text:
Iwo Jima

Iwo Jima, now officially romanized Iōtō (硫黄島, "Sulfur Island"), is one of the Japanese Volcano Islands, which lie south of the Bonin Islands and together with them make up the Ogasawara Archipelago. Together with the Izu Islands, they make up Japan's Nanpō Islands. Although 1200 km south of Tokyo on Honshu, Iwo Jima is administered as part of the Ogasawara Subprefecture of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Only 29.86 km2 in size, the island is still volcanic and emits sulfurous gases. The highest point of Iwo Jima is Mount Suribachi at 169 m high. Although likely passed by Micronesians who made their way to the Bonins to the north, Iwo Jima was largely ignored by the Spanish, Dutch, British, and Japanese until a relatively late date after its 1543 rediscovery. The Japanese eventually colonized the island, administering it as the Ioto or Iojima Village under Tokyo's jurisdiction until all civilians were forcibly evacuated to Honshu in July 1944 near the end of World War II.

Because it was able to provide secure airfields within easy range of the Japanese Home Islands, Iwo Jima was not passed by like other Pacific fortresses; instead, the Battle of Iwo Jima between February 1945 and March 1945 was some of the fiercest fighting of the Pacific War, with Imperial Japan and the United States both suffering over 20,000 casualties. Joe Rosenthal's photograph of the second flagraising on Mount Suribachi has become one of the most famous examples of wartime photojournalism and an iconic American image. Following the Japanese surrender, the US military occupied Iwo Jima along with the other Nanpo Islands and the Ryukyus; Iwo Jima was returned to Japan with the Bonins in 1968.

Now technically part of the territory of the Bonins' Ogasawara Village, the island still has no permanent inhabitants except a Self-Defense Force base on its Central Field. Its soldiers, sailors, and airmen receive their own services from Ayase or Sayama but provide emergency assistance to communities on the Bonins who are still connected with the mainland only by an infrequent day-long ferry.

The area of Iwo Jima continues to increase due to the uplift of the ground due to active volcanic activity; in 1911 it was 19.3 km2, in 1945 it was 20.3 km2, in 2014 it was 23.73 km2 and in 2023, it will be 29.86 km2.

Name
The original records of De la Torre's 1543 expedition have been lost, but he does not appear to have separately named Iwo Jima, despite later sources sometimes miscrediting him with the name Sulfur or Sulphur Island (orig. Isla Sufre or de Sufre). Instead, he seems to have only named the Volcano Islands as a group (orig. Balcones) after an eruption—probably on South Iwo Jima—active as his ship passed through the area.

Other Spanish explorers may have named or renamed the island in the years afterward. Certainly, John Gore was aware of Spanish accounts of the area with him when he visited in 1779 and recorded its English name as Sulphur Island.

The name was subsequently calqued into Late Middle Japanese with the Sino-Japanese form and pronunciation Iwōtō or Iwō-tō (硫黄島, イヲウトウ, "Sulfur Island"), still used by the control tower for the remaining airport. In the past this was also sometimes romanized as Iwautau. The native Japanese reading of the same character is shima (leading to the English misreading Iwo Shima), which typically shifts to jima when prefixed by another character. This version is the origin of the English names Iwojima, Iwo-jima, and Iwo Jima, with many variant pronunciations including and. This archaic or mistaken form of the Japanese name was particularly reinforced during the Second World War, when it was mistakenly used by Japanese naval officers who arrived to fortify the island ahead of US invasion.

In general Japanese use, the /w/ has dropped out of the modern pronunciation to become Iōtō or Iō-tō (イオウトウ), a spelling formally adopted following Japan's 1946 orthography reform. This newer form is sometimes borrowed into English pronunciations of the island's name as and. The high-profile Clint Eastwood films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima revived complaints from prewar residents about continued misreadings of the island's name, particularly within Japanese. After formal debate, the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism's Geographical Survey Institute formally announced on 18 June 2007 that the official pronunciation would return to Iōtō or Iō-tō.

硫黄島, pronounced Iōjima, is currently the name of a different island in Kagoshima.

Geography

Iwo Jima has an approximate area of 21 km2. The most prominent feature is Mount Suribachi on the southern tip, a vent that is thought to be dormant and is 161 m high. Named after a Japanese grinding bowl, the summit of Mount Suribachi is the highest point on the island. Iwo Jima is unusually flat and featureless for a volcanic island. Suribachi is the only obvious volcanic feature, as the island is only the resurgent dome (raised centre) of a larger submerged volcanic caldera surrounding the island. The island forms part of the Kazan-retto islands Important Bird Area (IBA), designated by BirdLife International.

80 km (43 nautical miles, 50 mi) north of the island is North Iwo Jima (北硫黄島) and 59 km south is South Iwo Jima (南硫黄島); these three islands make up the Volcano Islands group of the Ogasawara Islands. Just south of Minami-Iō-jima are the Mariana Islands.

The visible island stands on a plateau (probably made by wave erosion) at depth about 15 m, which is the top of an underwater mountain 1.5 km to 2 km tall and 40 km diameter at base.

Eruption history
Iwo Jima has a history of minor volcanic activity a few times per year (fumaroles, and their resultant discolored patches of seawater nearby). In November 2015 Iwo Jima was placed first in a list of ten dangerous volcanoes, with volcanologists saying there was a one in three chance of a large eruption from one of the ten this century.

Prehistoric

 * Earlier: An undersea volcano started, and built up into a volcanic island. It was truncated, either by caldera-forming eruption or by sea erosion.
 * About 760±20 BC: a large eruption with pyroclastic flows and lava destroyed a previous forested island
 * 131±20BC and 31±20 BC: carbon-14 date of seashells found buried in lava at Motoyama (see map)
 * Micronesian tools and carvings found in the Bonin Islands to the north suggest Iwo Jima may have been visited or inhabited as well. With limited archaeological access, however, no such remains have been found to date.

