've taken, philosophy is typically decomposed into logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and sometimes political philosophy.

--Matt 15:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I enjoyed it
Is there a way to get a word printout of it?

Alex

 * Glad you enjoyed "Introduction to Philosophy".
 * I am the author of 'Existentialism', 'Ulitiarnism' (ugh), and 'Philosophy of Mind'. (Also 'Pragmatism' but it isn't piped as yet).
 * You can get individual bits and make a Word printout yourself.
 * (Working from MS Word to the Wiki format and vice versa is covered with hidden pitfalls).
 * All you need do is cut and paste the content as well as the editing history.
 * Thank you, EuropracBHIT 02:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Ulitiarnism' - do you mean 'utilitarianism'?

Well, I've added logic, and also aesthetics, as people seem to be asking for this. I might get round to putting some material under 'logic', but I don't really know much about aesthetics. Perhaps 'logic' should go at the top? But I'm not a pushy person, so won't put it there myself unless given much prompting to do so. --212.56.114.4 17:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) --publunch 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that 'Introduction to Philosophy' is listed as 'struggling'. I sometimes feel like I'm the only person struggling with it. Please tell me that this isn't true or I'll go and find something else to do. When I start trying to write about things, I begin to realise just how patchy my knowledge is. --publunch 17:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References section
Do we really need a references section? Personally, I feel that it confuses things, since we can cite direcly into the article using endnotes. Besides, the page doesn't seem to be getting filled at all, and serves as more of an embarassment than a section. IMO, it will confuse people, since they'll have to go back and forth between two different pages...I say we scrap it and do everything in the article itself, with a separate ==References== section. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * well, as the link doesn't go anywhere, I'll remove it. Refs can go in individual chapters I think.  Maybe there is a need for general refs to general works, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  But as the link doesn't go anywhere, I'll remove it or comment it out for now.

--publunch 16:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Classification?
Should Existentialism, Buddhism, and Transcendentalism be placed under ethics? They all have ethical components and implications, but they are not all about ethics. I don't know where they belong, but they don't belong under ethics.

 * Perhaps a "Philosophical Positions" section or something similar should be added to capture things like this, as well as things like postmodernism, nihilism, etc.. Not sure what the best way to go about this would be. Should it be it's own section? Does it fit under an "Introduction to Philosophy"?

--moonty 21:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello! I found your book really interesting but you could simplify your Wikibook. I'm not saying that it isn't OK but you can classify and edit the text a little bit so that it looks easy to understand for you as well as for the user. And one more thing, you can edit the complexity also, so easy naming, classification is available and understanding is easy. --Mastermind 007 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Page cleanup
There are two pages in particular that I would strongly recommend that interested individuals help out with to try and fix up. I've been going through the orphaned page bin, and I discovered some modules that IMHO are better written than the content that is associated with this Wikibook. At least give it a chance and perhaps merge all of the content together to see what might become of it. See these two pages:

 * Introduction to Philosophy:What is Epistemology
 * Introduction to Philosophy:What is Ethics

make sure you mark the source pages for speedy delete when you are done with them. --Rob Horning 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A section about divine command theory
I think that it would not be such a bad idea to include sections about divine command theory and cultural ethical relativism. These are both well-known and respected moral theories. Perhaps a divine command theory section could describe morality from the viewpoints of various religions.

-Strongbad 03:28 UTC

title: Talk:Introduction to Philosophy


text:
User:Aphaia

Self-introduction
I am a Japanese Wikimedian, a member of Communications committee since May 2006. There I am working mainly on smaller projects promotion & translation.

If you need a help to promote Wikibooks both for the Wikimedia project internal and the external world, please don't hesitate to consult us. We Promotion & Translation subcommittee will be happy to collaborate you.

You are welcome at my meta talk.

Bookmark
German: Level I

ja:利用者:Aphaia

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

title: User:Aphaia


text:
Talk:Lucid Dreaming/Induction Techniques

recommend further research
(posted by Daniel Love of Lucidity Institute forum fame):

Many of the techniques and "facts" presented on this page are NOT backed up by research. I would recommend further research into any of the techniques suggested here. This is not to say that SOME of the techniques are genuine only that some are not. Do not take anything you read as a fact without further research. No point filling your mind with misleading details when it is expanding yourmind that you are interested in now is there?

Please would the person who complained about innaccuracies in the "Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques" page detail these inaccuracies? I will make the changes if I cannot back myself up. Alternatively, you can edit the page itself, but note that if I can back myself up the relevant edits will be reverted (i.e. reversed). r3m0t (cont) (talk) 13:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The person was Daniel Love (he's registered at the Lucidity Institute), I have contacted him and he gave kind permission to put the CAT method into the wikibook! r3m0t (cont) (talk) 13:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There are in fact several incorrections on the text. Recent changes even emphasized it a bit more, for instance the reality check procedures as described are only necessary for someone with a deep mental problem of disassociation, if the issues becomes so severe as described the person should consult a mental specialist. Reality checks have a place and a function but they do not need to become a mania and I contest any benefit in systematically performing reality check while fully consciously awaken and a risk when in lucid dreaming as they promote awakening.
 * The induction section is also extremely convoluted and mixes a lot of information, from autosuggestion, to self-hypnosis (not the same) completely outside of context. I can auto-suggest having a lucid dream but I can't initiate a lucid dream with autosuggestion, this is more or less the same with self-hypnosis I can promote having lucid dreams but not initiate a lucid dream under hypnosis (if at all achieved it is then an hypnotic experience and it is significantly different than a lucid dream)...
 * I was going to tag the page as having incorrections but since this discussion is already taking place I decided the attention of the editors to these facts... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

start reality checking etc right away
The first sentence of the section is stupid: "You should have your dream recall up to about one dream a night before trying to induce lucid dreams". Why? You can just as well start pracitice the habit of reality checking etc right away, at the same time working on dream recall. This should be changed to something like "You should not expect the lucid dream induction techniques to work until your dream recall is good (and even then you might have to wait for months)".

 * This is such a minor change I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. I'm not trying to be totalitarian with this wikibook ;-). I'll change it myself, in case you never return. But "and even then you might have to wait for months" sounds passive and rather pessimistic. I'm pessimistic myself but try not to spread it. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't worry :) I'll return with more criticism as soon as I've got time :) And you shouldn't be pessimistic about practicing taking months. I think it's wonderful! It's such an interesting oppurtunity to practice discipline and will power. --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It takes a couple of weeks to get the habit of making reality tests and understand the other lucid dream induction techniques. It also takes a couple of weeks to enhance dream recall. Why not prepare the induction skill so it is there when the dream recall rate is high enough?

 * It didn't take me so long to start doing reality checks (I believe that's the more common name nowadays). Dream recall certainly is a slow thing. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Doing reality checks unconsciosly, as a habit, takes a while for the nervous system to learn. Well well, maybe that's only true for me? --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps my life is just wierd enough for me to do reality checks a lot and not by habit? ;-) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 18:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tibetan dream yogic methods
Nothing is written about the Tibetan dream yogic methods. Although not scientific, they should be mentioned for those who want to try it out. The technique is basically to understand that everything we see, here, smell and sense is produced by our brains. Everything is a dream. Keeping this high level of awareness during the day-time will eventually make it possible to keep this awareness if not 24 hours a day, at least under large portions of the sleep-time.

 * Criticism isn't so useful when you could do something about it. But I can see you already gave me a starter to find the other name for this: Lucid Living. I'll research it. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 14:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll see if I have time to contribute what I know about it. --DanielJanzon 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * That would be cool. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 18:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * You know, that sounds a lot like the "mind model" stated in Pedro's VILD text, available in the Appendixes section. KirbyMeister 00:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it ain't so hard to come up with, if you're a philosophical sort of person. :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Template for RC pages

With the (name) reality check, you check if ...

As well as doing this regularly, you could also do it every time... (optional)

This reality check works because... (optional)

Examples of this reality check working:

 * A simple example (optional)

 * An example where somebody had trouble understanding their results, but managed anyway (optional)

 * An example where somebody did not intend to do the RC when they became lucid (optional)

 * Another miscellanous one (optional)

Examples of this reality check failing:

 * One where the reality check gives real-life results

 * Another one where you try to ask a dream character to "rationalise" the true outcome, or when the reality check worked but was not recognised.

 * Same sort of thing again (optional)

On reality check examples
A quick note on the reality check examples: They don't really need to be real, but they do need to be realistic, i.e. like a dream would be. Also, there isn't much point making them all to a template, is there? Add a little background information, or make the example somehow interesting. Otherwise, leave it out. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current reliability boxes
Possible boxes for "reliability"; within them will be a description of reliability but not actual content (which would follow).

Response to the colored box idea:

Nice. However, the Rated Yellow category should be a redder yellow while Yellow/Green should be a greener yellow, like this:

KirbyMeister 23:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but... ew! Those colours are pretty bright and lurid. I think I'll just put in the gentle ones now (I want to rush this wikibook to perfection quickly ;) ) and worry about the exact colours later.

Okay. By the way, we could do this on the realitychecks where those with more anecdotes have a higher rating.

