text:
Talk:Façade

gable
This seems an odd redirect from gable? Notinasnaid 18:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a façade (or a facade?)
façade is only 1/3 as common as facade using http://www.google.co.uk with an English flag set:
 * about 2,220,000 English pages for facade
 * about 739,000 English pages for façade

So I think the wording at the begining should be changed to  facade (sometimes façade). Any objections to this change and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, but Google ratings are hammered because very few people have ç on their keyboard... —Mulad (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

 * The reason behind there being so many fewer pages for façade compared to facade is that on most English/American keyboards there is no "ç" key, nor do many browsers support hotkeys such as ctrl+comma+c to type them in, so i don't think the Google search holds much merit. On a related topic, why is the pronunciation guide written the way it is instead of using the Phonetic Alphabet? Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In addition to Google (which might be misleading for the reasons stated), we should take into account print sources, and you almost never see "facade" there. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Given that ç is not in the English alphabet, it should come as no surprise that English keyboards don't have a key for it! Markᵂ (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same. Notinasnaid 08:35, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

 * Neither is "correct", common usage on the net is facade, as this is an online encyclopaedia there is no harm in using the common version on the net. We can play games of authorative sources eg:
 * 32,600 English pages from bbc.co.uk for facade -façade
 * 986 English pages from bbc.co.uk for -facade façade
 * 17,500 English pages from guardian.co.uk for facade -façade
 * 388 English pages from guardian.co.uk for -facade façade
 * 2 for the other side of the pond:
 * 160,000 English pages from nytimes.com for facade -façade
 * 229 English pages from nytimes.com for -facade façade
 * 982 English pages from washingtonpost.com for facade -façade
 * 77 English pages from washingtonpost.com for -facade façade
 * but is it worth it? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is an online encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can be less accurate than anything else. In fact, in light of the controversy leveled at it, i think it probably needs to be more so. Still, i don't necessary disagree with you. I would push to make it written both ways with no emphasis on which is "correct". Archtemplar 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the reason for the abundance of "facade" is the difficulty of typing funny letters on Anglo keyboards? If that's the case, the mere abundance is an extremely poor reason for preferring the crippled form. Not many readers are going to see façade and think, "Oh, I was looking for facade but I guess this is something else." Besides, using the cedilla means never having to say "c is hard before back vowels in all English words except facade." —Tamfang 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes I do dispute it, Please read the above (at least one dictionary disputes it). As words become anglicized they loose their accent marks. One never writes "Hôtel" in English, but there was a time when one would have done so. Common usage should be the guide and as shown above it is common usage not only on internet blog sites but also in reliable and reputable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 12:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Where? What dictionary disputes it?  One dictionary is cited as listing both spellings (for unspecified reasons) and preferring façade.  —Tamfang 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * OED, according to Wikipedia (see below). Take this discussion to cedilla; it is pointless having it here, I think. Notinasnaid 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Surely if the contributors to Wikipedia decide they know better than a dictionary, that counts as the dreaded and forbidden "original research"... Notinasnaid 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * From a personal point of view, I'd expect to see "facade" and "façade" i.e. the second form italicised to indicate it is a foreign word. Where an English word is available, I'd expect to see it used. But that would just be my opinion. More research reveals that Wikipedia has an article on the cedilla and its use in English. This article seems to follow that one; if the article cedilla is wrong, that is the place to correct first. Notinasnaid 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * There did not seem to be any consensus for a move. (In my view the cedilla article implies no move should be done, but it's still open to debate, of course.) Anyway, today there was a messy manual swap of contents, which breaks the edit history, so I reverted. An actual swap, preserving the edit history, would require administrator intervention, I think. Notinasnaid 19:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the Cedilla article based on my access to the OED. As of now, the online OED has an entry for "façade" and none at "facade." Further, the "façade" entry does not indicate any alternate spellings. The OED seems to be strongly in favor of the cedilla-ful spelling. I agree, and think this article should be moved. LW izard @ 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The OED has a limited number of quotations for façade, and both forms are cited; facade from 1796. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Just as we write cafè (and Word will auto-correct you if you don't) or Chloë for the girls name it is also façade. Sure, lots of English speakers can't be bothered writing it but so what?  There are 300 million US English speakers and just because they can't be arsed to spell a word correctly doesn't mean than Wikipedia should dumb itself down for them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xania (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to fight this hard
I can not understand why any person who has learned English would use "Facade" instead of "Façade". Iamiyouareyou (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Because "any person who has learned English" also learns the English alphabet which does not include Ç (c-cedilla); further, English grammar lessons don't cover diacritics because they're not part of English. Hopefully this helps your understanding. How about taking this discussion over to the English alphabet page; maybe they'll want to start the movement to add a 27th letter. Markᵂ (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you may wish to consider calling up the OED dictionarians immediately and letting them know how very, very wrong their knowledge of English spelling and lettering is, so that they can promptly right their grave errors as directed by you. I'm sure they will jump right up and call their printing presses to a screeching halt in order to avoid the further publications of any such heresies. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

STUB
stubstubstubstub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.169.244 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, anonymous. Next time, simply add the stub tag by using ((stub)) (but with curled brackets rather than parentheses) Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd meaning?
Should we add a note about the 2nd menaing of facade?: "An artificial or deceptive front"--75.7.135.250 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of you mean putting a new front on an older building (eg a Georgian frontage on Tudor building ) then yes that should be here. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Movies?
Not sure if the facade reference to movies here is relevant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.220.225 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

False front
I just created false front to redirect here. I feel like it is a more common word for describing the big square facades you see in the old west, as in this picture, as opposed to "facade". Thoughts? —Ben FrantzDale 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF??!!
Move this to Façade for God's sake, just because our keyboards are retarded doesn't mean we have to be. Facade implies a very wrong pronunciation. My Webster's dictionary favo(u)rs façade over facade as well.Cameron Nedland 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you prounce Worcester and Southwark? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * & . BTW facade implies a rhyme with arcade.Cameron Nedland 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It may to you, but not to me any more than Moscow ends in the word cow, or Warwick starts with the word war, or that Wagner starts with a W. It is one of the more interesting features of English that these things are not consistent even within every day usage by different people or even the same person depending on context of the usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, true. It just seems unnecessary to change ç to c. I don't know.Cameron Nedland 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to Façade
I have never seen 'facade' in any written material, it is less common using a google search, all of my dictionaries (three of them) favo(u)r façade.Cameron Nedland 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Support. 'Facade' is simply incorrect. LW izard  @ 16:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Support, so long as there is a #REDIRECT from Facade. --Ziusudra 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia does not function by counting votes, but by the strength of arguments as applied to Wikipedia's policies and, where the policies cannot guide us, by reaching a consensus. Stating arguments is good; keeping count is contrary to the way things work. See Voting is evil. I also observe that if you were counting votes, this could be seen as an attempt to wipe the slate on those who, above this section, argued against. Notinasnaid 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I recognize that voting is evil, and would gladly engage in a discussion about whether to move the page or not. However, the past several months, no one who is opposed to the move has expressed that opinion.  As soon as we find anyone opposed to the move, we can discuss and establish consensus.  Until then, this straw poll could serve to show that there is consensus already.  I've read the discussion of eight months ago, but as my position makes clear I don't find the arguments against a move compelling.