Witnessed

 * 1543: Commanding the San Juan de Letrán, the Spanish explorer Bernardo de la Torre almost certainly sighted Iwo Jima and the other Volcano Islands at some point between September 25 and October 2 while making another failed attempt to sail east across the Pacific from the Philippines to New Spain. (No attempt would be successful until 1565.) Attempting to secure reinforcements for Ruy López de Villalobos when Filipino resistance proved unexpectedly strong, De la Torre apparently passed the islands during an eruption on South Iwo Jima, realized his supply of water would be insufficient for completing his mission, and returned south to rendezvous with López de Villalobos in the Moluccas. Over the next century, other Spanish sailors passed the islands—particularly once Alonso de Arellano found a safe northeastern route back to Mexico from the Philippines—without settling or formally claiming them. The Volcano Islands did, however, form part of the notional boundaries between the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the Eastern Hemisphere following the treaties of Tordesillas and Zaragoza, such that the Spanish considered them within their sphere of influence.
 * 15 November 1779: Following British captain James Cook's death on Hawaii, ships previously under his command landed on Iwo Jima during the return voyage from his 3rd expedition. Under James King and John Gore, the expedition's surveying crew mapped the island, recording a beach at sea level which was 40 m above sea level by 2015 due to volcanic uplifting. Such uplifting occurs on the island at a varying rate of between 100 and 800 mm per year, with an average rate of 200 mm per year. Gore's visit was sometimes misunderstood or misrepresented as a new discovery, as in the report in the December 1786 supplement to The New London Magazine: "“On the 14th [of October 1779], they discovered an island, about five miles long, lying in lat. 24d. 48m. long. 141d. 12m. On the south point of this is a high barren hill, which evidently presented a volcanic crater. The earth, rock, or sand (for it was not easy to distinguish of which its surface is composed) exhibited various colours; and a considerable part was conjectured to be sulphur, both from its appearance to the eye, and the strong sulphureous smell, perceived as they approached the point; and some thought they saw steams rising from the top of the hill. From these circumstances, Captain Gore gave it name of Sulphur Island.”"
 * Early 1945: United States armed forces landed on a beach which by 2015 was 17 m above sea level due to volcanic uplift.
 * 28 March 1957: A phreatic eruption occurred without warning 2 km northeast of Suribachi, lasting 65 minutes and ejecting material 30 m high from one crater. Another crater, 30 m wide and 15 m deep, formed by collapse 50 minutes after the eruption ended.
 * 9–10 March 1982: Five phreatic eruptions occurred from vents on the northwest shore of the island.
 * 21 September 2001: A submarine eruption began from three vents southeast of Iwo-jima. It built a 10 m diameter pyroclastic cone.
 * October 2001: A small phreatic eruption at Idogahama (a beach on the northwest coast of the island) made a crater 10 m wide and 2 - 3 m deep.
 * May 2012: Fumaroles, and discolored patches of seawater were seen northeast of the island, indicating further submarine activity.
 * May to June 2013: Series of smaller volcanic earthquakes.
 * April 2018: A number of volcanic earthquakes, high white plumes up to 700 m.
 * 30 October to 5 November 2019: Volcanic quakes and subaerial eruption.
 * 29 April to 5 May 2020: Subaerial eruption and volcanic plume rising up to 1 km in height.
 * 8 September to 6 October 2020: Volcanic plume up to 1 km in height and a minor eruption.
 * 24 November 2021: Small phreatic eruption occurred with the ash plume height yet to be known.

On 11 July 2022, the first magmatic eruption in over 1000 years began just offshore. The article was cited as saying "Officials of the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) visited the site between July 12 and July 15 and observed volcanic eruptions every five minutes, which created water columns tens of meters high and spewed black smoke. The officials also observed many rocks that had washed ashore on the coast of Iwoto island. There were small cavities inside the rocks. The officials believe they are cooled lava, formed after magma has erupted, quickly cooled and solidified. The temperature on the inside of some of the rocks was as high as 120 degrees, according to the officials."

At the beginning of November 2023, a series of continuous eruptions of material resulted in a new islet breaking the surface and beginning to grow. Following continuous volcanic activity since the initial eruption the island now dubbed Niijima, Japanese for 'new island', has continued to grow and is now visible from space.

Volcanological external links

 * 6 cross sections of stages in the c. 760±20 BC eruption
 * SW-NE geological cross section through Suribachiyama

Climate
Iwo Jima has a tropical climate (Af) with long hot summers and warm winters with mild nights.

Pre-1945
The island was first visited by a Westerner in October 1543, by Spanish sailor Bernardo de la Torre on board the carrack San Juan de Letrán when trying to return from Sarangani to New Spain.

In the late 16th century, the island was discovered by the Japanese.

Before World War II Iwo Jima was administered as Iōjima village and was (and is today) part of Tokyo. A census in June 1943 reported an island civilian population of 1,018 (533 males, 485 females) in 192 households in six settlements. The island had a primary school, a Shinto shrine, and one police officer; it was serviced by a mail ship from Haha-jima once a month, and by Nippon Yusen ship once every two months. The island's economy relied upon sulfur mining, sugarcane farming, and fishing; an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with poor economic prospects, Iwo Jima had to import all rice and consumer goods from the Home Islands.

Even before the beginning of World War II, there was a garrison of the Imperial Japanese Navy at the southern part of Iwo Jima. It was off-limits to the island's civilian population, who already had little contact with the naval personnel, except for trading.

Throughout 1944, Japan conducted a massive military buildup on Iwo Jima in anticipation of a U.S. invasion. In July 1944, the island's civilian population was forcibly evacuated, and no civilians have permanently settled on the island since.

War-displaced islanders who are now in their 80s and older longed to return to the island, which they considered "a special place associated with memories both happy and sad". Their repeated requests to return to the island have not been realized given the reason that the area has a dynamic volcanic activity. Former islanders and their family members, however, are occasionally granted permission to visit the graves of their ancestors. Islanders and their descendants are trying to write down their memories, interview other former islanders, and create "a digital archive of photos to preserve memories of life on the now-forbidden island to pass them down to posterity" for younger generations who may not appreciate that Iwo Jima was once a place many had called home.

Battle of Iwo Jima
The American invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as "Operation Detachment", was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island for use by P-51 fighters, and rescue of damaged heavy bombers that were not able to reach their main bases at Guam and Saipan; until then Japanese warplanes from there had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo.

The battle was marked by some of the fiercest fighting of the war. The Imperial Japanese Army positions on the island were heavily fortified, with vast bunkers, hidden artillery, and 18 kilometers (11 mi) of tunnels. The battle was the first U.S. attack on the Japanese Home Islands and the Imperial soldiers defended their positions tenaciously. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 19,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.

One of the first objectives after landing on the beachhead was the taking of Mount Suribachi. At the second raising of a flag on the peak, Joe Rosenthal photographed six Marines raising the United States flag on the fourth day of the battle (February 23). The photograph was extremely popular, and won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography that same year. It is regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war.

After the fall of Mount Suribachi in the south, the Japanese still held a strong position throughout the island. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi still had the equivalent of eight infantry battalions, a tank regiment, two artillery, and three heavy mortar battalions, plus the 5,000 gunners and naval infantry. With the landing area secure, more troops and heavy equipment came ashore and the invasion proceeded north to capture the airfields and the remainder of the island. Most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. On the night of March 25, a 300-man Japanese force launched a final counterattack led by Kuribayashi. The island was officially declared "secured" the following morning.

According to the U.S. Navy, "The 36-day (Iwo Jima) assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead." Comparatively, the 82-day Battle of Okinawa lasted from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. (five Army, two Marine Corps Divisions and Navy personnel on ships) casualties were over 62,000 of whom over 12,000 were killed or missing, while the Battle of the Bulge lasted 40 days (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) with almost 90,000 U.S. casualties comprising 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded and 23,000 captured or missing.

