text:
Talk:King Follett discourse

Untitled
Eloquence, please give me a good argument of how articles with primary source text like Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed Apostles' Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed differ from the King Follett Discourse so that it is permissible to print that creedal material, but not the creedal material in the King Follett Discourse. While it's good to have general rules, each article should be taken on a case by case basis to make sure the general rule makes sense in that case. Thank you. B 01:03, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

None of these is particularly useful in their current form, as such creeds need to be commented and put in historical context. However, the primary difference is length:
 * King Follett Discourse: 35433 characters
 * Athanasian Creed: 3938 characters
 * Nicene Creed: 2470 characters
 * Apostles Creed: 760 characters
 * Chalcedonian Creed: 1248 characters

The longer a source reproduction is the less eligible it becomes for Wikipedia. Quotations can of course be essential to illustrate certain concepts, but they are inherently POV material and need interpretation as well as balance and criticism. If Wikipedia merely reproduces text instead of explaining it, it is no longer an encyclopedia and it is no longer neutral. For example, I think that LDS is one of the silliest religions currently in existence, and that says a lot, so when I read a Wikipedia article I expect it to discuss church doctrines in depth and show their historical origins instead of merely reproducing church propaganda. Otherwise I might as well start importing atheism FAQs and anarchist manifestos.

 * It doesn't really say as much as you think it does because much more civil and intelligent people than you feel otherwise about Mormonism...but at least you're somewhat straightforward (and audacious) with your prejudice. Given your last comment, I take it you are a religion hater in general but have a particular distaste for "deluded" Mormonism. Thanks for making feel warm and fuzzy all over. B

 * Hum... I've had somewhat intense contact with a pair of Mormons about their religion, due to a big curiosity I felt. I can say it's the silliest religion I know, too. I don't pretend offending! I only intent to say that there's no prejudice in thinking so: the silly adjective in my case refers to the faith in Joseph Smith's fantastic history (jewish origin of americans despite science; i've found golden plates but an angel has taken them; ...). And I know there's no prejudice in that simply because I appreciate mormons (faith on not-scientific history doesn't harm others, and they are christians in heart). But the fact is that Eloquence is completely right when he says "when I read a Wikipedia article I expect it to discuss church doctrines in depth and show their historical origins instead of merely reproducing church propaganda". That's what everyone (should) expect when browsing wikipedia instead of www.lds.org? or www.vatican.va. --Euyyn 10:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should, of course, link to the full text whenever possible. When the full text of a source is of the length of an average quotation (one to two paragraphs), it may be appropriate to reproduce it in full. I think that Athanasian Creed already goes too far, though, and hope someone will rewrite it to summarize the most important aspects of the creed, with a reference to the full text.—Eloquence 02:04, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Well said enough, but I doubt the current policy of not reproducing notable texts is likely to stand in perpetuity although at this point in the youthful stages of wikipedia it may make more sense to have the policy in order to focus on getting articles up. For now I'll just add an external link where folks can find the full text if they want read it. Personally, I'm glad the full text of the Athanasian Creed is reproduced...each word is important and a summary wouldn't do it justice. Length really is not a factor of primary significance ...and while quotes may be inherently POV it is non sequitor to claim that reproducing text is no longer neutral; reproducing text is no more than reproducing text and has little to do with POV and neutrality. In the case of King Follett Discourse it is not mere propogandizing, but is a substantial source of teachings that drives much of Mormon theology, but for a religion hater (or at least Mormonism-hater) that may be hard to recognize. As any good college student knows sometimes all the summation in the world can't capture what the primary source says and it simply needs to speak for itself. B 03:09, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree, I don't think that reproducing POV text is necessarily POV, provided a suitable introduction places it in context. People should be able to use the neutral introductory information to help them decide how to interpret the quoted text. On the other hand, there's some practical limit to how much we should try to import. The entire Bible is an important literary and religious text, and I think there's at least one English translation in the public domain, but I don't think the entire Bible should be reproduced in Wikipedia, just to use a more extreme example. Haven't read the King Follett Discourse, not sure how long it is, so I don't at this point have a definite opinion on whether to reproduce it in full. There should of course be at least an external link to the full text. Wesley 17:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Agreed about neutral introduction and that at this point, the Bible doesn't need to be reproduced in Wikipedia. I anticipate that down the road there will be a supplementary website called Wikidoc (or some such) similar to Wiktionary as an online repository for documents. Wikipedia needs to link to innumerable documents reliably and the best way to do that is to have it's own repository where possible. I've added a link in the article to the text of the sermon.  B 15:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it would be preferable to do inline analisys and/or official interpretation of POV texts instead of an introduction. I'm not talking of explaining them line-by-line; I just think inter-introducing the NPOV data about them would balance the point of view while reading. It's just the way between quotation and complete reproduction. Euyyn 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Historical NPOV references needed
The article says there were 20000 people in that funeral. This is a really big number to assert it without at least one NPOV reference. If it were the correct number, I would ask by which mean did 20000 people listen to a single one in 1844 (not micros and amplifiers then, I believe).

Forgot my first two sentences if "Times and Seasons" is a NPOV source: I've no access to it. The other references in the article are clearly POV. Euyyn 10:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Journal accounts, T&S and History of the Church are the sources - anti-mormons were not big attenders of LDS Church meetings so can't verify from those sources. Of course they are POV, as they are secondary sources. Every account has a POV. Don't quite understand the argument. Regardless, they are the most reliable as they are what we have available from the current time, rather than a recollection years later.

 * It was not uncommon for hundreds or thousands to come listen to Smith. Please remember he was a presidential candidate at the time and it is not uncommon for this many people to have come to listen to one of his (at the time) rare public appearances (rare due to the open threats against his life at the time - remember he was in hiding in Iowa territory for some time when he wrote about Baptism for the Dead practices in letters, etc.). 2000 people is the same to LDS folks as a very small stake, which could congregate very nicely to hear a speaker even without a microphone if they encirlced him. When seated, 2000 people would take up about the same space as an NBA-size basketball court. I don't see the issue here. -Visorstuff 23:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But you're not talking about 2000 but 20 000. That's ten times more people. Maybe there are some reports on other meetings in Smith's time (by other presidential candidates or religion leaders).... I'll try to investigate if I remember to (but it's a hard thing when not in the USA)--euyyn 00:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think reports from any church about its own matters can be considered reliable a priori; without confirmation from a neutral source. The same stands for political parties.

There are countless examples of, say, demonstrations, in which government and demonstrators' counts of present people differed in a factor of 3, 4, ... And I'm talking about the present times, not 1800s!

I think it's clear that (despite being true or not) saying that 20,000 people congregated to listen to its leader was a benefitial propaganda for a recently born (then) religion: It makes a good impression for both members and outsiders (who were not necessarily anti-mormon). Therefore I believe Wikipedia cannot state it as a fact without a NPOV source. And so the sentence should be something like "... presented to a conference of, according to LDS' sources, about twenty thousand Latter-day Saints...".

I don't trust my own English, so I would like that someone reworded the sentence; or instead presented neutral sources. I don't like the idea of having to do it myself...--euyyn 15:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've just made a very un-founded, mis-educated argument about historical sources - which shows little understanding the historical process. Primary sources are what gives the neutral, analyzed and "NPOV" secondary source. That estimate has stood the historical argument for more than a hundred years, and this is the first time I've seen the estimate questioned to this degree - not even the Tanners question this one.

It is hard for me to believe that you would not believe, or trust an organization's official source (even if it were by a member of the church, or the official record of an organization) about its own happenings. By such, you cannot believe the outcome of the constitutional convention of the US in the late 1700s or accounts of Franklin's, Washinton's or Madison's speeches (remember it was a closed-door meeting). You cannot believe the voting record of senators as put forth by senate records. Most of these cannot be verified by "neutral sources." You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community. Indeed, you must question the integrity of the USA Today and NY Times, as although they are different sources, they are both American newspapers - and promote American "propaganda." To you the Moon landing must be a hoax, as there are no third parties to prove that this took place - just NASA's word. Then there is the Holocaust and the Six million Jews that were killed - you cannot believe that that took place either, as they weren't taken from German sources, but by records obtained by the victors. Believe me, your comment has led a lot of conspiricy theorists down these paths and more. But I digress....

A good historian takes all accounts of an event and then estimates based on available sources. The available sources from multiple journals point to the number stated in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and has been revised in History of the Church. It has been the number used for 150+ years, and until it can be disproven will remain as reputable.

However, I agree that this should read as "an estimate" from "eyewitness accounts" who were members of the Church.

Again in a city of nearly 24,000 residents (conservative estimates put it at a little over 20k, but non-Mormon sources tend to put the population higher - in either case it was the tenth largest city in the US at the time), I don't see why the high number of people attending a rare public appearance of Smith should be questioned that the whole town came. Let alone the nearby residents of Zarahemla, Lehi and other Latter-day Saint communities. He was a presidential candidate, mayor, leader of the Church and national celebrity - "God's chosen mouthpiece" as one account states.