 * I see that you made some of the arguments eight months ago. You noted that according to Cedilla according to the OED, 'facade' is the preferred spelling.  I refuted that in July, both here and on Cedilla, and was ignored.  If you have a further argument to make, or want to respond to my refutation, you are welcome to do so.  Otherwise I see no evidence that any current editor of this article is opposed to its being moved. LW izard  @ 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I wrote: "My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same." This seems a storm in a tea cup. Notinasnaid 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that we can't help putting weight on one or the other, because the article has to have a title. We currently are putting weight on 'facade', so I take it that you, too, are unhappy with the status quo?
 * Furthermore, your Chambers English isn't the only dictionary out there. The OED says "façade", with no mention of "facade" (though it does appear in one quotation, explaining a sense of the word other than what this article is about).  I'm strongly inclined to side with the OED. LW izard  @ 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Façade is preferred in all my American dictionaries, and that's saying something considering how diacritiphobic Americans are.Cameron Nedland 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Common usage seems to favour facade, so it should remain there. BTW it is not just blog sites were facade is favoured, for example google on [-facade façade site:bbc.co.uk] and [facade -façade site:bbc.co.uk] or on the other side of the pond [-facade façade site:nytimes.com] [facade -façade site:nytimes.com]-- Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Common usage can be incorrect. As an example, consider "L'Hôpital's Rule".  Common usage is without the diacritic.  We've recognized that that's wrong, and have our article correctly at L'Hôpital's Rule.  For another example, consider the Rose Parade.  I was surprised to find that a redirect - common usage is "Rose Parade," not "Tournament of Roses Parade."  Yet common usage is inaccurate.  There's no reason for us to cater our article titles to the lowest common denominator.  If we did, we'd have to move our article Vinculum (symbol) to That fraction bar thingy, which apparently has some other uses too. LW izard  @ 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * What's right isn't always popular, what's popular isn't always right. Case in point, if people started killing each other randomly in huge numbers, that wouldn't be right.  Besides, my google search got more hits for façade.Cameron Nedland 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC (an official policy):
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Common usage is the agreed naming policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I've seen that before, but I think it's lacking. In the three examples I mentioned above (L'Hôpital's Rule, Rose Parade, and Vinculum (symbol)) Wikipedia is ignoring the naming convention.  In each case, the name used instead is more "true."  I agree with the decision in each case (despite what I said on the Rose Parade's talk page, which was really just making a WP:POINT).  Now I know that Wikipedia doesn't run on proof, it runs on verifiability, but I don't see how an article name can be verifiable.  Do you agree that we should prefer true/accurate/correct article names to commonly-used ones, at least in some cases?  LW izard  @ 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is common usage, English is not French there is no is no such thing as "true/accurate/correct" as there is in French. As a word gets Anglicized it looses its funny foreign squiggles and facade is a long way down that path. If people did what you suggest we would still be writing hôtel.--Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * We still write cliché, jalapeño, and háček, so words don't lose their "funny foreign squiggles" unless they are bastardized.Cameron Nedland 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So who is "we"? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * about 1,650,000 English pages for cliché -cliche -wikipedia
 * about 1,770,000 English pages for -cliché cliche -wikipedia
 * about 746,000 English pages for jalapeño -jalapeno -wikipedia
 * about 1,250,000 English pages for -jalapeño jalapeno -wikipedia
 * about 78,100 English pages for -háček hacek -wikipedia
 * about 393 English pages for háček -hacek -wikipedia

 * Alright, but return to one of my earlier examples
 * * about 9,370 for "Ivan IV of Russia"
 * * about 556,000 for "Ivan the terrible"
 * Do you think this means we should have our article on that man at Ivan the Terrible? I don't.  Other Wikipedians don't.  Britannica doesn't.  The misleading usage of the common people is outweighed by the usage of scholars.  Similarly, for Façade, I think the usage of the common people should be outweighed by the usage of dictionaries. LW izard  @ 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline specifically about the naming of European nobility and monarchs. The example you give does not persuade me. The use of facade by not just "common people" (by which I will assume you mean none reliable sources), but verifiable reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times does. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Google search: facade-15.7 million hits
 * Google search: façade-17.6 million hits

Therefore façade is common usage.Cameron Nedland 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google is (now days) often smart enough to include both when seaching, one has to exclude the other option, exclude Wikipedia (so it is not a self referencing search), and to set the search to English only pages. Both google.com and google.co.uk return: Which is an increase in façade from when I last did the search (See above April 2005) --Philip Baird Shearer 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * about 1,270,000 English pages for façade -facade -wikiepdia
 * about 1,560,000 English pages for -façade facade -wikiepdia

 * I don't think Google is a good indicator of the usage of diacritics. Diacritics are less-used on the internet than in print sources (and print sources are usually more reliable).  For instance, consider José Canseco.  Google reveals
 * * about 20,500 for "José canseco" -"jose canseco"
 * * about 491,000 for -"José canseco" "jose canseco"
 * even though his name is always properly written with an accent. It's no surprise that people writing for the internet don't use diacritics much: it's hard to use them.  This includes not just lazy bloggers, but lazy reporters, too.  If we want a representative sample, we should consider not just Google but also books, magazines, and newspapers.  I would not be surprised if print versions of newspaper articles sometimes have diacritics that their online versions lack.  LW izard  @ 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I have NEVER seen facade in a book, newspaper, etc.Cameron Nedland 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * So do we now have consensus for the move? If I don't hear more objection soon I'll assume so. LW izard  @ 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. A move would go against the WP:NC POLICY. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Which part of that policy? Are you still arguing common usage? LW izard  @ 09:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Philip, I think you are the only one here who likes the present title. That seems like a consensus.Cameron Nedland 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not consensus for a move. In this section only five people have expressed an opinion which is not a very big sample on which to argue that there is consensus for a page move, particularly as two of the five do not think it desirable, and, as the evidence available suggests, such a move would go against Wikipedia policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC (an official policy):
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * This is far different, Philip, than saying that we should consult Google everytime there's such a doubt. The paragraph says "what the majority of English speakers would most easily RECOGNIZE"; does it mean that a little tail under the c makes the word façade incomprehensible? Since façade is always used in printed books, I can't believe people can't recognize it, on the other hand it helps English speakers suggesting its correct pronunciation (even if I know that there's no rule in English, I don't think that pronouncing ca [sa] is intuitive for anyone), and it's quite obvious that facade is easier to spell with an English keyboard (moreover Google treats c and ç equally). Résumé:
 * Arguments pro-façade:

 * Only few dictionaries mention the spelling facade, while façade is universaly recognized.
 * Printed texts and, more important, technical books use the spelling façade.
 * The ç is helpful to suggest the right pronunciation.
 * Other articles, like cliché, do use the diacritics, even if variants, like cliche, do exist (I do know that what happens in other articles shouldn't be influent, but since you quoted Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should be consistent with itself).
 * Your results in Google can be easily attributed to the absence of ç in English keyboards.
 * Is the only point against façade a simple Google research? Lupo Azzurro 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglosization: Général, Hôtels. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't compare façade with général and hôtel. In modern English you can hardly find those words written with diacritics, while façade is still the (or a) standard version. And with this kind of words, Wikipedia commonly keeps the diacritics (just look at the café, résumé, naïve art, soupçons, animé, führer articles). Lupo Azzurro 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Naïve is usually spelt without the diaeresis as naive both generally and on en.wikipedia.org. Fuerer is not a borrowed word (There aren't many politicians claiming they are the fuhrer of their party). Café is usually spelt that way. Résumé is a funny Americanism which presumably keeps it foreign squiggles because it looks as if the person writing it can speak French, or is at least aware it comes from French, even if they can not write Latin (CV) but as the article points out the French résumé is also spelt other ways (presumably by those who do not get the job).