After Iwo Jima was declared secured, about 3,000 Japanese soldiers were left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. Those who could not bring themselves to commit suicide hid in the caves during the day and came out at night to prowl for provisions. Some did eventually surrender and were surprised that the Americans often received them with compassion – offering them water, cigarettes, or coffee. The last of these stragglers, two of Lieutenant Toshihiko Ohno's men (Ohno's body was never found), Kōfuku Yamakage and Rikio Matsudo, lasted three and a half years, surrendering on January 6, 1949.

In memory of the battle, three ships of the U.S. Navy have been named USS Iwo Jima:

 * USS Iwo Jima (CV-46), a planned Essex-class aircraft carrier which began construction in early 1945, but cancelled in August 1945 with the end of the war. It was eventually scrapped in 1949.
 * USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2), the lead ship of the Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships, served from 1961 to 1993, and scrapped in 1995.
 * USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7), a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, commissioned in 2001 and in active service.

U.S. Naval Base Iwo Jima
The U.S. military occupied Iwo Jima until June 26, 1968, when it was returned to Japan. The United States Navy built and operated a naval base on the island.

U.S. nuclear arms base
Between 1956 and 1959, it is claimed that US Military forces stored at least one nuclear weapon at Iwo Jima, with some nuclear components being stored on the island until 1966. This made Iwo Jima one of several islands hosting nuclear weapons during the US Military Occupation of Japan. The claim was initially made by authors at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, parsing heavily redacted declassified documents.

On December 12, 1999, U.S. Under Secretary for Defense Policy Walter Slocombe told The New York Times, "Our position is that there have been no violations of our obligations under the security treaty and related arrangements."

Norris, Arkin and Burr, authors at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, however concluded:

"There were nuclear weapons on Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima (Iwo To)... Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were under U.S. occupation, that the bombs stored on the mainland lacked their plutonium and/ or uranium cores... This elaborate stratagem maintained the technicality that the United States had no nuclear weapons 'in Japan.'"

Japanese military base
Since returning the island from the U.S. to Japan on June 26, 1968, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) station on Iwo Jima. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) operates a naval air base on the island at Central Field. The airstrip is 2,650 meters (8,700 ft) long and 60 meters (200 ft) wide. The JMSDF is in charge of support, air traffic control, fueling, and rescue. The airstrip is rarely used for emergency landings by commercial airplanes flying transpacific routes (between the Northeast Asia and Saipan, Guam). The IATA airport code of IWO and the ICAO airport code of RJAW are assigned to the airfield. The JMSDF Air Wing 21 Detachment Iōtō provides support for emergency medical air transportation from the Bonin Islands (Chichijima and Hahajima) to the Honshu. The base is occasionally used as a relay point for the medical transport. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force also uses the base. The Japan Ground Self-Defense Force is in charge of explosive ordnance disposal, and maintains a garrison of 400 troops on the island. Two abandoned airfields from World War II are nearby, North Field to the north of the current air base, and an unfinished Japanese airfield to the south of the base, which was improved after the U.S. invasion of the island.

The U.S. Navy's Carrier Air Wing Five, based at the United States Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni when not deployed aboard USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), also uses the base for field carrier landing practice (FCLP). To justify the U.S. Navy's use of the airfield, the U.S. Navy still nominally has a 1,639-acre (663-ha) disused communication facility (Iwo-Jima Communication Site, FAC3181) on the island under the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement. The U.S. Coast Guard's Iwo Jima LORAN-C transmitter facility was transferred to Japan in 1993 and demolished in 1994.

Civilian access to the island is restricted to those attending memorial services for U.S. and Japanese fallen soldiers, construction workers for the naval air base, and meteorological, geological and environmental agency officials. The Japanese troops stationed on the island register their residential addresses in Ayase, Kanagawa or Sayama, Saitama for voting, tax, and social security purposes. Officially, there is no population on the island.

While large areas of the Bonin Islands are designated as a national park (Ogasawara National Park) as well as inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, Iwo Jima is included neither in the National Park nor the World Heritage natural site because of the military installations.

Reunion of Honor
On February 19, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the day that U.S. forces began the assault on the island, veterans from both forces gathered for the Reunion of Honor just a few meters/yards away from the spot where U.S. Marines had landed on the island. During the memorial service a granite plaque was unveiled with the message:

"On the 40th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima, American and Japanese veterans met again on these same sands, this time in peace and friendship. We commemorate our comrades, living and dead, who fought here with bravery and honor, and we pray together that our sacrifices on Iwo Jima will always be remembered and never be repeated."

It is inscribed on both sides of the plaque, with the English translation facing the beaches where U.S. forces landed and the Japanese translation facing inland, where Japanese troops defended their position.

After that, the Japan–U.S. combination memorial service of the 50th anniversary was held in front of this monument in March 1995. The 55th anniversary was held in 2000, followed by a 60th reunion in March 2005 (see U.S. National Park Service photo below), and a 70th anniversary ceremony on March 21, 2015.

A memorial service held on the island in 2007 got particular attention because it coincided with the release of the movie Letters from Iwo Jima. The joint U.S.–Japanese ceremony was attended by Yoshitaka Shindo, a Japanese lawmaker who is the grandson of the Japanese commander during the battle, Lt. Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi, and Yasunori Nishi, the son of Colonel Baron Takeichi Nishi, the Olympic gold medalist equestrian who died commanding a tank unit on the island.

Active Marines have also visited the island on occasion for Professional Military Education (PME).

title: Iwo Jima


text:
Château de la Bourdaisière

The Château de la Bourdaisière is a 19th-century county house in the Commune of Montlouis-sur-Loire, in the Indre-et-Loire département of France.

The site of the present house dates back to the 14th century when it was a fortress belonging to Jean Meingre. Over the next few generations, the property changed hands several times, until 1520 when King Francis I arranged for construction of a new castle on the site. Built for his mistress, Marie Gaudin, the wife of Philibert Babou, Superintendent of Finances for France, after her death, the property would remain in the family's hands.

Marie Gaudin's granddaughter, Gabrielle d'Estrées, was born in the château and would herself grow up to become mistress to another king, Henry IV of France.

In 1775, the château was partially destroyed by order of King Louis XV's most powerful Minister, Étienne François, Duc de Choiseul. Étienne François wanted to use the stones from Château de la Bourdaisière for the construction of his Pagoda at his estate in Chanteloup, near Amboise.

Lying in ruins, in 1786 the land was sold to Louise Adélaïde of Penthièvre Bourbon. In 1802 the property was acquired by Baron Joseph Angelier who undertook a massive reconstruction of Château Bourdaisière. The interior work would be completed by his son, Gustave Angelier. Although a small château, when compared to the great châteaux of the Kings and some of those built by other wealthy nobles, it is a magnificent Renaissance construction fronted by traditional French gardens.

The Castle was sold in 1923 to a wealthy American, Mrs. de Mérinville who sold it in 1938. During World War II, the château was occupied by the Nazis. After the war, a lack of funds by its owner saw it become severely run down. In 1959, its contents were auctioned off and government turned the château into a home for the elderly.

