text:
Talk:The Death Gate Cycle

Sourcing
I've been slowly working on sourcing comments made by other users and removing those that seemed to be individual speculation. However, I can't (and shouldn't have to) do this alone, so please assist with sourcing where in the novels your information comes from, or what researcher/essayist presented the theory you're referring to, or where Weis/Hickman commented on their intentions, etc. -- Immora 07:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section
Information in the Trivia section can be integrated into this article or into the separate book articles; for instance, the information about Zifnab's character function could be explored in a characters section on the Elven Star article. Information about the name origins might belong in a Linguistics or other section, and would include the background to names and terms such as mensch, Xar, tytans, and so on. The musical score reference in the "Trivia" section is currently irrelevant.

Please do not delete the information in the Trivia section without allowing editors the opportunity to discuss and better integrate the details there. -- Immora 07:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken Links?
It seems as though the first two links are broken --previously unsigned comment by 65.189.214.222 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I presume you refer to the external links. The first link works for me, the second doesn't. It could be a temporary problem. I suggest we wait a week to see if it gets back, if not it can be deleted. --Fogeltje 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The second link is broken, I removed it. - JNighthawk 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * DGCO has been down for several months, unfortunately. I'll re-add them if they return. If the link to my site (The Gate Will Open) ever doesn't work, it's because I'm having server troubles. No intentions to close the site. - User:Immora 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Appendices
there needs to be a refrence to the use of appendices in the books and the allusions of rune magic and quantum mechanics and the uncertinty princliples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.69.68 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

In the Future
Many years ago, the powerful Sartan ended a war by sundering the world into four elemental worlds

Didn't this turn out to have happened in our future after a nuclear war that gave the Sartan and Patryns their power and mutated humans into dwarves and elves? --previously unsigned comment by 142.35.144.2 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As far as I recall you are corrected as far as the Sartan and Patryn go. I can't remember exactly how dwarves and elves came to be. The article itself states now that elves and dwarves went into hiding during our Renaissance, but I can't recall if this is correct. I assume it is, it has been a long time since I read the books. The books indeed happens in our future. But the text 'Many years ago' refers to the book's current time, which is many years after the sundering and thus further in our future. But from the books' POV, the sundering is in their history. --Fogeltje 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Fire Sea revealed that the elves and dwarves went into hiding during our Renaissance. Time references in the article are from the standpoint of the books, rather than our present (which is in their distant past) --User:Immora 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The assumption that the pre-sundering war between the Patryns and Sartan was nuclear oversteps what it stated in the books. Johnrpack (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Before the Books
It's my understanding the Lord Xar was the first Patryn to set foot in the Nexus.. not the first person... I believe it is eluded that Zifnab is the first person, and it is he who wrote the tomes of books that Xar studied.... am I wrong in this? and if I'm right, I can't figure the best way to reword the paragraph containing the error... --Graatz 12:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If I remember correctly, weren't all non-Sartans and non-Patryns considered mensch? --Yodaj007 04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The mensch are what the Sartan and Patryn regard as the lesser races: humans, elves and dwarves. --Fogeltje 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Books - Article too long?
When I was editting today, I got a notice that the article is over 62 kb. That's not a problem for me, but I read through the descriptions of why this can be an issue for some browsers and slower modems. Should we keep the article as large as it is? Or should the book sections be turned into their own separate articles for each individual book? It's definitely gotten lengthy with this book-based versus character/world-based overhaul! -- Immora 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the same when I found the page today.. not sure what the best way of doing it would be. It might also make the content a little more accessible; perhaps ten screens of unbroken text (on my monitor) can be daunting! -- Mithent 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds like it's probably an issue if someone else is noticing it. I haven't had time to do my edits of "The Seventh Gate" yet since I got busier with school, but I should be able to think more on this once those are done (unless someone has a good idea before then!) That's quite a lot of text for you to deal with! What resolution are you running? -- Immora 03:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I noticed the same thing. I should have some time later this week (if I'm ambitious) and I'll see if I can either pare the article down, or create new pages for each of the books.  Beatdown 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vague
The article doens't explain very much about how this fantasy world works. For example it says: "Haplo is sent to this world and discovers, much to his alarm, that Alfred has somehow infiltrated the Nexus and stowed away on his ship. Before he can do anything, however, the vessel passes through Death's Gate, and their consciousnesses switch" why? What happens when someone goes through the gate? And why does it have such an omnious name ("DEATH's Gate")? --previously unsigned comment by 82.76.30.78 19:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Tytans?
I have started the 3rd book, Fire Sea (I'm at when Haplo, Alfred, the Duke and the Duchess, and Pons have arrived at Necropolisa), and there issomething that still bothers me - Who are the Tytans? What significance do they have in the story? Why are they so bent on finding the Citadel? Why did the Sartan give them B-Grade rune magic? Why did they get really angry when Haplo mentioned "Sartan"? and so on, and so forth.

Perhaps it is because I didn't read carfully and missed some crucial info. (If that is the case, please enlighten me). If not, and more is to be revealed in the later books, please say so, so I know I just have to be patient and keep reading.

Thank You --presiously unsigned comment by 66.146.150.239 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * As far as I recall, the Tytans were created by the Sartan to operate the Citadel to provide power for the other world. They were giving rune magic for protection and to operate since they have no eyes if I'm correctly. It has been a while since I last read the books, so I might be mistaken. --Fogeltje 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading, the answer will come - but not in book 3. It may shock and surprise you! Sartan 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually Book 2 explains alot of the Tytans. *Spolier warning*. Sartans created them to operate the Citadels, and gave them Rune magic to help with just that, Btw they are blind due to the massive amount of Light/Engery in the heart of the citadel. The Humans, Elves and Dwarwes started bickering. Sartans comissioned the Tytans to police them. Tytans was jelous of the Humans, Elves and Dwarwes cause they had eyes, or something similar. They ran away. Everything went bad, and the Humans, Elves and Dwarwes got sent out. 62.220.161.10 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Ohh, and they (the Tytans) got lost and is now killing anyone that doesn't know where the Citadels are. 62.220.161.10 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Existence of God
I'm currently rereading this series and I feel that one of the most important themes spanning the series is the existence of a higher power; a single diety described as "the One who guides the Wave". In fact, the discovery of "God" by the Sartans on earth divides the previously one-minded Sartans and is a major cause leading to the sundering of the world, in an attempt to restore order, while centuries later the (re)discovery in the Chamber of the Doomed on Abarrach leads to rise to power of the Kleitus dynasty.

This seems to contradict the article which states that "the existence of a god or gods in The Death Gate Cycle is unknown; a universal balance is the closest thing to divinity".

Note that this theme isn't introduced until the third book (Fire Sea) and is expanded upon in the fourth (Serpent Mage). Incidently this is where I currently am, so I'll probably come back here after I finished the series. It may be that the theme is abandoned in the later books (I honestly don't recall) but if it's not (and maybe even if it is) the article should be corrected to incorporate this important motive.

Fair use rationale for Image:DeathGateCycle.gif
Image:DeathGateCycle.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler metropolis
Guys, I am sure this intro can be written as NPOV without containing massive spoilers for plot elements not revealed until the sixth book of a seven book cycle. It's like someone wrote a precis of The Old Man And The Sea which starts "The story of a great meal had by sharks at the expense of an unlucky Cuban fisherman".

