text:
Talk:Word of Wisdom (Latter Day Saints)

Seems like a debate
As a member of the church, I thought that the article was true to the Word of Wisdom, however, I felt like I was reading a debate. Shouldn't an encyclopedia article contain information about the topic, rather than a discussion of the pro's and con's? I suppose it is trying to view both sides of the issue, but I would have preferred an article that stuck with information from our prophets and more in-depth about the blessings promised and background information of the church.

The article is confusing, and certain statements (i.e., paragraph about Joseph Smith having wine in prison) makes it sound like it is a trivial commandment that is not taken seriously. Although, I do agree that we, as LDS people, should be more observant of the directions towards meat (I thought the part about meat being served at church functions regardless of the weather or temperature was actually amusing).

I wish this could be re-written as a more informative document, rather than a debate or pro vs. con.

 * As another member of the church, I did not feel like it was a debate (although it seems the article has been revised a great deal since the above comment was written). One of the most interesting things about the Word of Wisdom is that the facts show it has been interpreted and applied in various ways over the past 150 years. It always will be important for LDS and non-LDS researchers to understand that churchwide adherence was not seriously demanded until Heber J. Grant. With the purported health benefits, it is also more of a 20th century development to focus on the health outcomes of the Word of Wisdom than social and economic outcomes. In Brigham Young's day, for example, he focused on the economic problems caused by coffee and tea addiction because they had to be imported (i.e., cash was going out instead of coming in). The colonization of the St. George area was in part an attempt to found a farming community where tobacco and other hot-climate crops could be produced without the need to import. The debate about caffeine is an interesting topic under popular application, because it represents the conflict among church members regarding caffeinated beverages that are not tea and coffee, while still providing the church's official statement. Jerekson (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas
Looks like it's been a while since there's been discussion here. I have a few initial comments/suggestions. First, why not include the full text of D&C 89 in the article? Is there a copyright issue? Or is something that old in the public domain by now? It's not very long, and surely the original text is highly relevant. Also needs NPOV in places. And, why are we debating the health risks of coffee in this article? It's already covered in Coffee. Not sure about the entire last part of the article, in fact. Is it appropriate to debate this here, or does that merely amount to collaborative original research? Is it an artifact of pro and anti LDS people fighting in the past? Friday 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

The more I read it, the more I don't like this bit, near the beginning: It contains health guidelines intended "[t]o be sent [to the church] not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom." The guidelines were given as a voluntary "principle with [a] promise", in order to combat the perceived "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days". The interspersed quotations make for a bumpy read. If quotations are desires, why not quote the entire intro from D&C? I'll try that and see how it goes. Friday 7 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

 * The health code and modern medicine section is here because the Word of Wisdom claims that it is a health code. There needs to be an analysis about the evidence of real health effects of the practices included in the Word of Wisdom. The risks and benefits are an abbreviated form of the information which appears elsewhere, hence the links to the main articles.  This is common throughout the wikipedia. Nevertheless, the information needs to be here.  The health risks of coffee is not being debated, but the benefits and risks are listed.  I'm willing to discuss the change, but I won't allow the deletion without a good argument. Nereocystis 7 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

 * Section 89 is in the public domain, but it is long enough (21 verses), and in sufficiently archaic language, that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to just quote the whole thing verbatim, without interspersing commentary. As to the "modern medicine" section, I don't think it should be an opinionated medical debate on the effects of alcohol or caffeine. Rather, it should be a factual discussion about how and why Mormons began in the 20th Century to look toward modern medicine (and/or pseudomedicine) to justify the revelation. The question of whether or not caffeine is good or bad can be left to the caffeine page. CO GDEN  July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)

 * The downside of inserting commentary is that you're now presenting some particular person or group's interpretation of the text. Altho, maybe it's appropriate to do this, but only with the official LDS interpretation, since they're by far the largest and best known group.  Would it be considered anti-Mormon POV though, to show for example the "hot drinks" verse side by the side with the modern interpretation that says "hot drinks" does not mean "hot drinks"?  I'm a newbie so I don't know what to think about issues like that.  I will say I do agree with COgden's remarks about the modern medicine section tho.  I don't think the question of whether or not caffience or alcohol is good or bad should be addressed on this page.  We're not here to determine whether the Wow makes sense from a medical point of view, we're here to document it as a religious text.  We can point out that the church teaches that it makes you healthier, without getting into whether this would be considered objectively true by the medical community. Friday 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

 * I'm confused by COGDEN's comments. Does s/he think that the current section should be changed?  If so, what should be changed?  The current modern medicine section is not an opiniated debate, it is a list of a few studies which have examined health and items listed in the Word of Wisdom, with citations.  Because the Word of Wisdom is listed as a health code, it is extremely reasonable to determine whether the Word of Wisdom modifies health.  If the Word of Wisdom were listed as arbitrary required behavior which has no claims of influencing health, then listing medical studies may not be appropriate.  Allowing claims of health benefits without pointing out the truthfulness of these claims is extremely POV, effectively limiting the commentary to only the official LDS POV.

 * However, I agree about including the entire text of the Word of Wisdom. It is probably too long to be useful.  There is a link to the entire text under references, though it can be a challenge to determine which link includes the entire text.  Try it.  I suggest modifying the references so that the link is more obvious, but I don't have the solution yet.Nereocystis 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I agree that the full text is too long to be included. The article as it stands right now is far, far longer than the complete text of Section 89.  And, the current version contains things that are (IMO) far less relevant to the topic than would be the actual text of the revelation.  Friday 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

 * I'm not completely against including the entire text. The WoW is fairly short.  However, I would not want to drop sections of the current text to make room the WoW, since there is a link to the complete text. I revised the link in the references section.  Is it any clearer? Nereocystis 7 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

I think it would be highly appropriate to add a paragraph about "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation." President Hinckley has given fairly well-quoted discourse about this specific verse. In this light, the difference between alcoholic beverages, for example, in Paul's time and today is simply how and why it is produced, and how it is advertised and sold. This could be viewed as a primary cause for the existence of the doctrine altogether. Bruce 05:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you give a few references on this interpretation. I don't know as much about modern Mormon stuff in the last 20 years or so. This Paul's time argument sounds odd. Cigarettes changed tobacco, of course. Read the Lester Bush article for a description of dietary restrictions in the 19th century; it's quite interesting. If it belongs in the article, I would tend to put it in Word_of_Wisdom, since it is a recent interpretation. Nereocystis 21:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The most famous is probably this: "What are these evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men? It must be the tremendous amount of money the Lord saw they would spend in the last days in advertising to induce his children to use these things which are not good for men. Many millions of dollars are spent annually in the United States and other countries of the world to advertise cigarettes and other tobacco products, wine, beer, and other liquors, and coffee and tea, all of which have been proven to be injurious to the body and all of which the Lord indicated are not good for men." (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p.353) Looking up all citations to this verse (v4) in the LDSCL 2005, I have come up with about 230 references, most of which emphasize that it was created "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days. Thus, it would have had no application in the New Testament Church, but has specific application today. Bruce 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One example is good. Of course, the original WofW allows beer, non-hot coffee and tea, which aren't injurious to most people. Wasn't Joseph Smith's time considered the last days? I'm not sure about that. Nereocystis 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire text should not be included. See Don%27t_include_copies_of_primary_sources. Nereocystis 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear historical line showing that the Word of Wisdom was used in accountability interviews (in the Brigham Young SLC group) only for church leadership until the 1930s. If someone out there has these dates and is poised to add them, then it would be very useful. If not, I would like to work on that, if folks feel it is appropriate. Few people understand that nearly 100 years passed before general membership were asked to account for how they accepted the WoW. It was used in leadership interviews, then moved to all who were going to serve missions, and finally to general membership. What do people think? Jerekson 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit notes, but number 21 should refer to D&C 89:2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.55.108 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking recognized as health threat
The caption on the cigarette smoking photo says:
 * Tobacco smoking is one of the activities the Word of Wisdom advised against years before it was recognized as a health threat by the medical community.