It was sold again in 1988 to an attorney, François Michaud, who owned it until 1991 when it was acquired by its current owners, the Princes of Broglie who undertook significant improvements and modernization. In 2003, Château de la Bourdaisière gained considerable attention in North America, as the primary site for the television show Joe Millionaire. In 2011, the chateaus gardens were finalist for the European Garden Award bestowed by the European Garden Heritage Network

The château was listed as a monument historique in 1947.

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

title: Château de la Bourdaisière


text:
Talk:Book of Mormon (Mormon's record)

Article Title
I don't understand the title of this article. Is the name of the chapter Mormon's Record, or Mormon (Mormon's Record)? -- Zoe

According to http://www.lds.org onsite copy, the chapter name is simply "Mormon". I think the title is an attempt to disambiguate from Mormons, The Book of Mormon, etc. Not an easy task. But that title keeps bugging me, too. Arthur

Maybe we could come up with an exceptable standard form for all of the 15 parts of the Book of Mormon:

One possibility

 * "Book of Mormon, First Nephi"

 * "Book of Mormon, Words of Mormon"

Or, more complexely

 * "Book of Mormon Part 1, First Nephi"

 * Both would work for all 15 parts, (including Words of Mormon, which is not called a Book). Then in first line of article, describe First Nephi as first Book.

 * are these consistent with wikipedia naming conventions? They seem to be--although they suggest simple titles rather than complex, and would probably be happier with the first.

 * Also seem consistent with descriptions at http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/explntn and titles at http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents

 * I notice they do no such thing under New Testament, but neither do they have a book there called "New Testament". The problem here is different Arthur 01:13 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see the need to include "Book of Mormon" in the title, why not just use the name given in the Book of Mormon. -- Zoe

 * I was thinking that Words of Mormon and Mormon, for example, are going to have to be disambuated, in which case, perhaps give all the 15 parts the same structure. I'll let others decide later.  Arthur 23:15 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Man or Angel?
According to this article, Moroni was a man. According to the article Book of Mormon, an Angel.

Which is it, please? Perhaps he was a man who became an Angel? CBHA (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 * He was a man in the scripture itself, after he died he became an angel who later directed Joseph Smith to the scriptures so he could translate/publish them into the Book of Mormon 2605:B100:91D:8628:C0D2:C1D:DA17:8B8B (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

3 Nephi 11:11
Can someone explain this for me?

3 Nephi 11:11 reads, in part, "...and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father..."

"In the which" is the question here. This is a verse said to be from Jesus, speaking of his travails on Earth. Yet, this is very grammatically incorrect. Here, if He was speaking of his plight, He would have said "in that which I have suffered..." Yet, according to the Book of Mormon both in print and on the Web [], this is not His wording.

Without going into Mormon criticism or Apologists, I understand there are (or were) numerous typographical errors or unwanted colloquialisms in the original Book of Mormon. But this is one attributed to Jesus, not some rural preacher or "prophet," and now not only remains in the modern Book but is actually on the Web. It has never been edited out. It is possible of a Son of God or a prophet (whichever view of Jesus is taken here, the traditional Christian sense or the Mormon's) could have spoken gibberish at times? Did He say this in reality, or was there problems with the printer when the Book reached the press?

Is this extreme enough to warrant inclusion in the main article?--76.212.152.41 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Book of Mormon (Mormon's record)


text:
User:Anthere/Discussion language non sexiste

salut curry!

(...)

pour ce qui est du fond: moi, je ne mettrais pas des liens sur la page "musique" vers les trois pauvres groupes, chanteurs ou chanteuses, mais je les agrégerais à leurs propres genrs musicaux comme c'est fait sur le wiki anglais. Y a pratiquement rien dans ces catégories, dc c'est un peu ridicule!

et je me répète la présentation du wiki anglais est vraiment pas mal!

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music

amitiées

francis

c'est encore moi!

J'entendais "musicien-ne" comme définition et non comme énumération de personnes (et donc remettre le lien ds le menu du haut avec les autres rubriques. Pour ce qui est du "-ne" c'est pour dire qu'il y a aussi des musiciennes: alors comment marquer les 2 genres en un mot? Ce procédé typographique se répend pas mal dans les milieux antisexistes. Qui a dit que wikipédia était sexiste? C'est, je pense, un véritable pb de la langue française (y a pas de pb en anglais par exple). On porrait peut etre en discuter et voir après dans les conditions typographiques. Un peu d'éthique!!

amitiées

Francis

(...) A mon avis, faire des articles distincts pour chanteurs et chanteuses n'est pas utile, c'est même plutôt gênant pour faire des recherches. Je te laisse organiser ça comme tu veux. Je n'ai pas de projet précis pour ces rubriques. En revanche, pour "musicien-ne" je pense assez fermement que ce n'est pas un nom d'article acceptable. Le terme générique doit être au masculin. Il ne s'agit pas de sexisme, mais d'un trait grammatical du français, qui veut que le genre masculin ait une valeur générale. Le genre grammatical est une notion distincte du sexe des personnes. Mais les féministes n'ont pas fait assez de linguistique !

Curry

Merci. Excuse moi pour mon ton peut-être un peu enflammé!!

2 petites questions:
 * sur la musique: faut il rattacher le "chanteur blues" à la sous-rubrique "chanteur/chanteuses" de la page "musique", ou bien faut-il créer sur la page "blues" une rubrique "chanteur blues", comme ce qui est déja fait pour d'autres genres musicaux? Perso, je pencherais plutot pour le 2nd cas (et donc virerais les rubriques "chanteurs/chanteuses/groupes/ensembles/...". Cette question s'applique en fait à bcp d'autres domaines. Qu'en penses-tu?

Pour finir, il est vrai (sur le net plus qu'ailleurs encore) que se répandent des nouvelles formes grammaticales pour la représentation des deux genres: perso je préfere le trait d'union car il ne met personne en avant! Enfin, si je continue sur le sujet, c'est que j'ai pas très bien compris qd tu as corriger ma faute d'ortographe("-ne"). En fait j'ai l'habitude d'écrire avec cette règle grammaticale égalitariste, j'étais donc surpris. Toujours est-il que ce sujet devrait être discuter avec tout le monde parce qu'il est intéressant, progressiste, et qu'il n'entraine pas mort d'homme (ahahah la bonne blague: mort d'homme!!!!!!!!)
 * sur la question typo: cela n'a rien avoir avec le féminisme. Etant un gars, il m'est difficile d'être féministe, cela ne veut pas dire que je n'ai pas un profond respect pour le genre féminin, et que les Lois grammaticales françaises ne m'interroge pas. Il serait par ailleurs idiot de féminiser tout les mots. Il s'agit par contre de représenter les 2 genres dans les mots concernants les personnes des 2 genres, et ça me parait completement normal!
 * est utilisé le trait d'union (union est un joli mot) comme dans "musicien-ne", ou dans "Motivé-e-s"...
 * l'est aussi, le "E" (majuscule) comme dans "MotivéEs"

voili, voilou! amitiéEs (ahah!!!)