But I put it to you that just because some names are not under their common English spellings and so breach Wikipedia policy, that is not reason to add more breaches to the list. For example do you really think that Lech Wałęsa should be spelt that way even though that is not the common English spelling? Does "ç" tell anyone any more about how to pronounce a word than "ł" does (is every English reader meant to know the effects of every funny foreign squiggle in every language that uses the Latin alphabet)? As to aiding pronunciation how would you for example pronounce Worcestershire? Surly not the way it is spelt? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Some nouns are written with diacritic marks and "are not under their common English spellings" simply because those forms are felt as more formally right, and appropriate for a site which claim to be an encyclopedia. You claim that Führer is not a borrowed work, so I can't understand how you can cite the name Lech Wałęsa. And yes, if not universally known, "ç" do tell more about the pronunciation, French is one of the most known languages in USA and even a lot of people who don't speak it know something about it, because of its prestige. No offense, but the same can't be said about Polish (I won't even talk about Worcestershire, since I can't see what it has to do with our conversation, it has no diacritic mark). Anyway, surely more helpful than a simple "c" followed by an "a". Lupo Azzurro 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So what's the conclusion?
Will it be changed to façade, or still be facade? Everybody prefers façade in this talk page.

Somebody says there's no "ç" key in the American/British keyboard, but it doesn't matter. It's a retarded reason because "cliche" and "Mobius strip" are redirect pages to "cliché" and "Möbius strip" respectively. --에멜무지로 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not understand how, after reading the earlier sections, you can write "everybody prefers façade in this talk page" I for one do not. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * But when we type "facade" in word processor, it is automatically changed to "façade." Plus, their pronunciations are different. "Facade" is [fəˈkɑd], but "façade" is exactly [fəˈsɑd]. -- 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * And if we use "facade" instead of "façade," we should use "naive" instead of "naïve." -- 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * also "resume" and "deja vu" instead of "resumé" and "déjà vu". and 95% of americans write/say "trevino" for the spanish last name "Treviño". 4.230.153.169 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * This page is absolutely hilarious. ONE person doesn't want to move this, and everyone else does. And yet, it's still here. Gud Speling guyz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.71.131 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I will move this page without using "move" tab. I should break edit history. 72.159.71.131, you are absolute right! Nominated! Thank you for telling the truth. -- 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * 72.159.71.131 is not right. The Naming conventions are used to decide on the name of an article and the Naming conventions say "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * See 4.230.153.169's comment above. -- 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut and past moves are a depreciated because it destroys the history of an article which may be needed to prove copyright. see How to fix cut and paste moves. If you wish to ask an admin to make this contriversial move the put in a request at WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone prefers "façade," but not Philip Baird Shearer. That means "façade" won. We must move this page to "façade." -- 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Polls are evil. Reasons are more important than numbers. --Kjoonlee 20:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Fine. I will move these pages to here respectively. -- 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cliché
 * Coup d'état
 * Déjà vu
 * Détente
 * Éclair
 * Entrée
 * Émigré
 * Möbius strip
 * Naïve
 * Résumé
 * Séance
 * Vis-à-vis
 * Cliche
 * Coup d'etat
 * Deja vu
 * Detente
 * Eclair
 * Entree
 * Emigre
 * Mobius strip
 * Naive
 * Resume
 * Seance
 * Vis-a-vis
 * And end up in even more hot water? --Kjoonlee 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! -- 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, didn't I say just above that numbers are meaningless compared to reasons? --Kjoonlee 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I can't see any contribution from you in this discussion. Anyway, there are reasons both against and pro façace, so I think it's time we find a way to choose, don't you? Lupo Azzurro 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not implying that newcomers don't have a say. Personally, I don't mind whichever is chosen. --Kjoonlee 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like that. But I've seen a lot of "reasons" so far (none from you, that was my critique), and still there's no agreement. What's the next step? Lupo Azzurro 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * None from me? That still doesn't mean I don't have a say, does it? If there's no consensus, then the articles stay. --Kjoonlee 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming all the reasons to "keep" or "move" are good. If any of the reasons are bad, we consider the good ones. --Kjoonlee 07:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion is about the letter ç?Grigrass (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Facade → Façade — This page was unilaterally moved to "Facade" in 2005. Some discussions have occurred in order to have the previous name ("Façade") restored, but probably due to lack of a proper WP:RM listing, we still have "facade" here. Article should include the diacritic, which is common and accurate English usage for this word. "Facade" is also common English usage, but mainly due to lack of "ç" in most keyboards, unawareness of the diacritic version or a simple disregard for diacritics. "Facade" should thus not be used as the name of an accurate encyclopedic entry. Besides, it's ugly. — Hús  ö  nd  01:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Oppose "ç" looks French to me... so this page should continue to be spelled using the freedom-"c". Ewlyahoocom 07:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a joke, right? Bear in mind that some Wikipedians aren't as patriotically American as you or I. ;) --Quuxplusone 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Descriptively speaking (ie, describing current conventional usage of English), I think both are correct. This word is probably in the middle of a natural transition from "foreign spelling" to "anglified spelling", a route many, many words have taken in the past.  Where both are arguably correct, we should use the non-cedilla article version of the article title, where it is easier to reach through the search box etc. Erudy 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue, anyone searching for "Facade" will end up here anyway with the same ease (through a redirect).-- Hús  ö  nd  16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, spelling without diacritic is acceptable standard english as evidenced by the primary entry appearing under that spelling in many dictionaries.  older ≠ wiser 15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It is possible that this is an Anglo-American distinction, as opposed to the pedantry of a non-native speaker. The OED cites facade from 1796, but it's from Demerara. But a move which has been stable since 2005 should be left alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what should "the pedantry of a non-native speaker" mean exactly? Hús  ö  nd  21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exempli gratiâ, the use of should for does when it is unidiomatic. Insisting on a "correct" form which is no longer idiomatic because some other language uses it would also be pedantry, and is unlikely (although WP proves it all too possible) to be the pedantry of a native speaker; even Fowler eschews it. I am uncertain whether this is the case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, A reason for not moving it is that no one who supports facade is going to remove the "(or façade)" from the text. But if the article moves to façade it will only be days until someone removes "(or facade)" claiming that it a spelling mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This reason seems to amount to "All people who support facade are reasonable, and all people who support façade are unreasonable." Assume good faith, please. --Quuxplusone 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say all I said "someone" and I've seen enough of these types of move to be speaking from experience not from faith. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support, on the example of résumé, cliché, café, sautéing, and all the rest. (Not to mention arcade and brocade, which are genuine English words spelled with a genuine "c", not a bastardized cedilla.) --Quuxplusone 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * English uses cliché, to mark the disyllable; it is ceasing to use rôle (none of the OED's quotations after 1932, and it has dozens, use the circumflex), and we use role accordingly. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment below; many dicts list "also cliche". Methinks we will soon see a disappearance of diacritics -- eventually -- because the average user is too lazy to look up the code or keystroke combo to do things like ç, é, etc. I know that going to the character list below just to get those characters is a pain in the derrière.  -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 06:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The cedilla is not a regular part of the English language, whereas "facade" is. --DAJF 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. Seems to me that facade has the edge over façade. Personally I will continue to spell it with the cedilla, as it is still an acceptable variant, more out of habit prob than anything else. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 06:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Facade" is a very common spelling in modern times. Mac   OS X  19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I like using words that are accepted by spell checkers.  Vegaswikian 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