This is not true. The article by Bush in Dialogue compares the Word of Wisdom to 19th century practices. Tobacco smoking was disliked by many doctors at the time the Word of Wisdom was issue, and for two centuries before then. See page 56. I plan on deleting this claim. Nereocystis 22:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Rather than deleting, how about placing into better context - that it wasn't generally accepted by most smokers. Doesn't Bush's argument state that the medical community has basically always been against smoking as a health threat? But popular opinion was that it was not neccessarily unhealthy. That popular opinion only swayed in the mid 20th century. In addition, anyone who smokes would realize that a smoker's cough or smoker's weeze was caused by smoking, but although evidence was there to support, people rejected it. Context is better than deletion in this case. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not all doctors agreed in the 19th century. I would like this text from the caption. There's too much which would need to be explained. I would like to put the Word of Wisdom in historical context, but that will take an additional section, and a bit of writing, perhaps summarizing Bush's statements. Nereocystis 23:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I reverted a clip of the caption. If it happens again, I won't revert it.  I didn't realize it was so controversal. :-S   — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I remember, the Word of Wisdom doesn't have anything to say about "smoking". However, it does proscribe the use of tobacco.  What about if the caption is changed to, "Tobacco use is one of the activities the Word of Wisdom advises against."  Val42 03:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * That'd be fine with me, for one.  — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I noticed the caption that says "all alcoholic beverages.. are prohibited". This could lead to disagreement.  The problem with saying "The Word of Wisdom says..." is that it's ambiguous.  The "WoW" could be referring to D&C 89, or to the current mandatory health code of the LDS church, which are two different things, unfortunately referred to by the same name.  This double meaning is explained nicely in the article intro, but as mentioned above it might be too complicated to be explained well in a short caption.  Would something like All alcoholic beverages, such as the Margarita, are prohibited by LDS doctrine be an acceptable replacement for the current All alcoholic beverages, such as the Margarita, are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom?  Friday (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, great, sounds good.  — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Beer allowed, and other illicit drugs
An anonymous user claimed that beer was not allowed in early WofW. This is wrong. Beer was allowed. The changes also claim that other illicit drugs weren't known or invented at the time. Perhaps the user has not heard of opium, marijuana, betel nut, coca, etc. Nereocystis 05:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Martini picture and 'effects of Coffee'
The section on the health effects of alcohol is good, it relates to the rest of the article, but the effects coffee seems to be something that could have been directly cut from a different article without connection to WoW. Does anybody know enough to make a more direct link? I admit to being amused by the '...such as this martini' picture, but are we sure that we should be putting jokes in the articles? Or is it just me? MilesVorkosigan 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BYU Banned Caffeine?
I just thought I would ask about it here first, but the following comment seems a little incorrect: "on the campus of Church-sponsored Brigham Young University, caffeinated drinks of any kind are banned." It seems apparent to me (a current BYU student) that the university doesn't "ban" these drinks, but that they are simply not sold on campus. I would rather that the word be editted to read "not sold" instead of "banned." I've walked around on campus drinking Mountain Dew often and nothing's happened to me. Also, I think that introducing the phrase with "Interestingly" is a little POV, but I might be wrong about that; perhaps it is interesting, just not to me. (Actually, I find it slightly annoying more than interesting.) Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoCoolName Tom (talk • contribs).
 * I agree with both points, thanks for clearing it up. Go ahead and make the changes.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Interestingly, caffeinated drinks are not sold on the campus of Church-sponsored Brigham Young University." I've removed this whole line, because BYU has sold them in the past.  It's simply discussions like this that cause them to stay clear of controversy.  But I was just in Deseret Book headquarters a few weeks ago, and the Coke distributor rolled on by with cases of caffeinated coke.  Maybe he was going elsewhere, but that makes no sense whatsoever.  The only reasonable explanation is that they sell caffeinated drinks at Deseret Book (church owned, church run; and 30 feet off of, and overlooking, Temple Square), so whether they sell them at BYU must be moot.--Mrcolj 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Deseret Book is very different from BYU. BYU is different from a lot of things in the church. One of those things is that they don't sell caffeinated soda on campus. The only other places like that are the MTC and Temple cafeterias. Maybe they were sold in the past, but that is not what the statement is saying, it's talking about the present. Wrad 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But I believe the point of the statement in the article was that BYU not selling caffeine was on some level a tacit endorsement of that interpretation of the word of wisdom, which it is not because BYU only quit selling caffeine 15 years ago... And if someone is tempted to take BYU's selling as a tacit endorsement, then the church's selling caffeine through one of its other official arms negates that assumption and bears being said aloud.  If BYU, the MTC and the temple cafeterias are the only church owned food dispensaries that don't sell coke, what's the point of the statement in the first place?  --Mrcolj 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, shouldn't be used to endorse, but may be good as a fact in a simple sentence. The only reason these three places would be this way is because of the issues surrounding the subject. They're easily the three strictest foci of mormonism. This, I think, makes it a notable fact about the subject, if presented right. Wrad 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got a copy of the BYU catalog and admissions packet back in 1997. I distinctly recall some of the material containing language to the effect that you could get kicked out of school for as little as having a tea bag in your dorm room (assuming that it was caffeine-containing rather than herbal tea).  Unless the policy has been changed, it ought to be in materials that BYU makes available online.  I'd look for it myself but don't have time right now; just wanted to mention that this is not a misconception or urban legend.  I also recall it stating that male students were not permitted to wear a beard (that is, Brigham Young couldn't attend Brigham Young University because of the way that he looked).  Heather (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, then, that would be BYU banning "hot drinks" which means tea and coffee, which is completely consistent with the Word of Wisdom, which all students have to abide by, church membership notwithstanding. It doesn't have anything to do with other caffeinated beverages, such as Coke.  You can possess such on the campus as a student, you just can't buy it there. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a cited statement from the NY Times from 2004 that states that only caffeine-free beverages are sold on BYU campus. This is somewhat more limited (and neutral) than saying caffeine has been "banned". Obviously, you can probably still buy medications that contain caffeine. I don't see anything in the above discussion that indicates this 2004 statement is not true when strictly limited to the sale of beverages on campus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

'Covenants'?
Why are all the Doctrine and Covenants refered to by 'Covenants' and then the chapter and verse? The chapter and verse is standard, but I've never seen the book refered to as 'Covenants' and can't see any possible reason for labeling it that way. The proper way to label it is 'Doctrine and Covenants' or 'D & C'. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; I'm new to Wikipedia and a lot of things seem strange to me. Sergeanthowarth 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right in pointing out that it is not the standard (or accepted) manner of referring to the D&C. However, the only instance I noticed was the first reference, which read "Covenant 89". It's now fixed. Were there others that I've missed? Feel free to correct them yourself if you see any.  Tijuana Brass E@ 07:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I corrected all the references, on 27 August 2006, to say "D&C 89" instead of "Covenant 89". For chapter-only references, either "D&C 89" or "Section 89" would be acceptable — but no one in the LDS Church ever uses a cite like "Covenant 89".  Richwales 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Meat?
I'm not sure I agree with taking out the paragraph about current LDS practice with regard to eating meat. I think it would still be appropriate to include something mentioning that LDS do not generally avoid meat nowadays, even though D&C 89 does seem to suggest that this ought to be done. Richwales 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I just revised it. See if you can stomach it's current wording. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Caffine
I, for one, can confirm the statements about caffine. I and most people around me make that disticntion, so we do eat chocolate, but do not drink coca cola unless it is caffine free. I know that it's not enough to have some people who do, but I'm just putting in my two cents about that citation needed tag. Silverfireshadow (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hot drinks confusion
(That's me who's confused, incidentally!) There's no explanation in the article as to why church members generally feel that, say, hot chocolate isn't covered by the prohibition. I looked up the reference in the footnotes, and found that the relevant passage says "And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." It doesn't say "And again, hot drinks, except for chocolate and a few others, are not for the body or belly". Please understand that I am absolutely not interested in a religious argument here, since that would have nothing to do with the article. My point is that there is no explanation as to why, when, and how, the likes of chocolate, Ovaltine etc came to be thought of as not "hot drinks" within the meaning of the phrase. It's very far from obvious. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the section titled "Application by Joseph Smith, Jr.". It explains there that Hyrum Smith interpreted "hot drinks" as meaning tea and coffee, and that Joseph Smith, Jr. confirmed this interpretation. You have to read the article as a whole, including the historical sections; then it makes sense. Zoporific 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculative sections
There seems to be a proliferation of speculation in this article and the tendency to add more and more such information. I suggest that these sections/speculations should not be included unless they can be adequately referenced with some sign that someone apart from WP editors are doing the speculating. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tea
I notice on the general Wikipedia entry for the Church, in the part on the Word of Wisdom is lists black tea, but not green tea, as being covered by "hot drinks." My understanding has always been that green tea is not permitted by the Word of Widsom because it is made from tea leaves rather than other fruits or plants, which are herbal teas.

