text:
Talk:Johannes Brahms

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023
This is a factual correction of an obvious error.

In the Johannes Brahms article his house in Lichtental, Austria is wrongly said to be part of Baden-Baden in Germany. The Wikipedia entry for Lichtental says "Lichtental is a part of the district of Alsergrund, Vienna. It was an independent municipality until 1850." There has probably been a confusion between the cities of Baden in Austria (about 20 miles to the south of Vienna) and Baden-Baden in Germany (hundreds of miles away). However, in any event the German language version of the article on Lichtental does not mention Baden. It is also possible that there has been a confusion between Brahms and Beethoven (who did live in Baden, Austria for a time)

ACTION

The mention and link to Baden-Baden should be removed. It could be replaced with a mention of Baden bei Wien, whose Wikipedia page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden_bei_Wien 90.89.76.18 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Age discrepancies
The article says he was born in 1833 and married in 1830 2603:6011:380A:1300:AC04:4601:7F9B:AC92 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it says his parents were married in 1830. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Could someone help out?
Even after fixing many of the phrases and made them sound less argumentative, there's more that needs to be rephrased (especially under the Reception section), as well as citations (especially in the introduction and Music section). I can't do all this by myself, so could somebody lend out a helping hand? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's best to post such a query on the talkpage of a Wikiproject, so go to the one on Composers (see link at the top of this page), and also the one on Classical Music. That way you get a lot more eyes than simply those people watching this article. Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, what is your objection to "dense in texture"? This is something of a commonplace about Brahms, right? I could see phrasing it more carefully according to one's concerns (one could qualify it, e.g., often, preferentially, contrapuntally, motivically ...), but I was surprised to see it simply stricken. MONTENSEM (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While his music may be "dense in texture" in general, I think it's a vague adjective, and possibly opinionated.
 * If you wish to have his music described, I'd suggest quoting an expert. If you want, you can reword it (while still using the citation), and perhaps add examples too (and have the examples also cited). Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do over the next month or so. What follows here are some notes for myself as much as a reply ....
 * I would say "dense texture" is general, not vague, by which means it is able to do a lot of work in the lead concisely summarizing what is already present in the texture and other subsections.
 * And also what is not:
 * - Brahms's durchbrochene Arbeit (Swafford, Brahms, 382);
 * - the increasing motivic saturation;
 * - some of the cloudiness, ambiguity, or muddiness that Brahms is known for, particularly with the low bass melodies, e.g., in the piano music, "a number of performance practice scholars writing on Brahms's piano music have commented on the prominence of low-lying melodic lines, thickly-written accompaniments, and often dense saturation of the lower register" (Augustus Arnone);
 * - in the orchestral music, how it is intricate like chamber music (I think Dahlhaus talks about this also: Brahms was not writing in a declamatory or rhetorical operatic idiom ... this is also the basis on which Wagner and Bekker criticize Brahms ... and it's what Schoenberg et al. invert into a virtue) ...
 * any quick Google search for e.g. < "thick textures" Brahms > will doubtless summon many hits ...
 * More later, hopefully! Happy editing. MONTENSEM (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * for future work, Feisst's Schoenberg's New World useful cit for the arr. of op. 25 MONTENSEM (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * re: texture, what is not there, the hemiolas (some is present in the article on hemiolas) MONTENSEM (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate all the effort you're putting into this. I strongly suggest adding a source for any new information you add. Best of luck! Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say it's "possibly opinionated", how do you mean? Are you concerned about the connotation of the wording? MONTENSEM (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: "perhaps under the weight of high praise", is this not supported by P2 of The Schumanns and Leipzig? MONTENSEM (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the book that was cited is reliable and specifically stated that his high praise is potentially what led to him being self critical, then yes you can readd it and I apologize Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's not content I added, but there it was already, and I have also heard it many times (it's something of a Brahms truism, and the reasons given are manifold, e.g., Schumann, Wagner, polemics, shadow of Beethoven, the latter of which is something that I think most now emphasize...); so I'll take a deeper look at it sometime soon. (Not that I'm not particularly suspicious of it.)
 * My goal with edits so far has simply to begin work improving the article by filling in some summary gaps in the lead and elsewhere, trimming it slightly, and reorganizing/better organizing it for digestibility/standardization of format ...
 * One could probably argue that motifs are "deeply Romantic" as in the original phrasing I struck from the lead, but I think this requires some deep retrieve from Dahlhaus et al. in the article and maybe isn't very helpful without that as it applies to more folks than Brahms ... but it does get at the overall musical context ... MONTENSEM (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * not that I'm particularly suspicious of it* MONTENSEM (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * more to do:
 * - re: "deeply Romantic", retrieve from Dahlhaus on themes increasingly like motives rather than phrases/periods, might intersect with content on texture (irregular phrasing, density/intricacy/thickness)
 * - early works, more on influence of Schubert and as distinct from later works MONTENSEM (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mont, thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately, many of them veer into Original Research, some without citations and some with UNDUE or SYNTH use of sources. Relative to his contemporaries, I do not see the mainstream assessing that JB's music is overall particularly dense or intricate. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 * You are adding the condition "relative to his contemporaries". The question was, "what is [the] objection to 'dense in texture'"? Note that there is currently an entire pre-existing section on how Brahms's textures are contrapuntal and another on the Second Viennese School's appreciation of his motivic saturation (I would personally qualify this, especially in the mature and late works). To summarize this content concisely by describing his music as "dense in texture" should not be controversial. Moreover, better reflected the content of the body than what preceded it: "Embedded within those structures are deeply Romantic motifs" (see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&diff=prev&oldid=1233660581). In fact, Brahms is often cited for his dense or thick textures, and it is a more general and concise way of describing his music that encompasses both the contrapuntal features and the motivic saturation without veering into the subject of "deeply Romantic motifs" (which is not supported by the current body content and would require some content, say, from Dahlhaus and some historical retrieve to establish).
 * I would ask you to assume good faith and to use citation-needed tags, not to accuse me of original research. Whenever you have asked for citations, I have provided them. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, one Jeff McQuilkin in something as basic, introductory, and mainstream as The Daily Book of Classical Music: 365 Readings that Teach, Inspire, & Entertain notes Brahms's "rich textures" and "controlled Romanticism". These are not outlandish claims. They are often worded much more technically or floridly. MONTENSEM (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To do list
- Add citations to the introduction