Please don't feel that I'm attacking you; your argument makes no sense. Your suggested edit, however, is a very good one - feel free to make the change and others will revise the English. It should read that the estimates are by multiple LDS eyewitness accounts and available records of the Church. -Visorstuff 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "It is hard for me to believe that you would not believe, or trust an organization's official source (...) about its own happenings." --- I clearly said church or political party. And I would add comertial corporations. In general, the fact is that if some data would benefict the entity which brings it out, hence it has a higher probability to come out. This cannot be denied: it's just common sense. It's not a conspiracy theory to understand that not every man is honest. I (and I thougth that everybody) would give more credibility to "little Peter" when he confesses to have broke the window with his ball than when he denies to have done it... It's just a matter of probability: if some data is less probable to raise, it gives more information.

 * "you cannot believe the outcome of the constitutional convention of the US in the late 1700s" --- Don't know what this was about, but if it was some votation, everyone there (even oppositors) was witness of the outcome.

 * "or accounts of Franklin's, Washinton's or Madison's speeches" --- ...Where would be the benefit in altering their words, in such a way that nobody who listened to them could notice?

 * "You cannot believe the voting record of senators as put forth by senate records." --- Same as above: if the record was altered, the affected senators would have certainly noticed.

 * "You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community." --- Honestly, has this any sense in regard of what I said?

 * "you must question the integrity of the USA Today and NY Times, as although they are different sources, they are both American newspapers - and promote American propaganda." --- I do not believe all Americans worship America. And I don't want to think you really believe that. Anyway American propaganda is not IMO benefitial for those newspapers... So they do not fit in my argument. But you suggested a good way of proving credibility: were the sources independent? If totally independent, it's not probable that they coincided when inflating the sum. But perhaps it's a difficult thing to prove...

 * "To you the Moon landing must be a hoax, as there are no third parties to prove that this took place - just NASA's word." --- As far as I know they had the technology to do it (Apollo 11 was not like the first NASA rocket), and they transmitted "real-time" video images to the whole world and took many photographs. I also believe that they brought lunar rocks... Not much like officially-saying "in a mission we were the only ones to follow, we reached the moon!". But I once read an investigation supporting that Gagarin didn't escape atmosphere he he... Don't remember the arguments.

 * "Then there is the Holocaust and the Six million Jews that were killed - you cannot believe that that took place either, as they weren't taken from German sources, but by records obtained by the victors." --- You have been very disgusting here. I think no further comment is needed after reading this.

 * "The available sources from multiple journals point to the number stated in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" --- And that is what is commonly called "references". Just what I asked for, if you remember. (Maybe you didn't mention them earlier because they are LDS-POV sources... just guessing)

 * "It has been the number used for 150+ years, and until it can be disproven will remain as reputable." --- This is the biggest fallacy here. So until JC's multiplication of breads and fishes can be disproven, History assumes it as a fact. The New Testament is aprox. 2000 years old... that's about 150 thirteen times! At least Muslims, Catholic and LDS use the Bible as a historic source... So why don't assert it in some article?

 * "Again" --- again? --- "in a city of nearly 24,000 residents (...), I don't see why the high number of people attending a rare public appearance of Smith should be questioned that the whole town came." --- This is a good and sensible argument. But unfortunatelly it doesn't make the picture of Smith crying out his (not short) speech, in a funeral, a little less odd to me. I didn't believe that there were less than 20,000 people willing to attend his speech...

 * "Your suggested edit, however, is a very good one..." --- I cannot see how my proposed edit is so unrelated to my argument, but receive well that you like it. If nobody else disagrees I will do it... Ending then this debate, isn't it?
 * --euyyn 00:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to have gone to the extreme to prove a point, but please understand that NPOV sources and primary historical records are not the same, but are the foundation of percieved fact. With the example you used, many people discount the JC fish story because it is in the "biased" bible not proven by a third, independent source (although I believe it happened), but most of the world accepts that that miracle in fact happened. No one was there when it happened, and no surviving detractor statement is found, and no one can defend it. It remains a historical theory - the same as the speeches made by Washington and Franklin mentioned above.

The bottom line is that multiple people put the figure of attendees at the funeral at such a high number. One was the official record, another the local newspaper, but others were journals of members of the church (clayton, smith, stout which had close estimates to the same figure). In any case it is an estimate by these individuals (the church today actually counts attendees at sacrament meetings, and has been highly praised for the accurate record keeping it does - although former members, and critics, often state they inflate numbers or use old equations to account for unknown deaths, etc.). I don't think you can discount a record just because of who wrote it. I disagree with your point about the church having something to gain by inflating those numbers - it wasn't a church meeting - it was a funeral of a very influential man.

 * "You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community." --- Honestly, has this any sense in regard of what I said?

The figure was reported in a local newspaper. This is how it has sense in regard to what you said.

What I meant by my last statement was this: Your conclusion is good, but how you got there was flawed. Your argument is flimsy from a historian's POV, as I mentioned before. Those familiar with historical theory will laugh at this thread, but you came to the right conclusion as I mentioned before and the suggested edit is a good one. -Visorstuff 20:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen -- please note that Joseph delivered the King Follett Discourse/Sermon at the LDS General Conference shortly after Follett's death and funeral. He was evidently asked by the family to present a tribute to his late friend and colleague. I've corrected the article to reflect the mode of presentation. Conference -- for Nauvoo and the extended LDS community -- would have been a much bigger draw and the number is more easily defendable. At the time, most LDS members would have made an effort to attend such a conference. WBardwin 00:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not believe it was a "general conference" but a church conference - small but important difference. Smith was unable to attend the funeral due to being in iowa territory at the time in hiding, but promised to eulogize Follett when he returned. In this sense it was a funeral sermon, and an important one. This was the first time Smith spoke in public in some time, which is why there was such a draw. There was a scarcity of the Mormon prophet and public appearances by controversial figures and political leaders tended to create such a draw. However, evidence points to this text as a "funeral sermon" even if it was ten days after the event of this bodyguard and friend of Joseph. -Visorstuff 17:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification -- one of my sources said "conference," the other a "general meeting." Certainly, they did not have "general conference" in the modern sense.  But both sources stated that Follett's funeral was over, and he was buried, but that his family had asked Joseph to speak and he took the opportunity in "conference."  WBardwin 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Full Text of King Follet Discourse
I noticed that the version that is linked does not appear to be complete or exact as compared with the version I have from the Journal of Discourses version. The version linked has added some material in square brackets [] and left some material out using ellipses ...

Ellipses should be avoided or used extremely carefully by debaters lest there be suspicion that crucial material has been left out.

The offending paragraph reads: "A question may be asked—“Will mothers have their children in eternity?” Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow [in the grave]; it will still be the child, in the same precise form [when it rises] as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. …" and it should read:

"A question may be asked—“Will mothers have their children in eternity?” Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life; for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow: it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansion of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

--Jeff 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Jeffmilner. Good point. However, you probably already know that the KFD was not taken word for word. The T&S version is considered "accurate" but many portions are considered less reliable. I've seen multiple versions of the text that leave out info that were not alluded to in other versions written. The compilation that was in the T&S was compiled by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton. It was supposedly also recorded by George D. Watts, and his version was largely different, although he was used as the primary transcriber of Journal of Discourses texts. Therefore the text in the Journal of Discourses (written by Watts) likely included the text that he felt was missing from the "official" version. But we really don't know. Anyway, for what its worth, there's the context. Different sources, trying to keep consistency, but failing due to the slowness of transcription. -Visorstuff 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello Visorstuff. I understand from the article that the KFD was "recorded using a version of Pittman Shorthand and [is] considered by scholars as accurate (near-verbatim)". If this is not correct, then the article needs updating.