 * Comment. In the dictionaries (not the be-all-and-end-all, I know):
 * Merriam-Webster: facade primary; "also façade"
 * yourDictionary.com lists both, but both link to only facade
 * American Heritage: façade is primary; "VARIANT FORMS: also fa·cade"
 * Chambers: Entry listed as "façade or facade"
 * Encarta: Main entry facade; "or fa·çade (plural fa·çades)"
 * AskOxford.com: facade only
 * Cambridge Advanced Learner's: Main entry facade; "(ALSO façade)" given only in the first sense listed
 * Cambridge Dict. of American English: Main entry "façade, facade", but only façade given in examples
 * Random House at Infoplease: Main entry facade only
 * Online Etymology Dict.: main entry facade; "façade" listed only in etymology
 * Ultralingua: main entry facade only
 * The Free Dictionary: Main entry façade; "also fa·cade"
 * Columbia Encyc.: Main entry facade only
 * Encyclopedia Britannica seems to use facade in its articles
 * WRT pronunciation (and the English language's wonderfully consistent and logical rules thereof), facade would probably become the exception to the rule of "c" being hard when followed by a/o/u; sort of the same way margarine and mortgagor violate the similar rule for "g". As for some of the other examples, resume and resumé are current and accepted variants in the dictionaries, as are cliche, cafe, saute. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fire?
Does anyone find it strange that an article about façade should turn into an article about high rise fires? I don’t really think fires should be mentioned at all. It really has nothing to do with the subject. If you like fires, you could add this stuff to most articles. The “See also” section defiantly should not have Fire door, Firestop, Fire-resistance rating, Fire sprinkler, Active fire protection, and Passive fire protection. There’s more on fires then there is on false fronts. It looks like some have tried to remove the fire references in the past only to have the page vandalized with fire again. As for the pictures given, I see a lot of fancy facades here, but no typical facades where a store front has it’s road facing gable end squared off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.255.30 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The “See also” section
I removed the following which seemed only distantly related to the topic: —Ian Spackman (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Passive fire protection
 * Active fire protection
 * Fire sprinkler
 * Fire door
 * Fire-resistance rating
 * Firestop
 * Building joints

Facade
There is another definition that is not mentioned. It is less common, but still often used. That is, a superficial appearance or illusion of something. As in, They managed somehow to maintain a facade of wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.121.229 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * This figurative sense is given in Wiktionary, where it probably belongs?   D b f i r s   20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Façade… Again
Façade is spelt with a cedilla, there is a noticeable difference between ç (a cedilla) and c. The most obvious difference is that the pronunciation and spelling of such a word is technically incorrect, as this word is a loanword from the French language, as are many English words, and approximately 40% of English words are of French decent, after William the Conqueror's victory of England and subsequent integration of French into the then-early English language. As mentioned before, this is a loanword and thus meaning the cedilla highlights the correct pronunciation, of a softer sounding "c" as spoken in the word "façade". We should therefore respect the heritage of this and at least spell it correctly. The word "facade" does not exist, it has appeared as a result of mere confusion between two similar (but completely different) letters. I do realise that some English keyboards do not incorporate the "ç", but this is the whole reason for Wikipedia's page redirection. The lack of "ç" key on the keyboard is compensated for on programmes such as Microsoft Word, when if the word "facade" is typed it is immediately changed to the correct version of "façade", not left incorrect as it has been on Wikipedia. It is completely ridiculous that there is a Wikipedia page with an actual spelling mistake on its title. --Patyo1994 (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Facade sources are split on this issue to say one is wrong while the other is right, does not sum up English usage, if it did we would still be using "hôtel" and "général" -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It is indeed façade, not facade. It's incorrect to write facade and people only do so out of ignorance or laziness. The situation is not like hotel or general since a significant proportion of people (perhaps even the majority) know that it's meant to be written façade. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

 * You obviously hold strong opinions on this! Take a look at this book:

 * What is interesting about it from the point of view of your statement is the format of the contents of the book. On Page 3 it says:

 * This means that the pages were not type set by the editors. Instead they use the wording format of the authors who are peer reviewed experts in their field. If you look through the book using the link provided, you will see that usage of façade and facade is divided. So I think it is reasonable to conclude if a peer reviewed book by ASTM International is split on usage then it is probably safe to say that there is no right or wrong way to spell fa[cç]ade.

 * I have provided you with an example of split usage in a peer reviewed book (a reliable source). What reliable source that can provide to back up your statement "It's incorrect to write facade and people only do so out of ignorance or laziness"? Because I think it more likely that this is a word in transition similar to that which hotel has been through and there is no correct usage only an individual's preference. --PBS (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [I realize this is an old thread, but wanted to follow up anyway: the manual cited above, if you actually read it, is incredibly flip-floppy on the issue of "façade". In fact, in the introduction, the editors themselves can't seem to decide which way to spell it!  The intro also has a number of straight-out typographical errors, suggesting that as any kind of definitive work on the spelling of the word "façade" or any other potentially controversial word, it doesn't hold up very well, despite the fact that the contributors appear to be "experts" in their fields.  I am willing to bet that those whose chapters are written without the cedilla were hampered by their typewriters/ keyboards, and I also bet that the decision to use a regular C in the title was the result of the need to standardize it for cataloging purposes, not because the cedilla was not preferred.  Within the book itself, most of the authors still managed to use the cedilla, and only a very few the unadorned C.  If you actually read it.  Boring stuff, though!  Except for the deaths caused by falling façades...   KDS 4444  Talk  01:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)]

 * PBS, you've made quite an erroneous conclusion there. The peers would have been reviewing the technical content, not the spelling or grammar. Besides, the ASTM is American and everyone knows Americans use different spelling to the rest of the world. Perhaps Americans do consider facade correct; I don't know or care; the important issue is how it's spelt in proper English. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