This was certainly what was taught to new members in my mission in the former USSR 10 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.184.20 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Something I've noticed lately is that friends of mine who live in Salt Lake county and are active, devout, temple-going LDS church members in all other respects, have taken to drinking green tea, drinking it cold or iced, justifying it by pointing to all the recent scientific research on its great health benefits, it has less caffeine than chocolate or cola, and the fact that they're drinking it cold, and some sense of a common understanding that it's therefore not against the Word of Wisdom. I've heard second-hand reports of LDS bishops, a mission president, and a general authority endorsing this view, and of the First Presidency at some point stating that tea is okay if it's taken as a medicine. I haven't found any support for this in print yet though. Anyone? - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Avoid all habit forming substances. Unless your body needs it, you should be able to do without.  This isn't doctrine, but good advice.  To me, its the purpose of the WofW, avoiding addictions.  Example: Nasal Spray.  If you use it consistently over a long time to get rid of sniffles, you might be hooked.  Although it won't jeopardize your soul, it is a habit that can't be good, and sort of shows a small lack of discipline.  If you use it when you get a cold to make it tolerable, but stop after it, then all is well.  I'm not advocating suffering through life, but actively making choices, instead of reactively/reflexively.  TAU Croesus (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Other LDS groups.
There doesn't appear to be any mention of how other LDS groups (RLDS, FLDS, AUB, Strangite, et al.) interpret or apply this teaching. I'm not sure where the best place to put it in the article would be, but perhaps a subsection à la the temple article would work. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First vision picture?
It seems odd to include a picture of the First Vision on this article. I realize that finding pictures for the topic is going to be difficult...but a more general picture of Joseph Smith, Jr. should be used, since the First Vision is mostly a disjoint topic to the Word of Wisdom. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisions to original text
I made several additions to the article using sources that I cited during the revisions. These were changed without explanation.

If you want to make changes to the article regarding my changes to the article, please discuss these on the talk page first. Thanks. Jjc16 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think these changes should be discussed here first before being added to the article. An editor did make comments in his edit summary when removing these additions, and I agree with them:, , . The part about Utah being the highest state for incidents of depression has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom. No study that was based on Word of Wisdom adherence is cited in the discussion. Adding comments about the health benefits of coffee consumption is interesting, but not really on point, since the Word of Wisdom isn't targeted at caffeine consumption as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I will concede the point about the depression article, because it is not specific to Mormon populations. As for the other changes, have you actually read the first article cited? It fully supports the edit I added originally. The addition should be obvious as well because coffee is a caffeinated drink. The difference between "coffee" and "caffeinated drinks" is an artificial one specific to the Mormon culture and not common to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 * As another editor has noted I did give explanations in the edit summaries. I did read the article cited and did not see any text that directly supported those assertions that you added in. Perhaps I missed it though. Can you please quote specific parts or point to specific page/paragraphs that you feel support your edits? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 * In context, it's kind of irrelevant anyway, since by 1842 leaders of the church were explicitly teaching that the Word of Wisdom prohibited specifically tea and coffee. It may be an artificial distinction unique to Mormon culture, but it's well established in Word of Wisdom adherence and practices. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Meat refs
In the text of the meat section, there are at least two statements such as this:

 * "the emphasis on refraining from meat was dropped.[39]"

I think the number in the bracket was meant to refer to a previously used reference. This is not the correct way to refer to do this. However, the numbering of the footnotes has changed since this was originally done. Can someone more familiar with these changes match these up again? Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I second the request to clean up the meat section's references, please? Ryandsmith (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of grains (...wheat for man, and corn for the ox...)
In D&C 89:16 it says "All grain is good for the food of man...", and then in D&C 89:16:

"Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain."(here)

What does this mean? Do some people in the LDS movement believe that oats, rye and barley are either undesirable or forbidden for human consumption? Also, what is meant by "mild drinks" -- does anyone believe that includes beer? It appears that barley is meant for "for all useful animals, and for mild drinks" (but that "mild drinks" may be made from "other grain"). Roches (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I've never seen anything written on your first questions, about the appropriateness of eating the different kinds of grain. Regarding the "mild drinks" issue, early Latter Day Saint leaders did interpret this as including beer and only strong alcoholic beverages were prohibited. This later evolved (under Heber J. Grant, I believe) into a blanket prohibition on any drink with alcohol in it, whether "mild" or "strong". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Meat original research
Noble editor and administrator Good Ol’factory removed the following section as original research. While I agree with his edit, is this really the work of a sole editor or does this tidbit have some scholarly backing? The section in question (with my suggested edit):

 * There are contradictory readings of the Word of Wisdom concerning eating meat only in winter, cold or famine. The current version of the text appears to teach this concept, and that is the most common interpretation. However, few people are aware that there was a change in punctuation when converting the text into columns in the year 1920. This simple change in punctuation reverses the meaning of the text in question, and it is unclear whether or not this addition of this comma compared to the original versions of the text was deliberate or accidental. The phrase originally stated that meat "should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." This would indicate that, while meat should be consumed sparingly, it should not be eaten only in times of winter, cold or famine. This implies that it should be consumed in other times as well. This is supported by section 49 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 18 and 19 (See also 1 Tim. 4:1–3). Also, many scriptures are cited teaching that the beasts of the field should be differentiated from wild animals Therefore, according to this interpretation of verse 15, "these" refers to 'wild beasts' specifically, which should only be consumed during winter, cold or famine, while beasts of the field and fowls of the air may be consumed sparingly all year round.

— Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't really doubt that what it being written is "true", meaning that it is fully supportable by the primary sources that are cited, but my concern is that nothing in the section is cited to reliable secondary sources that discuss the issue. Has anyone written about the contradictory readings that can exist? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * That was exactly my question. I think the primary sources are reliable, but I'm just wondering if anyone has written about the contradictory readings. If they can be cited, this section can go back in, with the sources properly ref'ed. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think I slightly misunderstood your previous comment, but I think we're pretty much in agreement here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Word of Wisdom. 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/20110613165449/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fjmh%2C17670 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C17670

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) 18:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas G. Alexander
Footnote 40 does not faithfully reflect what Thomas G. Alexander says in the linked essay. Indeed, he says: "An understanding of the way in which the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom developed is significant because it provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church. Evidence seems to suggest that change has ordinarily come about through prayerful consideration over time of contemporary problems in the context of tradition (including previous scriptures and statement), immediate conditions (including political, social, and economic problems) and alternative courses of action." The erroneous summary seems to be based on a statement on page 85 that specifically says "contemporary".128.187.112.7 (talk)

Recent lede edits, meat, and grains
I think that there are some advantages with the previous form of the lede for the article. Given that the article does focus on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do think some of the new text emphasizing the Church are probably warranted. However, I think we lose something by not starting out pointing to the D&C section then getting into the specific interpretation and proscriptions of the Church based on that section

I also again am challenging putting both meat and grains, without any further explanation, in the same sentence as alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, and recreational drugs. The proscriptions on the latter set are explicit and mandatory - that's what is required for baptism, missionary service, and temple attendance. The guidance to eat meat sparingly isn't treated the same way in the Church neither culturally nor practically, and not following that guidance would not prevent baptism, missionary service, and temple attendance. I am truly at a loss for why another editor is insistent on adding grains to the list of proscriptions. I do not see anywhere in the cited sources or the rest of the article where grains are prohibited either entirely or in part (like meat). I think this might be a misreading or misunderstanding on their part, but maybe I'm missing something.

Given the above, I'm going to try to re-add some of the material from the previous lede, including separating meat from the explicit proscription list. Again, if someone can explain where the grain thing is coming from, I'd appreciate that because I'm just not seeing it in the sources or the article (or from my own experiences in the Church). --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The verse that had prohibited grain is D&C 89 14-15. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable source refutes it therefore we have to include it. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The problem with that argument is that it is interpreting a primary source, and I would argue misinterpreting. The "these" in verse 15 is usually taken to refer only to the "beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth". I'm basing this in part on the Church's own summary of the Word of Wisdom here. I have not come across any secondary source or Church publication talking about the Word of Wisdom that agrees with your argument. Do you have a reliable, secondary source that I may have missed that supports that interpretation? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the order of the two paragraphs in the introduction:

I have to say that putting the D&C 89 paragraph first makes no sense compared to the way it is presented in real life: usually the doctrine is first and then the book is given as a support. Is there any way the order of the two paragraphs could be reversed? Altanner1991 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind: the book going first is also very encyclopedic. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Entheogens in the religion
Please provide your input on this material: The Doctrine and Covenants promotes entheogens. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 * From this rather informative comment on reddit:

"[...] there's a growing body of historians who believe the 'consecration' practice of the anointing oil was used to infuse various psychoactive plant medicines into the topical ointment. Various times throughout the Kirtland years, the brethren are gathered, they partake of 'The Lord's Supper' or 'bless and anoint' each other and immediately experience powerful spiritual experiences, often accompanied by visual hallucinations and 'feeling the spirit poured out' over their bodies, 'a quickening of the spirit,' and those seem purely euphemistic. Corroborating first-hand accounts with these anointing ceremonies yields a plethora of incredible physical symptoms frequently associated with intoxication of multiple candidate entheogens: Datura, amanita muscaria, possibly even peyote, henbane, nightshade, etc. These symptoms include people chasing orbs of light, Harvey Whitlock backflipping off a bench and feeling no pain, hallucinating the feeling of 'a light dragoon' wielded expertly as Ammon cutting off the arms of the robbers, multiple accounts of convulsive episodes, people slipping into a comatose state for 24-72 hours, rolling around in the snow without any clothes on.... the list of these occurrences goes on ad nauseum.