- Add citations under the "Music" section

- Write the text under "Reflection" more objective

- Potentially make other corrections needed

Good to do list everyone? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I saw that the articles for Berlioz and Debussy don't have citations in the introductions either and they're featured, so many citations aren't needed in the intro. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a rule, I don't think intro citations are preferred, as the lead should summarize content from the body. Technically there is a warning against tertiary sources, but then the composers project Wikipedia page recommends Grove/Oxford Music Online ... and to be sure, a lot of what is there is no different from a secondary source and is by leading scholars of secondary sources ... MONTENSEM (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The actual policy regarding citations in the lead is MOS:LEADCITE, but often uncited assertions creep into the lead without being supported by the article body so just watch out for that. Ligaturama (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On this note, need to cite cello works for Hausmann (sonata 2 and double concerto) and possibly for CS (?which) in the body ... MONTENSEM (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Op. 25
Hi @SPECIFICO. Please elaborate on your concerns with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&diff=prev&oldid=1235563853. Are you simply asking for the relevance? If so, why not simply tag it? Thank you. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 * You also simply deleted my hidden note to do more work: Schoenberg gave his own reasons why he orchestrated Op. 25 in particular. It's well known that Schoenberg et al. were interested in Brahms's music and why. The article already has some content on this! And Floros discusses it some on pp. 205–207: it involves the music's construction! To concisely establish explicit relevance for describing the music in these terms (albeit in still more technical terms beyond Constantin Floros's "motives" and "dissonance"), would you prefer: "Using Schoenbergian analytical techniques, Dalhaus showed that the first subject group of this quartet's exposition is built from the continuous variation of two motifs (the opening D-Bb-F#-G figure and the descending second of bar 11) developed via inversion, augmentation, and diminution, among other techniques, into concise thematic material" (citing Frisch and Dahlhaus)? MONTENSEM (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article currently already read (long before I came to it after seeing it from working on Schoenberg's Op. 1, if I remember correctly), "He [Schoenberg] highlighted Brahms's fondness for motivic saturation and irregularities of rhythm and phrase, terming Brahms's compositional principles 'developing variation'". MONTENSEM (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This stuff is basic and well known. It's in program notes here. https://www.laphil.com/musicdb/pieces/2801/piano-quartet-in-g-minor-op-25 MONTENSEM (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also bewildered that you're seeking something more than relevance by casting this as an argument (i.e., demanding that the content somehow logically follow as in an argument). I did not make an argument but merely included a paraphrase of Floros's description of Brahms's Op. 25 in a relevant section on Schoenberg's orchestration of it, citing Floros. It may be the case that I should or that many have made an explicit argument, but since Floros did not, neither did I. Why demand one? Relevance is sufficient. MONTENSEM (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will add, someone above requested "perhaps add examples too (and have the examples also cited)." This is a worthy example for inclusion! MONTENSEM (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Johannes Brahms


text:
Itamar Franco

Itamar Augusto Cautiero Franco (28 June 1930 – 2 July 2011) was a Brazilian politician who served as the 33rd president of Brazil from 29 December 1992 to 1 January 1995. Previously, he was the 21st vice president of Brazil from 1990 until the resignation of President Fernando Collor de Mello. During his long political career Franco also served as Senator, Mayor, Ambassador and Governor. At the time of his death he was a senator from Minas Gerais, having won the seat in the 2010 election.

Early life and family background
Franco was born prematurely at sea, aboard a ship traveling between Salvador and Rio de Janeiro, being registered in Salvador. On his father's side he was of partial German descent (the Stiebler family from Minas Gerais), while on the mother's side he was of Italian descent, with both of his maternal grandparents having emigrated to Brazil from Italy. His mother's name was "Itália", which means "Italy" in Portuguese. Franco's father died before his birth.

His family was from Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, where he grew up and became a civil engineer in 1955, graduating from the School of Engineering of Juiz de Fora.

Before Vice Presidency
Entering politics in the mid-1950s, Franco first served as alderman and deputy mayor of Juiz de Fora, before getting elected as mayor (1967 to 1971 and again from 1973 to 1974). He resigned as mayor in 1974 and ran successfully for the Federal Senate, representing Minas Gerais. He soon became a senior figure in the Brazilian Democratic Movement (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro, MDB) the official opposition to the military regime that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. He served as deputy leader in 1976 and 1977.

Re-elected as a senator in 1982, he was defeated in an attempt to be elected governor of Minas Gerais in 1986 as a candidate of the Liberal Party (PL). During his tenure he was one of the key figures of (then failed) initiative to immediate restoration of the direct elections for president. During his Senate term, Franco served as PL leader in that chamber.

As a member of the National Constituent Assembly which began on 1 February 1987, Franco voted for severance of relations between Brazil and countries that develop a policy of racial discrimination (as was then the case of South Africa), the establishment of the writ of mandamus Collective; 50% more pay for overtime after a forty-hour work-week, the legalization of abortion, the continuous shift of six hours of notice proportional to length of service, the union unity, popular sovereignty, the nationalization of subsoil, the nationalization of the financial system of a limiting the payment of external debt burden and creating a fund to support land reform.

Meanwhile, he voted against propositions to reintroduce the death penalty, confirming the presidential system and extension of President José Sarney's term, whom he opposed and called for removal for an alleged corruption. When Franco became president, Sarney became one of his allies.

Vice Presidency (1990–1992)
In 1989, Franco left PL and joined the small PRN (National Reconstruction Party) to be selected the running-mate of the presidential candidate Fernando Collor de Mello. A main reason behind Franco's selection was that he represented one of the largest states (in contrast to Collor, who was from small state of Alagoas), and publicity he gained during his call for impeachment against President José Sarney for alleged corruption.

Collor and Franco won a very narrow election against a man who would later become President (2003–2010), Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Once in office, Franco broke with Collor, threatening a resignation several times, as he disagreed with some of the President's policies, especially regarding privatization, voicing his opposition openly.

On Tuesday, 29 September 1992, Collor was charged with corruption and was impeached by the Congress. Under the Brazilian Constitution, an impeached president's powers are suspended for 180 days. As such, Franco became acting president on 2 October 1992. Collor resigned on 29 December when it was apparent that the Senate would convict and remove him, at which point Franco formally took office as president.

When he became acting president, despite having been vice president for nearly three years, polls showed that the majority of the population did not know who he was.

Domestic policy and presidential style
Franco took power as Brazil was in the midst of a severe economic crisis, with inflation reaching 1,110% in 1992 and rocketing to almost 2,400% in 1993. Franco developed a reputation as a mercurial leader, but he selected as his Finance Minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who launched the "Plano Real" that stabilized the economy and ended inflation.

In an unusual gesture, moments before taking office, Franco handed senators a piece of paper on which he had listed his personal net worth and properties. Initially, his approval rating reached 60 percent.

After the troubled Collor Presidency, Franco quickly installed a politically balanced cabinet and sought broad support in Congress.

During his presidency, in April 1993, Brazil held a long-announced referendum to determine the political system (remaining a Republic or restoration of the Monarchy) and the form of government (presidential or parliamentary system). The Republican and presidential system prevailed by large majorities respectively. Franco always preferred the parliamentary government.

In 1993, Franco resisted calls from various military and civilian offices to shut down the Congress (described by some sources as a "coup attempt").

His administration is credited for restoring integrity and stability in government, particularly after the troubled Collor presidency. The President himself kept his reputation of honesty, and his personal style was viewed as very different from Collor's, who practiced "an imperial and ceremonious presidential role". On the other hand, Franco's own personal behavior was sometimes described as temperamental and eccentric.

In late 1993, Franco offered a resignation in order to call an earlier election, but Congress turned it down.

At the end of term, Franco's job approval rating soared to nearly 80–90 percent. Until May 2016, Franco remained the last President of Brazil not to have been elected as such.

Foreign policy
Despite being sometimes described as a "man with limited diplomatic skills", Franco is credited with launching of idea of a free trade zone covering the whole of South America, which was praised by such leaders as U.S. President Bill Clinton.

Also during his Government, Brazil ratified important pacts (for example the Tlatelolco Treaty and a quadripartite agreement also involving Argentina and the International Atomic Energy Agency on full-scope safeguards), which set Brazil on the nonproliferation path.

Post-presidency
Franco was barred from running for a full term in 1994. Whenever a Brazilian vice president serves part of a president's term, it counts as a full term, and at the time Brazilian presidents were barred from immediate reelection. Fernando Henrique Cardoso became the official (sometimes described as Franco's hand-picked) candidate to succeed Franco and was elected president in late 1994. Franco, however, soon became a severe critic of Cardoso's government and disagreed with the privatization program. Thereafter, he served as the ambassador to Portugal in Lisbon and then as ambassador to the Organization of American States in Washington, DC, until 1998.