 * I have not made an "erroneous conclusion", the reliable source shows that both spellings are used by experts in the US (and it refutes your assertion that "people only do so out of ignorance or laziness"). As for your second comment see this document from the other side of the pond: Master of Science and Postgraduate Diploma in Façade Engineering (Full-time and part-time) at the University of Bath. Before you say "Its the font" see
 * Page 2 (PDF 2) "The MSc/Diploma course in Facade Engineering at the University of Bath"
 * Page 4 (PDF 3) "The MSc and Postgraduate Diploma in Façade Engineering courses"
 * -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 * That's more of the same; the experts are concerned with technical content and not spelling or grammar. You're making exactly the same point as you did just before. Besides, in this example, it would have been some kind of secretary writing that, not an engineering expert. Just as I said before, I still maintain that most people know it's really façade, even people who write facade. I often put s on plurals instead of the proper Latin endings when I'm speaking to ignorant people to avoid confusing them; maybe that's one of the reasons people write facade even though they know it should be façade. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Do you have a reliable source that supports your opinion (How to use article talk pages)? -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I didn't count on you not believing me. What do you have to gain by insisting against fixing this article anyway? Writing facade in the encyclopaedia will encourage and spread the error. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC))
 * You are stating something as a fact without any reliable sources to back it up. Content must be based on quotes and summaries from reliable sources (see the Verifiability policy). The current text says both are acceptable. I have provided you with examples of such usage from reliable sources, others higher up this page have given examples of dictionary usage which include both. I noticed that you are an Australian so here is a reliable source from an Australian web site that uses facade: University of Sydney: 49115 Facade Engineering and here is another that uses both on the same page: University of Melbourne: ABPL90268 Facade Design and Performance. I picked those from a Google search of site:edu.au façade OR facade and it returns plenty examples of both usages (as there were for US and UK sites). -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That this article continues to have the title "Facade" and not "Façade" is bizarre. I see the word "facade" an I wince. How can there be any reasonable opposition to such a move? How can this discussion be formally reopened and the decision NOT to move it be reconsidered? ("Facade"... I mean, come on. Really?)  KDS 4444  Talk  23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I should emphasize that I am an American, and while spellings like "flavour" and "tyre" are ones I would never personally use (and Firefox identifies them as misspellings) the sight of "facade" in typewritten text feels immediately ungainly to my American eye. KDS 4444  Talk  23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1,100 °C
What is going on with the sentence around "as well as the 1,100 °C. Melting point of aluminium"? I'd guessed it was an erroneous stop, but the melting point of aluminium is 660.32 °C so that doesn't seem right. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Entymology
Can Someone with sufficient knowledge Please Help Expand the article by adding an Entymology section thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.249.29 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How do façades relate to insects? You must mean Etymology. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Move to façade
Well, we're already in 2014, it was about time we started a new topic on this subject. Previous requests to move the title back to façade have been made in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 and no consensus was achieved; but who knows... I particularly favour façade over facade for the same reason that we write déjà vu, naïve etc. —capmo (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree but I'm afraid this might end up nowhere again with the one person very much adamant to changing it... :S Facade looks like Fak-ade or Fakad to me. Even as I just typed façade it autocorrects to façade (welp, it did it again...). The cedilla softens the c and this is the spelling I commonly see on books... -- WikiEditor  50  16:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. The "facade" spelling arose only from ignorance and laziness, then the excuses came later about how people should be able to get away with it. Owen214 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There never WAS any consensus to move to Facade in the first place, was there?? How utterly disingenuous it is, to make a Bold change without gaining consensus, and then claiming that consensus is required to change it back! If there is no consensus, then it should revert to the status from before the controversy. The former is an all too common tactic of POV pushing. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Common usage has, it appears, changed
see here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fa%C3%A7ade%2Cfacade&year_start=1962&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=4

Also noted that, the original move to Facade from the original (and current) name was done unilaterally and has been heavily contested since. Because there was no consensus to move to begin with, the article title has been restored to its previous version.

Furthermore, the only reasonable argument that has been given by PBS has been WP:COMMONNAME (which many the accuracy thereof, with rational arguments). Per the link above, though, façade has been the more common variant since 2014, and is increasing in use.

cheers, Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure)  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Façade → Facade – Should the article stay at its current title or should it be moved to Facade? Please state your reason for choosing "Facade" (support) or "Façade" (oppose) below. It seems that while PBS thinks that the move from "Facade" to "Façade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Facade", Firejuggler86 thinks that the opposite move from "Façade" to "Facade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Façade". Clearly, PBS and Firejuggler86 have different opinions on which move is the "controversial" one, so now dicussion is needed. Had the article been first moved to "Facade" and then an RM from "Facade" to "Façade" started instead, then all the "supports" would become "opposes" and vice versa. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH. "ç" is not a letter in the English alphabet and it cannot be typed using a standard English keyboard. So there's no way that "façade" is the most common English spelling of this word. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I note that we still use Résumé, but that Google NGrams seems to show "facade" as far more popular. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH. It should have never been moved to this title anyway, given the previous RM on the matter. I would also note that this is a different situation than résumé because those accent marks help distinguish it from the word "resume." -- Calidum  13:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH which allows French accents where OED etc use it. Nothing changed since previous RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The RM when a proposed move to the current title was rejected almost unanimously? -- Calidum  17:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * where does WP:USEENGLISH allow for French accents? VR talk 22:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)" LW izard @ 19:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.VR talk 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support, looks like English useage generally omits the cedilla.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're just counting English sources they will always be majority low-MOS, en.wp isn't. See the most reliable dictionaries: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/facade https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095807382 In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH .VR talk 22:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * correctly pointed out that WP:USEENGLISH neither discourages the current title nor encourages it. But taking a look at Google books, on the first page most sources don't use the cedilla, so we ought to drop it too.VR talk 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. WP:USEENGLISH just says to follow reliable sources.  It seems to me that the more-relaiable sources use the cedilla (like the OED). LW izard  @ 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose dictionaries tend to include the diacritic blindlynx (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While Facade is common enough, Façade is just as common if not more so (I know I always use it, and I'm a native English speaker). No good reason to move. The idea that it can't be acceptable English because it uses an accent is frankly just ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It might not be the common spelling on the "Interwebs" but it is used the most in reliable sources ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the correct spelling of the loanword is wih the ç; the alternative exists only because of old keyboard limitations. Neodop (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Façade and facade again
I don't quite understand why the very common spelling of "facade" is not included in the article as an alternate spelling, along with the French spelling "façade". It is the primary spelling given (along with the the French variant) in the Collins English dictionary, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and the "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms". It is a very common word in the English language. Why is the French spelling considered preferable for a common term in English? I respectfully think both the English and French spellings should be given, since both are widely used. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - I have finally put this in, & it should certainly not be removed. Personally, I'd prefer to move the title back there, as it was for many years. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the consensus of the above RM apply to other articles where façade is linked, or just this article?
On a related note, in this edit summary, @Capmo says that the RM above should entail that "facade" should be spelled "façade" on other articles as well. Should that be the case?

For the record, I disagree with that edit summary, since I don't think the results of this RM should be used to justify spellings in other articles. Per facade, the variant without the cedilla seems to be preferred in American English (at the very least), compared with "façade". – Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, though personally I've always considered that "façade" is these days a rather pretentious Americanism. The RM closed as no consensus, so it's hard to see how it can dictate anything anywhere. Some busy tiny-edit specialists are going around "correcting" to "façade" elsewhere, but they should just be reverted. After 4 years, time for another RM? Meanwhile, both spellingts are acceptable. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another RM could be started, yes. However, I do agree that both spellings are acceptable, which is why I also don't really see the point of changing between "facade" and "façade" on other articles where one of these spellings is already used. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth pushing back when people are claiming that the title here sets the standard for the whole of Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Façade


text:
Talk:Celebration (party)

Maybe this should be made a disambiguation page. Why is it that articles on some topics are written by people who know only the most commonplace colloquial meaning of a word? If I say that the Parthenon is the most celebrated buidling in Athens, or that Einstein was a celebrated physicist, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury celebrates certain rites, I'm not writing about a party. Michael Hardy 19:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree (with the disambiguation or top-level + detail) page. Pavel Vozenilek 14:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a very low activity edit page - and the quality of the text is really off! Suggestion is that Celebration (party) remain for the personal level, and a new Celebration with a qualifying parenthesis word such as group or national be used. Will do it anyway User:SatuSuro 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Support. Celebration (party) should be merged to party then deleted. Everything that could or should be covered in celebration is and will be covered in party. 24.126.199.129 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Celebration (party)


text:
Shreepati Arcade

Shreepati Arcade is a residential skyscraper which was completed in 2002. It is located at Nana Chowk, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, just off Grant Road bridge in the heart of the city of Mumbai.

The building is 154 meters (500 ft) tall and contains 45 floors. There are six Swiss Schindler's lifts, high speed elevators of up to 4 metres per second, which take only 35 seconds to go from Ground to 45th floor. The Fire fighting safety systems within the building are totally automated. It has a sprinkler system, the main and kitchen doors are two hour fire rated and current flows through insulated wires in a 'bus bar' system. The skyscraper is earthquake resistant.