An interesting point here as well is the 'healing' which was experienced by those who were administered anointing oil. Many of these psychoactive plants used in low dosages do have medicinal properties, but it's so often coupled with powerful psychoactivity which can do everything from cause theophany, to energize, to sedate, and many other common effects usually associated with psychedelics.

Somebody sick from malaria, a bad arm, fever, whatever ailed them, a high dose of psilocybin could put them in a state where ailments are no longer felt, just the powerful psychoactive effects of the plant medicine. It's not so much placebo as an actual medicine coupled with a sincere belief that the effect is the power of god causing healing to take place.

I would encourage anybody further interested to look into Fred M. Smith's The Higher Powers of Man https://archive.org/stream/higherpowersofm00smit#page/114/mode/2up

Smith was the 2nd prophet of the RLDS and this book was his psychology Ph.D. dissertation published in 1918, 3 years after he became prophet. He spends the first 4 chapters talking about 'ecstasy' and its various forms then most of the rest of the book is all about the history and usage of peyote. It's a really fascinating read! I know it's not Brighamite, as the Utah Mormons were pretty straight-laced with Joseph F. Smith and Grant, who took over during the prohibition. Their midwest cousins didn't seem to mind talking about psychedelics, albeit not in a religious capacity, while Smith and Grant were simultaneously outlawing dancing on Sunday's, issuing state-wide Mormon curfews, and complaining about how kids these days just ride around the neighborhood in their buggies too fast! Every minute a Mormons spends playing with face cards is a moment they could be preparing for their next Church talk! The Improvement Era is fun to read from 1901-04 when Joseph F. Smith really streamlined Utah with an iron fist.

I could go on but I'll conclude by saying that I've never seen the justification for 'Extra Virgin Olive Oil' in any 19th-century doctrine or teaching. The 'consecrated anointing oil' Joseph Smith originally used wasn't EVOO, but rather, something to truly 'make you feel the spirit'."

 * Altanner1991 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 * To the first point that "The Doctrine and Covenants promotes entheogens" - I think that you need a good source for this. That statement seems far broader than the primary source cited which only talks about wine for the sacrament/Lord's supper/communion and not entheogens in general. I'm pretty sure the LDS Church has made statements regarding entheogens used in native american cultures but I'd need to do a deep dive to confirm. I've also never seen the use of alcohol in the Christian communion/sacrament (or even the Jewish Passover) as an entheogen. Again, a second source for this claim would be helpful.
 * With regards to the reddit post - it's interesting, but doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If we had published work from the "growing body of historians" this post mentions at the start, then we could start looking at incorporation. However, we can't just cite the first-hand accounts (primary sources) and articles on the effects of psychoactives to support the claim of drug use in the early days of the Church since that would be fail WP:SYNTH. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for the informative replies. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I've also never seen the use of alcohol in the Christian communion/sacrament (or even the Jewish Passover) as an entheogen." Alcohol is an entheogen when used in a religious context. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to include the sacramental provision for drugs somewhere in the article; I think the statement I gave would be the best way. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I would just sneak said statement at the very end of the introduction, as its own "paragraph". Altanner1991 (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I will however not push this proposition, if I am the only one promoting it. So if no one answers this talk page section, that's fine. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Word of Wisdom (Latter Day Saints)


text:
1961 in Afghanistan

The following lists events that happened during 1961 in Afghanistan.

Incumbents

 * Monarch - Mohammed Zahir Shah
 * Prime Minister - Mohammed Daoud Khan

April 1961
Prime Minister Sardar Mohammad Daud Khan visits the Soviet Union at the personal invitation of Nikita Khrushchev. They issue a statement of full mutual understanding and identity of long-range views.

June 1961
Mohammad Daud announces that his government seeks $700 million in aid from the United States and the U.S.S.R. to implement the second five-year plan, which aims at an increase of 8% to 10% annually in the national income over the plan period. Industrial production is to rise 375% and investment 500%.

Late August 1961
Due to the controversy over Pakhtunistan (or Pathanistan; the Afghan demand for self-determination for about 7,000,000 members of border tribes), the Pakistan government closes Afghan consulates and trade missions in its territory. Afghanistan thereupon sets September 6, 1961, as a deadline for Pakistan to rescind the order. Pakistan does not.

September 1961
On September 3, 1961, Afghanistan seals its side of the border and on September 6, 1961, breaks relations. The consequences are far-reaching, as Afghanistan then demands that all trade, including U.S. economic aid, be channeled through Soviet access routes. Sixty percent of the Afghan population is Pakhtun (Pathan) and Afghanistan has steadfastly refused to accept the old Afghan-British Durand line of 1893 as a suitable permanent boundary between the Pathans of Afghanistan and of Pakistan, while Pakistan refused to draw a new frontier. Throughout 1961 the two nations exchanged charges, Afghanistan saying that Pakistan brutally suppressed tribal leaders and bombed them with U.S.-made aircraft, while Pakistan alleged that Afghan armed forces, using Soviet equipment, constantly violated the border. The Afghan representative to the United Nations, A.R. Pazhwak, strongly defended the concept of Pathan self-determination.

Afghanistan completes its first five-year plan, with some sectors described as over-fulfilled. Daud attends the Belgrade conference of non-aligned nations, visiting Britain and West Germany first.

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

title: 1961 in Afghanistan


text:
Audrey Thomas

Audrey Grace Thomas, OC (née Callahan; born 17 November 1935) is a Canadian novelist and short story writer who lives on Galiano Island, British Columbia. Her stories often have feminist themes and include exotic settings. She is a recipient of the Marian Engel Award.

Biography
Thomas was born 17 November 1935 in Binghamton, New York. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Smith College in Massachusetts in 1957, then studied at St. Andrews University in Scotland before teaching in England. In 1959, she immigrated to Canada, where she received a Master of Arts degree from University of British Columbia in 1963. In 1994, she received an honorary doctorate from Simon Fraser University.

From 1964 to 1966, Thomas lived in Ghana, and some of her stories are set there and in other distant places.

She published her first story, "If One Green Bottle...", in 1967.

Thomas lived in Edinburgh, Scotland in the 1980s, and wrote articles for Saturday Night Magazine.

Beginning in 1990, Thomas was a visiting professor at Concordia University in Montreal. She also spent time as writer-in-residence at the University of Victoria, University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and David Thompson University Centre.

In 2014, she published her eighteenth book, Local Customs.

Awards and honours
From 1984 to 1986, Thomas received the Canada-Scotland Writer's Literary Fellowship, and in 1987, she won the Marian Engel Award for her body of work. In 1989, she receive the Canada-Australia Literary Prize. In 2003, she won the Terasen Lifetime Achievement Award, and in 2008, she was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Novels

 * Mrs. Blood – 1970
 * Munchmeyer and Prospero on the Island – 1971
 * Songs My Mother Taught Me – 1973
 * Blown Figures – 1974
 * Latakia – 1979
 * Intertidal Life – 1984
 * Graven Images – 1993
 * Coming Down from Wa – 1995
 * Isobel Gunn – 1999
 * Tattycoram
 * Local Customs – 2014