 * The reason I would tend to believe the J of D version is more accurate, although it appears contrary to current Mormon belief, is that it matches perfectly with the T&S text that is there before it was changed using square brackets and elipses. Square brackets and elipses mean text was changed—though admittantly I am unaware of exactly why they dropped the text. The fact that they kept the paragraph at all is indicative that something close to this was said, and the fact that words added and dropped conviently changed the meaning is very suspicious, especially when a non-changed version is available with very few other differences. I believe this is what Joseph Smith taught and I believe it was whitewashed from official church history.--Jeff 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just take a moment to think about what the text actually says, "It will never grow [in the grave]". Does that sound like something you would actually hear? Why would he point out that a child would not grow in the grave? Please don't take this personally because I think it's a wide-spread problem, but for me it's hard not to feel frustrated in a religion where most everyone is so brainwashed. --Jeff 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * One last thing: Do you know if the square brackets and elipses were used in the original T&S printing, or only in the Ensign's reprinting of that article?--Jeff 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a bound copy of the times and seasons. I tend to not like to look through it, for obvious reasons, however, I'll see if I can check. However, if I remember right, there are asterix in the printing in the T&S, as some sections could not be fully agreed upon. I think its safe to say it is is considered nearly "word for word" on those sections. And, I do not think this is an example of "whitewashed" church history, but of conflicting accounts, as stated before. Now, changes to the AofF, inserts of the first vision accounts into documents, and the peicing together of revelations from smaller ones, you can consider "revisionist," but from my own research, i think all the changes are easily seeable by whoever wants to study it out, and are justifiable. I'm sorry you feel that the church "whitewashes" its history, as I find it just the opposite. I've found that the church is very open with almost all documents. The church compiles, verfies and validates what was actually said with ALL of the sources and takes the most agreed upon and reliable versions - based on consensus. I think we have a more accurate view of church history, and when thinks were changed based on doctrinal reasons, it was publicized and printed and explained at the time. For example, Book of Mormon changes from the 1908 edition to the 1981 edition were explained not only in the introduction of the BoM, but in the Ensign, church news and more. No suprises, but enemies of the church don't reference those sources, rather then just point to the changes, and say, "see, its inconsistent and has been changed." There are reasons they are changed and they are not only traceable, but easily understood. but that's MHO from some one who reads all they can on the matter... This is what you get for being a record-keeping church. -Visorstuff 17:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You may want to take a look at Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text," BYU Studies 18/2 (1978):193–208. Larson identified all the recorded versions, described their strengths and weaknesses, and prepared a new text based on the strongest readings. See HERE. --MrWhipple 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank-you both for your sincere responses. I found the BYU article an interesting read—though it also has the missing line in that version italisized so I still don't know whether or not Joseph taught that people don't age physically after the resurrection. I guess since I wouldn't like that doctrine even if we knew one way or the other that it was taught so I shouldn't worry about it, but I don't like to base my beliefs so much upon what is nice, but what I believe to be true. --Jeff 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King Follett discourse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826023706/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5320 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5320
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826023712/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5322 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5322
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826024132/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s doctrines
Thanks, FyzixFighter, for the clarification that Brigham Young modified Joseph Smith’s doctrine somewhat, saying, not just that God was once a man, but that he was specifically Adam. You then explained that Smith’s version is accepted as doctrine by the LDS church, whereas Young’s version is rejected. Although nothing in my two paragraphs was erroneous, I have refined them to show the distinction. This will be important to modern readers who otherwise might think that the church has rejected both doctrines. Please add to the discussion the best reference you know of that says that the church still teaches that God was once a man like us. These nuances will help improve the article. Anytime you have a better reference to illustrate a point than I do, please supply it. Chronic2 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * The paragraph was erroneous because it stated that McConkie denounced the doctrine that God was once a man. McConkie was denouncing the Adam-God doctrine specifically - there's a distinction there. This is why using reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources is important. I would still argue that large quotes from the primary sources is undue in comparison to the rest of the section. We have a whole article on Adam–God doctrine so linking to it and summarizing the doctrine, leading with it's relationship to the King Follett discourse, is more appropriate here, imo. I also find Kimball, who was president, to be the more significant recent comment on the subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Am I missing something here? The paragraph that you deleted started with "The Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young was denounced by Apostle Bruce McConkie . . . " Yet in the above paragraph you say "The paragraph was erroneous because it stated that McConkie denounced the doctrine that God was once a man." Your statement is not true; perhaps you did not read the introductory sentence carefully. With that understanding, I think it would be in order to re-insert the paragraph, since it makes the important distinction between what Joseph Smith taught and what Brigham Young taught. I see no reason to go to another page to make this important point; readers interested in the King Follett discourse would naturally be interested in distinguishing between its doctrine and that of Brigham Young. Because you misunderstood what was written, this shows that it is important that this point be clarified, and clarified right here, on the page dedicated to the King Follett discourse. Chronic2 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as I mentioned earlier, it would add to the quality of this article if you could give a good reference stating that the LDS church holds to the doctrine of God as presented in the King Follett discourse. That is entirely relative; it's like somebody presented Fred Hoyle's cosmology but omitted any reference to whether that cosmology is currently accepted by mainstream physicists. To omit bringing things up to date like this is something that you, as a physicist, would see as unsatisfactory. In the same way, people interested in history or theology would want to know if the King Follett doctrine is presently held by the LDS church. So please add the necessary information on this, with reference.Chronic2 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I was referring to the text of the second paragraph when first added, which stated "Although this doctrine that God was once a man just like us was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it was denounced by Apostle Bruce McConkie". That statement was erroneous, despite your claim that it was, before you refined it. As this is the article on the King Follett discourse, everything needs good sources that connect to the main topic. That was severely lacking in your original edit for both paragraphs. That's why I included the Buerger reference and reworded the sentence for context, stating the relationship, per the source, between the discourse and Adam-God doctrine - otherwise it was SYNTH to connect the discourse to the BY teaching. Imo, due weight would be to state the connection made by reliable sources, summarize the doctrine, and state the current acceptance of the AG doctrine. The long quotes (with way too many ellipsis, imo) are better handled in the specific article, again per WP:UNDUE unless they appear often in any analysis of the KF discourse. One other issue right now is that the subsection is for "Attitude of Latter-day Saint leaders", which awkwardly limits the scope of the section. Perhaps "Significance in the LDS theology" or something similar would be better and more accommodating to additional material.
 * The King Follett discourse sits in a grey area in current LDS theology - it's not part of the official canon, but is often quoted in part for some teachings. The best sources that I could find of the current Church use of the discourse, based on a quick cursory search, are here and here. As noted in the latter source, the Church currently teaches (referring to Snow's couplet related to the discourse) that "Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught". The Church claims that it continues to teach "the core doctrines that Joseph presented in the King Follett discourse", but what is "core" is subjective - while the Church's statement about its own doctrine is permissible under WP:SPS, a secondary source to evaluate and provide analysis of the claim would be more helpful. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of the importance of the King Follett Discourse in changing the ontology of the LDS Church
I am about to add material to the “Attitude of Latter-day Saint leaders” that will explain more fully what their attitude is regarding the divine nature. I had requested earlier that someone who apparently is knowledgeable about Mormon doctrine add such information, but he did not see fit to do so--even though such information would normally be expected in an article dealing with the doctrine of the King Follett sermon. So I have added the information myself, quoting the appropriate authorities. If I have misquoted anyone, please correct the quotation or offer another one that is more pertinent. However, these quotes from the leading authorities should not be deleted just because they can be challenging to someone’s point of view. I have tried to be factual and not present any biased point of view; if something is not factual, please change it. But don’t change the basic facts. I have also tried to emphasize what is important: namely, that the King Follett discourse, and Joseph Smith’s changing views that led up to it, represented a fundamental change in the world-view of Mormonism. I think this is very appropriate to the present article. It is not a matter of “point of view.” For those who wish to improve the article, what is needed is clarification, not censorship. Further, I am not bound, nor should any editor of Wikipedia be bound, by whether the LDS Church defines the King Follett doctrine as “core” or “essential;” their play on words in these matters should not obscure the fact that this is a teaching that they have never renounced, coming from the chief prophet and founder of their religion. To appeal to whether it is “core” or not, as in the above paragraphs, only shows a Mormon point of view, not one of an objective historian or theologian.Chronic2 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire text that you've added fails WP:OR. As editors, we cannot analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize material found in primary sources ourselves. We cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly state by any of the sources. Your text only quotes primary sources, and synthesizes several statements not found in those sources. It is like you are attempting to write a journal article. That is not what wikipedia is about. We do not write journal articles, instead we mainly summarize and attribute arguments made in reliable, secondary sources. You seem to be focusing a lot on the Adam-God doctrine of Brigham Young - as I noted before, any arguments of connection of that to this article needs to be guided by secondary sources.
 * Examples of original research/synthesis in your edits: "Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon, and his teaching that immediately preceded it, were responsible for a change in the theology and worldview of the LDS Church", "Because the foundations of the Mormon religion had been released from the moors of any written document by Smith’s later ideas, Brigham Young felt free to improve...", "This would mean that, since the King Follett doctrine of God, now accepted by the Church, contradicts the teachings...".
 * My soon removal of your OR is not censorship, this is adherence to a core content policy of wikipedia. Per WP:BRD, though not a requirement, please discuss here before reinserting this text. There are numerous dispute resolution options if you feel that you and I are at an impasse. If you feel that I am not following wikipedia policy, please report me to the appropriate Administrators' noticeboard (though be prepared for the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG). --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FyzixFighter, for explaining these things. I think, however, that you will agree with the point I was making that the King Follett discourse represented a basic change in Mormon theology. Further, this point is important enough that it should be brought out in this article, which is the proper place for it. The change brought about by the Follett discourse was that theology was no longer to be based on the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but it was to be based instead on the words of the living prophet, whose word superseded whatever was said or written before. You can try to phrase that in some other way, but however it is phrased, this represented a fundamental change from what Joseph Smith taught right after the Book of Mormon was published when he said “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” And, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get neare to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book . . .”
 * Since you deleted these important sentences on the grounds that I was not quoting a secondary source, I have a request to make that will show your impartiality in this matter. You are more knoweldgeable about Mormon doctrine and theology than I am, and probably have a better knowledge of “secondary sources” in these matters than I do. Please research some of these secondary sources and use them to update the present article by bringing out the importance of the King Follett sermon in changing the fundamental approach to theology and revelation by the LDS movement. Once again, I think you will agree that this is an important observation to make, and the proper place to make it is on the King Follett page, and maybe elsewhere as in the God in Mormonism page. Use the best, and most objective, source you can find on this. In my own searching just now I located a book that, according to its title and the reviews it received, will provide just the secondary source needed. But I leave it to your discretion to use whatever secondary source you want to provide this information that the page sorely needs. Yours, Chronic2 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me first make sure I'm understanding the first part of your argument. You believe that the following conclusion is important and needs to be in the article: The King Follett discourse represented a distinct change in Mormon theology, specifically that the theology was no longer based on written scripture (Bible and Book of Mormon) but on revelations to the living prophet. Please correct me if I am wrong. Personally, I would say I disagree with such a conclusion. I would argue that the discourse is actually consistent with a theology that accepts an open scriptural canon and continuous revelation, in which case it is more a case of supplementing the accepted scriptural canon than superseding it. As early as 1832, the Church was collecting the reported revelations of Joseph Smith and compiling them into a book of scripture (Book of Commandments and later Doctrine and Covenants) that was equal to the Bible and Book of Mormon in defining the church theology. I have a few sources in mind that might support the counter-argument that places the discourse within the context of continuous revelation and therefore not unusual, but I would like to see secondary, reliable sources for the original argument first. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with on this one. Its not so much about the content that you uploaded. I myself have strong feelings, discoveries, and observations in Latter Day Saint history that I would love to put in Wikipedia, but its just not the place for my own research, no matter how good it is. It's why I also maintain a blog. I would recommend looking for secondary sources that discuss the King Follet discourse, and faithfully present what scholars say on the subject. I would also agree with FyzixFighter's analysis that the King Follet discourse does NOT represent a distinct change in Mormon theology, or that the theology was no longer based on written scripture. Finally, please don't be scared off from bold editing. We NEED a lot of good editors, and there is a lot of information that needs to be added and refined in the Latter Day Saint section and you are most welcome. Epachamo (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:King Follett discourse