 * Tough one there. There are loads more anecdotes than just the ones given (the success ones tend to be all the same) and it's a pain keeping count. Also there's the subject "Reliable - Fast - Discreet" rating on the Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page, which could make it pretty useless. Well, I'm off to bed now. Don't bother to wish me luck, my dad is pushing me off as I speak. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for reliability boxes
My attempts at finding a new colour scheme (showing green/yellow as a different colour :) ) feel free to add more rows with variations. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 21:38, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tharenthel seems to have created a nice-looking scheme... should we keep? KirbyMeister 20:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I say yes (of course :-) ), but I think we should vote... --Tharenthel 21:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Color scheme vote
Add your name by typing to the list after whichever color scheme you like best. If there's a tie between the current colors and another scheme, then the current colors will be kept. If there's a tie between two schemes that aren't the current scheme, then we'll revote with only those two schemes as choices, unless no one voted for anything but those two tied schemes, in which case we'll have to figure out some other way to choose between them. :-) --Tharenthel 21:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vote closes on midnight May 7 Wikibooks time (to pick a date at random). Anonymous votes count. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 09:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vote is over. Tharenthelian Colors won. :-) --Tharenthel 21:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Current Colors:
 * Kirby's 1st Attempt:
 * r3m0t's 1st Attempt:
 * A mixture:
 * KC's 1st Attempt:
 * Kirby's 2nd Attempt:
 * Tharenthelian Colors: Tharenthel, r3m0t, KirbyMeister

 * Please could nobody vote for Kirby's second attempt? It's nearly identical to Tharenthel's (Tharenthel's are a tiny bit lighter, actually) and it would be annoying to have a split over such a minor detail. Of course, you can still vote for it if you want, I won't stop you *shrug*.r3m0t (cont) (talk) 22:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Uhh, what? Mine=KC's and Thar's seem totally different to me. I picked mine from a web-safe palette, which I think is something to consider. I wonder if everyone is seeing these colors the same way? KC 00:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry; what I thought was that the bottom two looked similar (they are) and the list was the wrong way around, so I said your attempt instead of Kirby's second. I don't think a web-safe palette is something to consider - everybody today, without fail, has 16 bit colours (or 24 bit, or 32 bit...) your one (yes, I'm looking at the right one now) just doesn't seem to "flow" nicely for me (going left-to-right).
 * I will be sure to check these colours on a school computer, just to see how it looks on different screens. I suppose people not using flatscreens would also see it differently, but never mind for now - I have nowhere to test that. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Dont worry. I didnt vote for mine. KirbyMeister 19:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization of the techniques page
I'm thinking we should reorganize the Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques page, rewrite the MILD section, add an autosuggestion section, add a dream incubation section, make a new section for "unverified" techniques (if anyone wants to think of a better name, feel free to share it :-) ) and give each method of inducing WILDs it's own subcategory in the "WILDs" section, so it would look something like this:

'"Unverified" techniques' is where LILD would go along with any other techniques that would be rated red (and possibly ones that would be rated yellow). --Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Everything in "Other techniques" at the moment is rated red. That's why not much can be written about them - nobody seems to have tried them out. Have you read VILD? VILD is dream incubation. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think every technique should be color-coded, including everything in "Other techniques"... if everything in that section is rated red, then I guess everything there could just stay in a list (instead of going in subsections), but I think LILD should be moved there, and a reliability box added to the top of the ("Other techniques") section. I think we need a dream incubation section, and VILD could be a subsection of that or something... VILD's pretty much just a variation of the dream incubation concept - it just uses dream incubation to try to make it obvious to the dreamer that they're dreaming. I've put up a new list above so VILD's a subsection under "Incubating dreams" (though I think VILD might not show up on the table of contents thing, since it would be a sub-subsection), and "Other techniques" is at the bottom (and has no subsections). --Tharenthel 15:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

By the way, does everyone agree with me about the organization of the "WILDs" section? It'll have a short introduction to Wake-Initiated Lucid Dreams (as opposed to Dream-Initiated Lucid Dreams) that'll also explain the common usage of "WILD" to refer to any technique that induces a WILD, and the basic idea behind all WILD techniques (let your body fall asleep, but keep your brain awake). Under that will be subsections for each different technique of inducing WILDs (the ones currently in the "WILD" section are counting and focusing-on-hypnagogic-imagery, but there are others). Each separate WILD-inducing technique will have it's own reliability box. --Tharenthel 18:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

MILD rewrite
I noticed that the MILD on this wikibook, the MILD on ld4all.com, just about every other MILD, and the MILD in TLI's lucid dreaming FAQ/EWLD all seem to differ, so I figured we should probably switch to EWLD/Stephen LaBerge's version of MILD seeing as Stephen LaBerge created it. :-) (the MILD on ld4all.com is a lot like the "Autosuggestion technique" in EWLD, which I made another subsection for below this)

This is my draft of a rewritten MILD section (current version on the right for comparison):

--Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see much difference at all between the two. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * See my response below in the "New autosuggestion section" section. Other than that, the main difference is that mine says that you should try to remember that you're dreaming (instead of just repeating a mantra), and mentions that it should still work just as good even if you don't fall asleep repeating the mantra as long as you fall asleep focused on your intention to remember that you're dreaming (although that part could be emphasized a bit more). --Tharenthel 17:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * After rereading my draft a couple times more objectively, I've decided to make a few minor edits to emphasize the remembering to recognize that you're dreaming part a couple bits more. --Tharenthel 20:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * So... does anyone mind if I replace the MILD section? (and add the autosuggestion section, since that's a lot like the current MILD section, and that's where the using-autosuggestion-to-improve-dream-recall thing would be moved to) :-/ --Tharenthel 20:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I say go ahead, your text looks good to me. KC 19:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks, I'll go do that now. Just wanted to make sure not everyone else wanted to keep the current version. :-) --Tharenthel 21:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

New autosuggestion section
The "Autosuggestion technique" in EWLD says to relax completely, and then to "suggest to yourself that you are going to have a lucid dream, either later the same night or on some other night in the near future. Avoid putting intentional effort into your suggestion. [...] Instead, attempt to put yourself in the frame of mind of genuinely expecting that you will have a lucid dream tonight or sometime soon. Let yourself think expectantly about the lucid dream you are about to have. Look forward to it, but be willing to let it happen all in good time." I think it might also help to add a mantra as long as you don't put intentional effort into it (with the mantra, it would be like LD4all's adapted MILD (click "Inducing")). We could probably just use a modified version of the current MILD section for the autosuggestion section, but I'm not sure if we should include the mantra or not (autosuggestion doesn't necessarily include a mantra as far as I know). --Tharenthel 20:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't like the site to merely be a "free mini-EWLD" so what we are doing generally (or at least, what I want to do) is taking the intersection of all the common versions of the technique (i.e. finding what is common to many descriptions of the technique) and then explaining varietes "on the side". Autosuggestion does not sound very different from MILD - in fact, I would say both of them are forms of autosuggestion. Feel free to add this straight to the LD Induction Techniques, either as a variation of MILD or as its own section. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that as far as MILD is concerned, we should use the version created by it's creator. For autosuggestion, I think we should describe how to use autosuggestion to realize that you're dreaming, whether it's similar to EWLD's "Autosuggestion technique" or not (though it is, as far as I can tell).
 * So, here's the difference between MILD and autosuggestion: With MILD, you set your intention to remember that you're dreaming, and visualize yourself remembering to recognize that you're dreaming. With autosuggestion, you convince yourself that you're about to have a lucid dream. You expect to realize that you're dreaming, and look forward to the dream you're about to have, but you don't put any effortful intention into getting a lucid dream. There is a pretty major difference between the "effortful intention" of MILD and the "noneffortful suggestion" of autosuggestion. MILD (as described by The Lucidity Institute and EWLD/Stephen LaBerge) doesn't necessarily use a mantra (well it does in TLI's FAQ, but not in EWLD, and a mantra's definately not necessary to remember that you're dreaming (which is the purpose of MILD)), but whether the mantra that's usually included is autosuggestion or not is debatable, I think (you're not really trying to make yourself believe something, just remember something)... Anyway, MILD pretty much has to have something to do with memory, or it wouldn't have "mnemonic" in it's name (I've got you there :-P ). --Tharenthel 17:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

LILD secret
I will now reveal the secret of why no anecdotes of LILD have been found (highlight the text in and around the box)

 * It's based on the placebo effect, nothing else!

Thank you, please come again :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 21:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I dissagree with that and if you are smart you will also dissagree.--118.92.58.121 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LILD vote
One is lonely, two is company, and three is enough to start voting! Welcome to KC :)

I want to remove LILD on account of its uselessness (see Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques and Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques). The majority wins, anonymous votes count. Sign your vote with (which shows your username). Thanks. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave this vote until midnight 9th April wikibooks time. After that, anybody can remove it (if that won) or add it to Lucid dreaming (if that won). In case of a tie, we keep.

Voting is over. There was a tie, so LILD is kept.

 * Do remove LILD: r3m0t, KirbyMeister, Evilshiznat
 * Do not remove LILD: KC, tapir (ld4all.com), BrainHacker (LD4all)

BrainHacker said: "It may not turn out to be a good technique, but it's still a cool experiment, that's why I vote to keep it"

LILD discussion
Hi, I am tapir from LD4all. (he added LILD r3m0t (cont) (talk))

I´d like to say that IMHO kicking everything out that isn´t proven is the wrong way. You´ll end up with a (quite) correct FAQ, but it will be only useful for beginners. Probably it will be basically the same as EWLD, since besides LaBerge there isn´t a lot of scientific studies on lucid dreaming, which means that you can only use techniques for the WIKI that he tested.

Also I think that the way the WIKI is developing right now is a bit "too organized", since the idea behind WIKIs is rather slow natural grow due to users correcting each other.

What I am trying to say is that any kind of contribution to the WIKI should be kept (if they are on topic ). If they are inaccurate other users will correct them sometime. If they don´t work at all they can perhaps still serve as inspiration for developing other methods. This way the WIKI will also be interesting for advanced lucid dreamers.