Short stories

 * Ten Green Bottles – 1967
 * ladies and escorts – 1977
 * Real Mothers – 1981
 * Two in the Bush and Other Stories – 1981
 * Goodbye Harold, Good Luck – 1986
 * The Wild Blue Yonder – 1990
 * The Path of Totality – 2001

title: Audrey Thomas


text:
Talk:Hollow-point bullet

This article is inconsistent with the Wikipedia Article "Stopping Power"
This article states that hollowpoint bullets are more effective than other bullets. This is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia Article on "Stopping Power" which states that bullet deformation and energy transfer, especially in handgun calibers, are not significant factors. This should be researched and corrected. One or the other has got to be incorrect. 12.96.65.14 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * There's a problem--both are correct depending on the references you cite... Hollow point bullets limit penetration, and increase the diameter of the cavity left by the bullet--that is a fact.  Whether this is good or not depends on the application, and that's where opinions differ.  Shooting at a prarie dog, it's almost universally a good thing.  Shooting at a charging Cape Buffalo, it's almost universally a bad thing.  Any other application (especially defensive handguns) and there's significant disagreement.  The number one concern in all cases is placing the bullet in the right spot.  You can't have enough power to make a miss effective.  scot 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * As observed above, the "facts" often depend on whether one is talking rifle, or handgun. There is recent (2 - 10 years?) growing consensus that states that hollow/soft points, in (most) handguns, is not a measurable factor in stopping power. In handguns, the consensus regarding (especially field observed) "stopping power," or quick incapacitation, seems to be shifting toward long wound channels and deep penetration. In handguns, soft/hollow point bullet expansion is (dangerously?) unpredictable, opening up on contact with clothing etc, to never opening up. This long-standing debate and related issues/concerns should be argued in the article. But typically vastly more powerful rifle bullets on impact; have utterly different characteristics as well as the obvious quantitative differences. --69.110.90.125 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Some improvements (2003)
I made a couple of small corrections: -- Roger 14 Aug 2003
 * the pit is not drilled, it is actually cast in place
 * It's the Hague Convention that covers expanding ammo, reference to Geneva Conventions is a common (nearly universal!) error
 * JHP's aren't just used in pistols, they are very common in rifles as well.
 * The article gave JHPs are rather illicit sound, so I pointed out that they are in fact the norm, and actually required in many cases
 * pointed out that calling JHP's "dum-dums" is at best slang (and arguably just wrong, since it really refers to soldiers illegally modifying service ammunition)

Merge with "dum-dum"?
I think this should be merged into Dum-dum Jooler 17:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The term "dum-dum" refers to a modified FMJ bullet, not an intentionally designed bullet; this is a very significant distinction. Militaries bound by the Hague convention must use FMJ ammuntion (although non epxanding hollow point rounds are used by US snipers), and modifying these bullets to expand by filing down the tip is illegal.  The resulting bullet is not actually a hollow point, but rather a soft point bullet, which, all else being equal, expands at a slower rate than a hollow point.  Modern hollow point bullets are carefully designed from the start to yeild very specific expansion performance under given circumstances.  While "dum-dum" needs to be cross referenced with hollow point and soft point bullets (and probably FMJs as well, since that's what dum-dums start as) they are certainly worthy of different articles.  Now I admit that much of the first paragraph of the dum-dum article probably belongs somewhere else, but the history and the Hague convention portions (the Hague convention being in direct response to dum-dum bullets) should stay there.  scot 20:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, the dum-dum bullet was intentionally designed by the British Army in India as the article points out. Who says that dum-dum bullet refers specifically to a bullet illegally modeified? Jooler 00:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Who modifes bullets anymore, when high performance hollow point and soft point ammunition is readily available? There is a device made to cut hollow points into match grade .22 Long Rifle bullets, as match grade ammunition is not sold with hollow point bullets (note however that these are NOT jacketed bullets, but are solid lead--the cutter is not made to deal with jacketed or plated bullets).  This is the only case I know of, and it's pretty uncommon--I think the practice of handloading rimfire ammunition with better bullets is probably more prevalent.  In cases where expanding ammunition is not available, modifying a bullet to make it expanding would almost always be illegal, and military use of expanding ammunition in international conflict is a violation of the Hague Convention.  Modifying bullets by cutting the tip also tends to destroy the accuracy, as it is very hard to do so accurately enough that the bullet retains its balance, and EVERY modified bullet is EXACTLY the same weight.  So if the correct use of the term Dum-dum refers to bullets modified to be expanding (which I would consider the case) then I see very few cases where Dum-dum would refer not legal ammunition.  scot 15:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there are people in jurisdictions like Brazil, where commercial hollowpoint ammunition is not available to civilians, or prohibitively expensive, where people are still known to modify ammunition intended for defensive use.

 * Also, at least in American English, in modern literary use (there is a passage about this in Heller's "Catch-22," for example, about some character "shooting rats at the dump with a .45 and bullets he'd dumdummed with a hunting knife") the term "dumdum" carries the implication that the ammunition was modified, probably by the end user, probably crudely with hand tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

About the Hague convention
There should be some more talk about the Hague convention's ruling here. This article here adheres to Neutrality for sure, but come on, it's a bullet designed to rip the flesh tissue when it goes in!

 * Yeah, as opposed to all those other bullets designed to apply a gentle moisturizing lotion to the skin on impact instead of ripping a hole in it. --Raguleader 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
When the article states the head of the HP expands in a mushroom shape, I'm assuming that the head expands outwards (radially) and flattens to form a mushroom shape - is this correct? I just thought the current description was a little vague and could use some clarification. Virogtheconq

 * That is correct. Infortunately, I don't have any mushroomed bullets handy or I'd take some pictures.  I may see about getting out and doing some shooting and capturing a few in the not too distant future.  scot 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added two images of a 38 spl hollow point bullet. These images are an excellent example of the intended terminal ballistics of a hollow point bullet sometimes referred to as mushrooming. --Rickochet 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Added an image of an expanded bullet. Not the "nicest" expandation but it can do until someone takes a better picture (and it has travelled more than halfway through a moose ;).If someone maybe can add what the 6.5x55mm (Mauser I think) is called in USA (if it is called anything). But don't remove the current designation please. --User:Zoeds 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The only 6.5x55mm I'm familiar with is generally called the "6.5x55mm Swede" or just "6.5mm Swede", as it's generally found in Swedish surplus military arms. scot 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Just popped over to your user page, and since you're Swedish, I'm going to assume that round is what Americans call a 6.5 x 55 mm Swede, and change the caption accordingly. scot 16:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * 6.5 x 55 mm Swede seems like a good name. There is a slight difference in the charge I belive between the army version you talk about and the "civil" one which is the on the image, but it's not worth mentioning. The recoil when shooting with the army version is a bit stronger. --Zoeds 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Could be loaded to a slightly higher pressure in the military version; the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round has both a higher max pressure and a longer throat than the civilian equivalent .223 Remington. Also, given the prohibition of expanding bullets in warfare, which is mentioned in the article, I think it can assume that the reader will make the connection and realize that that's a civilian loading, not a military one.  scot 18:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The difference is in pressure loading. Civilian ammo 6.5mm Swede is typically downloaded out of concern for the safety of antique Norwegian Krags chambered in this caliber.

_______________________________

Plagiarism was suspected, but all is OK
This whole article is plagerized from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hollow-point-bullet or vice versa.

 * Vice versa. Many, many sites, including answers.com, mirror Wikipedia, which is entirely legal, as long as they attribute the information to Wikipedia (which answers.com does do; take another look).  Look at the article history here, and you can see the evolution of the article on Wikipedia and see who the authors are.  scot 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

 * "As a side effect, hollow point bullets can offer improved accuracy by shifting the center of gravity of the bullet rearwards."

Why does this make the bullet more accurate? It seems to me that it'd make it less stable, hence less accurate. —wwoods 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * One explanation I have heard is that hollow point bullets are jacketed in reverse (compared to FMJ). In other words, the nose of the bullet is where the jacketing ends, instead of the base.  This jacketing over the base of the bullet prevents deformation and vaporization of the lead upon firing, which in theory results in better stability of the bullet in flight.  I would imagine this advantage, if it indeed exists, would be found in the newer TMJ bullets as well.  There are some other reasons cited for improved accuracy of hollow points, but this is the only one I am familiar with.  SquareWave 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, moving the center of mass forwards, NOT BACKWARDS, will result in increased stability. Look at aeronautical engineering, it is virtually universally accepted that for a vehicle, the CG should be ahead of the Center of Drag. For example, look at any rocket, the fins will be at the back, which moves the center of drag rearward, and thus behind the CG. Further, i do not believe that the above post, about hollow point being reverse FMJs, to be accurate nor relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.177.153 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree, and more. It's BS. I think that whole dubious section should be removed.  I did make some changes, plus some REM notes there. Almost that entire section seems to be based on un-cited military claims/wishes, contrary to just about the the entirety of this article and common knowledge! Whoops, google search seems to confirm!  Consider this forum conversation snippet about the noted Sierra Matchking hollow-point example: "'Imagine, if you will (or can), that Sierra suddenly declared that their OTM bullets expanded and were acceptible for hunting. The US military would immediately and forthwith cease ANY purchases of such projectiles, and Sierra's bottom line would do an impression of a lead balloon. Don't you think money COULD have something to do with why they don't recommend a bullet for hunting that has a documented history of working well in that application?....' at ar15.com/forums"  --69.110.90.125 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Listing
Maybe wiki should have a listing of the different types of bullets at the bottom or something... I'd do it if I knew enough about wiki coding + bullets, which I don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nafango2 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

So why are hollowpoints banned in warfare?
Title says it all...