User:Conflatuman 218.186.12.201 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * In my eyes, the introduction is fine, it does not give massive spoilers actually. It gives a short description of the series without giving away things like the ending.--Fogeltje (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, to spell it out -- The main conflict is between two powerful races, the Sartan and the Patryns (spoiler - 2nd or 3rd book), which branched off from humans following a nuclear holocaust (spoiler - 7th book). Centuries prior to the events of the series, the Sartan attempted to end the conflict by sundering the earth into four elemental realms, and imprisoning the Patryn in a fifth prison world, the Labyrinth (2nd or 3rd). The Sartan took up stewardship of the elemental realms, but soon mysteriously lost contact with each other and disappeared. Centuries later, a Patryn known as Xar escaped the Labyrinth, and started returning to the Labyrinth to rescue others (5th or 6th). He learned how to access the other worlds and dreamed of freeing all his people from the Labyrinth and conquering the other worlds. The books follow the fiercely independent Haplo, a Patryn agent (not revealed until 3rd or 4th) sent to scout the elemental worlds and throw them into chaos in preparation for his Lord's conquest of them ... Conflatuman (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Corhen
I knoticed that there was no reference of Alfreds True name in this article, that is, "Corhen"... He reveals it shortly before the assult of the Town at the center of the labyrnth.... as i use the name Corhen as my online handle, i have intrest in that blank spot being filled out Corhen (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually his name is "Coren", which supposedly means chosen or chooser in the Sartan language. I don't see it's relevance in an encyclopedia entry however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkyhotay (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Patryn Society
I think this segment would benefit from an expansion showing the two branches of Patryn society: "Runners" who traverse the Labyrinth alone and the villagers who ban together to form cohesive societal units while still moving through the Labyrinth, albeit at a slower pace. I can't remember the name given to the villagers though I want to say squatters. I believe it's covered in the first book. Miconis (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Miconis

title: Talk:The Death Gate Cycle


text:
Polaritonics

Polaritonics is an intermediate regime between photonics and sub-microwave electronics (see Fig. 1). In this regime, signals are carried by an admixture of electromagnetic and lattice vibrational waves known as phonon-polaritons, rather than currents or photons. Since phonon-polaritons propagate with frequencies in the range of hundreds of gigahertz to several terahertz, polaritonics bridges the gap between electronics and photonics. A compelling motivation for polaritonics is the demand for high speed signal processing and linear and nonlinear terahertz spectroscopy. Polaritonics has distinct advantages over electronics, photonics, and traditional terahertz spectroscopy in that it offers the potential for a fully integrated platform that supports terahertz wave generation, guidance, manipulation, and readout in a single patterned material.

Polaritonics, like electronics and photonics, requires three elements: robust waveform generation, detection, and guidance and control. Without all three, polaritonics would be reduced to just phonon-polaritons, just as electronics and photonics would be reduced to just electromagnetic radiation. These three elements can be combined to enable device functionality similar to that in electronics and photonics.

Illustration

To illustrate the functionality of polaritonic devices, consider the hypothetical circuit in Fig. 2 (right). The optical excitation pulses that generate phonon-polaritons, in the top left and bottom right of the crystal, enter normal to the crystal face (into the page). The resulting phonon-polaritons will travel laterally away from the excitation regions. Entrance into the waveguides is facilitated by reflective and focusing structures. Phonon-polaritons are guided through the circuit by terahertz waveguides carved into the crystal. Circuit functionality resides in the interferometer structure at the top and the coupled waveguide structure at the bottom of the circuit. The latter employs a photonic bandgap structure with a defect (yellow) that could provide bistability for the coupled waveguide.

Waveform generation
Phonon-polaritons generated in ferroelectric crystals propagate nearly laterally to the excitation pulse due to the high dielectric constants of ferroelectric crystals, facilitating easy separation of phonon-polaritons from the excitation pulses that generated them. Phonon-polaritons are therefore available for direct observation, as well as coherent manipulation, as they move from the excitation region into other parts of the crystal. Lateral propagation is paramount to a polaritonic platform in which generation and propagation take place in a single crystal. A full treatment of the Cherenkov-radiation-like terahertz wave response reveals that in general, there is also a forward propagation component that must be considered in many cases.

Signal detection
Direct observation of phonon-polariton propagation was made possible by real-space imaging, in which the spatial and temporal profiles of phonon-polaritons are imaged onto a CCD camera using Talbot phase-to-amplitude conversion. This by itself was an extraordinary breakthrough. It was the first time that electromagnetic waves were imaged directly, appearing much like ripples in a pond when a rock plummets through the water's surface (see Fig. 3). Real-space imaging is the preferred detection technique in polaritonics, though other more conventional techniques like optical Kerr-gating, time resolved diffraction, interferometric probing, and terahertz field induced second-harmonic generation are useful in some applications where real-space imaging is not easily employed. For example, patterned materials with feature sizes on the order of a few tens of micrometres cause parasitic scattering of the imaging light. Phonon-polariton detection is then only possible by focusing a more conventional probe, like those mentioned before, into an unblemished region of the crystal.

Guidance and control
The last element requisite to polaritonics is guidance and control. Complete lateral propagation parallel to the crystal plane is achieved by generating phonon-polaritons in crystals of thickness on the order of the phonon-polariton wavelength. This forces propagation to take place in one or more of the available slab waveguide modes. However, dispersion in these modes can be radically different from that in bulk propagation, and in order to exploit this, the dispersion must be understood.

Control and guidance of phonon-polariton propagation may also be achieved by guided wave, reflective, diffractive, and dispersive elements, as well as photonic and effective index crystals that can be integrated directly into the host crystal. However, lithium niobate, lithium tantalate, and other perovskites are impermeable to the standard techniques of material patterning. In fact, the only etchant known to be even marginally successful is hydrofluoric acid (HF), which etches slowly and predominantly in the direction of the crystal optic axis.

Laser Micromachining
Femtosecond laser micromachining is used for device fabrication by milling 'air' holes and/or troughs into ferroelectric crystals by directing them through the focus region of a femtosecond laser beam. . The advantages of femtosecond laser micromachining for a wide range of materials have been well documented. In brief, free electrons are created within the beam focus through multiphoton excitation. Because the peak intensity of a femtosecond laser pulse is many orders of magnitude higher than that from longer pulse or continuous wave lasers, the electrons are rapidly excited, heated to form a quantum plasma. Particularly in dielectric materials, the electrostatic instability, induced by the plasma, of the remaining lattice ions results in ejection of these ions and hence ablation of the material, leaving a material void in the laser focus region. Also, since the pulse duration and ablation time scales are much faster than the thermalization time, femtosecond laser micromachining does not suffer from the adverse effects of a heat-affected-zone, like cracking and melting in regions neighboring the intended damage region.

External references

 * David W. Ward: Polaritonics: An Intermediate Regime between Electronics and Photonics, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005. This is the main reference for this article.
 * David W. Ward: Polaritonics: An Intermediate Regime between Electronics and Photonics, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005. This is the main reference for this article.
 * David W. Ward: Polaritonics: An Intermediate Regime between Electronics and Photonics, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005. This is the main reference for this article.