The colour system with "useful" and "useless" will ensure that newbies get some orientation and don´t end up confused after reading about thousands of different ways.

just my thoughts, tapir

 * I'm not planning to "kick everything out that isn't proven". LILD has been around for ages, and nobody seems to have reported it as working. There is also little inherent reason that it should work. Why keep a technique which doesn't work? I don't know exactly what EWLD is like, but the only techniques I know which aren't reported to be in it are VILD, the new CAT technique, and these, although I would not consider most of them techniques.
 * "wiki" actually means fast. I understand what you mean about it being "too organised" (although of course I don't think so) so I'll explain all the organisation which appears on this page. The conventions are to make my (and other people's) lives easier, but I don't really mind much if people add stuff which doesn't conform to the style, because somebody else will bring it "in line". The todo list is for my own use at least; I could never remember so many things. I wouldn't want to remove LILD unless there's a majority that says it should be removed, as it's a pretty major change. The colours below are really the only way we could ever agree on it.
 * We don't label things "useless" - if it's useless, why is it there? For all I know, there may be a thousand anecdotes on alt.dreams.lucid of LILD working, but they would be hard to find, because in alt.dreams.lucid LILD means "Letter Induced Lucid Dream". So it's teetering on the phrase "no anecdotes found".
 * I hope I answered you well. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 07:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

tapir:

Well, naming new techniques really is a problem, I don´t like the "flood of *ILDS" myself. Perhaps it would be easier if all the techniques got a more individual name (like "the chaining technique"). Anyway, back on the LILD topic. EWLD is "exploring the world of lucid dreaming" by Stephen LaBerge. Actually I think either in this book or in one from Tholey there is an anecdote about LILD that works, and one of the LD4all users was very close to success (He managed to tell a dream character to meet up with him again. The DC walked up to him the next night and told him that it´s a dream, yet the dreamer just didn´t believe his DC) Anyways, even if that doesn´t count and we assume that noone reports LILD to be working, there are IMHO three reasons to keep it anyway (or any other technique like it, I think this is more general problem than just wether we want to keep LILD or not):

 * 1) There aren´t that many reports of LILD not working either. Perhaps it just hasn´t been tested a lot so far but will prove useful in the future?
 * 2) Uncommon, yet unreliable techniques can inspire new ideas. Perhaps someone can come up with a variation on LILD that works better after he read about it?
 * 3) If LILD is removed, perhaps in some weeks someone else is going to write about it again since he thinks he has got a new idea. If he can read about it here this won´t happen.

Well, these are the reasons not to remove it. But, what are the reasons to remove it? Server space surely isn´t the problem. This leaves "it gets more difficult to find the reliable techniques" as far as I can see. This problem can easily be solved by making two (or more) sections, one for tested and useful techniques and one for those which are either unreliable or rather ideas. tapir

 * I also hate the "flood of -ILDs" but to rename techniques would mean to deviate from the norm and making the book harder to read for people who already know something about these techniques. Some people might ask questions like "What's the difference between conciously entering the dream state and WILD?".
 * I would appreciate it if you tried to find that forum anecdote you mentioned.

 * 1) Have you seen Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques? There is not much reason for this technique to work.
 * 2) Again, I don't see any possible variations of LILD (OK, maybe other people will)
 * 3) I hadn't thought of that.

 * No, not server space, but if a scientist sees this and realises the basis of the technique (again, see Talk:Lucid Dreaming: Induction Techniques) they would consider the whole wikibook to be of less value.
 * Perhaps there will be a "scratchboard" sort of section for people to develop ideas. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 15:54, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

tapir:

here is what "Imagine" wrote some time ago:

I've done that before. I asked this little kid with purple hair if she could tell me I was dreaming next time. She said she would. So a couple of nights later, she walked up to me and said "You're dreaming you know."

I don't think I remembered her, so for some reason I said "Yeah, right. Why would I trust a kid with purple hair?" And then she stuck her tongue out at me and ran away. I was SO mad at myself when I woke up. She did come back later though, and I can't exactly remember, it was really blurry, but I did get lucid from her. I guess that would be a LILD. I never knew there was such a thing. (from )

Well, of course Daniel Love is right when he says that techniques shouldn´t be presented as working without being tested, that would discredit whe WIKI. Yet with a short note like "yet untested" or in section for unconfirmed techniques it´s a totally different thing. Mentioning unconfirmed techniques contributes to the WIKIs amount of information if they are labeled as such.

Another thing:

Of course LILD is a placebo, that´s the very nature of the technique. It´s some sort of controlled placebo though. Saying that LILD is a placebo is correct (unless you believe in dream characters being independant beings), but similiar to saying auto-suggestion is a placebo.

 * Autosuggestion is not a placebo - it's a mild and easy form of hypnosis. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 17:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

harder to read

 * I also hate the "flood of -ILDs" but to rename techniques would mean to deviate from the norm and making the book harder to read for people who already know something about these techniques.

I totally and completely disagree. I want to make this book as easy to read as possible for people that don't know anything about lucid dreaming. If the traditional terminology is confusing for newcomers, then ditch it. (Or at least banish it to footnotes and parenthetical remarks -- "...(some people call this the XILD technique)"). http://CommunityWiki.org/PlainTalk . --DavidCary 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Drugs section?
Do you think it's appropriate? I am for giving out all info we have, but of course with a due "you probably shouldn't be using these" warning. KC 22:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Oh, forgot to add: If we decide to keep the drugs section, I can expand and elaborate on it somewhat.

 * I think we should keep it. If the information exists (and it's related), we should try to get it in the wikibook. :-) --Tharenthel 20:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As said on Votes for deletion, it is preferred to keep recommendations of illegal drugs/hallucination-inducing drugs off the site, as it is partly meant for schools. That said, are there any on the list right now? We will at least need a disclaimer if they stay. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, about half the stuff on the list are illegal/controlled substances, depending on where you live of course. KC 17:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

strange links
I noticed that some of the "top" links are changed to Template:Toplink on some parts of this page, noticibly at the bottom. There is also a Template:LDLinksBegin link close to the bottom. Sorry for not fixing this myself, I took a quick check in the edit and I could see nothing wrong (I'm a first time user)

Great book by the way, I just recalled my dream, something I haven't been able to do (or remembered that I've done) in years! exciting!--Sundby 13:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no idea why that happens, very odd. Congratulations! :) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 19:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hrmm... doesn't look like we're going to get that fixed: sourceforge bug report :-( --Tharenthel 19:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

lucid dreaming -- an illusion?
Someone one http://www.diyplanner.com/node/302 makes the claim that people never really have lucid dreams. They only have perfectly ordinary dreams, with no conscious control. Then later, in the half-awake state while waking up, they re-assemble fragments of the dream in ways that give the illusion of having had a lucid dream.

If even a small minority of psychologists really believe this "lucid dreaming is an illusion" theory, then (under NPOV) I think it's worth mentioning somewhere in this book.

I find it odd that this person seems to be simultaneously claiming "lucid dreams don't really exist. They are unimportant." and also "Ignore those people who claim dreams are unimportant. Dreams are so critically important that you should try to remember every one in a journal".

I vaguely remember a television show trying to scientifically test this theory. As you know, REM sleep stands for "rapid eye movement". The researchers asked the volunteer to look up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down (5 times) and clap as soon as the dream became lucid.

I wish I could remember what the clapping thing was about, and the outcome of the experiment. Do any of you remember that, or have pointers to even better experiments?

LILD Update
I added this section in the discussion because everything else seems to be at least a year old. Anyhow, I added a few paragraphs to LILD. It's my favorite and easiest method of inducing lucid dreaming. It's rather difficult to set up, but you only need to do it once. Not sure why everyone here says it's useless. I use it all the time. Well, I'm a big fan of feedback, so comments are welcome... --Cleo 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... double post... Actually, I've reread my section and some parts are a little confusing. The main idea I'm trying to convey is that using associative technique while lucid dreaming is key to making it undeniable, next time you're dreaming (normally), to your subconscious that you are in fact dreaming. The thing that you associated while in lucid dreaming only exists in lucid dreams. Therefore, the ideas or thoughts that will come to mind are literally "dreams" and then it should "click". However, even here I cannot quite express this idea clearly. Anyone know how to reword it to make it clearer or convey this key concept? --Cleo 11:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Tattoos and other dedicated objects
One technique that I discovered inadvertently was to constantly check my tattoos (in this case, on my wrists). Apparently they are simple enough that my dream often interprets them as random symbols. I usually find this appropriately odd enough to realize that I am dreaming.

Along those lines, often holding an object during sleep on a very regular basis can cause my dream self to appear with it (or can be summoned by thinking about it, presumably from the fact that my hand is, in reality, clutching it). For those wanting to enter the dreamworld properly armed, a knife works very well in this respect, though one must be careful that it isn't very sharp. The presence of a real object in a dream acts as a very effective anchor, especially in nightmares, where they seem to resist the opposing force. It can be a very good feeling to "win" a nightmare. 128.223.209.123 03:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reality checks: technology
I've noticed that technology does not behave well in dreams, especially "black box" technology, where the inner workings are hidden (as in a watch) or are electronic. This encompasses several of the listed techniques: Light Switch and Time. I think that the complex and/or hidden workings of modern technology are too much for the primitive "physics simulator" used in dreams. I would propose adding either a note or another reality check module. -- Phyzome 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * IMO, Time is more similar to Reading - each time you look at the symbols on a digital clock or in piece of text, you see something different. Sourcejedi 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My experiences
My method of lucid dreaming has always been by attempting to keep my concious mind active as my body sinks into sleep. If I'm not tired at all, I will usually only end up in a deep state of relaxation, or if TOO tired, will lose my the active state of conciousness and fall deep asleep. But if everything is just right, I will start to feel that threshold of crossing over into sleep on a slightly concious level.. I do a reality check by moving my arms while I am sleeping and aware they are next to me... (my slightly concsious mind can feel the extreme heaviness of them) when I am can freely move my arms (and yet know they are next to me) I sort of "jump" into dreamland. so peculiar of a method, but the only way that it really works for me. When I realize I'm dreaming without inducing it THIS way, I typically forget really quickly and go back into normal dreamworld. Sometimes I can do the spinning thing too while at this point and it will send me into lucidity.. helps keep me from jumping awake too somehow if I feel like I'm about to.