This article mentions they're banned, but doesn't say -why-? What reasons were there for banning them?

--Penta 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * To find the root cause, you have to work your way back through the laws of warefare. From the article:
 * The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. The relevant statements are:

 * The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

 * The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

 * That explains when and why hollow points are banned, as they do expand readily in the human body. To find out why that is a bad thing, you need to go to the earlier St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which states:

 * ''That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;'

 * That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

 * That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

 * That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

 * The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

 * This was due to Russia's use of small caliber bullets (i.e. infantry weapons, not cannon) that were provided with a small quantity of explosive that detonated upon impact, causing far more serious wounds than a solid lead projectile. The Dum-dum article covers the history of the expanding bullet, but to sum up, the Brits discovered that their new high velocity .30 caliber bullet wasn't doing nearly as much damage as their older, slower .45 caliber bullet, so they began to experiment with open tipped jacketed bullets that would expand upon impact, to produce a wound comparable to the .45 caliber round with the .30 caliber bullet.  The international community then decided that this was similar enough to the Russian's exploding bullet that they tacked it onto the rules of war as causing aggravated suffering.  Modern military bullets, which are even smaller at .21-.22 caliber, generally tumble and/or break in two, which produces a more severe wound than would otherwise be generated.  scot 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, they're banned, even though a) in a war soldiers tend to shoot each other to take each other out, b) the damage is comparable to a bullet which was not banned and c) modern bullets are even worse.
 * This all seems to be based on a rather dogmatic argument. Didn't they find it necessary to do some actual research on what the optimal humanitarian stopping power is and stick to that? Or they could have simply decided that soldiers should accept that getting killed is an occupational hazard. Shinobu (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 * First, it doesn't sound like you are understanding correctly. The expanding, jacketed .30 caliber bullet does about as much damage as the solid .45 caliber bullet it replaced, which is much more than the original .30 caliber FMJ bullet.  So why not stick with the .45?  The .30 caliber bullet is lighter (allowing more ammo to be carried), has a flatter trajectory (and therefore longer effective range), and allows a higher rate of fire (bigger magazines, less recoil, faster repeating actions).  So while the Dum-dum bullet wasn't more destructive on a shot-by-shot basis than the .45 caliber bullet, it was "cheating" in that you could now get more rounds on target without sacrificing wounding ability like you did with the .30 caliber FMJ bullets.  Likewise, the step from .30 to .22 caliber bullets (5.56mm and 5.45mm) made the same tradeoffs as the .45 to .30 step.
 * As for the overall philosophy of wounding power, that's a conflict between political and military goals. Just about every generation of military small arm in the past century and a half has moved to a smaller, lighter, faster bullet, with a higher rate of fire, because it's far more effective to poke a tiny, distracting hole in someone than to completely fail to put a really big hole in them because you missed or were out of ammo.  However, the political ramification of trying to make a given size bullet make a more severe wound is that there is no "optimum"; you either limit it in some way, such as the prohibition of expanding bullets (so most armies go with fragmenting or tumbling bullets), or you don't limit it, and end up with poisoned or exploding bullets, which is something no one wants.  scot (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Militaries of the world by now have long adhered to the doctrine that non fatal casualties are far more detrimental to an enemy force than fatalities. Caring for the wounded uses up significant production power and capital, while neglecting, executing, or otherwise purging them is morale-destroying.  Most militaries including the largest and highest funded (united states) routinely chose to both expend significant energy recovering them and also neglect them later denying them adequate care. Grabba (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I have heard history professors say, but cannot document a verifiable and authoritative source, that the single most important motivation for the Hague Convention restrictions was that European governments had noted US/CSA use of large-caliber, unjacketed soft lead bullets during the US Civil War, and their perception was that one of the results was the creation of a disproportionate number of maimed and crippled war veterans who could not support themselves and required (very expensive) pensions. While these bullets were not generally of hollowpoint construction or design, they were still of very large caliber, of very soft lead alloy, and very frequently deformed in a manner similar to a rivet while traveling through soft tissue, making especially grievous wounds that were perceived to be very likely to require amputation as treatment if they occurred in a limb.  Ironically, in the First World War, the new high-velocity jacketed bullets driven by nitrocellulose based propellants often yawed and tumbled in soft tissue (especially if the bullets were of the pointed "spitzer" shape, which has its center of gravity well to the rear of its geometric center), which made wounds every bit as nasty as the old large caliber unjacketed bullets, and all participants in the war ended up having to pay the pensions to their armless and legless veterans anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting style: hyphenation
As professional copyeditors know, there are times in life when a hyphen would be best but can't be easily introduced because the majority of the population using a certain term is used to omitting it. A good example is high speed steel, as discussed at High speed steel. In the case of hollow-point bullet, there is an added wrinkle: The term is shortened by nominalizing the unit adjective hollow-point. Logically, the hyphen should remain when writing the nominalized form. However, this distinction is lost on most of the population, and if we were to style the nominalized form thus in this article, I suspect that we would constantly be upbraided by users telling us that the "right" way to style the nominalized form is hollow#point, as evidenced by 38 million Google hits, etc. (BTW, "#" is the editing symbol for a word space.) What the epistemology boils down to is that you either have to implement the style and then bother defending it from "correction", or you have to accept the styling hollow#point for the nominalized form, because its usage outnumbers the usage of hollow-point in that application. I currently vote for the latter because I don't care enough to bother about the former. But I bothered to write this discussion here because I felt like this topic is eventually going to come up among edits to the article. So here is the full answer, pending someone asking. — Lumbercutter 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I "googled" my ammunition inventory and Hornady, Winchester, Remington and CCI use the style "hollow#point" (that is, "googled" as in used my "googly eyes" as the song goes). Naaman Brown (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Use in/by America
It should perhaps be more explicitly mentioned, due to the formatting of this article that it is entirely lawful and commonplace, to use Hollow Point ammunition in the United States for both Military and Civilian use for any and all applications, as the US is neither a signatory of the Hague Conventions, nor does it's laws in any way restrict its use. Alexander (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, but that is NOT true. Many local governments in the United States restrict expanding ammunition, and the United States military, while it does use one type of hollow point ammunition (in the form of a number of Sierra Match King bullets used by snipers, considered by them to be the most accurate .308 caliber bullet made; I've also seen mention of special forces use of the 77 grain .223 Match King as well), it is not intended to expand on impact, nor does it produce wounds significantly different from non-expanding bullets.  While the US is not a signatory to the Hague or Geneva conventions, it DOES abide by the provisions on deforming ammunition (the contentious points are on land mines, cluster bombs, and the like).  The prohibition covers "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."  Most military bullets are not truly "full metal jacket", as they are open at the rear, but that does not significantly impact the terminal performance, so they are not at odds with the actual prohibition on easily deformable bullets.  See here for a reprint of the US Judge Advocate General's opinion on the use of these bullets; see also this article on the Joint Combat Shotgun program, which discusses the German protest of US use of shotguns in WWI, and the mention of hardened vs. soft lead shot, which shows that jackets per se aren't really relevant to the issue at all, but rather actual terminal performance.  scot (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The United States military does use Sierra Match King / M118LR bullets but they are not "hollow points" as you say. Since this kind of open tip only allows for improved accuracy and is not a hollow point, and its use does not violate the U.S. military's voluntary hollow point ban. You are not the only one to use the term hollow point sloppily, as you can read about here, even JAG makes mistakes. 1. SJSA 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * From Sierra: "For serious rifle competition, you'll be in championship company with MatchKing® bullets. The hollow point boat tail design provides that extra margin of ballistic performance match shooters need to fire at long ranges under adverse conditions."  If the manufacturer calls it a hollow point, I'm going to have to go with them.  If you want to claim that Sierra is wrong on the point,  I think you're in for an uphill battle.  scot (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sierra caused the initial problem. They erroneously marked their ammo boxes with something to the effect of "not for use in combat" becasue they thought they qualified as hollow points. They misused the term. Other more appropriate terms such as hollow tip and open tip may not have been in wide use at the time they originally decided to call their rounds hollow point, but the fact remains, there is a difference and it is an important one. SJSA 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Right, the important part is that while the Sierra design is a hollow point (the point of the bullet is, undeniably, hollow), it is not designed to be an expanding bullet. A look at the cross-section shown on that page will show that the tip is very clearly hollow, with a tiny opening in the tip of the jacket.  However, the design is not optimized for expansion.  Comparing the MatchKing to the BlitzKing, the opening in the BlitzKing (disregarding the plastic tip added for ballistic reasons) is wider, and extends down into the core a significant distance.  The GameKing and ProHunter soft point designs show a distinct tapering of the jacket at the tip, which is not evident in the MatchKing line.  I suspect, though they do not say, that there is also a difference in the core hardness between the expanding and non-expanding bullets.  This all, however, irrelevant quibbling.  The prohibition made in the Hauge accord is against bullets that expand or flatten, no matter what the design; this is why the analysis of the use of the shotgun for the Joint Combat Shotgun program specifically notes the use of plated or antimony hardened buckshot is required for compliance, while pure lead buckshot would lead to a violation of the accord.  The difference here is obviously not a matter of design, as a solid sphere is a solid sphere, but in other characteristics that determine terminal performance.  I really don't think you can say the premier bullet manufacturer in existence is wrong on this point; the use of terms other than "hollow point" are merely attempts to force "hollow point" to mean "expanding", which has never been the case.  scot (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll concede the point then, pardon the pun. SJSA 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagram requested
I think a diagram (particularly an animated diagram) would help this article considerably, to illustrate the peeling/fragmenting upon entry into the target. The Black Talon explanation, in particular, left my head swimming and it would benefit a lot from a diagram, too, if someone has the energy to create two. Tempshill (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Here's a first attempt; I'm not sure though that it's clear that the bullet is in constant motion, so I may try again.
 * [[Image:Hp impact anim slow2.gif]]
 * scot (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Just a thought; if I expanded this and made the bullet move, and the background still, I could also show temporary and permanent cavity formation; this would be more work, and bandwidth, but it would also be a useful image in more articles, such as ballistic gelatin, terminal ballistics, and such. scot (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballistics coefficient
Article states that moving the CG backwards improves the ballistics coefficient, but these are irrelevant terms, as the location of the CG has nothing to do with drag/velocity retention characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.177.153 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * True. And others have argued similar problems in the above "Accuracy" discussion. I think that entire section of the article is bogus and should be removed.  It's a symptom of vested interests, seemingly the bullet maker Sierra, & the US military. It pretty much contradicts the whole rest of the Hollow Point article, and what we have all known since children. That it has remained unchallenged so long is proof that Doublethink is not just real, but common. --69.110.90.125 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Talking out of both sides of your mouth
The page says
 * "The United States military, for example, uses hollow-point bullets in some sniper rifles for their exceptional accuracy at long ranges,"
 * "NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention."