Francis

Bon, j'essaie de m'expliquer plus clairement. Comme je le disais plus haut, le genre et le sexe sont deux notions différentes. Le genre (contrairement à l'emploi que tu fais de ce mot, sous l'influence de l'anglais) est en français une notion strictement linguistique (c'est une caractéristique grammaticale des noms, qui détermine par exemple les articles et les terminaisons que l'on va employer). Le sexe est une notion biologique (mâle/femelle). Il existe certes des rapports entre les deux notions : statistiquement, on constate que le genre masculin est plus souvent employé pour référer à des individus de sexe mâle, et il en est de même pour le genre et le sexe féminins. Mais, ce n'est pas systématique. De nombreux mots de genre masculin peuvent désigner de façon tout à fait normale des êtres de sexe féminin, et la réciproque est vraie aussi (par exemple "une personne" peut désigner un homme; "une girafe" peut désigner une girafe mâle, etc.). Les genres ont donc des valeurs spécifiques qui ne se laissent pas décrire en termes de sexe. Or, il se trouve qu'en français, le genre masculin a aussi une valeur générique et "neutre": il est utilisé pour référer à des individus dont le sexe n'est pas connu ou à des groupes composés d'individus des deux sexes. Dans la phrase "Mon père et ma mère sont venus", j'accorde "venus" au masculin. Quand je dis "les Français", je fais en principe référence aux hommes et aux femmes français. (L'expression favorite des hommes politiques, "les Françaises et les Français", est donc de ce point de vue totalement ridicule.) Bref, tout cela pour dire que le mot "musicien", au masculin singulier, utilisé comme terme générique, fait référence à quelqu'un qui fait de la musique, mais sans donner aucune indication sur son sexe, c'est à dire qu'il englobe les musiciens de sexe mâle et les musiciens de sexe féminin (les "musiciennes"). Il est donc parfaitement inutile, dans cet emploi générique, de lui ajouter "-ne". Il ne s'agit pas là d'un avis subjectif de ma part, mais d'une règle sémantique du français qui est attestée dans toutes les grammaires. La question est de savoir si nous devons ou non respecter les règles du français sur Wikipédia. Personnellement, je pense que oui. Non pas par conformisme idiot, mais parce que la qualité de la langue est un signe extérieur de crédibilité (notamment pour les gens qui découvrent Wikipédia): si nous faisons un usage de la langue trop déviant, Wikipedia risque d'être considéré comme une aimable plaisanterie. -- Curry

-

bonjour

les titres relèvent de convention de nommage plutot que de conventions typographiques. Bon, au dela du débat féminisme et linguistique, mon avis est qu'en matière de titre, il faut être pragmatique. - Quand un wikipédien va écrire un article, et qu'il va vouloir faire un lien vers les musiciens, va t il avoir tendance a ecrire musicien, musicienne, musicien-ne ou musicienE (?) ? Clairement, musicien dans la majorité des cas probablement, éventuellement musicienne musicien-ne, j'emets des doutes. - de plus, quand un lecteur voudra faire une recherche, que va t il taper ? musicien ou éventuellement musicienne très certainement

Cela me semble des raisons suffisantes pour que le titre d un article soit au masculin par défaut. Mais, il me semble également judicieux qu'une page "musicienne" soit également créée.

Allo ? Y aurait il une féministe qui validerait cette option ?

euh, oui, moi

Deux options

Option 1 : on crée une page musicien et une page musicienne. Je trouve ca assez moyen d'une façon générale, bien que des cas particuliers puisse surgir. Je vois assez mal la duplication de tous les métiers (président, présidente, boucher, bouchère)

Option 2 : D'une façon générale (en acceptant les cas particuliers), une seule page au masculin. création d une page féminin redirigée vers le masculin. Et surtout, sur la page masculin une définition de cette page masculine qui fasse référence aux deux sexes. Car enfin, le terme générique a ses limites, et il existe bien des musiciens de sexe féminin non ?

Bref, quelque chose du genre

Titre de la page : musicien

Un(e) musicien(ne) est quelqu'un qui fait de la musique (ahaha)

qu'est ce que vous en pensez ?

je viens de faire un conflit d'édition avec Curry, donc je sauve et je repond a son commentaire

anthere

-

Curry, j espere vivement que tu trouveras ma proposition tres raisonnable car enfin, ce que je propose est tout de meme de globalement conserver le terme masculin en titre. Toutefois, je dois dire que même si je comprend parfaitement ton souhait de respecter des conventions linguistiques, je camperais assez fermement sur mes positions en matière d'un minimum de féminisation de la terminologie. Car, meme si linguistiquement tu es choque, tu ne pourras pas nier qu'il existe définitivement un usage *important* des termes féminins. Il est possible que linguistiquement parlant un musicien soit un être bivalent, mais pour la majorité des gens, un musicien est un male, une musicienne est une femelle. Nier cet état de fait est proposer une vue purement linguistique, et d'apparence totalement masculine de notre société. Refuser d'indiquer la féminisation des termes est tout simplement un refus total de neutralité, et à mon avis l'indiquer tel que je le suggère ne saurait être interprété comme un signe de déviance.

anthere

Non, tu n'as pas compris. Je parlais de l'emploi générique du mot "musicien" (un musicien en général, en tant que catégorie). Mais s'il faut désigner une femme concrète qui fait de la musique, évidemment le féminin "musicienne" est tout à fait justifié. Je ne suis pas contre la féminisation des noms de métier, mais contre l'oubli de la valeur générique du genre masculin en français (valeur générique qui n'a rien à voir avec une quelconque suprématie du sexe mâle). Concrètement: "musicien" pour désigner la catégorie; "musicien" ou "musicienne" (selon le sexe) pour désigner un musicien concret. Si tu veux un article ayant pour titre le mot au féminin, il faudrait que ce soit "musiciennes" (au pluriel), car il ne s'agira plus d'un terme générique, mais de musiciennes bien précises. Cela dit, je ne suis pas personnellement favorable à l'idée de faire des listes séparées pour les hommes et les femmes. Cela reviendrait à présupposer qu'il y a une différence substantielle (musicalement pertinente) entre un musicien de sexe mâle et un musicien de sexe féminin. Je n'ai pas l'impression que ce soit le cas: ils font le même métier. Curry

---

je suis d'accord avec toi sur le fait qu'il serait préférable de ne pas faire deux pages différentes, l'un pour musicien, l'autre pour musicienne. Par contre, il me semble difficilement acceptable de ne faire référence qu'au terme male dans la définition du mot générique.