Will R
 * note: I was just reading through the page again and noted the Tibetan method.. This is how I induce lucidity I believe. I can sleep while aware, but no visuals etc. my body is heavy and extremely relaxed. at some point I can suddenly *move* though while I know my body is heavy and sleeping and I jump into lucid dreaming*

RCs: Extremely important?
The section on reality checks seems to present them as though they are absolutely necessary to have lucid dreams. However, people have had lucid dreams long before Stephen LaBerge developed the reality testing technique. Also, WILDs are examples of lucid dreams induced without reality checking. While reality testing is a good way fir people who have never had lucid dreams before to get started, it is not necessary to induce lucid dreaming. I think this section could be improved by making this clear. Exabyte (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Semantics and Contradiction Errors
(Orthography and Syntax left out on purpose...those need no discussion, you just fix them, right? :)

about the water-drinking-or-not section
I did not get the idea of the sentences, or there is a contradiction to be fixed there: "If you have trouble getting to sleep in the first place, don't drink water for about an hour before you think you'll turn your lights off. In fact, do drink water an hour before, to stop you from getting thirsty later on.". The most confusing part is the "In fact" part, wich one usually interprets as preceding a reason that validates the prior sentence.

Maybe you just wanted to propose two solutions to two different problems. In that case, things could be fixed by changing the second sentence to something like "If you think you will be thirsty later on, drink some water before going to bed.". But that wouldn't solve this weird thought that would come to mind to many: What if i do have trouble getting to sleep, therefore i don't drink water, therefore i will be thirsty, therefore i should drink water :)

Another idea: how about simply naming possible problems, and letting the reader solve them for himself. "Be sure to minimize the possibility of ocurrence of anything that would wake you up, like need to go to the bathroom, thirst, hunger, telephone calls, bad body position, etc" -Francisco.

Mabye it is ment as in "[...] don't drink water an hour before you go to bed. but you should drink something an hour before *that* (i.e. two hours before you go to bed) to prevent you from getting thirsty later (when you aren't supposed to drink anymore)" ... ?

About tinnitus
I'm under the impression that, indeed, everyone has a measure of tinnitus and other stray signals in their hearing. The brain blocks them out in normal life. Changes in the organs (ear infection) or other damage (excess sound pressure) can cause change that the brain can't interpret as permanent, leading to tinnitus or a constant "ringing" in the ears.

One of the things that my doctor stressed is that you should ignore any sound in case new ringing seems to persist and absolutely not learn to listen to it. It will become an actively recognized and audible effect. I would very much caution against trying to find the sounds that the brain is supposed to ignore. This may have unwanted lasting effects. Blades 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctors want you to be paranoid with thier statement's like "don't play the choking game" and "cancer's gonna kill you". You should be fine. --118.92.58.121 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

^fucking retarded statement. Blades is right. Tinnitus is not to be trifled with. Strongly advise against this stupid method. 213.107.5.93 (discuss) 11:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal experience with Tinnitus: When I am in total silence for some time I begin to hear Tinnitus. The first time this happened was many years ago and I didn't know what it was I was hearing, so I tried to listen to it. It grew extremely loud. Then, I turned on a TV, and as soon as the silence was broken the Tinnitus stopped. Since then I have been able to hear it in total silence, but there do not seem to be any adverse effects on my hearing. Fountain Pen (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to use this method a few times. And a couple days ago I began to hear it without trying to, and now I'm hearing it when I go to sleep, and I can't get rid of it. I very much caution people not to use this method. It's even beginning to invade my time awake, in fact I'm hearing it right now. And there's nothing I can really do about it... :(   (The best I've managed is to try to just accept the fact that I may have Tinnitus for some time now, if not for the rest of my life. I'm still a bit distressed that I even attempted this, but once you accept something as a part of your life, it's not quite as bad.) --75.165.7.88 (discuss) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I use a noise machine to drown out my tinnitus, which seems to be a bit more severe than most other people. Relating to your theories, I wonder if this is preventing it from getting worse by not allowing me to focus on it. -Anon (6/4/2020)

*Mostly* Dead discussion
This whole book's discussion is pretty much dead, but if people have questions about Lucid Dreaming, drop a message at erik212's (me) talk page, or e-mail me at erikmuntean@yahoo.com. -erik212

Never explains how to actually DO it
This page provides a lot of info, but it's a real baggy monster to be honest. It's not brought together very well in a way that explains anything to a newcomer. For instance, if reality checks are the "key" to lucid dreaming, why is that? How are they used? What's the purpose?

How do you actually induce a lucid dream!? --86.5.99.130 01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe it does explain it: One way or another (!) you end up in a moment in a dream where you realise you are dreaming. This could be a failed reality check or you could recognize a scene you've been in (in a dream!) before or some surreal feature like a person of the wrong age etc. That is lucidity. From there, you may or may not succeed in manipulating the dream actively. Blades 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reality checks
I know I'm awake (I don't think I could add this if I weren't :)), and I can look at my nose with one eye closed. --67.177.192.134 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see my nose with one eye closed, right now. Currently *some* of these reality check questions have a "yes" answer if you are dreaming ("When you jump, do you float back down?"), while others have a "yes" answer if you are awake ("Can you see your nose with one eye closed?", "Does a light switch work?"). Would it be better if we re-write those questions so they all have a consistent "yes" answer if you are dreaming? --DavidCary (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxes again
24.76.169.85 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there even a red classification? If you can't even get anecdotal evidence, what do you have exactly?
 * Why does Green place commercial books at the same level as scientific research? I mean, anyone can publish a book about any crackpot nonsense they want. Why should that be as imporant a criteria as actual science?
 * And as an aside, is there any actual science behind any of this? I don't mean some insane study published in Medical Hypotheses, I mean actual science.

What does this mean?
I woke myself up from a lucid dream by slightly opening one eye because I could feel was sleeping on my arms. I then successfully got my arms to a more desirable positon. When I closed my eye I foound that I was in the same dream, I could tell it hadn't been long because my arms were still tingling. What does this mean? --118.92.58.121 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Drugs section = pointless
I am a frequent drug user, especially psychedelics and dissacociatives, so I know what I am talking about when I say this: None of those drugs produce results similar to a lucid dream, except DMT and Salvia, but that is still very slight. Second, "Ayahuasca" and "DMT" is essentially redundant: Ayahuasca is a mixture of drugs, primarily relying on DMT, not a drug in itself. Also, you list just the drugs themselves, when you could list the chemicals. Further more, these are not induction techniques- they may produce a similar state (actually, like I said earlier, far from it) but they do not actually HELP you lucid dream, in any way, not even close, which is why they should be removed from here. -PoisonedV (talk)

 * I agree with your remarks and your proposal, nevertheless it should be said that dissociative experiences seem to be cumulative, that is the more you experience disassociation the easier it becomes to experience it again, there seems to be a link or effect similar to a memory or learning process. I have no experience in drugs but have researched the subject as well as hypnosis and psychology. The frame of mind and expectations will ultimately be a major point to how any mind-state evolves or is transformed. Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
Most of the links to LD4all link to archived topics, different URL, not bothered to check all of them. Needs fixing. 84.245.22.113 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just used Internet Archive to find a catch of many of the broken links, however, there are probably more. :D Glich (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Potential for Improvement
From what I've seen so far, the most important thing to improve this book is trying to consolidate all these contradicting statements into something coherent. I just, as some may notice, finished editing parts of it heavily, creating something much more readable, yet I did not make any actual changes to the information content, only its presentation. The way it is currently written, it is excessively clear that there are several authors who disagree widely; it needs to morph into an authoritative guide which shows no preference to either view of these various methods. Make clear what is a potential positive and what is a potential negative, and hopefully understand that people are different and different approaches will work for different people.

199.173.224.32 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (aka anonymous poster who you don't know and probably don't care about)

Software icons?
It would be handy to have icons for the software section, to show what OS's they work on. (iOS, Windows, Mac, Android, Linux, etc.) Tjb0607 (discuss • contribs) 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


text:
Wikimedia/The History of Wikibooks/Growing Wikibooks

Until this page is expanded, see Wikipedia's treatment of the subject.

Here's a problem: it's one thing to write encyclopedia articles collaboratively. They are usually on specific, narrowly-focused topics, and it is clear what they require. Books, and even textbooks, by contrast, are very personal. There are thousands of ways to write an English composition textbook, or a textbook on C programming, or on physics. (That's why there are thousands of such textbooks.) What reason is there to think that any sufficiently knowledgeable person will want to put in the many, many hours required to write a textbook when he or she has to collaborate with others who do not share his or her understanding of what the book should look like? What would motivate anyone capable of developing a good textbook to do so with random strangers instead of either by him- or herself, or with trusted colleagues?

An answer: A Wikibook probably shouldn't expect to follow the traditional model of motivating a single author or two to write an entire book. It seems more practical for multiple authors to supply various modules while one or two editors massage the overall book into a consistent style. That way there's not too much load on any one person's shoulders.