text:
Hart District

Hart is a local government district in Hampshire, England, named after the River Hart. Its council is based in Fleet. The district also contains the towns of Blackwater and Yateley, along with numerous villages and surrounding rural areas.

In the English indices of deprivation for 2019, Hart was ranked as the least deprived district in England; a position it had also held in the 2015 index.

For five years running (2011–2015), an annual study conducted by the Halifax bank named Hart as the UK's most desirable place to live for quality of life. The study took into account jobs, housing, health, crime, weather, traffic and broadband access. It found that in 2014 97% of people in the local authority area were in good health, and in 2011 tended to have incomes 40% above the national average.

History
The district was created on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, covering the area of two former districts, which were both abolished at the same time: The new district was initially going to be named Hartley Wintney, after the rural district which covered most of the area, which in turn was named after the village of the same name. The shadow authority elected to oversee the transition to the new system requested a change of name to Hart, after the River Hart which runs through the area. The change of name was approved by the government on 17 January 1974, before the new district formally came into being.
 * Hartley Wintney Rural District
 * Fleet Urban District

The River Hart is said to derive its name from the number of deer in the area, with a hart being an old term for an adult male deer, synonymous with "stag". The area historically had several deer parks. Hart District Council uses a profile of a stag as its logo.

Governance
Hart District Council provides district-level services. County-level services are provided by Hampshire County Council. The whole district is also covered by civil parishes, which form a third tier of local government.

Political control
The council has been under no overall control since 2012. Since 2017 the council has been run by a coalition of the Liberal Democrats and local party Community Campaign (Hart), led by Liberal Democrat councillor David Neighbour.

The first election to the council was held in 1973, initially acting as a shadow authority alongside the outgoing authorities until the new arrangements took effect on 1 April 1974. Political control since 1974 has been as follows:

Leadership
The leaders of the council since 2008 have been:

Composition
Following the 2024 election, the composition of the council is:

No party has majority control of the council; currently the Liberal Democrats and Community Campaign (Hart), a local residents' association, run the council as a joint administration. The next election is due in 2026.

Elections
Since the last boundary changes in 2014 the council has comprised 33 councillors representing 11 wards, with each ward electing three councillors. Elections are held three years out of every four, with a third of the council (one councillor for each ward) elected at a time for a four year term of office. Hampshire County Council elections are held in the fourth year of the cycle when there are no district council elections.

Premises
The council is based at the Civic Offices on Harlington Way in Fleet. The building was purpose-built for the council in 1986.

Demography
In mid-2003 Hart had an estimated 85,700 residents. This compares with the 2001 Census figure of 83,505 residents. The 2001 Census also reported that there were 32,470 households, with 77% of residents describing their health as 'good'. In the twenty years between 1982 and 2002 the population of Hart grew by 19 per cent, compared with an increase of 11 per cent for the South East region as a whole.

Parishes and town councils
The whole district is divided into civil parishes, listed below. The parish councils for Blackwater and Hawley, Fleet, and Yateley have declared their parishes to be towns, allowing them to take the style "town council". Whilst Hook is a post town it retains a parish council rather than a town council.

 * Blackwater and Hawley
 * Bramshill
 * Church Crookham
 * Crondall
 * Crookham Village
 * Dogmersfield
 * Elvetham Heath
 * Eversley
 * Ewshot
 * Fleet
 * Greywell
 * Hartley Wintney
 * Heckfield
 * Hook
 * Long Sutton
 * Mattingley
 * Odiham
 * Rotherwick
 * South Warnborough
 * Winchfield
 * Yateley

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

title: Hart District


text:
Pat Metheny

Patrick Bruce Metheny (born August 12, 1954) is an American jazz guitarist and composer.

He was the leader of the Pat Metheny Group (1977–2010) and continues to work in various small-combo, duet, and solo settings, as well as other side projects. His style incorporates elements of progressive and contemporary jazz, latin jazz, and jazz fusion. He has three gold albums and 20 Grammy Awards, and is the only person to have won Grammys in 10 categories.

Early years and education
Metheny was born in Lee's Summit, Missouri. His father Dave played trumpet, his mother Lois sang, and his maternal grandfather Delmar was a professional trumpeter. Metheny's first instrument was the trumpet, on which he was taught by his brother, Mike. Pat's brother, father, and grandfather played trios together at home. His parents were fans of Glenn Miller and swing music. They took Pat to concerts to hear Clark Terry and Doc Severinsen, but they had little respect for guitar. Pat's interest in guitar increased around 1964 when he saw the Beatles perform on TV. For his 12th birthday, his parents allowed him to buy a guitar, which was a Gibson ES-140 3/4.

Pat Metheny's life changed after hearing the album Four & More by Miles Davis. Soon after, he was captivated by Wes Montgomery's album Smokin' at the Half Note which was released in 1965. He cites the Beatles, Miles Davis, and Montgomery as having the biggest impact on his music.

When he was 15, Metheny won a scholarship from Down Beat magazine to a one-week jazz camp where he was mentored by guitarist Attila Zoller, who then invited him to New York City to meet guitarist Jim Hall and bassist Ron Carter.

While playing at a club in Kansas City, Metheny was approached by Bill Lee, a dean at the University of Miami, and offered a scholarship. After less than a week at college, Metheny realized that playing guitar all day during his teens had left him unprepared for classes. He admitted this to Lee, who offered him a job to teach as a professor, as the school had recently introduced electric guitar as a course of study.

He moved to Boston in the early 1970s to teach at the Berklee College of Music with jazz vibraphonist Gary Burton and established a reputation as a prodigy. He appeared on Burton's studio recordings, from Ring in 1974 to Passengers in 1977.

Debut album
In 1974, he appeared on an album unofficially titled Jaco with pianist Paul Bley, bassist Jaco Pastorius, and drummer Bruce Ditmas on Carol Goss's Improvising Artists label—but he was unaware that he was being recorded. The next year he joined Gary Burton's band with guitarist Mick Goodrick.

Metheny released his debut album, Bright Size Life (ECM, 1976), with Jaco Pastorius on bass guitar and Bob Moses on drums. His next album, Watercolors (ECM, 1977), was the first time he recorded with pianist Lyle Mays, who became his most frequent collaborator. The album also featured Danny Gottlieb, who became the drummer for the first version of the Pat Metheny Group. With Metheny, Mays, and Gottlieb, the fourth member was bassist Mark Egan when the album Pat Metheny Group (ECM, 1978) was released.