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

title: Polaritonics


text:
Nostro and vostro accounts

Nostro and vostro (from Italian, nostro and vostro; English, 'ours' and 'yours') are accounting terms used to distinguish an account held for another entity from an account another entity holds. The entities in question are usually banks.

The terms nostro and vostro are used, mainly by banks, when one bank keeps money at another bank (in a correspondent account often called a nostro or vostro account). Both banks need to keep records of how much money is being kept by one bank on behalf of the other. In order to distinguish between the two sets of records of the same balance and set of transactions, banks refer to the accounts as nostro and vostro. Speaking from the point of view of the bank whose money is being held at another bank:

 * A nostro is our account of our money (in which country you are staying), held by the other bank or "Foreign Bank".
 * A vostro is our account of other bank / "Foreign Bank's" money, held by us (by your country's bank)

A vostro account is a record of money held by a bank or owed to a bank by a third party (an individual, company or bank).

The nostro account is a way of keeping track of how much of the bank’s money is being held by the other bank. This is similar to an individual keeping a detailed record of every payment in and out of his or her bank account so that she/he knows the balance at any point in time.

Base description
In normal usage:
 * A nostro account is in foreign currency (a record of funds held by a bank in another country in the currency of that country) i.e. a bank in country A keeping a record of money held by a bank in country B, in the currency of country B.
 * A vostro account is in the local currency of the bank where the money is being held i.e. it is the bank in country B's record of the money kept by the bank from country A with it.

For these accounts, the domestic bank is acting like a custodian or managing the accounts of a foreign counterpart. These accounts are utilized for facilitating the settlements of forex and foreign trades.

A client bank elects to open an account with another facilitator bank. The facilitator bank will assist the client bank in making payments in its country's currency, usually using its own access to primary clearing arrangements (generally with the central bank in the country where the currency is considered a local currency). In some cases, the facilitator bank may not be a primary clearing member but they will have the ability to make payments in local currency, possibly through another bank in the same country.

Loro accounts
There is also the notion of a loro account ("theirs"), which is a record of an account held by a second bank on behalf of a third party; that is, my record of their account with you. In practice this is rarely used, the main exception being complex syndicated financing.

In the same style as above:
 * A loro is our account of their money, held by you.

Conventions
A bank counts a nostro account with a debit balance as a cash asset in its balance sheet. Conversely, a vostro account with a credit balance (i.e. a deposit) is a liability, and a vostro with a debit balance (a loan) is an asset. Thus in many banks a credit entry on an account ("CR") is regarded as negative movement, and a debit ("DR") is positive - the reverse of usual commercial accounting conventions.

With the advent of computerized accounting, nostros and vostros just need to have opposite signs within any one bank's accounting system; that is, if a nostro in credit has a positive sign, then a vostro in credit must have a negative sign. This allows for a reconciliation by summing all accounts to zero (a trial balance) – the basic premise of double-entry bookkeeping.

Typical usage
Nostro accounts are mostly commonly used for currency settlement, where a bank or other financial institution needs to hold balances in a currency other than its home accounting unit.

For example: First National Bank of A does some transactions (loans, foreign exchange, etc.) in USD, but banks in A will only handle payments in AUD. So FNB of A opens a USD account at foreign bank Credit Mutuel de B, and instructs all counter-parties to settle transactions in USD at "account no. 123456 in name of FNBA, at CMB, X Branch". FNBA maintains its own records of that account, for reconciliation; this is its nostro account. CMB's record of the same account is the vostro account.

Now, FNBA sells AUD1,000,000 to C (a counterparty who has an AUD account with FNBA, and a USD account with CMB) for a net consideration of USD2,000,000. FNBA will make the following entries in its own accounting system:

Over at CMB, they record the following transaction:

If C does not have an account directly with FNBA's corresponding bank, the funds may be transferred within the banking system of country B by cheque or some form of electronic funds transfer (EFT). In this case CMB will make entries on several other accounts, such as a teller's receiving account, or a clearing account with the third bank holding C's account.

title: Nostro and vostro accounts


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH

Case Opened on 19 February 2005

Case Closed on 12 March 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties
Xtra, petitioner

v.

PSYCH (AKA user:210.50.249.123, user:210.50.40.50, user:210.50.41.212, user:210.50.201.231, user:210.50.218.97, user:210.50.41.61, user:210.50.45.7, user:210.50.45.52, user:203.134.133.52, user:210.50.112.28), respondent

Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words

This Request for Arbitration against PSYCH covers two grounds.

One – That PSYCH has spent all his time on wikipedia engaging in personal attacks against me.

Two – That, to further his aims, he has posted on other websites to get people to join his crusade against me.

On the first ground -

The incidents started after I reverted an incorrect edit to the Liberal Party of Australia page. A few days later I posted a reputable source for this. In addition, all users posting to talk:Liberal Party of Australia, bar an anonymous editor agreed with me.

Examples of comments by those agreeing with me,.

One of the original comments of the anonymous user.

An example of PSYCH claiming that it is in fact I that disagree with everyone

The anonymous user is PSYCH. For one, PSYCH admitted it, (the other guy referred to is Buffy05).

The IP addresses that PSYCH has posted from include: user:210.50.249.123, user:210.50.40.50, user:210.50.41.212, user:210.50.201.231, user:210.50.218.97, user:210.50.41.61, user:210.50.45.7, user:210.50.45.52, user:203.134.133.52.

PSYCH claims that I started it all when I questioned why he didn’t get into a certain uni.

However, the evidence differs. PSYCH questioned the truth of my claim to be studying law and I replied by saying that I would not make the same comments about him.

With regards to the comments made on talk:Liberal Party of Australia, all the posts, except for the top one, which are not signed are by PSYCH.

After PSYCH got a user account, he posted numerous things on my talk page. He calls me a Nazi, which as a person with relatives who lived through the holocaust, I find highly offensive. Raul654 then warns him not to make such posts. So PSYCH removes the reference to Nazi. I thank him for removing it. So just to prove that he only removed it to avoid punishment PSYCH posted the following inflammatory statement:

“ Calling you something that rhymes with "Mazi" wasn't innacurate, I just didn't want to get banned so I decided to remove it. I think the burden is on you to prove why you're not a (rhymes with "Mazi") because your politcal views closely resemble those of a (rhymes with "Mazi"), your suspicious views on gay marriage and gay adoption speak volumes (when according to you, gays have "plenty of rights."). - PSYCH 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) “

,

If PSYCH was also a valid contributor to wikipedia such indiscretions may be forgivable. However, other than the incorrect post that he made to Liberal Party of Australia as an anonymous user, his only activities with wikipedia have been to attack me. In fact, for the first six days after receiving his user account, PSYCH does not make a single contribution to the article space. He only starts contributing to the article space &  after being told off for not contributing by RickK. One of those three edits that PSYCH has made to the article space was in fact to re-insert some of the POV to the Liberal Party page that he was told by numerous users was incorrect (see above).

On the second ground –

It appears as though PSYCH has posted on another website to get people, who are not otherwise wikipedians, to join his attacks on me. See. Here is the threat that he made as while he was an anonymous user to that effect.