Voyons,

Titre : président de la République

Définition : Le président de la République est le chef de l'Etat dans une République...

constitue je pense une définition inacceptable pour beaucoup de femmes. dans ce cas, le problème est qu'en français (je ne m'avance que pour le français, j'aimerais bien que d'autres francophones donnent leur avis), le féminin de président est plutot considere comme étant président. On parle de Mme le Président, la présidente etant l epouse du président

Une définition deja plus neutre pourrait etre Le président est la personne qui assume la fonction de chef de l'Etat ... En France, l'appelatif formel est en principe Mme le Président... Ailleurs....

Autre exemple

titre : technicien

Définition : le(la) technicien(ne) est une personne qui connait et pratique une technique

Si tu ne met que le masculin, cela appelle nécessairement une autre page pour le féminin, et comme tu le fait remarquer cela laisse présupposer une différence. anthere

ah bah ça discute sec!

La proposition d' Anthere me parait judicieuse et raisonnable, à un détail près de l'ordre du symbolique: pourquoi mettre des parenthèses (mettre la "féminité" entre parenthèses reste lourd de sens) et non pas plutot, et dans la mesure du possible, mettre un trait d'union ("union" est également lourd de sens)?

Curry, je comprend tout a fait ton souci de "qualité de la langue [qui] est un signe extérieur de crédibilité (notamment pour les gens qui découvrent Wikipédia)". Et je suis d'accord avec toi, il faut un truc clean. Mais ça ne veut pas dire de ne pas parfois dépasser les règles grammaticales un peu vieillottes, pour proposer à tout le monde une nvelle convention typographique hautement symbolique mais progressiste.

Pour raison pratique, il est vrai qu'il ne faut peut-être pas compliquer le nommage d'une page et en rester pour l'instant au règle de nommage classique...etc... Mais à l'intérieur des pages elles-mêmes on peut peut-être se lacher un peu plus (cf La proposition d' Anthere )!

Enfin, et je me répète, je suis un gars(j'y peux rien!) et j'ai pris la (mauvaise?) habitude d'écrire avec trait d'union depuis au moins 2 ans. J'écris ainsi par pur reflexe et il m'est difficile d'écrire normalement!

voili

amitiés

Francis

et pourquoi pas: Pour faciliter les recherches, il vaut mieux utiliser des mots entiers, surtout dans les titres d'articles.
 * "Un technicien (au féminin: une technicienne) est une personne qui..."
 * "Un technicien ou une technicienne est quelqu'un qui..."

Ce qui me fait peur avec la "désexisation" de la langue, c'est la lourdeur qui peut en résulter... si on commence avec "Un(e) technicien(ne)" on risque de se taper des "(e)" tout le long de l'article...

Mon avis sur quelques questions:
 * séparation des listes de chanteurs, etc.: JAMAIS, svp. Ce serait du sexisme de la pire espèce, même s'il ne favorise aucun sexe !
 * pour ce qui est de la distinction genre/sexe et de l'usage du masculin comme neutre, je suis d'accord avec Curry à 100%.

D'autres remarques en passant:
 * en Belgique on dit souvent "la juge", etc. C'est même recommandé officiellement. L'Académie Française (de France) proteste, mais risque bien de ne pas être écoutée, et c'est bien comme çà (na!)
 * sur "le Président": en Belgique, "la présidente du CPAS (centre public d'aide sociale)" n'est pas la femme du président du CPAS.
 * par contre, "le chef de l'Etat" désigne tout aussi bien une femme, surtout si c'est Margaret Thatcher (je vais me faire taper, là ?)

FvdP

-

totalement d'accord pour éviter de se taper des e à longueur d'articles, ce serait pénible. Totalement d'accord pour les titres au masculin (pardon au neutre!), ne serait ce que pour la recherche.

Non, en effet, on ne favorise pas l'usage de "la juge" en France, car pour bcp de professions, le "la" fait encore référence à l'épouse de ...C'est la raison pour laquelle bcp de femmes préfèrent encore etre des "le quelquechose"

Il est fort probable que la décision finale qui l'emportera est
 * "Un technicien (au féminin: une technicienne) est une personne qui..."
 * "Un technicien ou une technicienne est quelqu'un qui..."

C'est un minimum pour les introductions d'articles (quoique si tu regarde sur fr.wiki tu trouveras sans doute un grand nombre de page ou meme cette écriture n est pas respectée)

Ce qui me désole est que pour des raisons de traditions linguistiques et des raisons de paresse/simplificationdel'ecriture/clartédelecture, la langue française est et demeure fondamentalement sexiste.

Nous avons ajouté en marge de cette discussion (pour la prochaine ou tu passerais FvdP
 * [Genre]
 * [sexisme] (en cours)
 * [langage sexiste] (juste un début)
 * [Chiennes de Garde] (un soir ou j'étais agacée, ca m'a defoulee)

user:anthere

 * Non, la langue française n'est pas "fondamentalement sexiste" !

Ce type de jugement et cette vision dénotent seulement une profonde méconnaissance de la langue et de sa grammaire.

Il faudrait éviter de confondre "tradition" linguistique (folklorique) et "structure linguistique".

Quant à la paresse elle est chez ceux qui ne font pas l'effort d'étudier leur langue (on comprend leur attrait pour l'anglais qui se satisfait de structures floues au profit d'un usage très mouvant). Le français est une langue précise et complexe qui nécessite certes un peu de temps et d'étude pour la maîtriser. Que dirait-on d'un informaticien qui ne ferait pas l'effort de connaître la structure de ses langages ? Les programmes qui buggent apporteraient tout de suite la réponse...

 * Le féminin et le masculin en français sont avant tout un genre grammatical et non un système de classification biologique selon les sexes.

Chose que comprennent difficilement les anglo-saxons qui, lorsqu'ils se mêlent d'avoir un avis sur notre langue, transfèrent leurs "obsessions sexuelles" sur notre système linguistique. Ce n'est pas parce qu'on utilise le masculin que le tapis aurait une quelconque supériorité sur la moquette ou que la planche à repasser serait brimée par le fer à repasser. Cette obsession d'une pseudo égalité grammaticale à respecter ou d'une pseudo injustice linguistique à combattre touche au ridicule.

L'écriture telle qu'elle se pratique désormais, par exemple, dans certaines sphères du Québec où l'on veut respecter un codage strict réglementant la parité distributive du sexe des mots, ressemble à tout ce qu'on veut sauf à un langage raffiné et intelligent. Victor Hugo, Chateaubriand ou George Sand, soumis à ces oukases linguistiques auraient aujourd'hui autant de talent que des publicitaires pour couches culottes troisième âge ou yaourts à double effet.

Pendant que quelques féministes obsessionnellement focalisées sur le genre des noms pensent avoir remporté la victoire de Trafalgar parce qu'elles ont obtenu l'usage d'"auteure" ou de "successeure" (quelle horreure!) d'autres acteurs sociaux (hommes ou femmes) se frottent les mains devant ce rideau de fumée qui masque d'autres injustices.