Pat Metheny Group
When Pat Metheny Group (ECM, 1978) was released, the group was a quartet comprising, besides Metheny, Danny Gottlieb on drums, Mark Egan on bass, and Lyle Mays on piano, autoharp, and synthesizer. All but Egan had played on Metheny's album Watercolors (ECM, 1977), recorded a year before the first group album.

The second group album, American Garage (ECM, 1979), reached number 1 on the Billboard jazz chart and crossed over onto the pop charts. From 1982 to 1985, the Pat Metheny Group released Offramp (ECM, 1982), a live album, Travels (ECM, 1983), First Circle (ECM, 1984), and The Falcon and the Snowman (EMI, 1985), a soundtrack album for the movie of the same name for which they collaborated on the single "This Is Not America" with David Bowie. The song reached number 14 in the British Top 40 in 1985 and number 32 in the U.S.

Offramp marked the first appearance of bassist Steve Rodby (replacing Egan) and a Brazilian guest artist, Nana Vasconcelos, on percussion and wordless vocals. On First Circle, Argentinian singer and multi-instrumentalist Pedro Aznar joined the group; as drummer, Paul Wertico replaced Gottlieb. Both Rodby and Wertico were members of the Simon and Bard Group at the time and had played in Simon-Bard in Chicago before joining Metheny.

First Circle was Metheny's last album with ECM; he had been a key artist for the label but left following disagreements with the label's founder, Manfred Eicher.

Still Life (Talking) (Geffen, 1987) featured new group members trumpeter Mark Ledford, vocalist David Blamires, and percussionist Armando Marçal. Aznar returned for vocals and guitar on Letter from Home (Geffen, 1989).

During this period the Steppenwolf Theater Company of Chicago featured compositions by Metheny and Mays for their production of Lyle Kessler's play Orphans, where it has remained special optional music for all productions of the play around the world since.

Metheny then again delved into solo and band projects, and four years went by before the release of the next group record, a live album titled The Road to You (Geffen, 1993), which featured tracks from the two Geffen studio albums among new tunes. The group integrated new instrumentation and technologies into its work, notably Mays' use of synthesizers.

Metheny and Mays themselves refer to the next three Pat Metheny Group releases as a triptych: We Live Here (Geffen, 1995), Quartet (Geffen, 1996), and Imaginary Day (Warner Bros., 1997). Moving away from the Latin style which had dominated the releases of the previous ten years, these albums included experiments with sequenced synthetic drums on one track, free-form improvisation on acoustic instruments, and symphonic signatures, blues, and sonata schemes.

With Speaking of Now (Warner Bros., 2002), new group members were added: drummer Antonio Sánchez from Mexico City, trumpeter Cuong Vu from Vietnam, and bassist, vocalist, guitarist, and percussionist Richard Bona from Cameroon.

The Way Up (Nonesuch, 2005) consists of a single 68-minute-long piece—split into four sections—based on a pair of three-note kernels: the opening B, A♯, F♯ and the derived B, A, F♯. On The Way Up, harmonica player Grégoire Maret from Switzerland was introduced as a new group member, while Bona contributed as a guest musician.

Side projects
Outside the Group, Metheny has shown different sides of his musical personality. He made the album Orchestrion (Nonesuch, 2010) with elaborate, custom mechanical instruments which allowed him to compose and perform as a one-person orchestra. By contrast, his album Secret Story (Geffen, 1992) used orchestral arrangements found more often in movie soundtracks, such as his own The Falcon and the Snowman (EMI, 1985) and A Map of the World (Warner Bros., 1999). His solo acoustic guitar albums include New Chautauqua (ECM, 1979), One Quiet Night (Warner Bros., 2003), and What's It All About (Nonesuch, 2011). He explored the fringes of the avant-garde on Zero Tolerance for Silence (Geffen, 1994). This, too, was an album of solo guitar, but it was electric guitar. Metheny had ventured into the avant-garde before on 80/81 (ECM, 1980), Song X (Geffen, 1986) with Ornette Coleman, and The Sign of Four with Derek Bailey (Knitting Factory Works, 1997).

In 1997, Metheny recorded with bassist Marc Johnson on Johnson's release The Sound of Summer Running (Verve, 1998). The next year, he recorded a guitar duet with Jim Hall (Telarc, 1999), whose work has strongly influenced Metheny's. He collaborated with Polish jazz and folk singer Anna Maria Jopek on Upojenie (Warner Poland, 2002) and Bruce Hornsby on Hot House (RCA, 2005).

He recorded on albums by his older brother, Mike Metheny, a jazz trumpeter, among them Day In – Night Out (1986) and Close Enough for Love (2001).

The long list of his collaborators includes Lyle Mays, Bill Frisell, Billy Higgins, Brad Mehldau, Charlie Haden, Chick Corea, Dave Holland, Dewey Redman, Eberhard Weber, Herbie Hancock, Jack DeJohnette, Jaco Pastorius, Jim Hall, John Scofield, Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, Joshua Redman, Marc Johnson, Michael Brecker, Mick Goodrick, Roy Haynes, Steve Swallow, and Tony Williams.

Unity Band
In 2012, he formed the Unity Band with Antonio Sánchez on drums, Ben Williams on bass and Chris Potter on saxophone. This ensemble toured Europe and the U.S. during the latter half of the year. In 2013, as an extension of the Unity Band project, Metheny announced the formation of the Pat Metheny Unity Group, with the addition of the Italian multi-instrumentalist Giulio Carmassi.

Influences
As a young guitarist, Metheny tried to sound like Wes Montgomery, but when he was 14 or 15, he decided it was disrespectful to imitate him. In the liner notes on the 2-disc Montgomery compilation Impressions: The Verve Jazz Sides, Metheny is quoted as saying, "Smokin' at the Half Note is the absolute greatest jazz-guitar album ever made. It is also the record that taught me how to play."

Ornette Coleman's 1968 album New York Is Now! inspired Metheny to find his own direction. He has recorded Coleman's compositions on a number of albums, starting with a medley of "Round Trip" and "Broadway Blues" on his debut album, Bright Size Life (1976). He worked extensively with Coleman's collaborators, such as Charlie Haden, Dewey Redman, and Billy Higgins, and he recorded the album Song X (1986) with Coleman and toured with him.

Metheny made three albums on ECM with Brazilian vocalist and percussionist Naná Vasconcelos. He lived in Brazil from the late 1980s to the early 1990s and performed with several local musicians, such as Milton Nascimento and Toninho Horta. He played with Antônio Carlos Jobim as a tribute, in a live performance in Carnegie Hall Salutes The Jazz Masters: Verve 50th Anniversary.

He is also a fan of several pop music artists, especially singer/songwriters including James Taylor (after whom he named the song "James" on Offramp); Bruce Hornsby, Cheap Trick, and Joni Mitchell, with whom he performed on her Shadows and Light (Asylum/Elektra, 1980) live tour. Metheny is also fond of Buckethead's music. He also worked with, sponsored or helped to make recordings of singer/songwriters from all over the world, such as Pedro Aznar (Argentina), Akiko Yano (Japan), David Bowie (UK), Silje Nergaard (Norway), Noa (Israel), and Anna Maria Jopek (Poland).

Two of Metheny's albums, The Way Up (2005) and Orchestrion (2010), show the influence of American minimalist composer Steve Reich and use similar rhythmic figures structured around pulse. Metheny recorded Reich's composition Electric Counterpoint on Reich's album Different Trains (Nonesuch, 1987).

Pikasso

Metheny plays a custom-made 42-string Pikasso I created by Canadian luthier Linda Manzer. He plays it on "Into the Dream" and on the albums Quartet (1996), Imaginary Day (1997), Jim Hall & Pat Metheny (1999), Trio → Live (Warner Bros., 2000), and the Speaking of Now Live and Imaginary Day Live DVDs. Metheny has used the guitar in his guest appearances on other artists' albums. He used the Pikasso on Metheny/Mehldau Quartet (Nonesuch, 2007), his second collaboration with pianist Brad Mehldau and his trio sidemen Larry Grenadier and Jeff Ballard; the Pikasso is featured on Metheny's composition "The Sound of Water". Manzer has made many acoustic guitars for Metheny, including a mini guitar, an acoustic sitar guitar, and the baritone guitar, which Metheny used for the recording of One Quiet Night (2003).

Guitar synthesizer

Metheny was one of the first jazz guitarists to use the Roland GR-300 guitar synthesizer. He commented, "you have to stop thinking about it as a guitar, because it no longer is a guitar." He approaches it as if he were a horn player, and he prefers the "high trumpet" sound of the instrument. One of the patches that he has often used is on Roland's JV-80 "Vintage Synth" expansion card, titled "Pat's GR-300". In addition to the Roland, he uses a Synclavier controller.

Six-string and twelve-string electric
Metheny was an early proponent of the twelve-string guitar in jazz. During his 1975 tour with the Gary Burton "Quartet" (five people, including Metheny), he primarily played electric twelve-string guitar against the six-string work of resident guitarist Mick Goodrick.