In conclusion:

PSYCH wastes my time and the time of other users by creating bogus arbitrations, mediations , and posts inflammatory comments on my talk page. A user with such little real contributions and so many personal attacks and acting in such bad faith deserves to be disciplined and I would suggest, such disciple should include some sort of editing restrictions.

I would have preferred not to have taken this to arbitration, but it is consuming too much of my time and RickK told me it was the only way to solve it,. Jwrosenzweig recommended this be taken to arbitration as mediation was not going to work.

Thank you for your consideration. Xtra 01:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
User Xtra initially started the personal attacks by reverting and being critical of a single revert. He then launched his first personal attack, stating: i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from.

He then became critical and asked me why I wasn't good enough to get into his university. That was the moment he clearly started the personal attacks. By asking whether he was actually at Melbourne uni I was simply asking him a question after he had updated his page seconds after talking to me. It was a statement, but he originally initiated the personal attacks.

He has then launched further personal attacks accusing me of being other users on Wikipedia, stating that he asked a "developer" to find out whether I were other users. This is a serious personal attack and invasion of privacy.

He has then launched into personal attacks against other users aswell, for example, Xtra stated: ''just a comment. Ozguy is a new user, with this being his only edit. suspect is sockpuppet of PSYCH. Xtra 03:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)'' link

So not only is he attacking me, he's also resorting to attacking other contributing Wikipedia users who agree with me.

I also objected to Xtra's NPOV. He himself is a supporter of the Liberal Party, and yet is the main editor of the Liberal Party Page on wikipedia. I find it hard to fathom how he can present a neutral, factual account of the same political party he himself admires.

Finally, user Xtra has posted factually innaccurate and offensive comments on his talk page about homosexual rights. According to him, homosexuals have many "rights" under the liberal party and should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. According to him, gays do not want civil rights including gay marriage, stating: "marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda" which is an insult to gay rights in Australia. This is not his comment to make when he is a social conservative, and cannot possibly know what civil rights gay activists are seeking.

He also insists that I only use partial truths, a further insult. The Liberal Party have indeed blocked any hope of a gay marriage ban under the notion that marriage is a contract to reproduce, which I linked to here. This is fat, There is also a move by the liberal party to have a discussion about the legality of abortion, and won't stop a private members bill. Note that this parliamentary discussion is solely initiated by the Liberal Party, which contradicts Xtra's claim.

There is also false information about immigration. The current Liberal Party Leader has previously stated his racially motivated anti-Asian immigration views [u]*N.B. reg' required to view source[/u]. And now immigrants are forced into detention centres, or a involved in a propaganda campaign such as the children overboard controversy and the [ http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/13/1108229835608.html wrongful imprisonment of an Australian woman] with a German Accent in an immigration detention centre.

I used the term Nazi as a simile to the Liberal Party's conservative stance on gay rights, which are very much alike, which resemble Xtra's beliefs, and was not aware that it was against the rules. Mea Culpa.

Xtra is also incorrect with his opinion over neoliberalism. He seems to think that Neoliberalism andsocial conervativism are mutually exclusive political beliefs, when they are not. By his own words he claims that there is a conservative group and a neoliberal group within the Liberal party, when in fact neoliberals are typically socially conservative individuals anyway.

Xtra was also unwilling to undergo mediation to settle this dispute, when offered numerous times by me. - PSYCH 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finally, Xtra has misrepresented user Jwrosenzweig's words. He or she never ordered us to go to arbitration, but rather said "....Anyone who wants to further pursue matters with Xtra should either file an RFC concerning his conduct or else seek Arbitration." Xtra chose arbitration.

The best scenario, unfortunately, would be to block both me, PSYCH, and Xtra from Wikipedia. Xtra's behaviour is not what one would expect from a "member of The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and member of The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians."

- PSYCH 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

 * 1) Accept. I believe this is bad enough to warrant hearing. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:25, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * 2) Reject — take the earlier steps in dispute resolution before pursuing arbitration ➥the Epopt 04:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept. This has dragged on for a while, and mediation is still broken (indeed, it appears that committee's chair suggested he take it here). That said, I strongly suggest that people making arbitration requests not place the request on a subpage. Ambi 04:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Accept for arbitration regarding content of the article Fred Bauder 14:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't arbitrate content; you should know that by now... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:24, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept. Neutralitytalk 15:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. Nohat 07:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Avoid personal attacks
1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.

 * Passed 8-0.

Editing from anonymous IPs
2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.

 * Passed 8-0.

Proper use of article talk pages
3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.

 * Passed 7-0.

Content of Wikipedia articles
4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.

 * Passed 8-0.

Personal viewpoints
5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See No original research and Neutral point of view.

 * Passed 8-0.

Personal attacks
1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see, , , and "liar"

 * Passed 8-0.

Anonymous ips
2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).

 * Passed 8-0.

Focus of controversy
3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and.

 * Passed 8-0.

Generalizations
4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal,, , , , , , ,

 * Passed 8-0.

Heated debate
5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"

 * Passed 8-0.

Reaction by other editors
6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.

 * Passed 8-0.

Continued debate by PSYCH
7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".

 * Passed 8-0.

Australian Liberal Party policies
8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum,, and

 * Passed 8-0.

Insults and discourtesy toward PSYCH
9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense",  "get a life" and

 * Passed 6-2.

Using the talk page as a forum
10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article,, , , and

 * Passed 7-0.

Personal information regarding Xtra
11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added and

 * Passed 8-0.

Archiving recent posts
12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted, reverted, he archived it again.

 * Passed 8-0.

Threat to revert
13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot."

 * Passed 8-0.

Failure to research the topic and cite references
14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Requests_for_comment does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful

 * Passed 6-1.

PSYCH - personal attack parole
1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

 * Passed 8-0.


text:
Talk:Beowulf cluster

Origin of name
"The name comes from the legend of Beowulf."

How come? The relationship between a superhuman warrior and distributed computing seems somewhat vague to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.217.7 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 February 2005

 * I wa wondering the same myself. The closest I have found is this beowulf.org. Billlion 15:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It's been six (!) years since I read Beowulf, so my memory is a big hazy. But I believe Beowulf was an incredibly strong warrior who got a Giant's sword. So he could supposedly kill any enemy, if he were 'strong' enough. A distributed computing system, if it were 'big' enough could supposedly solve any problem. (Of course, so too could an ancient, slow computer given enough time. Then again, wind blowing at the enemy would eventually blow away all of his cells). In any case, I doubt there was supposed to be a very exact correlation but if you can't see any connection between a very powerful person and a very powerful computer then you are an idiot. --Carbonrodney 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What Is Funny About /. Jokes?
There are constant humorous references to Beowulf Cluster on slashdot.com. Will someone explain what the inside joke is, and what is so funny about it? User:Prophetben 8 August 2005