Quand bien même on mettrait systématiquement tout au féminin est-ce que ça changerait grand-chose à toutes les injustices sociales ? Injustices qui, en effet, sont loin d'obéir, pour la grande majorité d'entre-elles, à ce prétendu clivage universel masculin/féminin, cette trop commode explication par l'oppression d'un sexe sur l'autre (même si localement ça peut être tout à fait vrai...).

[GMG]

Tu dis que le langage français est plus complexe que cela, sache, dans ce cas, que les discriminations sexistes le sont également bien plus que tu ne le crois. Je n'écris pas (encore) en langage féminisé mais ça me tue de voir que des personnes arrivent encore à trouver des excuses quand d'autres leur proposent de faire évoluer certaines choses. Tu parles de la belle langue française que l'on devrait respecter et garder ainsi, or tu sembles ignorer que les langues ont toujours évolué et que, bien sûr, elles ont toujours été corollaires aux valeurs véhiculées par les cultures auxquelles elles appartiennent.(Pour quelqu'un qui fait tant la morale aux autres, tu sembles bien ignorant) Donc, prétendre que le français possède une structure qui reflète un sexisme existant n'est pas aussi stupide que tu veux bien le faire croire, au contraire. A ce propos, as-tu lu des choses à ce sujet? Sur base de quoi affirmes-tu si sûrement que "Non, la langue française n'est pas "fondamentalement sexiste" !" ? Tu dis que le masculin n'est pas le neutre. En linguistique, ça peut sembler aussi simple que ça, mais en réalité ça ne l'est pas. Simone de Beauvoir (qui possedait, elle, une grande maîtrise de la langue française) explique très bien en quoi l'homme a toujours été considéré comme LA référence neutre, et que la femme a toujours été l'Autre (si tu ne vois pas de quoi je parle, et qu'en tant que grand appréciateur de la langue française, tu ne l'as même pas lu, sache qu'il s'agit de tout un système tout à fait cohérent et démontré en deux livres de façon très explicite). Et ceci se reflète sur le langage, pire le langage forme notre esprit et il est donc important de pouvoir le modifier s'il est discriminant.
 * Pour information, cette page a été citée dans un papier publié dans le cadre d'un congrès mondial de linguistique en 2016... Seudo (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Recursively enumerable language

Would be nice to have an example of a recursively enumerable language on this page. Perhaps one that is not recursive.

Sorry those of you who noticed that Recursively Enumerable Languages were closed under homomorphism for a few minutes. I meant to stick that under Recursive but clicked the wrong link. No harm done, I hope...

I think recursively enumerable languages and sets should be explained/defined in terms of partial recursive or recursive functions (not with the vague term "algorithm")

I don't have the time right now. - Stephan Wehner

 Note: What is the first definition and where is L? What if the first definition goes to language M directly. Copying from a book doesn't work in this case! OR COPY ALL OF IT!!!

 * This "question" was pasted into the article by: 129.8.2.164. -- RTC 00:00 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Attempted to clear up the references. Still, the definitions should be made more precise, but I don't have the time. (None of this is copied from a book!) - Stephan Wehner

 * Good. I certainly didn't consider it copied and really felt that 129.8.2.164's "question" was 1/3 question 1/3 rant and 1/3 inability to read what was already written in the article (and on top of that pasting it in the article instead of asking it here was totally inappropriate). The answers to his question seemed reasonably clear to me, if one read the article, but due to the article's technical nature I didn't want to "mess" with it and risk mangling it accidentally :-) -- RTC 16:07 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

recursively enumerable set
How much of this material should be moved to recursively enumerable set? Michael Hardy 21:22, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * I think most of it. I will give it a try, now that I expanded recursively enumerable set. As always feel free to improve upon my edits Michael. MathMartin 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
I did a rewrite of the page. I based the definition on recursively enumerable set and made it consistent with recursive language.

I deleted the following proof

 * The equivalence of these two definitions can be seen as follows:

 * 1 -> 2 Given an algorithm A according to the first definition for language L (assumed to be non-empty), the following algorithm will enumerate L according to the second definition: Let E be an algorithm which enumerates all strings, and so that every string appears infinitely often in the enumeration. We write E(n) to denote the string produced by algorithm E on input n. Pick a fixed string t in L (possible since L is non-empty). The following algorithm enumerates L:
 * Given integer n, run algorithm A on input E(n) for n steps. If the answer is YES, output the string E(n). Otherwise, output string t.
 * This algorithm will only output strings from L, and it will output all of them, since for every string s in L we can find an integer n which is greater than the number of steps that A needs to accept s and such that E(n) = s.

 * 2 -> 1 Given an algorithm A according to the second definition for language L, the following algorithm will answer the question whether a given string s belongs to L in the sense of the first definition:
 * For all numbers n, starting with 1, and continuing in sequence, test whether the string produced by algorithm A on input n is equal to s. When the first such n is found, output YES. (Otherwise, continue the LOOP)

I do not think it adds value to the article. Perhaps it should be integrated into the more general recursively enumerable set.MathMartin 15:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Examples?
Is this examples of Recursively enumerable languages? Taemyr (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The language of Halting turning machines.
 * The language of valid formulae in first order logic.

I've read the page about inline citation and I don't understand why there is a message box about inline citation.

They are not required here, and I don't see any sentence that may be likely to be challanged; any of those assertion can be found in any text book or pdf teaching this subject. Hence giving an inline citation seems pretty hard since I could almost add every citation to every sentences.

Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Turing recognizable" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turing_recognizable&redirect=no Turing recognizable] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Recursively enumerable language


text:
Anthropology of religion

Anthropology of religion is the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices across cultures. The anthropology of religion, as a field, overlaps with but is distinct from the field of Religious Studies. The history of anthropology of religion is a history of striving to understand how other people view and navigate the world. This history involves deciding what religion is, what it does, and how it functions. Today, one of the main concerns of anthropologists of religion is defining religion, which is a theoretical undertaking in and of itself. Scholars such as Edward Tylor, Emile Durkheim, E.E. Evans Pritchard, Mary Douglas, Victor Turner, Clifford Geertz, and Talal Asad have all grappled with defining and characterizing religion anthropologically.

History
In the 19th century cultural anthropology was dominated by an interest in cultural evolution; most anthropologists assumed a simple distinction between "primitive" and "modern" religion and tried to provide accounts of how the former evolved into the latter.

Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), sometimes called the “father of anthropology,” took an evolutionary approach to religion. Tylor defined religion as a “belief in spiritual beings” but did not believe all religions were equal or equally “true.” His evolutionary perspective is evident in his book (1871) Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Language, Art, and Custom, in which he proposed a taxonomy of religions and believed that “primitive” religions were a result of cognitive errors. In other words, these beliefs explained natural phenomena that the people or culture did not fully understand. He called this “animism,” which included attributing a spirit to inanimate objects.