Franco considered a presidential run in 1998, but ultimately backed off after constitution changes allowed Cardoso to run again. However, he was elected governor of Minas Gerais in 1998 against the Cardoso-supported incumbent in a landslide, and as soon as he took office, he enacted a moratorium on state debt payments, worsening the national economic crisis. Itamar Franco served in the governor's seat until 2003 (declining to seek reelection and supporting the eventual winning candidate Aécio Neves) and was then the ambassador to Italy, until leaving the position in 2005. During the 2002 presidential election, Franco endorsed Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who got elected, even if he, again, declined to run himself.

Having unsuccessfully sought, at age 76, the PMDB presidential nomination in 2006, he backed Geraldo Alckmin against Lula, despite having been considered again, despite his advanced age, as a candidate for President in 2010.

Franco ran instead for to be a Senator from Minas, and won the race along with Neves.

Personal life
Franco was divorced in 1978 and had two daughters. Before and during his presidency, he had a reputation as a ladies' man, and his personal life was a subject of huge public interest.

He authored some 19 published works, ranging from discussions on nuclear energy to short stories.

Death
Having been diagnosed with leukemia, Franco was admitted to the Albert Einstein Hospital, in São Paulo, on 21 May 2011. On 28 June, his 81st birthday, his condition worsened and he developed severe pneumonia, being taken to ICU and placed under mechanical ventilation. He died in the morning of Saturday, 2 July 2011, after suffering a stroke. Seven days of mourning were declared by President Dilma Rousseff. After lying in state in the town of Juiz de Fora, his political base, and in Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais, his body was cremated on Monday, 4 July 2011, in Contagem, in the metropolitan area of that city.

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

title: Itamar Franco


text:
Talk:Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux

Untitled
Spelling regularized.

title: Talk:Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux


text:
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)

(Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals
I know this has been discussed before. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) However, it was last dissed in 2006, so thing may be different, so I'm bringing it up again.

A discussion related to Parentheticals, i.e. (Latter Day Saints) vs (LDS Church), has come up on Talk:President of the Church. I was attempting to break off the LDS Church section and create President of the Church (LDS Church). However, JonRidinger (talk) brought up the issue that PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) is doing things backward. Trying to explain his ideas, I think he is saying that PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that pages about the LDS Church should be without Parentheticals, and general Latter Day Saint pages should us (Parentheticals). PRIMARYTOPIC reads: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."

JonRidinger points out that since the LDS Church accounts for some 98% of the Latter Day Saint movement, it would seem that articles without Parentheticals should be the LDS Church pages, with broader "Latter Day Saint movement" version using (Latter Day Saints). For example: A part of me thinks he's right. However, the issues I have are

 * 1) It may give the LDS Church to much of a pro-POV.  Since a large number of sects use the same terms, we may be relegating them to hard to find pages.  The other sects may not be properly represented.
 * 2) The Latter-Day Saints movement includes that LDS Church.  Since all LDS Church pages are part of the Latter-Day Saints movement it seems backwards to make the Main page only about the LDS Church and the Parenthetical page about the Latter-Day Saints movement as a whole.  Kind of like making the "Dog" page use Dog (Mutt), because the most common bread is mutt, if that makes sense.
 * 3) Latter-Day Saints movement came first.  Again this gose along with #2.  Since the general Latter-Day Saints movement was first then shouldn't it get the main page?
 * 4) Someone is going to have to change a huge number of pages.

I thought I would bring this up hear, since it effect the standard Naming convention.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Previously I was leaning toward PRIMARY mattering most on the naming of the President of the Church articles, but I can see now that there is a more central argument for things staying how they are: NPOV is core policy, and it trumps PRIMARY. If the article titled "President of the Church" is LDS Church specific, it does seem that we are giving credence to the LDS Church being the true continuance/successor to the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. Regardless of my personal convictions about that topic, WP can't be seen as taking an editorial stance on that question. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That in itself is a POV statement from a Latter Day Saint perspective. From a Wikipedia perspective, we're simply recognizing that the LDS Church is far better known than the other groups in the movement based on sheer numbers and available sources. It has nothing to do with "giving credence" to any position that the LDS Church is the "true successor". --JonRidinger (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with much of what has been said above. There is an issue of POV if we choose to make the LDS Church institutions the primary meaning of these terms which are common throughout the movement. I would generally be in favour of keeping things how they are right now. I too have reversed my !vote at the POTC discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that it's not us "choosing to make the LDS Church institutions the primary meaning...", but rather a case of us recognizing the reality that they already are based on sources available. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant us as WP editors choosing to convert President of the Church into a page solely about the LDS Church's institution. I wasn't referring to objective reality outside of WP, but I understand what you mean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for moving it here! I definitely think we need to examine how we name articles in this project. I think our desire to be "fair" and not allow articles to be exclusively LDS is one cause, but also the general view of looking at the movement as being equally known as and encompassing the LDS Church. Instead, we should be looking at the individual organizations, one of which has 15 million members, one with 250,000, and the rest with a few thousand or a few hundred members. While "Latter Day Saint movement" is great for categorizing and grouping these many articles together, that doesn't mean the movement itself is as known as or better known. To answer each point:
 * 1. Wikipedia isn't about equal representation, it's about notability. Because the LDS Church is significantly larger than the other Latter Day Saint movement denominations, not only does the Church itself have a significant presence in the search for sources, but most secondary sources that use the respective terms (President of the Church, First Presidency, etc.) are likely going to be referring to the LDS Church. All of the articles would have a hatnote as well, mentioning the broader, but lesser-known, use of the term, just like with any primary topic that has multiple articles with the same or very similar names. We deal much the same with city articles. I used the example of Cleveland being the article on the city in Ohio even though there are many cities called Cleveland, some of which are older. Another example is Miami and Miami (disambiguation).
 * 2. Again, it's about notability. While the movement does include the LDS Church, which is more known? I don't think anyone can argue that for the vast majority of people, especially those outside any of the Latter Day Saint denominations, the LDS Church is far more well-known than the overall movement. My experience in Northeast Ohio and elsewhere in the United States has been that most people have heard of the "Mormons", but have no idea that there are other denominations besides the "Mormon Church" in Utah. Even locally, most do not realize the Kirtland Temple isn't owned by the LDS Church. I've lost count how many times I've had to explain that to people and how the Community of Christ is related! (and yes, I realize that's anecdotal) :)
 * 3. Notability and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC aren't determined by first, but by better-known. On top of that, all Latter Day Saint movement denominations consider themselves to have been founded at the same time; it's all a matter of perspective as to which "came first".
 * 4. True, though one person doesn't have to do them all, nor would they have to all happen soon. It is something that needs to be discussed as more articles are created. It's also not a must that all need to be changed. I would take it case by case, though I do think in most cases, if it's a uniquely Latter Day Saint term (i.e. not used by other churches/organizations) the LDS Church uses, the LDS usage is most likely going to be the primary topic. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * As for WP:NPOV, I'm not seeing how recognizing the LDS versions as the primary topic would violate that. Again, it's not about equality here, it's about notability. Stating that the LDS definition of a term shared with other Latter Day Saint denominations is better known isn't a simple matter of point of view, it's also a matter of numbers. Even if all the other Latter Day Saint denominations used the same definition, it would still be used by no more than 300,000 people vs. 15 million. That's on top of searching for sources for the various terms. It would be like saying the article on Miami should be "Miami, Florida" since it's POV to say Miami, Florida is the primary topic over things like the Miami people or smaller towns like Miami, Texas. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * An interesting discussion, in which I hope to comment further when I'm not on my way out the door. Very quickly, though, here's one idea that I don't think has been discussed yet that might resolve the issue: make the generic term a redirect to the most common usage, and add the disambiguating parenthetical onto the broad term articles.
 * I've used up my meager WP time for the day, but I'll comment further when I get the chance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It's certainly a possibility, though I would say it isn't necessary. There seems to be a desire to look at each denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement as equally notable, when that is simply not the case. It would be one thing if the LDS Church were somewhat larger than the rest, but it is significantly larger than all the others combined on top of being far more known based on secondary sources. Again, it has nothing to do with POV.