 * Nothing is "funny" about it - pathetic, perhaps, but not funny - that died a long time ago. The origin of the "joke" came about shortly after the first Beowulf clusters were announced - thereafter every time a new, more powerful CPU or computer was announced on Slashdot, somebody would say "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those". At first such statements were valid, if somewhat vacuous - then like so many other trolls it just became Yet Another Stupid Thing To Post. N0YKG 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples
I removed the two examples of @home projects because they are not Beowulf clusters. They are examples of clusters and distributed computing but not Beowulf. Lotu 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the Univeristy of Bristol's statistics cluster is an example see http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/admin/computer/scone It's a 24 CPU around 50GB of RAM, it's pretty modern so it might be a good example, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More Depth Please
I was still left with a few unanswered questions - mainly, simply "Why?" - the answer I assume is performance related, but it would be nice to know more about that - e.g. optimum number of machines in the cluster, How performance increases per machine etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.184.57 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 March 2006

 * optimum number? it depends on the task... if it is really large and easily splittable then as many computers as you can link up. if the task is small or they can't be split, then just one computer will execute best. so basically, if you have a lot of nodes in the cluster then chance is the optimum number of nodes will be reached. note also, you cannot really 'overshoot' as tasks are divided in such a way as to avoid this.
 * performance doesn't increase normally per machine. the whole system's maximum performance can be much better (as a complicated sum based on processing power but limited by memory and network delays)
 * As for "Why": yes, any task (computation) that requires a 'supercomputer'... eg: large prime finding, astronomic calculations, clustering (the other type, as in clustering vectors) or ray-tracing and many other graphics computations, or just to run Oblivion with milisecond load time. :D
 * --Carbon Rodney

 * Why? Consider this: you can buy a 3GHz PC for say $1000. You cannot buy a 6GHz PC, but you could pay much more than $2000 for a liquid-nitrogen cooled supercomputer. However, you can buy two 3GHz machines for $2000, network them to work together, and for a distibutable application you get the effect of 6GHz cheap. Scientific laboratories do this on a large scale, see e.g. High Performance Computing (HPC). One fun game is to maximize TeraFLOPS per dollar.
 * And Carbon, how do you load Oblivion on your Beowulf? WINE? Could Vanguard have less lag if I loaded the client on HPC? Pete St.John 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If you can get some form of Linux on which WINE will run for the cluster, then you have a machine on which you can game. With enough processor power, you would not need a GPU, because software rendering would be fast enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

 * In fairness clusters are NOT at all suited to real time graphics, in fact it's almost a perfect example of how spending a lot of money on a single system is a much better solution. The reason HagermanBot is the how quickly two compute nodes can transfer information - passing data from one computer to another via a network (even if it's a particularly low latency example) is MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than an internal CPU - GPU - RAM configuration in an INDIVIDUAL machine... Clusters are awesome, but don't kid yourself into thinking gaming is an application for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The Oblivion example was just a joke :) Be aware though, that a Beowulf cluster with 2x 3GHz machines will only approach 6GHz computation power in the absolute best case scenario. That is, the task can be split into two completely independent streams, and there is no need to communicate between the two machines, and the preprocessing and postprocessing time and resources are negligible in comparison to the tasks --Carbonrodney (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly unlimited
What is nearly unlimited? 10^10, 10^100? Non-sensical statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.83.170 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 July 2006

 * People usually mean by that, "most folks won't run into significant limits during ordinary use". If I say "a claw hammer lasts forever" I don't mean that it will outlive the Big Crunch, only that carpenters don't worry about the Mean Time To Failure of claw-hammers, but about other things more urgent. It's OK if we use conversational idiom when it won't be mistaken for precise science Pete St.John 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Home "Build"
I reverted the caption of an image from "low cost home built" back to "home build". Two things: first, "build" is used by engineers as a noun as in this case, meaning "the built thing" (as opposed to "building" which connotes something large like a house). Also, "low-cost" is redundant with the definition of Beowulf. I don't like to be so picky (there are plenty of editors around who specialize in that :-) but since both elements of the change were a bit weak I just reverted.Pete St.John 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, Beowulf is now the selected article
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was LyX. Gronky 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Things have moved on, as they nearly always do, and the new selectee is the article on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. --Gronky 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

XGrid Beowulf or not?
Is Apple's XGrid a Beowulf cluster? It's distributed, UNIX-based and FOSS on the underside. Xgrid's page mentions it ran on OPENSTEP as well, so there must have been FOSS implementaiton of Xgrid as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.248.233 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf and Windows ??? Is this possible?
hi..!

I read an article on linking Beowulf clusters with Microsoft Windows using a middleware called Active computing interface (ACI). I would like to know, whether it is possible to work on Beowulf clusters with Windows as a platform? and if it is, can anyone tell me more technical details of it? Do we still call it a Beowulf Cluster?

The link for the article is: http://hpcnc.cpe.ku.ac.th/publication/publication/Publication%20Files/LINKING%20BEOWULF%20CLUSTERS%20AND%20WINDOWS%20ENVIRONMENT%20USING%20A%20MIDDLEWARE%20APPROACH.pdf

--- Priyank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.84.3 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Not possible technically, no; Beowulf is supposed to be Open Source, but MS has gotten into the business of cluster computing. You can read MS's advertising for it at MS's Computer Cluster Server page. Labs which are funded by MS use it. Pete St.John 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A Wisconsin undergrad link
I deleted an external link to an undergraduate's blog about his intention to build a beowulf. It looks like he's doing a good thing, but it will be much more useful once they've actually built something and have some experience to write about. Also he might want to find an English major to help him spruce up the verbage, if he wants to meaningfully share his experience. So I wish them luck but nothing for us just yet. Pete St.John (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OSCAR
OSCAR is not an example of MPI software. OSCAR is a set of packages that are useful in setting up and managing a beowulf-type cluster. It includes several MPI packages, but you are not required to install all or any of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.240.2 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Designed to run Beowulf cluster?
This is mentioned under Operating systems and I found it rather silly because you can setup an MPI2 Beowulf cluster on pretty much any POSIX operating system that can compile the MPICH2 package, or any other such package. So for example I have a Beowulf cluster on FreeBSD but FreeBSD is not listed. I just don't see how Dragonfly BSD would be "designed" to run a Beowulf cluster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.23.234 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 April 2011

Definition
The definition seems like a long quote. I feel like it could be better understood if someone goes through each of the paragraph and simplifies it in their own words, still keeping a reference. Anyone up for it or have any objections? Cleanelephant (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Article is not that incorrect, but needs touch up. I will do some touch up, add a ref to Sterling's book, etc. History2007 (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Around 1998 I was building a commercial laser-printer raster image processor (RIP) consisting of five (5) COTS motherboards connected by Ethernet, and built on Beowolf ideas. At the time, a key technology was to bond several Ethernet channels per processing node into a higher bandwidth connection. As I was not doing this, there was an internal question of the legitimacy of calling our system "based on Beowolf". Is an enhanced communication channel part of the Beowolf definition? foxkid (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hypercube
Back in the mid-80s I did some computer work at JPL. At that time I heard some of the other computer guys talking about setting up a hypercube. When I asked what that referred to, I was told that it was a form of cluster where the computers were (conceptually, not literally) set on the vertices of a hypercube and only capable of communicating with each other along the edges. Assuming that the proper software is used, is it possible to make one that's also a Beowulf cluster? If so, would it be most appropriate to mention it here, at Hypercube internetwork topology or both? JDZeff (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beowulf cluster


text:
Talk:Modernism in the Catholic Church

(imagine a heading here)
(... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 11:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

I have started substantially editing this page, which, in its current form, is simply the Vatican's version of events at the time. The existing material will form an excellent Vatican view section, but the page needs a summary of the so-called "modernists" actual positions, which I will begin shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.234.132 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have begun to establish some independent neutrality to this article, which represented the official Roman Catholic anti-Modernist dogma as the Wikipedia point-of-view. Anyone will realize that Wikipedia is not an organ of the Roman Catholic Church. If an editor is entering official views, they must be identified as such. Wikipedia does not endorse any dogma. --Wetman 01:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think my last couple of edits introduced some non-NPOV elements, please be specific, and edit the statements you think non-neutral. It looks like you simply reverted to the previous version, thus losing my correction of the incorrect dates, misspellings, and infelicitous wording, along with whatever non-neutral statements you objected to.