 * That works de jure. De facto, there are not nearly enough editors to do this. Currently we have only about 1 to 2 editors per book average, and they do all the work. - SamE 02:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3 October 2005:

A missing concept: I've been perusing the various Wikimedia projects looking for a suitable forum to collaborate on the creation of new knowledge. The Wikipedia clearly is inappropriate - it addresses that which is history or known to be true. Wikisource explicitly excludes original works of authorship. Wikibooks seems to confine itself to the narrow concept of a textbook, and the answer to the objection raised above implies the persona of the creator of a body of knowledge or work of authorship, or at least the explication of a body of knowledge, is unimportant. Wikisource, in contrast acknowledges this importance, and embraces the concept of "completion" by locking pages once typography and formatting are correct.

Creation of new knowledge is happening at Wikicities, the Metaweb, the original wiki, and many other wiki.

I submit that the concept of a book embraces more than the greater depth and breadth of content when compared to an encyclopedia. A book is an expression of a personal perception of truth or the union of a limited number of such personal perceptions, and the persona(e) of the author(s) is part and parcel of that expression. You can not anonymize Shakespeare, or Einstein, or Hemingway, or Dylan Thomas, or Buckminster Fuller, or any of the other well known and seminal historical contributors to human knowledge and culture. Why then should future contributors be clothed in gray uniforms and anonymous faces? Is such anonymity even possible in an original work? With books, there is such a thing as saying "there, now it is done, complete". Some single individual must have the authority to say it.

''I was under the impression that some very significant contributions were made anonymously -- such as the Federalist Papers. I think that wiki allows people to contribute anonymously, if they should so choose, and also allows people to put their name on the book as one of its editors.''

I would like to point out that the books of the Bible, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Gilgamesh, the Vedas, and many other works far superior to Shakespeare or Hemingway are anonymous.

Wikibooks clearly does not provide such a tool, so I will suggest here what might be done to improve Wikibooks, or perhaps establish a new wiki project to address the needs. To begin with I give a simple list of requirements for me to participate:

1) Copy left is essential - I have no interest in conventional publishers, or proprietary exclusion of readers.

Wikibooks has this -- check.

2) A project format, where the initiator of a book is the principal Author/Editor/Administrator of that book.

I think there are already several Wikibooks that each have one person who declares himself the principle editor of that book.

3) A tiered editing environment:

a) the first tier is a traditional wiki - this facilitates contributions by geographically scattered authors - a meeting place.

b) the second tier is by invitation of the principal author - this allows the principal author to "edit" the contributors - excluding cranks and people with an incompatible approach. No harm is done - they can become principal author of another book derived from the first tier as a starting point.  Tier 2 is not locked, but is protected by the principal author and his or her selected cadre of collaborators.

c) the third tier is a complete book - locked against modification, but subject to peer review, which may include those who had been excluded from contributing by the principal author. Peer review provides a markup mechanism for the benefit of the principal author.  The principal author may incorporate or disregard markups at his or her discretion.

d) the fourth tier is release of the complete book combined with a wikireview mechanism, permitting readers to evaluate and rank what they read, so future readers may easily cull their selections. The released book, like Wikisource, is locked.

''While we all agree that this intellectually sounds like it should work, Wikipedia already tried a tiered editing environment (Nupedia) -- and it didn't work. While I certainly am in favor of improving Wikibooks, "it sounds like it would work better" is irrelevant in the face of experimental evidence that it actually works worse. --DavidCary 20:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)''

4) I like to read in comfortable quiet places. To facilitate this, I download PDFs and read offline.  A true wiki book would have considerable length, and would be available for download for the convenience of the reader.  This, together with the originality of the works, makes the medium akin to a bookstore - an amalgam of a copy left publisher and a bookseller, where the price is always zero.

''Wikibooks already support this point 4. For example, all the various modules of the "Computer_Science:Algorithms" book: moved to the "Algorithms" book are all gathered together (using transclusion) into one long book at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Computer_Science:Algorithms:Full_Text : moved to "Algorithms/Print version" .'' (That page is broken.)

What I am proposing is not radical - it is the essential environment of an academic collaboration. It differs in that it is unencumbered by the necessity of signing away ones ownership rights, and, more significantly, in that it provides a means for people with common interests, who have never met, and who might never be able to meet, to productively collaborate, while excluding unwanted interference.

4 October 2005:

In addition to making some minor clarifications and correcting some typographical errors in the above text, I wish to address a few additional issues which occurred to me overnight (the URL of this contribution is different, because I am on a different machine - I am, however, the author of the 3 October text).

Wikiversity:

While I am aware that the formation of Wikiversity is nascent, and necessarily incompletely formed, it is interesting to me to note that the defining characteristics of Wikiversity are at present a caricature of the essential purpose of a university, namely the pursuit of truth. This necessarily begins with the study of what is already known, which may be accomplished in a rudimentary fashion merely by reading in an encyclopedia, for example the Wikipedia. It does not take long for this approach to become inadequate, and so we have textbooks, which serve as more focussed guides to those seeking understanding. Wikibooks was apparently created to address this need. But anyone serious about learning soon discovers textbooks are at best so much more wastepaper - glib, incomplete, and often misleading if not downright wrong.

So it is that the scholar inevitably takes his mission to a library, seeking a diversity of perspectives from a diversity of authors, in order to form his or her own perception of the truth. Wikisource does not qualify as a library because it excludes new works, and has no mechanism for including access to copyrighted material.

An eventuality that happens sooner for some than others, is that even the library is inadequate, and so the scholar strikes out on his or her own, expressing new ideas in scholarly journals (all of which are encumbered by onerous copyright restrictions), or book length original works of authorship.

Much of the current activity in developing Wikiversity seems to be concerned with testing, grading, and certification. All of these activities are irrelevant to the pursuit of truth, designed primarily to serve as barriers to encumber those who merely seek power. History has show us that these barriers have mixed effectiveness. To emulate such nonsense in the comparatively level playing field of the web strikes me as misguided at best.

Neutral POV:

While neutral POV is admirable for an encyclopedia entry, it is inappropriate for a book. A book is a focussed and elaborate expression of a point of view. In areas such as mathematics or science, that point of view is not necessarily an opinion. More often, it is a logical edifice, founded upon a small set of axioms or empirical data, which may be arbitrarily chosen. It is an elaboration of an abstraction of the author's experience and understanding. Requiring such an expression to be neutral undermines the purpose of pedagogy (the apparent purpose of a textbook), and utterly defeats the purpose of original authorship.

Free Access:

The historical case of Oliver Heaviside serves as a good example of how an improved wikibooks might shine. Heaviside was an uneducated outsider, whose original works were only able to find publication in serial form in a commercial magazine called "The Electrician". Heaviside's contributions to electrical engineering and mathematics were seminal and are now universally accepted. Is it not one of the fundamental purposes of Wikimedia to provide every human being with access to information, without exclusion? Isn't part of the philosophy of the wiki to enable every human to participate, without undue barriers, and to allow the readership to determine what endures? How many Oliver Heavisides have been crushed into obscurity by exclusionary policies? Do not the uniform policies of Wikimedia excluding original works in all of its venues constitute an exclusionary policy?

Vanity, Personal Autonomy, and Personal Responsibility:

An immediate objection to the ideas I am proposing will no doubt be the policy against vanity. It is agreed that vanity is an offensive human quality, but the issue of authorship is deeper than that. At the root of it are the founding concepts of a wiki: personal autonomy and personal responsibility.

It is personal autonomy that gives the wiki its power - everyone is equally accepted without undue suppression of contributions. But it is personal responsibility that holds autonomy in check - the perpetration of vandalism for example is limited to those few individuals who do not yet understand they are responsible for what they do. Were it not so, the problem of vandalism would be intractable.

Authorship, and its formal acknowledgment is nothing more than an abstraction of responsibility. If you write a book length tract of text, you are, for better or worse, responsible for it. It is authorship which holds you accountable, and such accountability is not vanity, for it is a sword which can cut both ways.


text:
Cookbook:Baking

Baking is cooking food in an oven with dry heat applied evenly throughout the oven and is synonymous with roasting. Although it is common in some cultures to use the term baking for the so-called baked-goods, such as breads, cakes and pastries, and 'roasting' for other foods, such as meats and vegetables, the terms can also be used interchangeably.

The dry heat of baking causes the outside of the food to brown or char, giving it an attractive appearance and pleasing taste. The browning is caused by caramelization of sugars and is the result of the Maillard reaction. Despite common misconceptions about the browning process, moisture is never entirely sealed into the food. Over time an item being baked will continue to lose moisture. This can be an advantage, especially in situations where drying is the desired outcome, for example in drying herbs or in roasting certain types of vegetables. Where drying is not desired, a protective layer of butter, oil, or, in the case of breads and pastries, egg wash, can slow the loss of moisture as well as providing flavor and additional browning. Alternatively, some foods are replenished with moisture during baking by placing a small amount of liquid (such as water or broth) in the bottom of the pan and letting it steam up into or around the food.

Specific techniques

 * Blind baking
 * Shirring
 * Clay Pot Cooking

"Starch gelatinization in bread doughs and cakes forms an important part of the supporting structure of baked goods"

"During baking, heat and mass transfer takes place in the dough simultaneously and interde- pendently, and involves four major changes:

1. Gases are vaporized as the temperature increases: the gas cell increases in volume provided that the cell wall retains gases and is deformable.

2. Starch gelatinizes as temperature increases to an extent depending on the local availability of water; proteins coagulate. These changes limit the dough extensibility.