The club house of the Shreepati Arcade is equipped with a swimming pool, gymnasium, steam, sauna & jacuzzi. This building has a residence restriction that all residents must be vegetarian. This kind of practice is not considered unusual in India.

title: Shreepati Arcade


text:
Talk:Homosexuality and Quakerism

FUM and EFI
This article earlier mentioned that FUM and EFI had taken official stances condemning homosexuality. I was unable to find any reference for an official condemnation in any FUM document available on their website. Unfortunately, the wikipedia article, which seems to be the source of the statement that FUM and EFI had offically condemned homosexuality, has been copied by so many other sites that it is hard to dig up anything of fact via google.

I've done my best to describe the FUM view on this (not at all a unified one), but this article could use a good amount of editing and expansion by people more familiar with the debates in those meetings.

 * For you, I have hearsay from my monthly meeting. My understanding from this hearsay is that during the last triennial conference of FUM, representatives from Pacific Yearly Meeting (at least one of them) went to FUM and inquired about employees of FUM being fired for, well, I'm embarassed to report that FUM was taking this position at that time, for having sex outside of marriage, apparently because the person in question (and all of this is hearsay and I'm not party to any of the details) was having sex with eir monogamous partner of the same gender.  This was sex inside of a marriage that we in Pacific YM would have gladly celebrated and endorsed, but FUM fired the employee therefor.  If anyone would report to me that FUM is no longer taking such a stance against FUM's employees or potential employees, my heart would be gladdened to hear of it.  --arkuat (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

North America and FUM
FUM has condemned gays and lesbians being in leadership roles. They have done this in several minutes, including one in 1988. Most recently, FUM has experienced some division from the three original FUM-FGC yearly meetings; most notably this is the case with Baltimore Yearly Meeting (BYM). In 2002, BYM's then presiding clerk was excluded from leading a worship sharing group because he is in a committed relationship with another man. This resulted in deep hurt for Baltimore Yearly Meeting, resulting in BYM bringing forth a minute expressing this hurt and concern. FUM responded stating that its minute in 1988 states that gays and lesbians in active relationships are to be excluded from leadership positions. From that point, Baltimore Yearly Meeting has been trying to continue a relationship with FUM while staying true to its position of equality for people regardless of sexual orientation. At this time, BYM is developing an intervistation program. Artsygeek 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey Artsygeek -- can you provide links to online versions of these minutes and any news coverage of these issues? We would need them before we can put any of this info in the article. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No Problemo....here's an epistle BYM sent out concerning the issue, Here's the minutes of the 2002 Annual Session, (see page 12), wherein BYM begins wrestling with this issue: . See Minute Y2003-32 on this page for a note about a minute from FUM in the works: . See Minute I2003-35 on this page for said minute from FUM: .  BYM Friends Meetings began sending minutes to BYM around the time of Interim Meeting sessions in 2004: .  Several issues come up in the Summer Interim Meeting in 2004:  and at Annual Session 2004:  (Y2004-28). At fall sessions, 2004, Friends began considering how to fund FUM without funding its discrimination:  (I2004-35), there are reference to an Intervisitation program in Spring of 2005 (I2005-3) as well as the four-committee-committee convened to deal with budgetary issues related to this issue (I2005-7) .  At summer 2005 IM,  I2005-50, discusses other meetings' responses . I'll dredge up more of the stuff as I find it. (I may have to scan in (or, more likely just copy by hand) minutes from other Yearly Meetings on the issue if I can't find them on the net)  Artsygeek 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Several Yearly Meetings and one Monthly Meeting have expressed concern on this issue. Saint Petersburg Monthly Meeting:, Southeastern Yearly Meeting expressing concern in their annual epistle: , Canadian Yearly Meeting wrote a minute to FUM: , New England Yearly Meeting wrote up a "Minute of Exercise" on the issue and reiterated it in 2005, followed by a revision: (05-37, 05-47, 05-49, 05-60).  Hope that helps Artsygeek 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Artsygeek -- great. I'm actually kind of busy for the next couple of days. I encourage you to go ahead and add this stuff in yourself; if you don't have time, I'll probably get around to it later. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) -Okay, I'll start working on it tomorrow if I can get access to the net (I have no access whatsoever at home). I suppose it'll be an exercise in objectivity; I'm actively involved in the issue and have very strong feelings. Artsygeek 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! If it helps, take a look over things like WP:NPOV, and do your best to stay very close to just reporting what others have said (e.g., any value judgements should be attributed to an outside source.) Also, do your best to not let the discussion run on too long; try to find external sources that provide a fuller discussion and summarize them briefly -- the article has to cover the entire world! Anyway, I'm sure you'll do an excellent job. Sdedeo (tips) 03:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

-I started work on it tonight with a brief statement of facts. I also plan on setting up a page on BYM. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm co-clerk of the Religious Ed committee at BYM and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee for Gender and Sexual Diversity Concerns at BYM, and have taken public positions on the FUM-BYM issue. Artsygeek 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

-I'm not comfortable doing this for reasons of avoiding writing POV, but there probably should be something next to the bit about FGC that links to, which is the minute that FGC's Central Committee wrote in 2004; it's a pretty unambiguous statement.

In the interest of the testimony on truth I've changed ""with the majority (mostly Friends affiliated with programmed meetings) not approving" to "some..." I have no evidence before me to indicate a "majority" view one way or the other, nor is that how Friends decide things. --K6ncx 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was a teenager when the Friends of Jesus "discussion" happened. A "recorded minister" wrote a paper supporting it, he was disowned. The meeting was very tightly controlled, and clearly the decision was chosen by the clerk before discussion started. There was enough discussion to write a short position statement, which appeared at first only in the Yearly meeting minutes, but now is an appendix to the faith and practice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.189.32.89 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

more on NA and FUM
I have taken out the section specific about the history of the BYM, FUM discussions. I am of the opinion that it is too specific an event for this article. It is also not yet resolved, we don't need a running commentary on the very deliberate progress of Quaker process. Guardian 4 March, 2006

 * In general, be careful of deleting a paragraph wholesale; I have no problem with reducing its length or altering its content, but we should respect other's contributions and try to work with them unless they are totally useless -- not the case here I think. Sdedeo (tips) 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. To simply delete a paragraph wholesale because it is involved in ongoing discussion would nullify much of Wikipedia's content.  To say that "we don't need a running commentary on the very deliberate progress of Quaker process" as applied to this situation, or really any other is faulty on two points: one, the actions taken by BYM are not "progressing", they've been initiated and decided and thus need to be spoken of; two, this would prevent much of the content that was spoken in Quaker history about abolition, women's rights, and many anti-war action from being spoken.  Further, the issue of being "too specific" cannot be arbitrarily decided by one individual.