 * Please see the article on the Syllabus of Errors, as well as the links in that article's reference section, if you think my correction of the statements in this article about the Syllabus was false or non-neutral. --Jim Henry 18:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I took Jim Henry's version and changed some of the statements that i'm guessing Wetman had a problem with. Is this an acceptable compromise? Foobaz · ✐  19:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you Foobaz, an Edit Conflict prevented me from doing very much the same thing. My apologies to Jim Henry: that was rash. I took offense at a few changes and didn't see the rest. --Wetman 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's better, but I think that my statement that the Syllabus of Errors "at first glance appeared to condemn" freedom of religion etc. is correct. If you disagree with this statement, you will probably disagree with my recent edits to Syllabus of Errors as well; but please read the sources cited (Newman's discussion in Difficulties of Anglicans, the Catholic Encylopedia article, and, if you can find it, the relevant chapter in Hales) before reverting or making major changes.   The article on Americanism (heresy) contains a factual error of the same kind, which I'm planning to correct after doing some more research, when I have time. --Jim Henry 20:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The phrasing "at first glance appeared to condemn," not a statement of fact, has two subtexts, doesn't it? First, that the Syllabus didn't really condemn these things, after all. Which is Catholic enough, but not perfectly truthful. Second, that such a conclusion was superficial, a hasty conclusion "at first glance." Let us all notice that these words add no information: they are designed solely to undercut criticism. I do not disagree: I merely draw attention to the rhetorical tactic and its inferences. In a similarly underhanded way, I might suggest that the article would be more wholesome without them. --Wetman 00:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought the sources I cited at Syllabus of Errors gave enough evidence that I could objectively say that it "at first glance appeared to condemn" freedom of religion etc. Evidently I was mistaken, if you read these sources and did not come to same conclusion, or if you regard them as unreliable sources.  I did not mean it to "add no information, merely undercut criticism"; I meant to tersely convey the same information I had recently added to Syllabus of Errors.  I apologize if hasty or careless reading has led me to say something untruthful (and therefore un-Catholic).

 * Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Syllabus of Errors. --Jim Henry 14:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote most of the original article. What makes you feel like it wasn't NPOV or that it endorsed the position of the catholic church?

 * It is hard to guess what version of the article you are referring to, since you are not logged in and there are several different anonymous users (or the same person (you?) with different IP addresses on different occasions) who edited various early versions of the article. I suspect that what sparked Wetman's original comment at the top of this talk page were my edits of 17 February, but he had already been making edits on the article for several days, and I some of his NPOV-related criticism probably related to versions of the article from before I started working on it.   It would help a lot if you would identify yourself and identify which older versions of the article  you defend as sufficiently NPOV.

 * I can't speak for Wetman, but the original stub version of the article seemed, to me, more confusing and incomplete than non-neutral. The version from shortly before I made my edits on 17 February was more complete.  It seemed fairly neutral to me, except for the bit about "the Syllabus of Errors (which condemned most of the ammendments [sic] in the Bill of Rights)" - but if that is a biased statement (Wetman and I apparently disagree), it was anti-Catholic rather than pro-Catholic bias. -- Jim Henry 14:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:67.180.61.179 wrote (in HTML comments in the article itself):

"To the outside observer? What does this mean exactly. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the term "modernist" used to describe certain Catholic theologians and Clergy was invented by other Catholic theologians and clergymen. Now, from what I understand about how those people defined it, they were really applying a name to a series of interelated ideas that became popular at the time within the catholic church (ideas mostly from without), and which were fundamentally rationalized as being ok by the idea of dogmas "evolving" or constantly being updated)

 * I agree that this "to the outside observer" is a confusing and unnecessary bit of framing. I might even venture to call it "weasel wording".  The earlier version, or something like it, would be clearer: "Modernism was a term used by ... to describe ..."

I think we should make clear that I don't think Pius the X intended to say that modernism was the "synthesis of all hersies" because it attempted to combine all heresies (for example a super-heresy which said that matter was evil, jesus wasn't human, jesus wasn't divine, the bible is the only source of truth, the bible isn't divinely inspired), but rather, as the article explains further down, that the evolution of the dogmas paridigm allowed someone to hold all of those ideas at different times and be correct, and not outside of the church

 * Yes, this is an important thing to say. Modernism was called the synthesis of all heresies because it denied any idea of authority or objctive, unchanging truth at all, unlike earlier heresies which contradicted church authority on a particular point (e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism), or set up another source of authority (Islam, Protestantism) while accepting the basic idea of objective revealed truth.

This is sort of a warped, possily non NPOV version of what I had written before. "catholic thinkers joining protestant theologians?". But the phrase "the crisis took place chiefly . . ." is very hard to defend from my standpoint. There are two elements, there are the places which modernism was a point of contention, which might be those limited countries, and there are places where modernistic ideas or memes spread throughout semenaries, theologians, clergy, or laity, which would be far wider (although in these places it didn't attract contraversy)

 * There are some parallels between Modernism and liberal Protestantism, but according to Hales 1958 the modernists (or, to be maximally NPOV, those-theologians-whom-Pius-X-called-modernists) were, except for their ideas about evolution of dogma, strongly attached to the unity of the church and disliked liberal Protestantism. Hales also supports the statement about the limited geographic extent of modernism.

In addition simply eluding to Newman's idea of the "development of doctrine" makes it hard for a newbie reader to understand what that means, he has to read that article to understand the difference)

 * This is a hypertext encyclopedia; links allow us to mention things without having to explain them every time. Putting in a long paragraph here about how Newman's ideas are distinct from Loisy and Tyrrell's would just slow things down for the reader who already knows Newman; putting in a link allows the reader who is not familiar with Newman to easily look up "development of doctrine".  I think it is important to distinguish the two ideas here, since they have such similar names and are so different in other respects.  But I need to get around to writing at least a stub about development of doctrine.  --Jim Henry 19:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * A thank you is in order to Jim Henry and two anonymous editors who have reshaped this entry in the last month, to the credit of us all! --Wetman 13:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wilkinson 2002"?
Who is this Wilkinson cited at the bottom of the introductory section?

-- I agree. This Wilkinson should stand up and be counted.

what are the main goals
I would just like for someone to plainly state what roman catholics as an interest group in politics has as their main goals.