James George Frazer (1854-1941), most well-known for his book The Golden Bough, also approached the study of religion from an evolutionist perspective. Frazer's hierarchy of religions included different stages: first magic, then religious, and ending in scientific. Frazer argues that magic becomes an increasingly futile practice as religious systems develop. This is when the religious phase begins, in which the world is explained through reference to divine beings who intervene in the world. In the final stage, elites see religion as insufficient or incorrectly addressing world phenomena and begin to seek to understand the world through laws of nature.

Towards the end of the 19th century, anthropologists of religion began to question the distinctions between magic and religion made by Tylor and Frazer. William Robertson Smith (1846-1894) in Lectures of the Religion of the Semites (1899) proposed the idea of the totem. For Smith, social groups worshiped totems which represented their ancestors and worshipping totemic items accounted for the emergence of religions. Thus, Smith's theory of totemism rose in prominent within the field of anthropology of religion, challenging and in some instances fully replacing Tylor's theory of animism.

Durkheim (1858-1917) built on the idea of the totem. He saw religion as collective and societal. For Durkheim, religious forces are essentially collective societal forces, which are manifest in the totem itself. The society gives the totem its power, meaning, and existence, which effectively gives the God or the religion its power, meaning and existence. In “Origins of Belief,” Durkheim posits that a totem is symbolic of society, or as he calls it, of the clan, and of God. As Durkheim puts it, “the totem is the visible body of God.” The actual totem itself can be an insignificant object, such as an animal, or a cross of wood. However, despite its apparently insignificant nature as a physical thing, Durkheim argues that a totem is actually the clan itself. However, individuals are not cognizant of his/her veneration of society through his/her veneration of the totem. Rather, they believe that the totem is something which comes from outside of their consciousness, essentially, according to Durkheim “society gives the sensation of a perpetual dependence.”

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) moved away from the inquiry into the origins of the religion shifting the theory of religion to focus on religion as a function of the social world. In his essay, “Magic, Science, and Religion,” Malinowski argues that religion in its social and psychological functions promotes social integration and community. Malinowski separates the categories of religion and magic in specifying that magic is used for functional ends: to solve problems or achieve objectives where other methods have failed.

E.E. Evans Pritchard (1902-1973) is most famous for his work on witchcraft. His book Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande approaches witchcraft as a cohesive and internally consistent system of knowing. While Pritchard believed that religious systems were a reflection of social environment, he was primarily concerned with thought patterns and logic within belief systems.

Victor Turner (1920-1983) understood religion through the lens of rituals, rites of passage and symbolism. He considered religion to be the lynchpin in cultural systems. In his book The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, he proposes his theory of liminality and communitas. He developed liminality from folklorist Arnold Van Gennep. For Turner, the liminal stage is a period of ambiguity or transition where an individual's status in a ritual change from pre-ritual stage to post-ritual. The idea of communitas refers to the common experience of community during a ritual.

Mary Douglas’ (1921-2007) work and topics were inspired by Evans-Pritchard. They both explained social systems in terms of functionalism. She defined religion through the lens of ritual. In her most famous book, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, she compares Western and “primitive” societies in showing that Western societies also relied on “magic” through rituals around purity and pollution, such as teeth brushing. She sees ritual as a collective force or system that places limits on the body. In this way, the image of society is carved onto the body through reiterations of purity and pollution.

Talal Asad (1932-now) is a prominent anthropologist of religion today who focuses on religion and modernity. Asad is well known for his work on religion and power. He has argued that overlooking the history of defining religion can lead us to overlook its imbrication with power. He has also pointed to the ways in which modernity has delimited religion to a certain sphere of life, so that religion can be pointed out or identified in certain ways and not in others. In doing this, he has also called for the development of a religion of secularity.

Clifford Geertz and Talal Asad publicly debated the “universal” nature of religion. While Geertz, provided an operational definition for religion that allowed for variation across cultures, he saw this definition as encapsulating certain universal features of “religion.” Alternatively, Asad questioned the very existence of “universal religion” in pointing to the ways in which ideas about the universal were rooted in distinctly Christian ideas and traditions. Influenced by Michel Foucault and Edward Said, Asad questions the conceptual assumptions involved in or undergirding the production of knowledge. This is what led Asad to question the existence of separate sphere of society that could be called or identified as “religion.” In undermining the existence of religion as a separate sphere, Asad points to Western modernity as producing religion as distinct from other parts of society.

One key component of anthropology of religion is ethnographic fieldwork. This is what makes anthropologists who study religion distinct from other Religious Studies scholars. Ethnography is most simply put, the empirical observation and description of individuals, societies, and cultures. For anthropologists of religion, ethnographic fieldwork focuses on religion through the lens of rituals, worship, religious values, and other components of lived religion. Developments in ethnographic approaches to the study of religion or theoretical developments in the ethnographic study of religion have spanned decades.

Evolutionist perspectives were reflective of Darwinian theories of evolution and saw religious systems in a taxonomic and hierarchical way: some religions were closer to the truth than others and Christianity was always at the top of pyramid. Functionalist perspectives aimed to study religion as a part of society that played an important an integral role: non-Christian religions were not compared to Christianity on a sliding scale, but rather taken in context with the whole cultural context. Humanist theories of evolution see religions as products of human culture and invention, rather than metaphysical or supernatural phenomena that “exist” outside of the human cultures that produce them. Cross-cultural or comparative theories of religion focus on “religion” as something that can be found and compared across all human cultures and societies.

The anthropology of religion today reflects the influence of, or an engagement with, such theorists as Karl Marx (1818-1883), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), and Max Weber (1864-1920). Anthropologists of religion are especially concerned with how religious beliefs and practices may reflect political or economic forces; or the social functions of religious beliefs and practices.

Recently, a prominent ethnographer of religion, Robert Orsi, has asked scholars of religion to abandon the empirical approach to ethnography of religion that was co-emergent with modernity. This approach entails the impulse to explain God or gods in people's lives as a function or symbol of some other thing. Orsi asks those who study religion to instead take God and gods as real actors, really present.

Definition of religion
One major problem in the anthropology of religion is the definition of religion itself. At one time anthropologists believed that certain religious practices and beliefs were more or less universal to all cultures at some point in their development, such as a belief in spirits or ghosts, the use of magic as a means of controlling the supernatural, the use of divination as a means of discovering occult knowledge, and the performance of rituals such as prayer and sacrifice as a means of influencing the outcome of various events through a supernatural agency, sometimes taking the form of shamanism or ancestor worship. According to Clifford Geertz, religion is "(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.""

Today, religious anthropologists debate, and reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European primitivism). Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion – such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual – but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.

Anthony F. C. Wallace proposes four categories of religion, each subsequent category subsuming the previous. These are, however, synthetic categories and do not necessarily encompass all religions.

 * 1) Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest.
 * 2) Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. Religious authority acquired through one's own means.
 * 3) Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship.
 * 4) Ecclesiastical: dominant in agricultural societies and states; are centrally organized and hierarchical in structure, paralleling the organization of states. Typically deprecates competing individualistic and shamanistic cults.

Specific religious practices and beliefs

 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion
 * Principle of contagion

title: Anthropology of religion