Africa, Latin America, Asia
Missing any info at all. My feeling is that Latin American and African meetings, being of the programmed sort and mostly under the care of FUM and EFI share the views of those two meetings. But it would be very interesting to get some real information on this!
 * I have visited with Friends in Africa and Latin America and can confirm that almost all who are part of ("under the care of" is incorrect terminology in this case) FUM and EFCI believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, there are small and scattered unprogrammed meetings that tend towards the beliefs of European and liberal North American Friends.  I will look for some references and post this, if you like. --Shadowfax37 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do your best to improve and source this stuff, we have nothing on it yet. And definitely correct terminology where it's wrong! Sdedeo (tips) 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) The journal Quaker Theology   carried extensive reports on Friends Church Kenya (an umbrella for the 17 FUM Yearly Meetings there) as a result of the 2012 6th World Conference of Friends held near Nakuru. Somebody feel like editing out a summary? Pablo.paz (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC) pablo

Copyvio
please refer to this users talk page for details. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 21:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * sigh, i need to learn the viable syntax for the edit summary. Heh, sorry. - R Lee E [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] (talk, contribs) 21:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

liberal vs. conservative
I found the language in the intro section to be confusing. It sounds like liberal = unprogrammed and conservative = programmed, which is not necessarilly true. And it sounds like liberal unprogrammed meetings are somehow "liberal" within the context of Quakerism, while programmed meetings are "conservative" within that context. But the programmed meetings are not conservative within that context, since they represent a departure from tradition and long-standing Quaker values of how a meeting should be. Those meetings which continue to be unprogrammed ("just like my momma and my grandpappy and my great-grandpappy before him") are actually "conservative" within the context of Quaker Sunday morning behavior. I think it will be good to make the point clearer that liberal/conservative are meant within a political context. So I am going to edit. Read it, somebody, please, and make sure it makes sense.  Sean Lotz   talk   17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * "It sounds like liberal = unprogrammed and conservative = programmed, which is not necessarilly true" -> ha! Especially since the Conservative YMs (OYM, NCYM(C), IYM(C) are all unprogrammed. I do find it weird to lump those three in with FGC Friends just for sharing a worship style. Macoafi (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers of Friends finding homosexuality abhorrent
I have added "[citation needed] " to this statement. "The views of Quakers toward homosexuality encompass a range from complete acceptance and celebration of same-sex marriages, to a small minority [citation needed] viewing homosexuality as abhorrent and sinful." Watching the Epistles from other Yearly Meetings, printed in the Documents in Advance of Britain Yearly Meeting (DiA) over several years, I come to the conclusion that no-one can assert "a small minority".

Certainly, many Gay Friends have felt themselves to be "a minority of One".

In DiA Britain YM 2007 (Epistles) there are several YMs that report this unresolved issue has troubled thir annual meeting and one where abhorrence has dominated their gathering.

I suggest that there is indeed great variance between the views of individual Friends and their various organisational structures, worldwide. If the editors of this article take into account the views of Friends whose first language is not English, then the difficulty in enumerating attitudes may become clearer. === Vernon White (talk)  17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Small minority cannot be true... SouthWest Yearly meeting, at 11,000 (mentioned in this article) is a bit more than a small minority.  In North American, EFI claims 41,000 (which is over 10% of the world's Quaker population --- though, it is arguable how 'Quaker' the group is)...  I believe EFI is a rather unified block.

 * From what I know -- Iowa Yearly Meeting and Indiana Yearly Meeting. (FUM) are much the same as the EFI meetings... Indiana and Western Yearly meeting were listed in this article as forbidding homosexual relationships. Indiana is not a minor Yearly meeting.  Minority thinks that Homosexuality is sinful might be true worldwide -- certainly in Europe -- but, in the USA, I doubt in Africa or South America. [I think, Quakers come close to tracking public opinion overall, but that's just a guess]. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.172.17 (talk • contribs)
 * The reference to "small minority" went with the statement that some Friends find homosexuality "abhorrent", there are many groups within FUM that forbid the relationships but do not go so far as to call it abhorrent, so the statement was not as far off as this poster suggests. I actually support the removal of the quantifier because the minority is not small in my experience, and it would require polling to find current numbers on this issue (which I've never seen done, I would also guess that Friends are close to their local populations on these issues).  I feel that Vernon is right; there is variance between the views of individuals and their organizations.  Friends business practices are inherently conservative (since you have to wait for the full sense of the group to change, not just the majority).  I've spoken with Friends from several of the YM's named in the anonymous post above that support full acceptance all Friends irregardless of their sexual orientation.  So I agree with the edits, but I don't think the degree of concern voiced above is fulling accurate. --Ahc 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Small minority? Maybe that is true in North America, probably not. Here is the real story. Friends are a tolerant group, and very compassionate group. They are presently trying to minister to the hurt expressed by gay and lesbian friends over the FUM hiring policy that went into place in the 1990's. There are many, many Friends in Kenya. Many more than there are in the Northeastern United States. They do not necessarily subscribe to the idea that being gay or lesbian is acceptable spiritual (let alone moral in any venue) behavior. However, because they are Kenyans, Northeastern American liberals just naturally assume that they are spriritually backwards, and in conversations, dismiss them entirely. It is a disquieting rhetoric that is unworthy of the name Friend. That is not an acceptible notion to mainstream Friends. Kenyan Friends would never be discounted in their faith by Friends that are not a part of a socio-political push for gay rights. This whole article is way ahead of it's time, not researched carefully, and not true to what The Society of Friends as a whole has yet to decide. These yearly meetings are being attended by large numbers of gays and lesbians so that these meetings are out of balance when compared to the population of Friends as a whole. It would be fair to say that Friends do not want to discriminate against gays and lesbians, in general, because of the Friends belief in equality in the eyes of God. However, there is a growing number of aetheist attenders at Friends Meetings that are just showing up to push the socio-political agenda. It is to the credit of Friends everywhere that gays and lesbians, and other social agenda promoters are received as well as they are, considering the blatant manipulation and pressuring that is going on, and the desire for censure of the heterosexual Friends that are not yet ready to fully accept homosexual behavior as moral. This article quotes Meetings' quieries and concerns from records yet those alone are misleading as to where and when and how this will all end. The best thing would be to say Friends are seeking clearness as to the concerns of their gay and lesbian members that are seeking equality and recognition, and that some Meetings have made full accomodations for those members, while others still wrestle with the issues. Jackspratfacts (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor
It seems to me that a link that appears as "Australia Yearly Meeting" should be about 'that' yearly meeting not yearly meetings in general. Buzzilla (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain YM
I hope that my amendments have corrected the spin of as previous editor and not introduced more errors. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 10:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OYM?
Anyone know the stand of the Ohio Yearly Meeting? It may be a valuable addition. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative), then their Book of Discipline does not mention the words homosexuality or gay. Ohio Valley YM BoD doesn't mention this topic either. Vernon White . . . Talk 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, meant the former. The reason why I ask is that the hardcopy of their Book of Discipline didn't mention it specifically.   Looks like the latest one doesn't either.  If it can be found out either way, it would be a good addition. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better ask them, then. There's an email link on their main page.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds like some research is in order. IIRC, Hamm's Quakers in America has some references to the variance stances of the meetings.  I'll take a look. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems a worship group was disowned in-mass for tolerating homosexual members (not at the YM level... and not appealed to the YM either.). There was a request to form a clearness committee to better understand the position of Christian scripture. (i.e. they intend to write a position statement eventually.) Should be an interesting process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.46.174 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Towards a Quaker View of Sex" has now been fully digitized and is available for everyone to read in conjunction with its 50th anniversary in 2013: http://LeavesOfGrass.Org/vos/frontcover.html. I would have added the link myself, but when I opened the sections to edit it, the editor textarea displayed as blank. Chairease (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Homosexuality and Quakerism. 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/20080208051112/http://quaker.ca:80/cfriend/cfriend-2007.html to http://www.quaker.ca/cfriend/cfriend-2007.html#20074
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050926133711/http://www.nwym.org:80/ to http://nwym.org