3. The initial structure with closed gas cells separated by dough walls is transformed into a porous structure with interconnected pores, known as the dough–crumb transition.

4. Under the action of high temperatures at the boundaries, water vaporizes in the oven atmosphere. Depending on the product thickness, but also on baking conditions, this supports the formation of a dry, hard crust in the case of dessert or bread dough, and may also lead to complete drying in the case of biscuits and cookies."

"While it bakes, the temperature of the water increases, and the granules inflate and form starch that gradually binds together as the water evaporates. A single mass of hard dough is formed."

title: Cookbook:Baking


text:
Cookbook talk:Baking

This module uses text adapted from the Wikipedia article Baking. The authors at the time the text was copies are inlcuded in the page history below:

* (cur) (last). . M 06:52, 6 Dec 2003. . Steeev (The person that does the baking is called a baker.) * (cur) (last). . 13:22, 21 Jul 2003. . 68.163.100.95   * (cur) (last). . M 13:46, 10 Jul 2003. . Spud007 * (cur) (last). . 12:12, 7 Jul 2003. . 199.101.6.250   * (cur) (last). . M 11:48, 23 Mar 2003. . Bluelion (link) * (cur) (last). . 00:09, 16 Oct 2002. . Merphant (copyedit) * (cur) (last). . 16:44, 30 Sep 2002. . 63.102.66.223   * (cur) (last). . 16:44, 30 Sep 2002. . 63.102.66.223   * (cur) (last). . 16:43, 30 Sep 2002. . 63.102.66.223   * (cur) (last). . M 14:32, 1 Sep 2002. . Ben-Zin (de:) * (cur) (last). . M 10:40, 8 Jul 2002. . Karen Johnson (link dessert, cake) * (cur) (last). . M 08:11, 20 May 2002. . Ap

title: Cookbook talk:Baking


title: User:Vuara/I.1


text:
Talk:Introduction to Philosophy/Philosophy of Science

Occam's razor
This should get a mention, no? A problem with the rejection of the axiomic approach on the basis of the axioms being seemingly arbritrary is that it doesn't take into account that they are selected by being the simplest that offer the fullest explanation of observations. MrJones 09:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falsificationismists?
"principle of falsificationism"? "principle of falsification", surely? MrJones 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed text
"Widely discredited is the thoery stating that there is no reason to think of science as a better source of knowledge about the universe compared with any other vision of the world. This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics."

Not that I'm an exceptionally big fan of Wiccanism (which, incidentally, isn't a theory but a religion), but it isn't supposed to offer any information on genetics, physics, neurobiology, or any other branch of natural science. It describes the universe in different terms, comes to different conclusions, etc. Anyhow, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that, say, a particular branch of science and a particular religion are on par with one-another in terms of their ability to describe the same sorts of things. What most philosophers who go on and on about how no one method is privileged over another are talking about is how, given systems of thought that describe different sorts of things, we can't say for sure which gives us knowledge of the universe *as it is*. What we can say for sure is how each helps and hinders us. Thus science, which is not spiritually satisfying, which gives us no answers about how we may have come to be, which makes no moral or ethical claims, is not necessarily priviliged over, say, Pentecostalism, which does cover all these topics. This has not been "widely discredited".

Also, "This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics." is not a sentence. I'd edit it, but I'm not quite sure what is being said.

"Other problems that continue to persist include fashions and politics that can both advance and detract from science, Lysenko and the theory (that environmental factors can affect genes) that replaced genetics for many years in the Soviet Union being the foremost of these."

Are these problems for science or problems for the philosophy of science?

 * The above parts about Wiccanism, fasion, and politics were removed because they were unclear. liblamb 15:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too much included under Karl Popper
Though many others are often mentioned in the same breath as Popper in discussion, is it a good idea to completely include all mention of them under the Popper section? Kuhn and the rest should receive their own section, as their thoughts aren't solely dependent on those of Popper. Smegs 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


text: Template:United States Government

title: Template:United States Government


text:
Talk:Graphic Design/Drawing

looks like the link is a bit of advertizing for the contributer, but lets leave it alone for a bit and see what comes of it. --Karl Wick

title: Talk:Graphic Design/Drawing


text: Template:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/TOC


text: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/At work

title: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/At work


text:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Traditionalist

The Guardians is another name for ../Sensing/ Judgers. There are four personality types that fall into this category: ../ESTJ/, ../ESFJ/, ../ISTJ/, and ../ISFJ/.

Personality
This type is conservative and hardworking, values responsibility and service to others, is serious, trustworthy, and diligent, focused on duty and getting the job done, adheres to traditional values and dress, and is slow to accept new ideas. The SJ has a strict idea of how things should be done and frowns on deviation from it.

Profession
SJs make up the greatest part of the management of business organizations. Their attention to detail and preference to make decisions quickly lend well to the structure of larger organizations.

Communication
Guardians are polite and straightforward, respectful and more formal than the other temperaments. They talk in an unadorned way and include facts and precise details rather than generalizations.

Appearance
SJs dress neatly and conservatively but don't focus on current trends. They tend to have good posture and walk briskly.

Hobbies
Handcrafts, collecting things (especially antiques), volunteerism, sports, jogging, and participation in service organizations.


text:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Experiencer

The "Artisan" is another name for the ../Sensing/ Perceiver. This includes the four types ../ESTP/, ../ESFP/, ../ISTP/, ../ISFP/. About 30% of people are classified as Artisans. Barbra Streisand, Elvis Presley, Franklin Roosevelt, and Clint Eastwood are all examples of Artisans.

Personality
The Artisan is typically quite playful, tends to live in the moment, have fun, get along easily with people, and be carefree and easy-going. He/She is impulsive and seeks the next experience or adventure. This person does not spend much time planning or philosophizing, preferring to take spontaneous action. He/She can gravitate toward risky activities. They love keeping their friends happy and will often challenge them to contests of skill such as video games or physical challenges, "Race you to the playground!".

Profession
They are the artists of the society, the performers. Artisans tend to dislike too many rules and gravitate towards hands-on professions and hobbies involving tools or crafts.

Communication
Their speaking style is simple and concrete. They don't use many methaphors and like to gesticulate. Body language expresses more.

Appearance
SPs tend to dress casually and in sporty apparel. As sensors, SPs are aware of the colors and textures of their clothes but sometimes may appear messy. Some SPs love to feel good-looking and stylish, but still comfortable.

Hobbies
Working on cars, extreme sports, woodworking and gardening are common SP hobbies. SPs may also like painting, music and the fine arts if they have an artistic streak.

title: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Experiencer


text:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Idealist

The Idealist is the same as the ../Intuitive Feeler and includes the following four personality types: ../ENFJ/, ../ENFP/, ../INFJ/, and ../INFP/. Idealists are one of the rarest types of personality, the other being the Rationals. Famous Idealists include Princess Diana, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mohandas Gandhi, and Mikhael Gorbachev.

Personality
Idealists are the Diplomats. They spend their whole lives searching for their unique identity. The idealist prefers to think abstractly about the future and how issues will affect the people around them. They are more focused on the intangibles than the nitty-gritty of daily life, so they may appear detached or in another world. Unfortunately for the idealist, gracefulness and body awareness are not their natural gift and they are more likely than not to be less adept at sports or other activities that require high body awareness. If an idealist is skilled at sports it is most likely to be from training rather than natural ability. They are often dreamers and crave for a better world, which can also make them quite invested in philosophical or political questions. They often possess social grace and charisma, as well as the ability to inspire those around them, but also can appear overly sensitive and dreamy to others. They generally possess a talent for verbal expression and are also often artistically inclined, even though they focus more on the abstracts forms of art than tangible ones. They have often passions for writing, poetry, music or humanitarian sciences like social studies and philosophy. They often have a strong, idealistic sense of values which at times clashes with those around them and tend to be advocates for social justice and care for those less well off than themselves. At their worst they can be manipulative and self righteous, believing themselves to know better than those around them. If healthy they also can be quite self aware and are good at determining the motives of themselves and those around them.

Profession
NFs flee from corporate management and gravitate towards helping professions where they can contribute to society and humanity, such as teaching, counseling, politics, and the clergy. Their individualism could lead to careers that focus on personal growth and development, and journalistic work that appeals to their idealism and truth-seeking.

Communication
NFs are generally good communicators. Idealists can be indirect in speech and use metaphors or analogies to make points. Rather than talking about things in an objective way, they key in more to the reactions that people have to what they are saying and how the topics relate to their own feelings and values. They talk about relationships, values, and intangibles.

Appearance
The iNtuitive in the idealist makes him less fixed on personal appearance. NFs are unconventional and at times even artsy, and wear clothing that communicates their values, which may lead them to appear more like hippies than court-ready lawyers. If a Judger, the NF will take more care of his appearance than if a Perceiver.

Hobbies
Travel, reading, music, cinema, poetry, History, Philosophy, Literature, Art History, art appreciation, photography, television and Internet surfing.

title: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Idealist


text:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/Conceptualizer

The Rational is another name for the ../Intuitive/ ../Thinking/. This includes four personality types: the ../ENTJ/, ../ENTP/, ../INTJ/, and ../INTP/. About 15% of the population are Rationals. Some of the most famous Rationals were Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Personality
The Rational is more comfortable thinking in the abstract, doing so in an analytical, objective way. As an iNtuitive, the NT is not particularly given to sports.

Profession
This temperament is the quintessential professor, living in academia and in his or her own deep thoughts about something or other.

Communication
The Rational tends to be roundabout in explanations and may not be very aware of how others feel.