 * That said, in looking at MOS:TITLES, in some instances, we have unnecessary disambiguation that can be addressed beside the shared terminology articles. "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" is used by the LDS Church and the Bickertonites, so clearly there, the LDS Church, at 1,250 times the size of the Bickertonites (15 million vs. 12,000), is the primary topic. It naturally disambiguates from Quorum of the Twelve, which is the broader Latter Day Saint movement article. The Community of Christ calls theirs the "Council of Twelve Apostles" and there is no other organization using that name, yet the title currently includes "(Community of Christ)" suggesting there is another Council of Twelve Apostles of equal or greater notability. Articles that have natural disambiguation don't need parentheticals. Currently, both Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Council of Twelve Apostles direct to Quorum of the Twelve. Instead, Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) should be Council of Twelve Apostles and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) should be Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Bickertonite article would stay as is), with appropriate hatnotes on them and other related articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * When referreing to something related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we should used say First Presidency (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). We do not insist other religious groups like the Church of God in Christ get regularly abreviated. Yet you will always find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the signs connected with buildings of The Church, while a great many of the signs of the Church of God in Christ use COGIC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Response: Since the current president of the Church has asked that we not refer to the church as the LDS Church and style guides, such as AP, Chicago, etc. are changing, I think that is sufficient to no longer use the term LDS Church to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS Church is not the name of the church. Latter-day Saints (hyphen, lowercase d) are the people, so that would be fine unless the reference is to the church, in which case, it should be Church of Jesus Christ or Church of Jesus Christ of LDS if disambiguation is needed. Zoobaloogle (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in (country) or Mormonism in (country)
What is the standard for article titles for the church's involvement in a country? Debating whether to keep Draft:Mormonism in China or rename it back to Draft:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * It's been moved to mainspace and renamed to Latter Day Saint movement in China. I guess that's a third possibility? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it should only be called "Latter Day Saint movement in China" if it discusses sects of Mormonism aside from LDS. Otherwise, it should be called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China" to match the other ones. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The articles should be at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China etc. The articles are about the Church in those countries, its growth and expansion and current condition. The Church interacts with governments as an institution, not as part of a broader movement, so we should recognize this reality in these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Paranthetical (Mormon) in articles is now POV. Recommend change
I recommend we change the Manual of Style for articles about people. Right now, if they belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church), and needs to be disambiguated, convention is to put (Mormon) after their name (i.e. W. W. Phelps (Mormon)). This is an an unnecessary stick in the eye and should be changed. I recommend (LDS Church), which is standard in Wikipedia for referring to the church everywhere else. Keeping it the way it is is literally considered a "victory for Satan"[] by members of the church, and will paint Wikipedia as anti-mormon to that segment. The word used to be NPOV, but it no longer is. Epachamo (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Playing devil's advocate here...the full quote by Nelson is: "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan." He literally gives "LDS Church" as an example of that in the previous sentence. So how is "LDS Church" any less a victory than "Mormon"? More to the point, is it fair for us to be rebranding people long-dead who self-identified as "Mormon"? Take for instance Joseph F. Smith who, when asked at gunpoint if he was a Mormon, responded "Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through." The LDS Church has every right to determine its own name, but I think this is bigger than that. Nearly 200 years of history have determined that the name of the religion (not the church) is "Mormonism" and throughout most of that history, "Mormon" has been the most concise and recognizable way of communicating that someone is an adherent. ~Awilley (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Good points. Your devil has convinced me that "LDS Church" probably isn't the best replacement.  What do you think about "(Latter-day Saints)"?  This is in accordance with the church's requested MOS, and seems reasonable to me.  Some of the requests in their MOS are pretentious and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but this one seems reasonable.  Some counters to your devil:

 * I think a good analogue would be the word "Negro". I doubt you will find a single article in Wikipedia that uses the word "Negro" not in quotes, or as part of a title.  Instead the word that is used is "black".  100 years ago however, the word "black" was considered offensive by some, and "Negro" or "colored" was more appropriate.  Even though Martin Luther King Jr. proudly referred to himself as a Negro, it is not erasing hundreds of years of history to refer to him today as black.  The audience of Wikipedia is today's readers, not those of the past.
 * If you asked Joseph F. Smith (not at gun point), to choose a title for his article, I'd be willing to bet he would choose "Latter-day Saint" over "Mormon".
 * "Latter-day Saint" is also concise. Why offend someone if you don't have to?
 * "Latter-day Saint" is not objectionable to ex-Mormons. Referring to the church as "the restored Church of Jesus Christ" probably would be objectionable to a lot of readers, which is why (LDS Church) should probably still be used.

 * Anyway, what say ye of (Latter-day Saint) instead? Epachamo (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't think "Negro" is a fair comparison. That term is almost universally recognized as being offensive and has been out for decades. By contrast, the word "Mormon" probably has more positive associations now than at any time in its history, and less than 3 years ago the LDS Church was running ad campaigns of members proudly proclaiming "I'm a Mormon".
 * On "Mormon" vs. "Latter-day Saint" I think the former is more recognizable and concise which are both factors to consider in naming criteria (which I'm not an expert on and will need to review). Subject's preference and frequency of use in reliable sources are other factors to consider. I think the policy is at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA

 * In any case, if a change is to be made, I think it will need some outside input from the broader community through a WP:RFC or WP:RM. ~Awilley (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 * My point with "Negro" is that a word acceptability changes. I grant that it is not a perfect analogy.
 * "Mormon" might be more recognizable and concise, but we use "Latter Day Saint" anyway when referring to the group as a whole. Why don't we use "Mormon" for the Community of Christ?  The article it says, "denominations such as the Community of Christ, ...may be offended by being called Mormon" so we use (Latter Day Saint).  If we make the allowance for the Community of Christ, why not for the others?
 * Thanks for the tip on WP:RFC. I feel like you have been a wikimentor to me pointing me in the right direction on several different articles, policies and issues.  It is much appreciated. Epachamo (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 * You both make valid points, but I think it's time to reconsider the use of "Mormon" as well. The fact the people like the young Joseph F. Smith self identified as Mormon at gun point doesn't mean much. Is he really going to say, "Well, actually, we find that name offensive. Please call us Latter Day Saints?" The early church struggled for years against the term "Mormon", as documented at Mormon (word). The Columbia Journalism Review article cited on the MOS talk page says, “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also struggled against it sporadically over the decades, as seen here . The fact that Brigham Young and others in that era partly bowed out of the struggle does not mean that that is how they truly self identified. I believe it has forever been the case for the majority of members of all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement to not prefer the term "Mormon". The only possible exception I can think of is fundamentalist denominations, and I just don't know enough about them. I don't know why it is that the early RLDS church succeeded in shedding the name "Mormon" but the church that followed Brigham Young did not. Perhaps they just had bigger things to worry about. But as the Columbia article says, 'In this way, the church is joining the tendency for groups to claim their own names rather than the names others people give them, as we have seen with “African American” (instead of “colored,” or “Negro,” or worse), “Latino” (instead of “Hispanic” or “Spanish”), and others.' I think it's time to reopen the discussion. For years I have found a lot of the current style guide surrounding the term "Mormon" to be unintentionally disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemc0 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Mormon is a very depricated term. It was never the truly prefered term of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and was always a term forced on them by outsiders. Latter-day Saint is not a long term, it is reasonably descriptive and can easily be used. This is especially true since some of these articles are on people. I think though when it is an institution or practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is being covered we should use the full name of the Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about parenthetical disambiguation of adherents to the Latter Day Saint Movement in "Names of People" section
Should disambiguation for adherents to the post-1844 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints branch of the Latter Day Saint Movement be changed to use (Latter-day Saint) instead of (Mormon)? (see above talk page section and Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints) Epachamo (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Change to (Latter-day Saint). It is now considered POV to the membership of the post-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Recommend (Latter-day Saint) instead of (Latter Day Saint) to keep the subtle distinction between Brighamite branch and others branches. I believe that (Latter-day Saint) meets all the criteria of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and if it is agreed that it does not for the reason of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, then pre-1844 articles should be changed to use (Mormon) as well for the same reason. Epachamo (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to (Latter-day Saints). I object to using Mormon for any. In the era before 1844 no member of The Church of Jesus Christ ever embraced the term Mormon. Well into the 20th-century writers who were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints always made sure to put any use of the term in quotes and normally included with it statements like "so called". The terms used internally in the 1830-1844 were Saints and Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, are you in favor of changing it to "(Latter-day Saint)" or "(Latter-day Saints)" with an 's'? Currently, it is "(Mormon)" singular, but for CoC members, it is ("Latter Day Saints") plural.  Personally, singular makes the most sense to me if it is about a person, and plural if it is about a topic like baptism, but I don't feel strongly about it. Epachamo (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep (Mormon). This is by far more common and more widely-understood than "(Latter-day Saint)". I can see the concern, but I'm not convinced it's as big a problem as would justify changing the naming convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, articles are marked as (Latter Day Saints) for the pre-1844 church (i.e. William Marks (Latter Day Saints)). Do you feel those should be changed to (Mormon) as well per recognizability?  Right now it is not, presumably as the article says, because they "may be offended by being called Mormon".  I feel like we can't have it both ways, either change it for all who are offended (Latter Day Saint), or change it for all because it is recogizable (Mormon). Epachamo (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't, because "Mormon" only generally applies to members of the LDS Church and members of Mormon fundamentalist groups. It's not nearly as common when referring to the pre-succession crisis group or (ahem) non-Mormon post-succession groups. I think the only reason non-Mormon Latter Day Saints would be offended is because it would cause confusion with the post-1844 LDS Church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is extremely common to refer to the pre-1844 church as Mormon. I'd be interested in a book that actually makes the distinction, or does not refer to Joseph Smith as a Mormon. All the major histories, "Rough Stone Rolling", "Joseph Smith the Making of a Prophet", and even articles such as 1838 Mormon War fail to make that distinction.  I went through my 50 or so history books on Mormonism and could only find one that made the distinction.  The one I found, "The Book of Mormon's Witness to Its First Readers", was written by an apostle of the Community of Christ, and even he had to clarify that "use of the term Mormon here is a broad reference to the movement founded by Joseph Smith Jr.".  The most common way to refer to members of the pre-1844 movement is without a doubt "Mormon", probably by at least a 10 to 1 margin. Epachamo (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair. This suggests to me a broader use of "(Mormon)" is appropriate in WP, rather than further restricting its usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep (Mormon) It's definitely more recognizable for a general audience, and I expect that for historical figures in particular it is more in line with the body of sources. Consider this: the name of the religion is unquestionably Mormonism. That's how it's referred to in tertiary sources and religion textbooks. The name of the largest denomination of Mormonism is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that church clearly has a right to ask people to call it by its full name. That's why we don't use terms like Mormon Church. But for the people themselves it's more complicated. There's a lot of diversity in Mormonism. In addition to the regular active engaged LDS Church members you have a ton of Less-active and Inactive Mormons, Liberal Mormons, Jack Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Molly Mormons, Ex-Mormons, Anti-Mormons, and probably more subsets I can't think of right now. The church cannot unilaterally dictate how we should refer to all these people, let alone the people who lived their whole lives as "Mormons" and are now long dead. There's also the issue of WP:RECENTISM. For almost 200 years now the most recognizable term for adherents of Mormonism has been Mormons. This big recent push for Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is less than 2 years old. Yes, there has always been a general preference for that which has been emphasized more or less under different leadership, but consider that from 2011 to 2018 the LDS Church was running a large ad campaign featuring its members proudly proclaiming "I'm a Mormon". That's a 180 degree turn in the span of a year. If this push outlives the current church leadership and a majority of newer academic sources abandon the term Mormon then that would be significant enough for us to make the change here too. But for now Wikipedia is meant to follow the sources, not lead the way with new trends. That said, in the extremely unlikely case that we have a living person in church leadership whose middle initial isn't enough to disambiguate him from another famous person of the same name, we could use the disambiguator "LDS Church" after his (or possibly her) name. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you mentioned also applies to pre-1844, yet we use (Latter Day Saint) for pre-1844. Joseph Smith and other members of the early church referred to themselves as Mormons.  They are referred to as Mormons in secondary and tertiary sources colloquially and  in scholarly literature.  Members of the pre-1844 church are more recognizably know as Mormons.  I think one or the other should change. Epachamo (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, and I believe it is, maybe we should change them all to "(Mormon)". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd honestly support one or the other. I think Awilley's solid logic has prevailed on me somewhat. Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but I have re-read all of the naming conventions again, and they are quite intricate and confusing. It's difficult for editors to know when to use "Latter Day Saint movement" vs. "Mormonism", and when to use "Latter Day Saint(s)" vs. "Mormon(s)". Then there are church-specific articles that use different disambiguators. And then there's the issue of a "Latter Day Saint" being different than a "Latter-day Saint". It's highly esoteric and we may be better off just figuring out how most sources deal with these issues and going with it. I'd be inclined to think that "Mormonism" and "Mormon(s)" are dominant, as has been pointed out. This creates a slight problem though if those to whom the name applies object to the terminology commonly used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Change I asked our subject librarian at the BYU library his opinion on the subject. He suggested using professional qualifiers. Though they would be a little longer, they would be more specific. So John H. Taylor could be "(Latter-day Saint leader)" while the other John Taylor could be "(Latter-day Saint prophet)". Individuals who were notable outside of their religion could use a parenthetical appropriate to their profession. I admit I don't know if this would help distinguish between the many kinds of Mormons. Would making a more specific parenthetical be, as Good Olfactory mentioned, "esoteric"? Certainly using "Mormon" for all the sects is simpler, but I think that could also be confusing. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it. :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Change use of "Mormon" as an adjective for the members is somewhat discouraged these days by style guides. Blessings! Rogerdpack (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


text:
Talk:A Scanner Darkly

Jerzy/Billfish dialogue on several topics
One editor has said (2nd 'graph)
 * The book twists American society into a very surreal setting by inflating two problematic aspects of society that were of growing interest when he was writing in the 1960s: police surveillance and drug abuse.

My dictionary and i cannot assign a reasonable meaning to "inflating" in this context. I've assumed "conflating" was the intended idea and have changed it accordingly. Others may want to review this change.