Prior to Metheny, Pat Martino had used the electric twelve-string guitar on a studio album, Desperado, and John McLaughlin had used a double-neck electric guitar with the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Ralph Towner was perhaps the first to use acoustic twelve-string guitar extensively in jazz ("The Moors", from Weather Report's I Sing the Body Electric, Columbia, 1972), and Larry Coryell and Philip Catherine made extensive use of acoustic twelve string in alternate tunings at the 1975 Montreux Jazz Festival, later releasing some of the material on their 1976 Twin House album.

Metheny used a twelve-string guitar on his debut album, Bright Size Life (1976), including alternate tuning on "Sirabhorn", and on later albums ("San Lorenzo", from Pat Metheny Group and Travels).

Use of hollow-body electric guitars

At the age of 12, Metheny bought a natural finish Gibson ES-175 that he played throughout his early career, until it was retired in 1995. After his first tour of Japan in 1978, he began an association with Ibanez guitars, who have since produced a range of PM signature models.

Personal life
Metheny is the younger brother of jazz flugelhornist Mike Metheny. He lives in New York City with his wife, Latifa (née Azhar), and three children. Latifa has been credited for album photography. Metheny was once in a relationship with Sônia Braga.

Awards and honors

 * Only artist to win Grammy Awards in ten different categories
 * DownBeat Hall of Fame, 2013
 * Miles Davis Award, Montreal International Jazz Festival, 1995
 * Orville H. Gibson Award, 1996
 * Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music, 1996
 * Guitarist of the Year, DownBeat Readers' Poll, 1983, 1986–1991, 2007–2016
 * Best Jazz Guitarist, Guitar Player magazine, 1982, 1983, 1986
 * Best Jazz Guitarist, Guitar Player magazine Readers' Poll, 1984, 1985, 2009
 * Best Acoustic Guitarist, Acoustic Guitar magazine Readers' Poll, 2009
 * Echo Award for Best Guitar Instrumentalist – International for TAP: John Zorn's Book of Angels Vol. 20, 2014
 * Echo Award, International Ensemble of the Year, Kin, 2015
 * Missouri Music Hall of Fame, 2016
 * Lifetime Achievement Award, JazzFM, 2018
 * Elected into Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 2018
 * 2018 NEA Jazz Masters, 2017
 * Honorary Doctorate of Music from McGill University, 2019

Discography

 * Bright Size Life (ECM, 1976) – rec. 1975
 * Watercolors (ECM, 1977)
 * Pat Metheny Group (ECM, 1978)
 * New Chautauqua (ECM, 1979) – rec. 1978
 * American Garage (ECM, 1979)
 * 80/81 (ECM, 1980)
 * As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls with Lyle Mays (ECM, 1981) – rec. 1980
 * Offramp (ECM, 1982) – rec. 1981
 * Travels (ECM, 1983) – live rec. 1982
 * Rejoicing (ECM, 1984) – rec. 1983
 * First Circle (ECM, 1984)
 * The Falcon and the Snowman (EMI, 1985) – soundtrack rec. 1984
 * Song X with Ornette Coleman (Geffen, 1986) – rec. 1985
 * Still Life (Talking) (Geffen, 1987)
 * Letter from Home (Geffen, 1989)
 * Question and Answer (Geffen, 1990) – rec. 1989
 * Secret Story (Geffen, 1992)
 * Flower Hour (Beech Master, 1992) – live rec. 1990
 * The Road to You (Geffen, 1993) – live rec. 1991
 * Zero Tolerance for Silence (Geffen, 1994) – rec. 1992
 * I Can See Your House from Here with John Scofield (Blue Note, 1994)
 * Dream Teams with Sonny Rollins trio (Bugsy, 1994) – live rec. 1983, 86
 * We Live Here (Geffen, 1995) – rec. 1994
 * Quartet (Geffen, 1996)
 * Passaggio per il paradiso (MCA, 1996) – soundtrack
 * Beyond the Missouri Sky (Short Stories) with Charlie Haden (Verve, 1997)
 * Imaginary Day (Warner Bros., 1997)
 * Like Minds (Concord Jazz, 1998) – rec. 1997
 * Jim Hall & Pat Metheny (Telarc, 1999) – rec. 1998
 * A Map of the World (Warner Bros., 1999) – soundtrack
 * Trio 99 → 00 (Warner Bros., 2000)
 * Trio → Live (Warner Bros., 2000)
 * Speaking of Now (Warner Bros., 2002)
 * One Quiet Night (Warner Bros., 2003)
 * The Way Up (Nonesuch, 2005) – rec. 2003–04
 * Metheny/Mehldau (Nonesuch, 2006)
 * Metheny Mehldau Quartet (Nonesuch, 2007)
 * Day Trip (Nonesuch, 2008)
 * Tokyo Day Trip (Nonesuch, 2008)
 * Upojenie with Anna Maria Jopek (Nonesuch, 2008)
 * Quartet Live with Gary Burton (Concord Jazz, 2009)
 * Orchestrion (Nonesuch, 2010)
 * What's It All About (Nonesuch, 2011)
 * Unity Band with Chris Potter (Nonesuch, 2012)
 * The Orchestrion Project (Nonesuch, 2013)
 * Tap: Book of Angels Volume 20 (Tzadik/Nonesuch, 2013)
 * KIN (←→) (Nonesuch, 2014)
 * Hommage à Eberhard Weber (ECM, 2015)
 * The Unity Sessions (Nonesuch, 2016)
 * Cuong Vu Trio Meets Pat Metheny (Nonesuch, 2016)
 * From This Place (Nonesuch, 2020)
 * Road to the Sun (Modern Recordings, 2021)
 * Side-Eye NYC (V1.IV) (Modern Recordings, 2021)
 * Dream Box (Modern Recordings, 2023)
 * MoonDial (Modern Recordings, 2024)

title: Pat Metheny


text: User:Mr. Canadian

title: User:Mr. Canadian


text:
User talk:Smijer

Hello Smijer, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 01:22, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can add your user name in a talk page with three tildes or your name and date with four. Rmhermen 02:13, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Smijer 22:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please provide source and copyright information for this image. Otherwise it may be deleted. Kaldari 23:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Smijer


text:
User talk:Meembo

Hello Meembo, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela

Proposed deletion of NeoModus Direct Connect

The article NeoModus Direct Connect has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. This article is about defunct software which did not get much coverage in its prime days. It's unlikely to ever bocome notable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meembo


text:
Talk:Alfred Packer

American Antiquity Article
This piece should be updated to reflect a piece written by Alison Rautman and Todd Fenton in the April 2005 issue of American Antiquity. They describe data from the 1989 excavations that indicate that all five bodies had repeated blows to the head by a heavy sharp object such as an ax, as the cause of death. There was no evidence of gunshot wounds in any of the bodies. Packer's story that he shot one of the others in self-defense doesn't hold up.

Name
Can someone fix his name please 147.219.104.101 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Are we certain which is correct? 2600:8803:7506:D400:152B:CC57:C82F:DE27 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alfred Packer


text:
ISO 3166-2:AL

ISO 3166-2:AL is the entry for Albania in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Albania, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 12 counties.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is AL, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Albania. The second part is two digits.

The codes for the counties are assigned in Albanian alphabetical order, except Dibër, whose code is assigned based on its capital, Peshkopi.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.

Subdivision names are sorted in Albanian alphabetical order: a-c, ç, d, dh, e, ë, f-g, gj, h-l, ll, m-n, nj, o-r, rr, s, sh, t, th, u-x, xh, y-z, zh.

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

District codes
Before 27 November 2015, codes for the 36 districts of Albania were included. The code for Kolonjë (AL-ER) was assigned based on its capital, Ersekë.

title: ISO 3166-2:AL


text:
Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland Earl Marshal (c. 1364 – 21 October 1425), was an English nobleman of the House of Neville.

Origins
Ralph Neville was born about 1364, the son of John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville by his wife Maud Percy (d. 1379), a daughter of Henry de Percy, 2nd Baron Percy of Alnwick, Northumberland, by his wife Idoine de Clifford, a daughter of Robert de Clifford, 1st Baron de Clifford. Neville had a younger brother, and five sisters:

 * Thomas Neville, 5th Baron Furnivall, who married Joan Furnival. Father of Maud Neville, 6th Baroness Furnivall, wife of John Talbot, 7th Baron Talbot.
 * Lady Alice Neville, who married William Deincourt, 3rd Lord Deincourt
 * Lady Maud Neville, who married Sir William le Scrope
 * Lady Idoine Neville
 * Lady Eleanor Neville, who married Ralph Lumley, 1st Baron Lumley.
 * Lady Elizabeth Neville, who became a nun.