This Article Needs to Be Rewritten
I’m glad that you have put a lot of effort into writing about Catholic Modernists, which are a very important topic. But I’m afraid that because of historical inaccuracies and what seems to be a bias toward the official Catholic position at the time, this article needs to be heavily modified if not rewritten. I would suggest reading the works of Loisy, Tyrrell, and Blondel to round out a more objective view. I might be wrong, but it does not seem that the authors of this Article have read these works. Careful study of these writers can be very rewarding, especially Blondel's work on History and Dogma. I would also recommend reading Alec R. Vidler's excellent study The Church in an Age of Revolution, which has an excellent chapter on Catholic Modernism, as well as Vidler's The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church.

I will list some of my objections and would be interested in other’s thoughts:

(1) First off, Hans Küng is listed under the Catholic Modernists at the end of the article. He was not born until 1928, long after Pascendi dominici gregis in 1907. Although the Modernists influenced Küng's theology, they influenced everyone's theology, more so de Lubac than Küng. It is an anachronism to single out Küng as a modernist, and makes the article seem ideologically motivated. Why not list Karl Rahner as a “Modernist”; he used “Modernist” philosophy, specifically Heidegger’s revisions of Being from Hegel and Western Metaphysics generally? Or why not Yves Congar, who used “Modernist” notions of history? Or Teilhard, who used “Modernist” notions of science? Or de Lubac, who used “Modernist” notions of nature and grace and “Modernist” exegesis? Also Küng’s trouble with the Vatican came about because of his critique of infallibility, which uses Church history and biblical exegesis to critique that teaching.

(2) De Lubac is not mentioned under the "New Theology" / nouvelle théologie?

(3) It is accepted among non-biased Church historians (Alec R. Vidler, for instance) that Pascendi dominici gregis is a caricature, at best, of the Modernist position. Pius X lacked the intellect to understand the "Modernist" understandings of exegesis, history, and nature and grace. It seems clear from Pascendi dominici gregis that he hadn't even read much of what he was critiquing.

(4) The information included under "Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings:" is a reiteration of Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis, which is not an accurate description of the Catholic "Modernist" position (though it would be inaccurate to speak of them as adopting one monolithic position).

(5) "Modernism involved the evolution of dogma — a notion distinct from Cardinal Newman’s teaching on the 'development of doctrine,' which he characterized in acceptably orthodox fashion as an unfolding in time of what was already implicit in Christ’s initial teaching." As an earlier contributor mentioned, this claim is unsubstantiated. The term "acceptably orthodox fashion" sounds like an evaluation of orthodoxy and could be read as an ideological bias. Jim and/or Wetman, I would refer you to Blondel's History and Dogma, which is a very nuanced understanding of how Dogma evolves/develops over time.

(6) The following definition of heretic is simplistic and historically inaccurate: "a heretic (someone who believed and taught something different than what the rest of the church believed)." This definition would include Augustine, Aquinas, von Balthasar, John Paul II, the current Pope, and many, many others. An understanding of heresy requires a detailed concept of what it means to be "Church" and what the conditions, limits, and extensions of authority are.

(7) "Catholic historians and theologians have social explanations as to why Modernism developed as it did and became so popular." I'd be interested in which "historians and theologians" you're thinking of here? Could you please cite them? I would point out that the irony of this statement is that it deploys what Pius X claimed was a “Modernist” position, using social contexts to understand the development of religious doctrines, to understand the “Modernists” themselves.

(8) At the beginning of this article, the author(s) write(s) that "The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else." Then under "Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism," they list conditions in the United States as explaining the rise of Modernism. Also, Friedrich von Hügel, the intellectual sponsor of the “Modernists,” is Austrian.

Jndudley 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just go ahead and present the views of the authors you've been reading, with references to their titles? --Wetman 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (8) "and virtually nowhere else" is no longer in the article. So I have removed the dubious tag on this one.Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthropological causes of Modernism?
I think that the explanation given in the article for the social causes of Modernism could be improved. It attributes Modernism far too much to the character of American culture rather than the cultural changes brought about by, say, industrialisation and the growth of the working and middle classes in Europe, where the predominant Modernists came from.Luokehao 8:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are being generous. Modernism was never strong in America and there are few examples were Modernists made any advances.  The most famous case people point to is Dunwoodie, yet the priests there were educated in Modernist ideas in Europe not America (moreover, it is unclear whether they were Modernists anyway or simple trying to encourage debate, the later in my opinion being more likely).  The next time anyone is in Times Square, look for the Father Duffy Memorial; he was one of the men forced to stop publishing because of the row.Tobit2 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rationalist"
Wrong. How is a rational approach to the Bible heresy? Rationalism: "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification." Try and tell me the Church does not encourage justification of belief through reason. Wikipedia you've done it again! I feel bad for the people who come here and actually use the site in an attempt to gain knowledge.

 * Edit: I went ahead and changed the article to maintain neutrality. It's not that hard, kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.148.21 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Broad scholarly concensus"
"Encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, which by broad scholarly consensus, is a caricature of the various "modernist" theologies" - this is dubious; probably true for liberal scholars that themselves tend to modernism (or at least nouvelle theologie) in an attempt to downplay signifficance of pope's view expounded in the encyclical. More traditional-minded scholars, however, wouldn't agree with this opinion. So, at least, some quallifications should be made, and references provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkPantherZG (talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would "more traditionally-minded scholars" say? I think what you are getting at is that the encyclical is better described as a "composite," rather than a "caricature;" this choice of words has nothing to do with liberal or traditional views; it is about accuracy.  I'll make the change.Tobit2 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon
It's interesting/amusing that the cartoon used is by a member of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, a man who apparently did missionary work in the largely Catholic nation of the Philippines. It seems unlikely he was thinking of Catholic modernism in the cartoon. Not saying it's incorrect to use it, but I think maybe it'd fit better in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy article. Or at least should maybe be there too.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but it fits here too, since this is kind of a Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy too. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 * No, the cartoon is inappropriate; it is talking about an entirely different debate, Protestant fundamentalism vs. developments in the modern world. Some background on the cartoon: it was drawn by E.J. Pace under the heading "Christian Cartoons" in the book Sunday School Times and was later appropriated by William Jennings Bryan, a noted Protestant Fundamentalist.  My reason for calling the cartoon inappropriate: it appears to be a describing a Protestant debate not a Catholic one.  The cartoon, which is of obvious Protestant origin, given its publication in the "Sunday School Times" and its adoption by Bryan, was drawn more than a decade after the Catholic debate over Catholic modernism had already culminated (in the Oath of 1910).  You can see this in the choice of words used to frame the first point of the debate: "The Bible Not Infallible;" this is a Protestant choice of terms; Catholics would discuss the extent of passive Inspiration, not Inerrancy.  Catholic modernism was really about how one comes to know God; in the end it is a debate on who holds power in the Church.  Sad to say, but the cartoon should be removed from this article and perhaps added to an article about Protestant Fundamentalism.  Tobit2 (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-Write
I have done some minor work, but this article requires a more complete revision. I suggest the following outline for a revised article:

I. Definition of Modernism A. Original definition, as defined by the Church B. As defined by the works people accused of Modernism II. Forms of Modernism A. Immanentism B. Agnosticism C. Debate Over Power in the Church III. History of Modernism A. Roots of Modernism 1) Nominalism and Kant       2) Resurgence of Thomsian school and Vatican I        3) Influence of Protestant Theology              i. Conversions post-Oxford Movement              ii. Biblical scholarship        4)  Influence of Scientific Advances and Social Change B. Summary of Modernist Theologians 1) Tyrell       2) Blondel 3) Loisy C. Response of the Church        1) Official Posture i. Encyclical and Oath ii. Watch Committees 2) Reprecussions for Suspected Theologians      3)  Discussion of Impact by Country i. Germany ii. France iii. Ireland & England IV. Influence of Modernists on Vatican II     1) Influence of Tyrell      2) Debates against influence during Vatican II

Tobit2 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 * After having viewed some pages upheld by sedevacantiansand others, I have a feeling that the first point, Definition of Modernism, might be subdivided further. I am not convinced that the views of some more or less schismatic "traditionalist" groups coincide with present-day church opinion. (I here use "schismatic" to denote groups who partly or completely reject the authority of the present leadership of the official Roman Catholic Church; I put no theological valuation in the usage of this term, which probably could be a bit controversial; and would welcome suggestions for other terms.) Thus, I think that such interpretations should be presented in their own right, but with clear indications of which individuals or groups they represent.
 * Seemingly, a main sedevacantian claim is that a number of elected popes, including the present one, are open adherents of the modernist heresy, and thus automatically have excommunicated themselves. I very much doubt that the implicit interpretation of modernism underlying this is shared by e.g. the present pope. JoergenB (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Modernism (Roman Catholicism) → Modernism in the Catholic Church – To avoid parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NATURAL and because it is a main subject (modernism) within the purview of an organization (in the Catholic Church). Examples of similar titles: Dogma in the Catholic Church, Ordination of women in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church.  Deus vult (aliquid)!  Crusadestudent (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:Consistency. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Serious Problems
This article is very poorly sourced while making numerous unreferenced claims of fact regarding a contentious subject, which may in turn be a sign of original research. Further, it can lend itself to concerns that the article might not be neutral in its presentation of the subject. I have affixed maintenance tags to the article in the hopes that someone knowledgeable on the subject and with access to good sources will be able to tune this up a bit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tags. While agreeing with your actions, I find the article to be written well enough to elucidate the sides and the context.

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modernism in the Catholic Church. 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/20050429015315/http://www.sofn.org.uk/DOCTRINE/catholic_modernism.htm to http://www.sofn.org.uk/DOCTRINE/catholic_modernism.htm

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) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Vatican Observatory
The article makes it sound as if Pope Leo XIII founded the Vatican Observatory in 1891. In point of fact, that was only the fourth observatory. The Vatican Observatory was founded in 1774 under Pope Clement XIV: Vatican Observatory. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_ObservatoryMwidunn (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)mwidunn

Irrelevant 'Background' and 'History' sections added
I can't see how the 'Background' and 'History' sections that have been added are relevant to this article on Modernism. -- Jmc (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree that these sections could be shortened and more pointed, they seem to me to be critical to the understanding of the Catholic church's reaction to modernism. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Dubious perspective on the Second Vatican Council
The claim that the Second Vatican Council vindicated modernism is highly disputed and a single reference to the National Catholic Reporter hardly seems representative. 83.128.58.198 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Yup. National Catholic Reporter is an independent paper with at times tense relations with the Church. Now there is some reason to think Nouvelle théologie was somewhat vindicated by the Council, but I believe there are some real differences between Nouvelle theologe and modernism. That said Wikipedia is kind of biased on dealing with religion so I don't expect any improvement would even be allowed. Particularly as some of the hardcore Traditionalists would also agree that the Second Vatican Council supported modernism.--Tibby57721 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Traditi humilitati
Pius VIII's Traditi humilitati is certainly worthy of mention. However, there's no source given for the preceding statement "During the Conservative Order, the Vatican had harshly condemned liberalism and revolutionary ideals on repeated occasions." I think such a categorical statement as "on repeated occasions" requires a citation to support it. Failing the provision of such a citation, I propose to delete that statement.-- Jmc (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've realised that the recent (23 September 2022) addition of this paragraph has introduced another problem: it has vitiated the section's title ('Pre-history: controversies under Pope Pius IX' - my emphasis) and, if the paragraph remains (and that must now be in question), a new title will be needed. Suggestions? -- Jmc (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I see two ways of resolving this problem:
 * 1) We can retain the section title ('Pre-history: controversies under Pope Pius IX') and revert the recent addition of the paragraph referring to Popes Pius VIII and Gregory XVI, or
 * 2) We can change the section title to, say, 'Pre-history: new intellectual currents starting under Pope Pius VIII') and retain the bulk of the recently added paragraph.

Comments? -- Jmc (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Absent comments from other editors, I'll go with the second option, amending the section title to 'Pre-history: intellectual ferment starting under Pius VIII' and omitting the unsourced initial sentence of the recently added second paragraph (see above). (For the sake of consistency and succinctness, I'll also remove the unnecessary 'Pope' from other titles in this section.) -- Jmc (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment for Wikiproject Christianity
I've re-assessed this project for Wikiproject Christianity and upgraded it to C Mid. The comprehensiveness and level of citation on the page merits B rating, but it strikes me (even as one decently well versed in these controversies) as too engrossed in its own detail to be helpful to a general reader. It also has the ring of original research and non-neutral POV at a number of points, more like an engaged scholar telling a dramatic story about this history than like a dispassionate recital of the history and historiography. I do think this topic merits a "mid" rather than "low" importance ranking, given the overall significance of these controversies to the shape of modern Catholicism. Brian (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- Jmc (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice that all the work which went into this project is acknowlegded after two years time. Difficult to take the drama out of dramatic events, though;-). It‘s also difficult to present one of the most complex controversies in the history of Christianity without detail and without recurring to international academic research. I can only hope we will not see a „simplification“ of this project which will not help the general reader. Sylvain Leblanc (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Agreed—I wouldn't want to see this oversimplified! (And I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a response, @Sylvain Leblanc. It seems like WikiProject Christianity has gone semi-dormant. I'm fairly new to all of this, but I'm trying to breathe some new life into it. If you're interested in helping out, holler at me.) Brian (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have re-read the article and have noticed that the „pre-history“ part has been further inflated and that some chronological disorder has been created in the post-history part. To my mind the pre-history could be condensed to a few lines, with references to the relevant articles (Vatican I etc.). I did not have the courage to do so in 2020, when reworking the article was my Covid-project Sylvain Leblanc (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion in the "Notable people involved" section
I have just removed Pope Francis from the list because his name does not come up anywhere else in the article, nor was there any reference (Biography of Living Persons). If someone can develop a section based around the current pope's purported involvement, then it would be reasonable to include him, but please either do that or do not include him in this list for now. It seems strange that he was the only pope listed despite half a dozen other popes actually addressing modernism directly in their pontificates, a topic Francis has not made a focal point of in his writings. Nmarshall25 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I support removal of Francis, for reasons given by Nmarshall25. -- Jmc (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modernism in the Catholic Church