Needless to point out, both cannot be correct... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 * In this instance, I'd say that the first sentence is incorrect, both in use by the US (contrary to the Hague convention, so forbidden to the military), and as to the fact that hollow points are definitely less stable for long range shooting than ball ammo or spitzer bullets. Looking at the reference looks genuine, though, so it can be assumed that the US could be taken to task for reneging on the Hague convention (non ratification of later codicils not changing their stopping adhering to the principles)... I'd still like to see the size of the hollow on those match grade rounds compared to a standard dum dum one... increasing the front surfaces causes air drag and can't be good for long rainge precision.. --Svartalf (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While it may seem at first that a hollow cavity an he nose of the bullet would increase air resistance and degrade performance, this is not always the case. Sierra spent a lot of time and money developing the Match King (and that is Match, as in shooting match, where nothing but accuracy matters) bullet and it is a pretty safe assumption that the cavity in the nose of this bullet is there for a reason.  Traditionally, a cavity in the nose of a bullet was intended to enhance terminal expansion but such expansion is not simply a function of whether the bullet has a hollow point or not.  Bullet metallurgy and design is not a simple science.  Other factors have a very significant impact on expansion, too.  The Hague Convention outlawed expanding bullets, not specifically hollow points.  Since the Match King bullet is designed for extreme accuracy and not enhanced expansion, there is no contradiction involved.  If I had one, I'd be glad to put up a photo of it.  The Match King is not the only military bullet with a hollow cavity.  Much of the surplus Russian & Warsaw Pact 7.62x39 ammo on the market today also has such a cavity and no one ever made any big deal of it being a violation of the Hague Convention.  The hollow tip on all these bullets is very small, perhaps 1mm in diameter.  Finally, the US military cannot be taken to task for using expanding bullets, even if it did, since the Hague Convention only applies to conflicts between two signatories and the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are most certainly not signatories to any such agreement between nations.--SEWalk (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading 3rd Ed. shows a diagram of the Boat Tail Hollow Point on page 655 under bullet types and lists load data for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO or 7.62x51mm). Hornady Product Number 3050 30 Cal 168 gr. BTHP. Optimal Usage is Target-Match. Different 30 Cal. bullet designs are listed for optimal usage as "Varminting, Hide Hunting, Medium Game, Heavy Game, Dangerous Game". The .30 Cal Game hunting bullets are all the softnose variety with the exception of the 110 gr FMJ (hide hunting), 150 gr (hide hunting) and 220 gr FMJ (dangerous game). Hornady manufactures bullets for defense, hunting and target shooting: the .30 hollow point bullets are designed for usage as Target-Match for accuracy not for expansion. If they expand, they are not as effective as the soft point bullets designed for hunting. The 3050 30 Cal 168 gr. BTHP is a recommended bullet for military or police sniping use because of its precision accuracy and not because of its relatively inefficient expansion. There are full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets (like the .303 Mark 7) fully Hague Convention compliant that tumble or yaw on impact and inflict more damage than the BTHP design. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The hollow in the point of the BTHP design is about the diameter of a fine sewing needle allowing air to escape as the bullet is formed in manufacture from the core and jacket, the lead core (inserted into the solid base jacket from the front) has a flat nose, leaving a short conical air space in the nose of the jacket, as the jacket is formed into a near-spitzer shape. The goal is to have the weight centered with an extended aerodynamic nose. This would not be my choice for an expanding hunting or pest control bullet. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Revisit: In examining diagrams of hollow point bullets designed to expand for game hunting or self-defense, the hollow includes the lead core and not just the jacket. In the Sierra Match King and Hornady .308 168gr Boat Tail Hollow Point BTHP bullets designed for long range marksmanship, the lead core is flat nosed and there is an airspace between the hollowpoint of the jacket and the core, and the jacket nose is relatively thick. In a hollow point bullet designed as expanding for hunting or self-defense, the lead core is hollowpointed and the jacket material is thinner or even weakened to promote a mushroom effect on penetration. It is not "talking out of both sides of your mouth": some bullets designed to expand are hollowpoint, but not all hollowpoint bullets are designed to expand. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Black talon controversy
Nancy L. Jones, M.D., Atlas of Forensic Pathology, Igaku-Shoin, New York - Tokyo, 1996, discusses the Black Talon on page 64 and shows autopsy results of a police shooting with the Black Talon on pages 94 and 95 (Chapter 4 Injury Due to Firearms, figures 4.53, 4.54a and 4.54b). "There is a bullet available on the market that is called a 'Black Talon'. This particular bullet is designed for use by police because the deformation of the bullet which occurs at the time of impact causes the bullet to form talon-like structures which grab and hold onto the tissues within the body of the intended target. This prevents these bullets from perforating or passing through the target and then striking or injuring an innocent bystander. It also increases the wounding capability or stopping power of the bullet. These talons are very sharp and are extremely dangerous to the person recovering the bullet. It is very helpful to have Teflon-coated hemostats or forceps to recover these bullets. The Teflon coating prevents the instrument from scratching the bullet." The caption to Figure 4.53 adds: "A Teflon-coated instrument or the chain-mail autopsy glove are useful in recovering this type of bullet." This advice is not unique to Black Talon. One, Teflon-coated instruments are recommended for removal of any bullets that cannot be removed by the rubber-gloved hand to avoid obliterating microscopic ballistic marks on any type of bullet. Two, chain-mail autopsy gloves are recommended for any wound with broken glass, broken knife blades, copper jacketed bullets, etc.: any wound with fragments (including broken bone) that might cut or tear a rubber glove.