The article also refers (1st 'graph) to Dick, in the '60s, writing of an "alternate future" in the '70s. SF writers usually write abt the future; some write about the past, or an alternate past. His future (perforce an imagined future, for those of us without time-travel or clairvoyance) is now a past to us, and inevitably it is not our actual past; we can regard it as an "alternate past" but in practice all specific (and thus imagined) futures eventually become alternate pasts rather than actual pasts.

IMO "alternate future" is makes a pointless and confusing distinction and should be used only in navel-gazing philosophy. I have replaced it here with an inflection of "his then near-future", but invite consideration by other editors. --Jerzy 16:08, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

 * Hello. This was my first attempt on the wikipedia; please excuse my not signing or summarizing.

 * Yes, the use of the word "inflating" is idiosyncratic to the original writer; I preserved it out of respect for that person. What is meant is that smaller things about real society were made to be very large in the story. I considered whether "conflated" was intended, but I decided it wasn't. I have re-edited your edit; please see what you think.

 * Your "his then near-future" is, as you say, more exact. "Alternate future" is a catch-phrase in science-fiction criticism, but your usage is clearer and better writing.Billfish 05:32, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Thank you for cleaning up my formatting.
 * [The above line is still Billfish, Jerzy notes.]

My pleasure, Bf, literally, bcz i guess i find copyediting pleasant.

You'll notice i've taken the liberty (mostly in case others enter this discussion) of reformatting you even here, into a popular and fairly functional WP indented style. You can see it, for instance (if you look quickly, i.e., in the next couple days), used fairly vigorously on the Genesis item just above Votes for deletion.

So welcome to the editing corps; "i'm a stranger myself here" (couple months now), but along with the welcomes that are initiated by those who notice a new reg'd user other than on a talk page, please accept mine. I may be less busy than some of those greeters, so feel free to try me w/ questions you have; since i'm finding my feet well enuf to pontificate abt navel-gazing, i may know something useful to you.

As to n-g'g, my, but i got POV abt AFs, didn't i?  I assumed that was idiosyncratic, perhaps bcz the only SF crit i read anymore is in the monthly-or-so column in the New York TImes Sunday _Book Review_ magazine (and, now, i guess, here). I'll figure out who i insulted and offer an apology if they have a talk page.

I was abt to anticipate "out loud" that your courteous style in this note is a sign that your reaction will turn out to have been a fairly wise one. But i realized i was confused abt what you had previously edited in this article, and when you had failed to summarize and sign. (I still am, and working it out using the "Page history" link is somewhat onerous.) So i've now been away from this edit screen looking at what you did. And IMO you've indeed improved the language further, by dispensing with "conflate", which also pleases me.

Of course being well edited pleases me, or i wouldn't be editing here, where most (if not all) editing screens say "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." I make a point about that, bcz you spoke of "preserv[ing] [the idiosyncratic use of inflating] out of respect for" "the original writer" of that usage. I urge you to edit more boldly than that, out of respect for the various writers and their wish to be mercilessly edited. I'm thinking in terms of "respect the person, and work the words for every gram of communication potential". In the case you raised, i value the insight you've offered into the probable intent, and find the exaggeration aspect enormously valuable to the article, and/but i am glad you chose to go on from there to a wording that will make clear, to nearly every reader, what i missed and you (perhaps with less effort than you intimate in discussing it!) wisely caught.

BTW, your highlighting of exaggeration reminds me that i've read over and over that Verne is the father of SF, and at most once that Swift, that monstrous exaggerator, is an earlier example. I wonder if that's mentioned in our SF article.... --Jerzy 18:11, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC)

"It was midday, in June of 1994." Does this quote from the novel agree with the statement: The semi-autobiographical story was set in a dystopian Orange County, California in the future of 1992." in any way at all?

Use or abuse
'Use' is a statement of fact. 'Abuse' is a pov. Unless you can say who thought it was an abuse, let's stick to saying it was use. Guttlekraw 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The book is about the consequences of using Substance D, a lethal, addictive drug. The book is about drug abuse, not recreational drug use. Perhaps you should read the Authors note.  The PKD estate had this to say about the film, A Scanner Darkly is one of our father's most personal stories because much of it is based on his own experiences. For this reason, it was especially important to us that it be done with all of the right intentions. His struggle with drug abuse is well documented, and he (and we) have witnessed many casualties. The novel is filled with his humor and his own tragedies. And we believe that Richard's screenplay manages to capture these key elements -- he has even included our father's poignant afterword in his adaptation.   Also see his letters about the dangers of drug abuse. ---Viriditas  | Talk 00:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clearly a piece of advocacy about his opinions about drug use. He thinks it's abuse. I think we can attibute those beliefs without stating them as fact. Guttlekraw 00:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the author's note at the end of the book contradicts your assumption. Have you read the book? --Viriditas  | Talk 00:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. The statements in the book are merely claims made by Dick, based on his own perception of what he thinks happened and in all likelihood personal bias. It is for instance easier to blame a suicide on LSD than to acknowledge that the person was deeply troubled, possibly well beyond salvation. I don't dispute that some people come to serious harm from their actions, but it can hardly be said that Dick would have been seeing a true representation of drug users, since we're talking about people so far gone that they wonder about staying in the homes of strangers, thus his perception would be skewed. And this is all assuming any of these things even happened, since let's not forget Dick appears to have been prone to paranoid delusions and hallucinations, a history of mental illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.212.26.115 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The author's note states his point of view. How could it state anything other than his point of view? If I write a book saying that George Bush is a fascist, then write an authors note saying that the book is about George Bush being a fascist, it is still my point of view, not a fact. Guttlekraw 00:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So I take it no, you haven't read the book? You don't seem to be familiar with the NPOV policy, so take the time to read it.  This article is about PKD's book, not what you think of it.  --Viriditas  | Talk 00:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary - it is you who do not seem to understand NPOV. A 'neutral' point of view is not the author's point of view, as you seem to think. It is a view that states the facts, and then records others, including the author's opinions about them. You want to redefine NPOV as the author's point of view. That's just wrong. Guttlekraw 15:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to have read the NPOV policy, as this is a problem you are having on multiple articles. Your bias is evident, as you are going around the Wikipedia altering the context of quotes and content to reflect your opinion.  Please read the policy. --Viriditas  | Talk 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to say that use of a drug to the point where your personality splits to the point you don't know you're narcing on yourself, where you are reduced to the mental level of an 8 year old and end up working as a slave for an illegal drug producer is most definately abuse. Certainly Archer didn't intend to fry his brain to that extent, and he would not willingly have done so had he not been under the addictive influence of Substance D. I think it can be objectively stated that abuse of a drug is use to a point where an addictive desire pushes use to the point beyond which the person, if not under the drug's influence, would not go. PKD was a user, and an abuser; he suffered permanant pancreatic damage from his drug use, and it likely lead to his early death. scot 17:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's fine for you to says so, that's your opinion. It's fine to put opinions in the article, as long as we reference them and don't present them as facts. If someone was killed in a reckless hang-gliding acident we would not call them a hang-gliding abuser, would we? It's a value judgement. Guttlekraw 15:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That's a slippery slope--go too far and everything can be considered opinion, because perception is always influenced by the preconceive notions of the perceiver. Is telling your child "no" abuse?  How about spanking?  Locking them in a closet for an hour?  Keeping them locked in a room and without human contact for 13 years?  People can be found that will take both sides of any of those, but at some point an overwhelming majority of society takes a stand and says, "this is abuse".  It is true that "Drug abuse" is a statement of opinion; what matters is who's opinion.  Dick was writing about drug abuse, because that's what he considered it--abuse.  That is not an opinion, that is a fact--it's what the author was writing about.  Whether you or anyone else considers the level of drug use to be "abuse" isn't an issue, the fact remains that Dick did consider it so, and his opinion is what counts here--especially as this is FICTION, and there are no "facts" involved...  scot 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure - I agree - let's state that it was his opinion that this drug use was abuse. That's something that we all agree on. Where I part company with Viriditas is when he wants to make the general statement that drug use = drug abuse. As someone's opinion, referenced, that's fine. As a statement of fact it is nonsense. I read from the above that we all agree that the quote from the author that he considers certain drug use to be abuse is fine. I'll make those changes. Guttlekraw 06:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As usual, the complete opposite of what you claim is true. What part of "the book can be considered Dick's master statement on drug abuse" are you having problems understanding?  Your edit history is quite clear in this matter, and you are not editing in good faith.  You don't have to make any "changes" because you already agree with the text as it is currently written.  Your campaign to change the words "drug abuse" to "recreational drug use" doesn't appear to be very successful, but please, continue to blame me for your own errors. --Viriditas  | Talk 08:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain to you, as I would have to for a young child. The book is about drug use. Dick's opinion is that this use is 'abuse'. We should state that this is his opinion. That's it. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Guttlekraw 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Substance D or SD
Something bothers me about the way this is written... Should the drug/topic be mentioned once in full ("Substance D") and then in short there after ("SD"), or should the full name be constant throughout, or is a sprinkled mix (the way it is currently written) acceptable?--Htmlism 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I noticed the same "oddness", if you will, and it bothers me as well. I don't recall any of the characters using the abbreviation "SD", and it seems, to me at least, that using it here is only a visible lack of dedication to the author's work. It should be either "Substance D" or the shortened "Death", or both, but certainly not "SD". -ExNoctem 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There is at least one place in the book where it's stated that the police group assigned to track down the drug is called the S.D. Agency, but I think that's possibly the only place using the SD abbreviation. (Note: I callously indented ExNoctem's note above, to separate it clearly from Htmlism.) Idontcareanymore (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