Neville's father married secondly, before 9 October 1381, Elizabeth Latimer (died 5 November 1395), daughter of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer. By his father's second marriage Neville had a brother and sister of the half blood:

 * John Neville, 6th Baron Latimer (c. 1382 – 10 December 1430), who married firstly, Maud Clifford (died c. 26 August 1446), daughter of Thomas Clifford, 6th Baron Clifford, whom he divorced before 1413–17, and by whom he had no issue. She married secondly, Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, beheaded on 5 August 1415 for his part in the Southampton Plot.
 * Lady Elizabeth Neville, who married Sir Thomas Willoughby.

Career
Neville's first military service was in Brittany under King Richard II's uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, who knighted him at Saint-Omer in July 1380. On 14 November 1381 he and his cousin, Henry "Hotspur" Percy, were commissioned to preside over a duel between an Englishman and a Scot, and on 1 December 1383 he and his father were commissioned to receive from the Scots 24,000 marks for the ransom of King David. On 26 October 1385 he was appointed joint Governor of Carlisle with Sir Thomas Clifford, and on 27 March 1386 was appointed, together with Clifford, joint Warden of the West March.

Neville inherited the title at the age of 24 after his father's death on 17 October 1388, and was summoned to Parliament from 6 December 1389 to 30 November 1396 by writs directed to Radulpho de Nevyll de Raby. On 25 October 1388, he was appointed, with others, to survey the fortifications on the Scottish border, and on 24 May 1389 was made keeper for life of the royal forests north of the Trent. In 1393 and 1394 he was employed in peace negotiations with Scotland.

In 1397 Neville supported King Richard's proceedings against Thomas of Woodstock and the Lords Appellant, and by way of reward was created Earl of Westmorland on 29 September of that year. However his loyalty to the King was tested shortly thereafter. His first wife, Margaret Stafford, had died on 9 June 1396, and Neville's second marriage to Joan Beaufort before 29 November 1396 made him the son-in-law of King Richard's uncle, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Thus, when King Richard banished John of Gaunt's eldest son and heir, Henry Bolingbroke, on 16 September 1398, and confiscated Bolingbroke's estates after John of Gaunt's death on 3 February 1399, Westmorland was moved to support his brother-in-law. Bolingbroke landed with a small force at Ravenspur in July 1399. Westmorland and the Earl of Northumberland were in the deputation at the Tower which received King Richard's abdication, and Westmorland bore the small sceptre called the "virge" at Bolingbroke's coronation as King Henry IV on 13 October 1399.

For his support of the new King, Westmorland was rewarded with a lifetime appointment as Earl Marshal on 30 September 1399 (although he resigned the office in 1412), a lifetime grant of the honour of Richmond on 20 October (although the grant was not accompanied by a grant of the title Earl of Richmond), and several wardships. Before 4 December he was appointed to the King's council. In March 1401, Westmorland was one of the commissioners who conducted negotiations for a marriage between the King's eldest daughter, Blanche of England, and Louis, son of Rupert, King of the Romans, and in 1403 was made a Knight of the Garter, taking the place left vacant by the death of Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York.

According to Tuck, Westmorland had little influence on the Scottish borders in the first years of Henry IV's reign, where the wardenships of the marches were monopolised by the Percys, leading to a growing rivalry between the two families. However, in 1403 the Percys, spurred on by various grievances, took up arms against the King, and suffered defeat at the Battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403. Northumberland's son, Henry Percy ("Hotspur"), was slain at Shrewsbury, and Northumberland's brother, the Earl of Worcester, was beheaded two days later. After Shrewsbury, King Henry ordered Westmorland to raise troops and prevent Northumberland's army, which was still in the north, from advancing south. On 6 August 1403,as a reward for his service in driving Northumberland back to Warkworth Castle, Westmorland was granted the wardenship of the West March which Northumberland had held since 1399, the wardenship of the East March, formerly held by Hotspur, being granted to the King's 14-year-old son, John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford.

Two years later Northumberland, joined by Lord Bardolf, again took up arms against the King. It had been Northumberland's plan to capture the earl by surprise at the outset, and in early May 1405, with 400 men, Northumberland made a surprise attack at the castle of Witton-le-Wear, where he had been staying. The attempt failed, as Westmorland had already fled. The earl speedily gathered an army, defeated a force of Percy allies at Topcliffe, and then marched towards York with Henry IV's son, John of Lancaster, to confront a force of some 8000 men gathered on Shipton Moor under the leadership of Archbishop Richard Scrope, Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk, and Scrope's nephew, Sir William Plumpton. Outnumbered by Scrope's forces, Westmorland resorted to trickery, and led Scrope and his allies to believe that their demands would be accepted and their personal safety guaranteed. Once Scrope's army had been disbanded on 29 May, Scrope, Mowbray and Plumpton were arrested, summarily condemned to death for treason, and beheaded outside the walls of York on 8 June 1405. Although Westmorland handed Scrope and his allies over to the King at Pontefract, he played no role in their hasty and irregular trial and execution, having been sent north by the King on 4 June to seize Northumberland's castles. It is unclear whether Northumberland had initially planned to rebel openly in concert with Scrope, but in the event, he gave Scrope no support and fled to Scotland after his failed attempt to capture Westmorland. His estates were subsequently forfeited to the crown, and Ralph, earl of Westmorland, as a reward for his quelling of the 1405 rebellion without significant bloodshed, received a large grant of former Percy lands in Cumberland and Northumberland in June 1405.

After the death of Henry IV Westmorland was mainly engaged in the defence of the northern border in his capacity as Warden of the West March (1403–1414). In 1415 he decisively defeated an invading Scottish army at the Battle of Yeavering. Westmorland played no part in King Henry V's French campaigns, and Tuck notes that his relationship with Henry V was not close, perhaps partly because of the involvement of Westmorland's son-in-law, Sir Thomas Grey of Heaton, in the Southampton Plot. After Henry V's death, Westmorland was a member of the Council of Regency during the minority of King Henry VI.

According to Tait, Westmorland was "no inconsiderable builder", citing his rebuilding of Sheriff Hutton Castle on a scale so magnificent that Leland saw "no house in the north so like a princely lodging", his doubling of the entrance gateway of Raby Castle and the corresponding tower, and possibly his responsibility for the "tall and striking tower" of Richmond parish church. On 1 November 1410 Westmorland was granted licence to found a college for a master, six clerks, six "decayed gentlemen" and others at Staindrop, towards the completion of which he left a bequest in his will. He was probably responsible for the building of Penrith castle in Cumberland c. 1412–13.

Marriages and issue
Ralph Neville married twice and had 22 children:

First marriage
He married firstly Margaret Stafford (died 9 June 1396), the eldest daughter of Hugh Stafford, 2nd Earl of Stafford, by his wife Philippa Beauchamp, a daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick (by his wife Katherine Mortimer, the daughter of Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March). By Margaret Stafford he had two sons and six daughters:
 * Maud Neville (died October 1438), who married Peter Mauley, 5th Baron Mauley.
 * Alice Neville, who married firstly Sir Thomas Grey, beheaded on 2 August 1415 for his part in the Southampton Plot, and secondly Sir Gilbert Lancaster.
 * Philippa Neville, who married, before 20 July 1399, Thomas Dacre, 6th Baron Dacre of Gilsland (died 5 January 1458).
 * Sir John Neville (c. 1387 – before 20 May 1420), who predeceased his father. He married Elizabeth Holland, fifth daughter of Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent, and Alice FitzAlan, and by her had three sons and a daughter:
 * Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1406–1484), heir to his grandfather;
 * John Neville, Baron Neville;
 * Sir Thomas Neville (before 20 May 1420 – 1459);
 * Margaret Neville (c. 1408 – before 1434).
 * Elizabeth Neville, a nun.
 * Anne Neville (died after March 1421), who married, before 3 February 1413, Sir Gilbert Umfraville (slain at the Battle of Baugé in Anjou on 22 March 1421 ), son of Sir Thomas Umfraville (died 12 February 1391) and Agnes Grey (died 25 October 1420), a daughter of Sir Thomas Grey (d. before 22 October 1369) of Heaton.
 * Sir Ralph Neville (died 25 February 1458), who married, before 1411, his step-sister, Mary Ferrers, daughter of Robert Ferrers of Wem and Joan Beaufort.
 * Margaret Neville (died 1463/4), who married firstly, before 31 December 1413, Richard Scrope, 3rd Baron Scrope of Bolton, and secondly, William Cressener, Esquire.