The comments of the medical examiner are a stark contrast to the hype from the "ban the black talon (or anything gun-related for that matter)" crowd: the Black Talon was designed to reduce collateral damage to innocent bystanders and to stop the intended target with fewest shots necessary, points that are lost in the propaganda to promote a ban. One animation used to promote the ban showed the "talons" acting as a buzz saw, whereas the ME describes them acting as snags to hold and stop the bullet within the intended target. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the same portion of the article ends with one true and one false statement. Where it says that Olin/Winchester continued development of the Black Talon bullet, changed its name, removed the black coating, and began marketing it to law enforcement only, this is true. That ammunition currently, as of late 2011, is normally sold packaged in a yellow and gold box of fifty rounds labeled "RANGER" under the brand name "T-Series." But where it describes the "Ranger Bonded"/"PDX-1" plated jacket hollowpoint as "a very similar design," it really isn't. The unfired bullets are cosmetically similar, as the hollowpoint cavity is punched into both using an approximately hexagonal punch, but the "Ranger Bonded" bullets do not form sharp "talons" of jacket material, as the copper jacket is plated onto the lead core and does not separate from it to form any cutting edges. Its construction and performance are very similar to those of the Speer "Gold Dot" plated hollowpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hollow-point in NJ
They are most certainly NOT expressly illegal. They are perfectly lawful in most ordinary situations a citizen would be in. i.e. trips to the shooting range, and home defense. The link in the reference ironically confirms this fact, and goes against the article's wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.216.141 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hollow-Point usage in US Military
Hello, after reading this article, i came away with the distinct impression that wikipedia is not aware that the US military sanctioned hollow point bullets for its police forces in 2010, and has been using them for years before that as well. I also carried a 9mm Beretta pistol with 1 clip of ball ammo, and 1 clip of hollow point ammo. The proof is in found easily enough in the following Army Times article http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/army_hollowpoint_051710w/ As well as my own personal anectdotal at best proof of having carried that particular type of ammunition on a nearly daily basis for 4 years. If you need a little more digging for an official press release maybe then let me know. Germloucks (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is surprising only in the context that it took the Provost Marshall General several decades to catch up to the rest of the law enforcement agencies operating in the United States. The PM's decision applies only to law enforcement operations within the United States and has nothing to do with the decision of the military to abide by the outdated and idiotic provisions of the Hague Convention.

And you were never issued any "clip" of 9mm anything. It is called a magazine and you should know better if you really were a MP. --SEWalk (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I added something on this, but an expert should include SEWalk's citation and info as well.

Mdnahas (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The US did not sign the Hague Convention on expanding bullets (Declaration IV,3), but chose to abide by it. List_of_parties_to_the_Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

Stargzer (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hollow-point bullet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111010215739/http://www.winchester.com:80/products/handgun-ammunition/supreme-elite/bonded-pdx1/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.winchester.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/supreme-elite/bonded-pdx1/Pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930154908/http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1247691.0.man_who_pointed_gun_at_police_gets_5_years.php to http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1247691.0.man_who_pointed_gun_at_police_gets_5_years.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollow-point bullet. 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/20150602084024/http://www.desotogunclub.org/Scores/si/rules.pdf to http://www.desotogunclub.org/Scores/si/rules.pdf

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) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

UK Firearms Act 1968 vs. The Deer Act 1991
"All expanding ammunition, including hollow point bullets, falls under Section 5 (prohibited weapons) of the Firearms Act 1968 and so is illegal to possess or transfer without the written permission of the Home Secretary. The law is in conflict with 'Schedule 2' of 'The Deer Act 1991'" The The Deer Act 1991 implicitly overrides the Firearms Act 1968, because it was passed later... but I'm not quite sure how to phrase this. Any suggestions? Tom pw (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason for "Lead section may be too short" advice
Is there a reason for this advice? The lead section seems very clear to me, is there a reason for this disclaimer to be in the article? Just a small question since it could cause some misunderstanding for some readers, so we could consider perhaps removing it. Gabriel Gomes Almeida (Talk) (Contributions 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hollow-point bullet


text:
JHP

JHP may refer to:
 * Jacketed hollow point, a type of bullet
 * Jhimpir railway station, in Pakistan
 * Joseph Henry Press, an American publisher
 * John Hunt Publishing, former name of English publisher Collective Ink
 * Journal of Humanistic Psychology
 * Journal of the History of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed academic journal

title: JHP


text:
Talk:Brazil (1985 film)

Editing the influence section
I've made the sub-sections, film and technology to just help us as a framework to put the additional info we've found. May have to edit how the info is going to be organised Ren nkomo (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Music section change
Hi guys, I changed the music section, added more information and rearranged the existing info/deleted some stuff too - check for any corrections I need to do. Thanks Ren nkomo (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle for Final Cut
1st para says: a) Gilliam's original cut is 142 minutes long.

2nd para says: a) Gilliam took an ad saying release intended version. b) Studio ran his own ad. c) Gilliam conducted his own screenings (incl local critics). d) Brazil won awards by LA critics. e) Studio agreed to release Gilliam-supervised 132-minute version.

In the Summary box of the article (top-right), it says 143 minute running time.

I admit I didn't study the entire article, skipping to the section I was most interested in and only skimming the rest. However, it seems there are a couple of points about the versions (based on length) that could be clearer.

First. 2.d. (above) should say that the original 142-minute cut is what Gilliam showed critics who then awarded THAT cut the awards. Assuming that's what happened. Hard to tell from the way it's worded. Could've been any cut that he shopped around. And while it says he showed it to "local" critics, one would then have to know where Gilliam was doing this to infer that refers to the local Los Angeles critics mentioned in the following sentence. It's also hard tell which version because the first para says his cut was 142 minutes, while the Summary box says the movie was 143. Not to make a mountain out of a 1-minute mole hill, but again, for clarity, either there's a typo between the first para and the Summary box OR there's a third version that's not clearly documented in the article. And who knows - maybe cutting one critical or irritating, 60-second scene is significant enough to be considered a 3rd version. Less lengthy footage has been edited out of, or into, other films for great effect.

Second. 2.e (above) states that Gilliam supervised the 132-minute version. Yet the article's Summary box says the film's official running time is 143 minutes. So, aside from the possible typo mentioned in my prior comment - the difference between the 142-minute cut Gilliam showed critics, and the 143-minute running time in the Summary box - the new problem is that there is missing content. If Gilliam supervised (and, presumably approved) the 132-minute cut the studio eventually agreed to release, what is this version referred to as? A "director's cut?" If one were to seek it out, one could click the citation and chase the reference and figure it out. But shouldn't the sentence in the article that says such a version exists simply name or title the version?

Thanks and sorry for the ramble. Amazing movie. Though now I'm not sure what version I saw so many years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.250.55 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

small contribution
the film has possible references to the dictatorial state that Brazil was going through in that historical period. Funded by the US, as in much of Latin America, a corporate-military dictatorship with very repression. The film reminds us of what communists, trade unionists and any opponents of the liberal order suffered with Marcatism and the rise of fascism throughout the world.As the opponents, mainly communists, were really watched and persecuted in every corner they could find. In addition to the extermination they were threatened with, they also had the people close to them who could suffer persecution, torture and even death to complete the hunt. That was the real 1984. Across the West,commies suffered persecution and constant surveillance Marxlo (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 * You need to cite a source that discusses any of that. DonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Somebody research Futurama reference
Hermes character and the central planning he works for, resemble central planning in Brazil in several episodes, like when Hermes goes to the office to retrieve a form, the numbers for everything like forms and agents. 2001:48F8:B007:AAB:3556:3DD8:4A10:B7F7 (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * But don't central planning departments all somewhat resemble one another? no matter the place and time, or the planet, for that matter.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary
I recently made some edits to the plot summary section, only for them to be reverted on the grounds that they were “unsourced”. Nothing in the plot summary section is sourced; the source is, implicitly, the movie itself. (See WP:PLOTSOURCE: “The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.”) My edits were clarifying a very clear plot point in the movie – namely, that Sam's efforts to delete Jill from the government's systems backfired and he unintentionally issued an order for her to be “deleted” – without which the plot summary feels incoherent and confusing. (Why would the government send stormtroopers in to assassinate Jill if they thought Jill was dead?) It's true that the movie never outright states “Sam accidentally ordered a hit on Jill” (because that fact is already clearly communicated and stating it explicitly would be amateurish and unnecessary handholding), but I don't believe that stating what clearly happens in the film rises to the level of “analysis and interpretation”, at least not to any greater extent than the current version of the summary does. 2601:14D:4E02:1C00:E4F0:5C5D:E71C:95AE (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm taking exception to the phrase based on an amalgamation of the 20th century. Well, based on an amalgamation of the 20th century and what? An amalgamation, by definition, must consist of two or more things. Like, the Third Reich might be said to be an amalgamation of the Ancient Greek polis of Sparta, and the Catholic Church, for example --only with more lederhosen. But, the point being, an amalgamation cannot exist in isolation. Which makes me wonder if the second half of that sentence has been amputated by someone who didn't understand the meaning of amalgamation.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brazil (1985 film)