Appearance
This temperament often ignores rules of fashion, having more important things to concern themselves with, preferring function over all else. It is not uncommon for a Perceiving NT to neglect personal hygiene. Many Perceivers will not hesitate to walk around naked. If a Judger, the NT will take more care of his or her appearance. A number of Judgers tend to have an asexual look.

Hobbies
Studying self-improvement, learning about new things or languages....


text:
Cookbook:Wok

A wok is a versatile Chinese cooking utensil.

It is a round-bottomed pan that ranges from 1 foot to 4 feet (300 to 1200 mm) in diameter. Almost every Chinese family owns one. It is most often used for stir-frying, but can also be used many other ways, such as in steaming and deep frying or to make soup. One advantage of woks is that the shape produces a small, hot area at the bottom while using relatively little fuel.

Woks are also sold in western countries, where they tend to be given flat bottoms and non-stick coatings. This makes them more similar to a deep frying pan than a true wok. However, the flat bottoms mean that they can be used on an electric range.

Seasoning
Carbon steel woks need to be seasoned before use. This is somewhat different from seasoning cast iron, but it is for the same purpose -- to provide a non-stick coating and prevent rust from forming on the cooking surface. The exact procedure for this is something of an art, but in a nutshell:

 * You will need a gas stove or some source of intense heat. An electric burner is probably not sufficient, but you might have some success. Sturdy leather gloves also might be handy: You will be dealing with very hot metal.
 * Don't do this to anything other than a carbon steel wok, or you will likely ruin your wok. If your wok doesn't have a black non-stick coating, is somewhat bluish in color except for some rust spots, is completely unlabelled, and you got it for a low price at an Asian market, it's probably a carbon steel wok.
 * You will need a well ventilated area, as you will be generating lots of smoke.
 * Remove any protective oil coating from the cooking surface with steel wool or a scouring pad. Make sure you have it perfectly clean. Dry it off, or rust will form almost immediately.
 * Wipe the inner surface of the wok with a cooking oil that smokes at high temperatures, such as peanut oil. Keep the surface coated at all times while seasoning the wok, but do not allow puddles of oil to form. If you do, you will end up with a gummy substance and you will have to clean it off and start over. Keep a cellulose sponge or folded paper towel handy to wipe the oil around.
 * Starting with the edges, keep a hot flame beneath one point of the wok at a time. When the oil starts to smoke and changes color to a shiny dark yellow, turn the pan a little and work on a new spot. You can keep building up layers this way, but make sure you've coated the whole wok before you do more layers. It is probably unnecessary to do more than three.
 * You should end up with an even, shiny, dark yellowish-brown coating all over the inside of your wok. Let it cool and rinse it off, and it is ready to cook on. If you get streaks in the coating, your oil may have been too thick or you didn't remove all the original oil coating. Scrub that area clean with steel wool and season it again.

Care
Rinse your wok clean after every use, pat it dry and reheat it, empty, for few minutes to evaporate any remaining dampness, and put it away with a light coat of oily aerosol. Use soap sparingly to avoid removing the seasoning. Over time, as you use your wok, you may build up a black, burned area at the bottom. This is considered desirable. Supposedly, it adds flavor to food you cook in the wok.

title: Cookbook:Wok


text:
Cookbook talk:Wok

This page uses text adapted from the Wikipedia article Wok. The page history at the time the text was coppied is below:

* (cur) (last). . 01:34, 2 Mar 2004. . Lupin * (cur) (last). . M 15:01, 2 Dec 2003. . Wik * (cur) (last). . 08:31, 28 Nov 2003. . CdaMVvWgS * (cur) (last). . 08:29, 28 Nov 2003. . CdaMVvWgS * (cur) (last). . 08:27, 28 Nov 2003. . CdaMVvWgS * (cur) (last). . M 04:56, 28 Nov 2003. . Ahoerstemeier (stefan raab is already mention, no need to do it twice) * (cur) (last). . 04:00, 28 Nov 2003. . CdaMVvWgS * (cur) (last). . 15:23, 27 Nov 2003. . Ahoerstemeier (reworded paragraph about joke sports) * (cur) (last). . 15:19, 27 Nov 2003. . CdaMVvWgS * (cur) (last). . M 11:54, 5 Jul 2003. . Patrick * (cur) (last). . 09:46, 5 Jul 2003. . MyRedDice (something about western woks) * (cur) (last). . M 02:09, 12 Dec 2002. . Olivier * (cur) (last). . 02:08, 12 Dec 2002. . Olivier * (cur) (last). . 10:22, 13 Jul 2002. . Vicki Rosenzweig (uses little fuel) * (cur) (last). . M 11:10, 22 May 2002. . Maveric149 * (cur) (last). . M 07:43, 25 Feb 2002. . Conversion script (Automated conversion) * (cur) (last). . M 03:45, 4 Oct 2001. . Buzz

Carbon steel? Cast iron!
Carbon steel oxidizes really strange and makes a flakey white powder doesn't it? Cast iron woks come with a little machine oil on them but need to be burned in, i.e. by cleaning and then drying (over fire) and then applying a THIN coat of vegetable (not olive!) oil and then baking at 350F in an oven for an hour.

--Bluefoxicy (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Wok


text:
Cookbook:Vegetarian cuisine

| Cuisines

People may choose to become vegetarian for a variety of reasons, and meat-eaters may eat vegetarian meals.

In North America, one is considered a vegetarian if one does not eat animal meat. In some parts of the world, people who call themselves vegetarians do eat fish and/or seafood; in North America these people would be referred to as semi-vegetarians or pescetarians. If you are traveling abroad, or if you are entertaining foreign vegetarians, be sure to verify that you are communicating the correct meaning of 'vegetarian'.

Some vegetarians do eat eggs and/or dairy products, although it is important for vegetarians to note that many soft cheeses, especially French cheeses, may contain animal rennet which is obtained from calf stomachs (and is therefore not considered vegetarian). Those who do not eat any animal products are called vegans; see vegan cuisine. Vegan recipes are always vegetarian.

Non-vegetarians often eat vegetarian meals without labelling them as such (many pasta dishes, dahls, veggie burritos, and virtually all desserts).

Vegetarian nutrition
According to the American Dietetic Association, "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." The main requirement for vegetarian nutrition is to ensure your diet contains a wide variety of grains, vegetables, and legumes, and to a lesser degree fruits, nuts, and seeds. It is a common misconception that vegetarian diets provide inadequate protein. While one person's protein requirements may be very different from another's, the ADA has found that a typical varied vegetarian diet that meets one's energy needs, also meets one's protein requirements. Even athletes, whose protein requirements are typically greater than non-athletes, can fare well on a vegetarian diet. The ADA found that "vegetarian diets (except possibly fruitarian and strict macrobiotic diets) can easily meet the nutritional requirements of all types of athletes provided they contain a variety of plant-foods." (see ADA article)

As a general rule, two or more different vegetarian protein sources should be eaten in a day to ensure that the body gets all the essential amino acids it needs. The only complete (containing all essential amino acids) plant protein is soy, found in products like tofu. Animal products, like eggs and cheese, are also complete proteins, but vegetable protein sources (e.g. beans, chickpeas, lentils, nuts) other than soy are all incomplete proteins and must be eaten in combination.

The Vegetarian Society has a page on vegetarian nutrition.

Protein intake in vegetarian diets is only slightly lower than in meat diets and can meet daily requirements for any person, including athletes and bodybuilders. Studies at Harvard University as well as other studies conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various European countries, confirmed vegetarian diets provide sufficient protein intake as long as a variety of plant sources are available and consumed. Proteins are composed of amino acids, and a common concern with protein acquired from vegetable sources is an adequate intake of the essential amino acids, which cannot be synthesised by the human body. While dairy and egg products provide complete sources for lacto-ovo vegetarians, the only vegetable sources with significant amounts of all eight types of essential amino acids are lupin, soy, chia seed, amaranth, buckwheat, and quinoa. However, the essential amino acids can also be obtained by eating a variety of complementary plant sources that, in combination, provide all eight essential amino acids (e.g. brown rice and beans, or hummus and whole wheat pita, though protein combining in the same meal is not necessary). A 1994 study found a varied intake of such sources can be adequate.

Vegetarian recipes
Below are recipes that are vegetarian, ie, they don't have any meat, poultry or seafood, but may include animal products such as dairy, eggs or honey. Dishes that contain no animal products at all are listed in the module on Vegan cuisine.

Note that some recipes listed may include variations or options which include meat, poultry, or fish. When preparing these dishes for vegetarians, either eliminate the meat, poultry, or fish, or replace these ingredients with a vegetarian substitute.