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) 04:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Homosexuality and Quakerism. 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/20110724201224/http://www.quaker.org.nz/publications/statement-of-affirmation-of-same-sex-relationships to http://www.quaker.org.nz/publications/statement-of-affirmation-of-same-sex-relationships
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224024625/http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/1964-quaker.html to http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/1964-quaker.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414211425/http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/fgc-news/lgbtq-minute.php to http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/fgc-news/lgbtq-minute.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413212200/http://www.npym.org/archives/minute1997_bgmarriage.html to http://npym.org/archives/minute1997_bgmarriage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050926133711/http://www.nwym.org/ to http://nwym.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326002729/http://www.bym-rsf.org/quakers///pubs/minutes/YM%20Minutes%202002.pdf to http://www.bym-rsf.org/quakers/pubs/minutes/YM%20Minutes%202002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706124511/http://www.dosima.org/communities/quakers to http://www.dosima.org/communities/quakers/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012112400/http://www.quakers-in-ireland.ie/principles/believe.htm to http://www.quakers-in-ireland.ie/principles/believe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106085540/http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/9811/values.htm to http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/9811/values.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717010037/http://www.efcsw.org/faithpractice_1d5d.html to http://www.efcsw.org/faithpractice_1d5d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003133600/http://www.neym.org/ministryandcounsel/NEYMsame-genderunionminutes05_6.pdf to http://www.neym.org/ministryandcounsel/NEYMsame-genderunionminutes05_6.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) 13:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Homosexuality and Quakerism. 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/20110722013637/http://fwccamericas.org/publications/images/fwcc_map_2007.gif to http://fwccamericas.org/publications/images/fwcc_map_2007.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303234453/http://www.quaker.org.uk/sites/default/files/Press-Release-310709-ymg-decision_0%20%281%29_0.doc to http://www.quaker.org.uk/sites/default/files/Press-Release-310709-ymg-decision_0%20%281%29_0.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413212200/http://www.npym.org/archives/minute1997_bgmarriage.html to http://npym.org/archives/minute1997_bgmarriage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050926133711/http://www.nwym.org/ to http://nwym.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326002729/http://www.bym-rsf.org/quakers///pubs/minutes/YM%20Minutes%202002.pdf to http://www.bym-rsf.org/quakers/pubs/minutes/YM%20Minutes%202002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706124511/http://www.dosima.org/communities/quakers to http://www.dosima.org/communities/quakers/

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) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and Quakerism. 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/20100419004750/http://www.quaker.org.uk/quaker-resources to http://www.quaker.org.uk/quaker-resources

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) 08:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dove and Cross. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435, USA.jpg

Number of quakers in Africa
This article states that 52% of Quakers live in Africa, and cites a 2012 source, but the article for Quakers states that 49% of Quakers live in Africa, citing a 2017 source. Shouldn't this be changed? Joseph Cale (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Joseph Cale, thanks for noticing this. Feel free to update the information based on the new source. With regards, AnupamTalk 12:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homosexuality and Quakerism


text:
The Twonky

The Twonky is a 1953 independently made American black-and-white science fiction/comedy film, produced by A.D. Nast, Jr., Arch Oboler, and Sidney Pink, written and directed by Arch Oboler, and starring Hans Conried, Gloria Blondell, Billy Lynn, and Edwin Max. The film was distributed by United Artists.

Plot
After seeing his wife (Janet Warren) off on her trip, Kerry West (Hans Conried), a philosophy teacher at a small-town college goes inside his home to contemplate his new purchase: a television set. Sitting down in his office, he places a cigarette in his mouth and is about to light it when a solid beam of light shoots from the television screen, lighting it for him. Absentmindedly unaware of what has taken place, it is only when the television subsequently lights his pipe that West realizes that his television is behaving abnormally.

West soon discovers that the television can walk and perform a variety of functions, including dishwashing, vacuuming, and card-playing. When the television deliveryman (Edwin Max) returns to settle the bill, the television materializes copies of a five-dollar bill in order to provide payment. Yet the television soon exhibits other, more controlling traits, permitting West only a single cup of coffee and breaking West’s classical music records in favor of military marches to which it dances. After West demonstrates the television to his friend Coach Trout (Billy Lynn), the coach declares the television set to be a “twonky”, the word he used as a child to label the inexplicable.

Trout concludes that the Twonky is actually a robot committed to serving West. When he tests this hypothesis by attempting to kick West, the Twonky paralyzes his leg. After tending to the coach, West attempts to write a lecture on the role of individualism in art, but the Twonky hits him with beams that alter his thoughts and censors his reading. When West attempts to give his lecture the next day, he finds himself unable to do more than ramble on about trivialities. Frustrated, West goes to the store from which his wife had ordered the television and demands that they take it back or exchange it.

Meanwhile, at West’s house, the coach summons members of the college's football team and orders them to destroy the Twonky. West arrives with the television deliveryman and his replacement set, only to find the players passed out in front of the machine. Upon being awakened by West, they appear to be in a hypnotic state mumbling that they have “no complaints,” a condition the Twonky soon inflicts on the deliveryman as well. Upstairs, Trout theorizes that the Twonky is from a future “super state” that uses such machines to control the population, which the Twonky soon demonstrates by walking into the room and altering his mind so that he no longer believes there to be a problem. As the now-fixed Trout attempts to leave, police storm into the house in response to a call made by the device seeking female companionship for West, followed by Treasury men tracking down the bogus $5 bills manufactured by the set. When the law enforcement officers attempt to arrest West, though, the Twonky places all of them in a trance, and they leave without complaint.

Frustrated, West escapes the house and returns drunk, only to have the Twonky return him to sobriety with a light beam. After his wife returns to see a visiting bill collector driven from their home by the machine, West decides to take action. Luring the device into his car, he attempts to crash it by a variety of means but is frustrated by the Twonky’s ability to control the vehicle. Spotting a vehicle parked alongside the road, West pulls over and abandons his car, hitching a ride from the other driver, an elderly Englishwoman. His relief at having escaped is soon negated by the woman’s erratic driving, and by the discovery that the Twonky was able to hide in the trunk. When the Twonky attempts to stop the woman’s reckless driving, it precipitates a crash that destroys itself.

Cast

 * Hans Conried as Kerry West
 * Janet Warren as Carolyn West
 * Billy Lynn as Coach Trout
 * Edwin Max as the Television Deliveryman
 * Gloria Blondell as the Bill Collector
 * Evelyn Beresford as Old Lady Motorist
 * Bob Jellison as the TV Shop Owner
 * Norman Field as the Doctor
 * Stephen Roberts as Head Treasury Agent
 * Connie Marshall as Susie
 * William Phipps as Student
 * Lenore Kingston as Offended Phone Operator #2
 * Alice Backes as Offended Phone Operator #1
 * Brick Sullivan as Cop
 * Florence Ravenel as Nurse

Production
The Twonky was based on the 1942 short story by established science fiction writers Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore, writing under their joint pseudonym Lewis Padgett. It first was published in September 1942 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. Arch Oboler completed the film in 1951, but it did not find a distributor at the time. After he finished the 3D film Bwana Devil (1952), The Twonky was finally released by United Artists. Hans Conried, a noted character actor later in his career, had his first leading role in the film.

Reception
The Twonky did poorly at the box office; critics saw the poor production values as a major problem. When interviewed in 1970, Hans Conried recalled that he told the producer that The Twonky would probably bomb at the box-office (which it did), whereupon the producer genially replied "That's all right. I need a tax write-off this year anyway." The Twonky is recognized today as a cult film.

title: The Twonky