 * In The Man in the High Castle PKD used SD to refer to German intelligence, maybe he didn't want to cross-over the term to cause any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.85.81 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about section "Autobiographical Nature"
One section reads, "Another turning point in this timeframe for Dick, the alleged break-in to his home and papers, is detailed extensively elsewhere." Can you add a link to 'elsewhere'? A reader might well want to follow this up. ike9898 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not exactly certain, but it looks like it should link to Exegesis, which I think was the original source material for that claim, although I could be wrong as I recall reading about it in one of the later books in the VALIS trilogy. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've linked it to Philip_K._Dick, but that whole section reads like someone's thesis/paper/book. "Curious readers can gain considerable insight into the culture by reviewing the extended conversation on "microdots" in this book"??? Google search turned up no obvious copyright infringements, though. The entire section probably needs to be excised/rewritten... I notice it was largely rewritten by an anonymous user in November 2005, with no explanation for the "in this book"/"detailed extensively elsewhere" wording. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Themes section
The section entitled 'Themes' needs referencing. It reads like someone's essay, and if a correct reference isn't provided, the entire section must be removed until a suitably referenced replacement is found. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Proto   ||    type    09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there arent any citations or sources in that particular section, but the information provided seems to be taken directly from the novel itself. Therefore, in order for any citations to be made, someone needs to find a copy of the book online and cite to it which I personally find highly unlikely as it is copyrighted material. --subliminalis 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just saw this section. I'll take a look asap. —Viriditas | Talk 08:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
The blue flower phsycoactive used in the novel sounds similar to the blue flower physcoactive drug in Batman Begins, could be related?
 * {| border="0"

!
 * In what way do you find they are similar? I traced the blue flower motif back to the Nymphaea caerulea of the Lotophagi, farther still, to the 18th Dynasty under the Egyptian New Kingdom. —Viriditas | Talk 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * }

Paul and Plato
I've removed the reference to the New Testament being directly inspired by Plato, I am not a biblical scholar but I would be surprised if that connection is generally accepted. I note that such a conneciton is not mentioned in the wiki entry on 1 Corinthians 13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iiago (talk • contribs).

 * I also find this connection implausible. More importantly, the article doesn't need to mention the Phaedo; the novel's title is a direct and obvious allusion to 1 Cor 13, and speculation about the biblical passage's antecedents is not needed in this article, unless it is somehow important for interpreting Scanner. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The intersection between Plato's ideas and Christian mysticism are integral to PKD's 2-3-74 experience and subsequent musings. The original author of the text in question failed to add a source, and I have added a citation request. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * According to wiki Neo-platonism was influential on the early christian church from Augustine onwards, but there is no mention of any influence of that school of thought on Paul himself. If PKD believed there to have been a connection between Plato and Paul then that should be made clear, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that a connection is generally recognised to exist.  If I recall the book quite explicitly references the biblical verse and not Plato, but I'll have to check the passage later. 203.202.163.209 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Iiago

 * The original author has had time to respond. I will remove the content from the article.  You're right, I should not have informally referred to this early influence on the Christians as Neoplatonism but as Middle Platonism.  According to Britannica, "The Platonism that the first Christian thinkers knew was of course Middle Platonism, not yet Neoplatonism. Its relatively straightforward theism and high moral tone suited their purposes excellently; and the influence of this older form of Platonism persisted through the 4th century and beyond, even after the works of Plotinus and Porphyry began to be read by Christians."  As for PKD, he was greatly influenced by Platonism, and he has said as much: "In college I was given Plato to read and thereupon became aware of the possible existence of a metaphysical realm beyond or above the sensory world. I came to understand that the human mind could conceive of a realm of which the empirical world was epiphenominal. Finally, I came to believe that in a certain sense the empirical world was not truly real, at least not as real as the archetypal realm beyond it. At this point I despaired of the veracity of sense-data. Hence in novel after novel that I write I question the reality of the world that the characters' percept-systems report." —Viriditas | Talk 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PKD relies not on Platonism, but the Gnostic Cult of Wisdom, or Sophia. That underlies many of his books, such as the Transmigration of Timothy Archer, where behold the Spirit of Christ is a magic-mushroom, or other books of his that depend on mind-bending chemicals used are "recreational drugs", like Galatic Pot Healer, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch's Can-D transmigration narcotic, etc. IINM platonic thought finds exression in the Stoics like the philosoher slave Epitetus, or battalion Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. All of these greeks and romans have a split experience between mind and body. User:bwildasi Wed Apr 16 02:42:13 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed, one cannot discuss PKD without Gnosticism. "Radio Free Abelmuth" is simply about knowing that you are right and in some cases dying for it. The connection with standard Christianity is tenuous, ironic or metaphorical. Jesus is not talking to you from a spacecraft. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Eric

I don't think Britannica is referring to Paul when it talks about the "first Christian thinkers". As Paul's works are biblical cannon I'd draw a distinction between him, as someone who "created" Christianity, and "early thinkers" who wrote about the religion but didn't directly add to it. Jesus, for example, was not a "Christian thinker". If a connection between Plato and Paul existed, I would expect that link to be so noteworthy that there would be a specific reference to it somewhere. After all, there's a specific reference to the influence of Plato on Augustine, and Paul is much higher-profile than Augustine. It doesn't matter in the end, but it's been an interesting point. Cheers. 203.202.163.209 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

The meaning of the title
I finally got to re-read the sections of the book that relate to the title, and have updated our explanation. My explanation of the title comes from pages 169-171 of the 2006 book published by Gollancz, in particular: "Through a mirror," Fred said. A darkened mirror, he thought; a darkened scanner. And St. Paul meant, by a mirror, not a glass mirror - they didn't have those then - but a reflection of himself when he looked at the polished bottom of a metal pan...seeing his own face reflected back up at him, reversed - pulled through infinity...I have seen myself backward. (page 169) Bob/Fred then muses on page 170-171 that true understanding comes after "death" (either the drug or death itself) has been conquered. This is a reference to 1 Chorinthians 15, which states: Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. (verses 51-54, King James Version)

In the book, Fred hears a voice which states: "Then shall it come to pass the saying that is written...death is swallowed up. In victory...because...as soon as the writing appears backward, then you know which is illusion and which is not.  The confusion ends, and death, the last enemy, substance death, is swallowed not into the body but up - in victory.  Behold, I tell you the sacred secret now: we shall not all sleep in death."