Appetizers and Sides

 * Cinnamon Roll
 * Crispy Sweet Potato Fries
 * Falafel
 * French Fries
 * Fresh Mozzarella Bruschetta
 * Grape leaves
 * Grits
 * Hush Puppies
 * Inarizushi
 * Kovaim
 * Latkes
 * Samosa
 * Sauerkraut
 * Stroopwafels
 * Tomatoes with Cheese Stuffing
 * Plantain Chips with Cayenne (Kelewele)
 * Pierogi
 * Popcorn
 * Pretzel
 * Vegetable Spring Roll
 * Vegetarian Meatballs
 * Roasted Eggplant
 * Roasted Rice Cakes of Japan (Mochi)

Salads

 * Pico de Gallo
 * Succotash (Meatless)
 * Tabouli Salad
 * Tarbes Salad

Main courses

 * Baingan Bartha (Punjabi)
 * Bengal Potatoes
 * Boxty
 * Cottage Cheese Eggs
 * Crêpe
 * Curried Rice
 * Lentil Rice Loaf
 * Grilled Portobello Mushrooms
 * Kashmiri Pulao
 * Mike's Saffron Rice and Beans
 * Mike's Bean and Rice Bake
 * Nut roast
 * Polish Cauliflower with Breadcrumbs
 * Porridge
 * Ratatouille for kids
 * Sweet Potato Tropicana
 * Banana Curry
 * Mung Beans and Brown Rice
 * Quiche
 * Wilted Greens
 * Simmering Tofu Stirfry
 * Tandoori Tofu
 * Upma-Uppitu
 * Tofu and couscous
 * Pakoda
 * Pancake
 * New York City-Style Pizza (No meat toppings)
 * Waffles

Pasta

 * Fiddlehead-Portobello Linguine
 * Rigatoni pasta with Ricotta in Tomato Cream Sauce
 * Risotto
 * Southwest Pasta
 * Tomato Pasta
 * Lasagne with bean sauce

Sandwiches, Burgers, and Wraps

 * Beanburger
 * Bulgher Burger
 * Burrito (Vegetarian filling)
 * Cucumber Sprout Sandwich
 * Grilled Cheese Sandwich
 * Grilled Peanut Butter Sandwiches
 * Meatless Sloppy Joes
 * Mike's Buttery Noodles
 * Peanut Butter Sandwich
 * Quesadilla

Breads
The majority of breads are vegetarian. See WikiBooks's bread page for recipes further to those listed below.

Common

 * Whole Wheat Bread
 * Italian Bread
 * Rye Bread
 * Pumpernickle

Specialty

 * Bagels
 * Baguette
 * Biscuits
 * Buttermilk Biscuits
 * Chapati
 * Focaccia Bread
 * Fry Bread
 * Irish Soda Bread
 * Lemon Poppy Seed Muffins (Glazed)
 * Matzo
 * Naan
 * Pita
 * Raisin Oatmeal Muffins
 * Soy Protein Bread
 * Tequeños

Soups
Be mindful of stocks used for soups. Beef, fish, or chicken stock is not suitable for vegetarians.

 * Borscht
 * Carrot and Coriander Soup
 * Gazpacho
 * Le Tourin
 * Lentil Soup
 * Minestrone
 * Potato and leek soup
 * Three Ginger Soup
 * Three Sisters Stew
 * Vegetarian Bean Soup

Sauces

 * Baba Ganoush
 * Brown Gravy
 * Crème Anglaise
 * Easy pasta sauce
 * Gochujang
 * Guacamole
 * Harrisa
 * Hot Pepper Sauce
 * Hot Sauce
 * Hummus
 * Pesto
 * Roux
 * Red Pepper & Goat Cheese
 * Tzatziki
 * Vegetarian Gravy

Desserts
Most desserts are vegetarian, though some do contain gelatine which is often an animal-derived product. Vegetarian alternatives to gelatine are available, such as Agar. Note that gelatine is present in most marshmallows.

Cakes

 * 1-2-3-4 Cake
 * Black Forest Cake
 * Carrot Cake
 * Cheesecake
 * Cupcakes
 * Fairy Cakes
 * Lapis Legit
 * Pineapple Upside-Down Cake
 * Pound Cake

Pies

 * Banana Cream Pie
 * Chocolate Bourbon Pecan Pie
 * Key Lime Pie
 * Lemon Meringue Pie
 * No-Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Pie
 * Pumpkin Pie
 * Radish Pie
 * Rhubarb Pie

Confectionary

 * Buckeyes
 * Chewy Ginger Cookies
 * Chinese Chews
 * Daifuku
 * Gingerbread
 * Grannie Gilbert's Sugar Cookies
 * Hallva
 * Honey Taffy
 * Turkish Delight
 * Turrón

Pastries

 * Chokladboll
 * Churros
 * Doughnuts
 * Doughnuts (Paczki)
 * Eclairs
 * Loukoumas
 * Mille-feuille
 * Sopaipilla
 * Strudel

Other

 * Apple Crisp
 * Atkins-friendly Tira Misu
 * Baklava
 * Chocolate Chip Cookies
 * Chocolate Noodles with Vanilla sauce
 * Crème Brûlée
 * Denver Crunch
 * French Toast
 * Granola Bars
 * Gulab Jamun
 * Khara Pongal
 * Kovaim
 * Mille Crêpe
 * Molasses Taffy
 * Peach Cobbler
 * Pumpkin Roll
 * Rice Pudding
 * Spanish Flan

Fermented

 * Beer
 * Cider
 * Ginger Beer
 * Kefir
 * Kombucha
 * Kvass
 * Mead
 * Sangría
 * Sima
 * Wine

Non-Fermented

 * Ayran
 * Bubble Tea
 * Butter Tea
 * Café au lait
 * Coffee
 * Dalgona Coffee
 * Horchata
 * Hot Coca
 * Lassi
 * Lemonade
 * Milkshake
 * Oat Milk
 * OpenCola
 * Orange Julius
 * Orange Soda
 * Sake
 * Tea

Miscellaneous

 * Agar
 * Cheese
 * Dal
 * Ground Tofu
 * Maple Syrup
 * Milk
 * Pickert
 * Seitan
 * Tempeh
 * Tofu
 * Water
 * Wheat grass juice

title: Cookbook:Vegetarian cuisine


text:
German/Answers 1

Lektion 1 Antworten
< Return to Lektion 1
 * 1) Guten Tag, Markus. Wie geht es dir? (or) Tag, Markus. Wie geht's?
 * 2) Danke, es geht mir gut. Und dir?
 * 3) Auf Wiedersehen, Heinrich! (or) Tschüss, Heinrich!
 * 4) Katrin braucht Käse.
 * 5) Sie versteht die Lektion gut.
 * 6) Tschüss, Markus! Dann bis bald.
 * 7) Wohin geht er?

Lektion 2 Antworten
< Return to Lektion 2
 * 1) Guten Tag, Frau Neumann! Wie geht es Ihnen?
 * 2) Es geht mir gut. Und Ihnen?
 * 3) Es geht mir gut. Und dir?
 * 4) Katrin studiert Mathematik.
 * 5) Sie begegnen sich am Hauptsitz.
 * 6) Ich verstehe die Anleitungen.
 * 7) Ist sie zu Besuch aus England?
 * 8) Wie bitte? Haben Sie zu viel Arbeit?
 * 9) Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Smith. Bis morgen.

Lektion 3 Antworten
< Return to Lektion 3
 * 1) Ich lese bis zehn Uhr.
 * 2) Es ist halb zehn.
 * 3) Es ist Viertel vor zehn.
 * 4) Katrin ist Studentin an der Uni. (or) Katrin ist eine Studentin an der Universität.
 * 5) Sie trifft Markus auf der Straße.
 * 6) Heinrich hat einen Ball.
 * 7) Das Mädchen ist eine Freundin. (or) Die Frau ist eine Freundin.
 * 8) Herr Schmidt hat eine Frage.

Lektion 4 Antworten
== < Return to Lektion4
 * 1) Sie haben eine gute Sicht auf die Alpen.
 * 2) Der Zürichsee ist sehr schön

Wiederholung Antworten
< Return to Wiederholung
 * 1) Lukas is getting lazy.
 * 2) We remain friends for a 12 years.

title: German/Answers 1


text:
Talk:US History/Jeffersonian Democracy

During the war in 1812 section its said that the British burnt the whitehouse:

 * "The British burnt the American ships in DC, as well as the White House and the Capitol."

During that time wasn't the whitehouse called the 'Presidential Palace'?. I thought I've read that somewhere, but not being sure I haven't changed anything.

--WarrenWilkinson 01:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a note, since the War of 1812, the US and the UK were mostly on good terms, even becoming allies on various occasions.* Is this neeed? In style, if not content, it reads like an ironic statement Dainamo 12:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) this makes no sense and is completely useless

title: Talk:US History/Jeffersonian Democracy


text:
Portuguese

 Ir à página principal (Go to the main page)

Portugiesisch Portugués Portugais פורטוגזית ברזילאית Portugees Portugalski Português Portugheză Португальский язык 葡萄牙语

title: Portuguese


text:
Portuguese/Contents

Portuguese Wikibook
Welcome to the Portuguese language Wikibook. Here you can learn the different parts to the Portuguese language through our grammar references and our course. Why not start with the feature word? Previous knowledge on a closely-related languages (Romance languages—occasionally called the Latin languages or, less often, the Romanic or Neo-Latin languages) like Catalan, French, Italian and Spanish might make studying Portuguese much easier.

There are several differences among the three main dialects of Portuguese: as it is spoken in Portugal (European Portuguese), as it is spoken in Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese), and as it is spoken in Africa (African Portuguese). While their written forms are very similar, there are some differences in the spoken language (both in phonology and syntax) that are specific to each of them. Galician, which is a language spoken in Galicia, is not a Portuguese dialect, as sometimes it is stated, but Galician and Portuguese can be seen as two dialects of the same language - Galician-Portuguese).

Brazilian and African Portuguese show a great influence in their vocabulary from aboriginal languages and Bantu languages which are not present in European Portuguese. Their phonology is more similar to older European Portuguese variants. Brazilian Portuguese also has several unique Americanisms.

Courses for Portuguese spoken in Portugal
Level One - Beginners Eight lessons for the absolute beginner. Level Two - Intermediate Continuation from the beginner course. A guide to Portuguese pronunciation

Courses for Portuguese spoken in Brazil
See also an alternative course in Brazilian Portuguese.

Planning Introduction Introduction to the language. Level One - Beginners Ten lessons for the absolute beginner. Level Two - Intermediate Continuation from the beginner course.

A guide to Portuguese pronunciation

Appendix A - Vocabulary

 * What time is it?

title: Portuguese/Contents