Second marriage
Neville married secondly, before 29 November 1396, at Château de Beaufort, Maine-et-Loire, Anjou, France, to Joan Beaufort, the widow of Robert Ferrers, 2nd Baron Ferrers (1373–1396), and the legitimated daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (3rd son of King Edward III), by his mistress (and later third wife) Katherine Swynford. By Joan Beaufort he had nine sons and five daughters:

 * Katherine Neville (c. 1397 – c. 1483), married firstly, on 12 January 1411 to John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, secondly to Sir Thomas Strangways, thirdly to John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont, fourthly to Sir John Woodville (died 12 August 1469).
 * Eleanor Neville (c. 1398–1472), married firstly to Richard le Despencer, 4th Baron Burghersh, secondly to Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland.
 * Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1400–1460), who married Alice Montacute, suo jure 5th Countess of Salisbury. Their son was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (1428–1471), "The Kingmaker".
 * Henry Neville (c. 1402).
 * Robert Neville (1404–1457), Bishop of Salisbury and Bishop of Durham.
 * William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent (c. 1405–1463).
 * John Neville (c. 1406).
 * George Neville, 1st Baron Latimer (c. 1407–1469).
 * Anne Neville (c. 1408–1480), married firstly to Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, secondly to Walter Blount, 1st Baron Mountjoy.
 * Thomas Neville (c. 1410).
 * Cuthbert Neville (c. 1411).
 * Joan Neville (c. 1412 – 1453), a nun.
 * Edward Neville, 3rd Baron Bergavenny (c. 1414–1476).
 * Cecily Neville (1415–1495), married to Richard, 3rd Duke of York, by whom she was the mother of King Edward IV and King Richard III.

Death, burial, and succession
Westmorland died on 21 October 1425 and was buried in the choir of his Collegiate Church of St. Mary at Staindrop. The magnificent alabaster tomb with effigies of himself and his two wives there has been termed the finest sepulchral monument in the north of England. Neither of his wives is buried with him. His first wife, Margaret Stafford, was buried at Brancepeth, County Durham, while his second wife, Joan Beaufort, was buried with her mother under a stone canopy in the sanctuary of Lincoln Cathedral.

Westmorland was predeceased by his eldest son Sir John Neville (c.1387–1420), and was succeeded in the title by his grandson (the latter's son) Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1406–1484).

Shakespeare and Westmorland
Westmorland is portrayed in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V.

In the opening scene of Henry IV, Part 1, Westmorland is presented historically as an ally of King Henry IV against the Percys, and in the final scenes of the play as being dispatched to the north of England by the King after the Battle of Shrewsbury to intercept the Earl of Northumberland.

In Act IV of Henry IV, Part 2, Westmorland is portrayed historically as having been principally responsible for quelling the Percy rebellion in 1405 by Archbishop Scrope almost without bloodshed by successfully parleying with the rebels on 29 May 1405 at Shipton Moor.

However, in Henry V Westmorland is unhistorically alleged to have resisted the arguments made in favour of war with France by Archbishop Chichele in the Parliament which began at Leicester on 30 April 1414. Following Hall and Holinshed, Shakespeare attributes these arguments to Chichele at a time when Chichele was not yet formally Archbishop, although he had been appointed by the King immediately following the death of Archbishop Arundel on 14 February 1414. Moreover, it is said that the Parliamentary rolls do not record Chichele's presence, and according to Tait the question of war with France was not discussed. In addition, Westmorland's speech urging the advantages of war against Scotland rather than France is said to be adapted from a work by the Scottish historian, John Major, who was not born until half a century after the 1414 Parliament.

The First Folio text of Henry V also unhistorically gives these lines to Westmorland on the eve of Agincourt:

O that we now had here

But one ten thousand of those men in England

That do no work today. (Henry V, IV.iii)

Westmorland was not with King Henry V on the 1415 campaign in France. On 17 April 1415 he was appointed to the Council of Regency which was to govern England under the King's brother, John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, during the King's absence in France, with special responsibility for the Scottish Marches. In the first quarto text of the play, the foregoing lines are assigned to the Earl of Warwick.

It has been claimed by Brenda James and Professor William Rubinstein that Neville's great-great-great-grandson Sir Henry Neville wrote the works of William Shakespeare.

title: Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland


text:
ISO 3166-2:AO

ISO 3166-2:AO is the entry for Angola in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Angola, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 18 provinces.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is AO, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Angola. The second part is three letters.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:AO


text:
ISO 3166-2:AZ

ISO 3166-2:AZ is the entry for Azerbaijan in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Azerbaijan, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for two levels of subdivisions:
 * 1 autonomous republic (i.e., Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic)
 * 11 municipalities and 66 rayons

The eleven municipalities have special status equal to the rayons. Şuşa, the disputed municipality, has been removed from the list.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is AZ, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Azerbaijan. The second part is either of the following:
 * two letters: autonomous republic and municipalities
 * three letters: rayons

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Municipalities and rayons

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:AZ


text:
ISO 3166-2:BD

ISO 3166-2:BD is the entry for Bangladesh in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Bangladesh, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for two levels of subdivisions:
 * 8 divisions
 * 64 districts

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is BD, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Bangladesh. The second part is either of the following:
 * one letter (A–H): divisions
 * two digits (01–64): districts

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Districts

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:BD


text:
Dade County

Dade County can refer to the following places:

 * Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the southeastern part of the state
 * Dade County, Georgia, the state's northwesternmost, bordering Alabama and Tennessee
 * Dade County, Missouri, in the southwestern part of the state

title: Dade County


text:
ISO 3166-2:BG

ISO 3166-2:BG is the entry for Bulgaria in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Bulgaria, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 28 districts.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is BG, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Bulgaria. The second part is two digits (01–28). The codes are assigned in Bulgarian alphabetical order.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

title: ISO 3166-2:BG


text:
ISO 3166-2:BJ

ISO 3166-2:BJ is the entry for Benin in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Benin, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 12 departments.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is BJ, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Benin. The second part is two letters.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:BJ


text:
ISO 3166-2:BY

ISO 3166-2:BY is the entry for Belarus in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Belarus, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 6 oblasts and 1 city. The city Minsk is the capital of the country and has special status equal to the oblasts.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is BY, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Belarus. The second part is two letters.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

ISO 639-1 codes are used to represent subdivision names in the following administrative languages:
 * (be): Belarusian — Romanization system: BGN/PCGN 1979, UN X/6 2012
 * (ru): Russian — Romanization system: BGN/PCGN 1947, GOST 1983 = UN V/18 1987

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

title: ISO 3166-2:BY


text:
ISO 3166-2:CD

ISO 3166-2:CD is the entry for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 1 city and 25 provinces. The city Kinshasa is the capital of the country and has special status equal to the provinces. Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is CD, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The second part is two letters.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

title: ISO 3166-2:CD


text:
ISO 3166-2:CN

ISO 3166-2:CN is the entry for China in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g. provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for China, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for the following province-level subdivisions:

 * 23 provinces
 * 4 direct-administered municipalities
 * 5 autonomous regions
 * 2 special administrative regions

The full name of China in ISO 3166 is the People's Republic of China (PRC). Yet China is de facto divided into the PRC and the Republic of China (Taiwan) with limited recognition. Taiwan, which consists of the namesake island and the Penghu Islands, is included as a province of China because of its political status within the United Nations, as even though it is de facto under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China instead of the People's Republic of China ("China"), the United Nations considers Taiwan as part of "China". In addition, Kinmen and the Matsu Islands in the fractured Fuchien (Fujian) Province are also governed by the ROC.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is CN, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of China. The second part is a two-letter alphabetic code specified by Guobiao GB/T 2260 (first published 1991, prior to ISO 3166-2, first published 1998).

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

 * Notes

Subdivisions included in ISO 3166-1
Besides being included as subdivisions of China in ISO 3166-2, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao are also officially assigned their own country codes in ISO 3166-1.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998:

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:CN


text:
ISO 3166-2:CV

ISO 3166-2:CV is the entry for Cabo Verde in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Cabo Verde, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for two levels of subdivisions:
 * 2 geographical regions (i.e., the Barlavento Islands and the Sotavento Islands)
 * 22 municipalities

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is CV, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Cabo Verde. The second part is either of the following:
 * one letter: geographical regions
 * two letters: municipalities

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998:

title: ISO 3166-2:CV


text:
ISO 3166-2:CZ

ISO 3166-2:CZ is the entry for Czechia in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for two levels of subdivisions within the country:
 * 13 regions and 1 capital city
 * 76 districts

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is CZ, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the country. The second part is either of the following:
 * two digits: regions
 * three characters (two digits followed by a digit or a letter): districts

For the districts, the first two digits indicate the region that the district is in (based on the original NUTS code of the region):
 * 10 and 11: Prague
 * 20: Central Bohemian Region
 * 31: South Bohemian Region
 * 32: Plzeň Region
 * 41: Karlovy Vary Region
 * 42: Ústí nad Labem Region
 * 51: Liberec Region
 * 52: Hradec Králové Region
 * 53: Pardubice Region
 * 63: Vysočina Region
 * 64: South Moravian Region
 * 71: Olomouc Region
 * 72: Zlín Region
 * 80: Moravian-Silesian Region

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Subdivision names are sorted in Czech alphabetical order: a (á), b, c, č, d (ď), e (é) (ě), f, g, h, ch, i (í), j, k, l, m, n (ň), o (ó), p, q, r, ř, s, š, t (ť), u (ú) (ů), v, w, x, y (ý), z, ž.

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Regions

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998:

The following changes to the entry are listed on ISO's online catalogue, the Online Browsing Platform:

title: ISO 3166-2:CZ