The mystery, he thought, the explanation, he means. Of a secret. A sacred secret. We shall not die. The reflections shall leave and it will happen fast. We shall all be changed, and by that he means reversed back, suddenly. In the twinkling of an eye!

To summarise - Bob/Fred is saying that, as St Paul said (and I assume this is what the passages from 1 Chronithians mean), people are incapable of perceiving true reality until "death" has been conquered. It is unclear whether he is referring to physical death or beating addiction to the drug. I think it's meant to be ambiguous, because he doesn't portray anyone else in the book (druggie or not) as having a unbiased perception of reality.

Incidentally I suspect that the fact that the "transition" from Bob/Fred occurs in Chapter 13 is supposed to be a reference to 1 Chorinthians 13. Speculation of course, though. Iiago 13:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

Bergman film connection?
Is it known if Dick was making a conscious allusion to Ingmar Bergman's 1961 film Through a Glass Darkly, which explores the subject of schizophrenia? --Samuel Wantman 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"effortlessly convincing program caseworkers that he was nursing a heroin addiction to do so." There is some underlying assumption being made here. What is it? Was Dick so messed up that it was "effortless" to realize he needed treatment? Was he faking his herion addiction? Was he, like the main character, pretending to be in need of help for a drug addiction in order to find out something? An intriguing statement ... left hanging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.121.181 (talk • contribs).

Merge proposal for Substance D
Substance D should be merged here per WP:FICT, there's no real-world context or notability to warrant a separate article, and neither article is large. Unless anyone objects, I'll merge it here in a few days. Masaruemoto 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As no one opposed this, I have now redirected Substance D here. I haven't merged any content as I don't know what is significant enough to be added here, so if anyone wants to add a section, the content is here. Masaruemoto 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"mors ontologica" citation
The page asked for a citation, and so I gave it, but it's my first time doing so, so I'm sure it's likely that I screwed it up. I just copied the existing citation and changed the page number. BBrucker2 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. Take a look at WP:REFPUNC. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/frank/hour25.htm
 * In Dhalgren on 2011-03-17 09:01:14, 404 Not Found
 * In A Scanner Darkly on 2011-06-20 02:25:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Synopis
I edited the synopsis section, explaining what the scanners and scramble suit were and paragraphing it better. There's probably still some room for improvement. PKD, better than anyone, ever, was able to explain the confusion of not knowing who you are, even when you see yourself in a video, and project the horror of that to the reader. While it is rather trivial, I think the article might mention several hilarious madcap or slapstick episodes in the novel that have nothing to do with the ultimate plot but show how messed up the characters are, or at least quote the review that says, "This is a very funny book!" 173.174.85.204 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Eric

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A Scanner Darkly. 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/20150327043746/http://www.locusmag.com:80/SFAwards/Db/NomLit38.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit38.html#1337

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Title inspiration
I am not a subject expert but did wonder when I came across Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's "In a Glass Darkly".

title: Talk:A Scanner Darkly


text:
Talk:Elevator paradox

MathWorld content
From the article:

 * MathWorld article by Eric Weisstein formed much of the basis for this article

That's not on -- can someone rewrite the article, please, if this is the case? CRC press own MathWorld, and they have been active in copyright litigation. Note that my cite of the Gardner article and the Japanese extlink were found by independent Googling, and do not derive from the MathWorld article. -- The Anome 16:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

MathWorld was a basis, yes. And I'm aware of the legal issues with them - but I was careful to not quote them directly, and also to use them as a source only - some of the information is my own conclusions. My understanding of copyright is that you can cite anything as a source - academics do this all the time. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. -- Pakaran 17:17, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, we can cite anyone we like as a source of facts. However, we have to be extremely careful, given the previous MathWorld litigation, perhaps more careful than normal common sense demands. I have now rewritten this article to (I hope) eliminate even the slightest possibility that it was copied from MathWorld. -- The Anome 17:20, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, that's a good idea. As a co-moderator on the PrimeNumbers yahoogroup, I see perhaps more than I would like of people's opinions of the MathWorld publishers and their history.  See my latest edit, and its summary, and let me know if you have concerns with it.

 * I'm also very aware that as a computer science major, I perhaps don't think about copyright in the context of natural-language work as much as I should - in my homework, I wouldn't hesitate to use an algorithm taken from some random internet source, for example. -- Pakaran 17:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Your most recent edit looks good to me. Pehaps we should mention that the exit of the elevator from the "big bit" into the "little bit" is generally followed by an excursion in the opposite direction, which is not observed by the elevator user, since they have already left? (This is implied by and consistent with your statement, but not explicitly stated). -- The Anome 17:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a good idea. Keep in mind that they may not have left (the original reason the physicists noted the paradox may have been that they were trying to visit one another, and return from doing so, but that the elevators appeared to be conspiring to frustrate this).  I'm not sure how to phrase that for the article though.  -- Pakaran 17:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Error
The article mentions that Moritz Stern and George Gamow first noted this paradox, so I added the centuries they lived in so people can have a general idea of when they first noted this paradox. Except it also goes on to say that they both worked in the same building at the same time, except the problem is that George Gamow was born ten years after Moritz Sterns death, meaning that they couldn't possibly have ever worked on the same building at the same time to discuss this paradox. Assuming that Gamow was able to think about paradoxes at the age of 20, and assuming that Mortiz could think of paradoxes in his old age of 93 years old, that still leaves a 30 year gap when these two men supposedly came up with this paradox. Which is a paradox in itself! JayKeaton (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another visualization is to imagine....
What direction is the car intended to be going? I can assume, but this needs work. --Test35965 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Another visualization is to imagine sitting in bleachers near one end of an oval racetrack: if you are waiting for a single car to pass in front of you, it will be more likely to pass on the straight-away before entering the turn."

 * Indeed, this still makes no sense. 96.35.4.134 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The best I can interpret the race track example:
 * A person sits down near one end of an oval race track, but on a straight, not on a turn. The person looks straight ahead in a line-of-sight perpendicular to the straight-away and waits for the first car to cross that line-of-sight at either the near or the far straight. In this scenario it is more likely that the next car will cross that line on the straight where the line-of-sight is just before the car enters the turn, simply because it is less likely for there to be car in the middle of that turn when one sits down, than on the rest of the track.
 * I have deleted the lines in question rather than try to fix it, but included this explanation in the hopes it will help anyone who wants to re-add it. 96.35.4.134 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed
I don't know why we need this page. It really should be deleted. It's almost all citation needed and the topic is just a silly thought experiment that's mentioned in a couple popular science books so I don't see why it really requires a page. It's frankly the lowest quality page I've seen on wikipedia. 77.103.208.3 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wut?
so this is just 'Confirmation bias: the word problem', right? --2601:2C6:47F:985A:742B:69AD:22AD:B03B (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elevator paradox