text:
Problem solving

Problem solving is the process of achieving a goal by overcoming obstacles, a frequent part of most activities. Problems in need of solutions range from simple personal tasks (e.g. how to turn on an appliance) to complex issues in business and technical fields. The former is an example of simple problem solving (SPS) addressing one issue, whereas the latter is complex problem solving (CPS) with multiple interrelated obstacles. Another classification of problem-solving tasks is into well-defined problems with specific obstacles and goals, and ill-defined problems in which the current situation is troublesome but it is not clear what kind of resolution to aim for. Similarly, one may distinguish formal or fact-based problems requiring psychometric intelligence, versus socio-emotional problems which depend on the changeable emotions of individuals or groups, such as tactful behavior, fashion, or gift choices.

Solutions require sufficient resources and knowledge to attain the goal. Professionals such as lawyers, doctors, programmers, and consultants are largely problem solvers for issues that require technical skills and knowledge beyond general competence. Many businesses have found profitable markets by recognizing a problem and creating a solution: the more widespread and inconvenient the problem, the greater the opportunity to develop a scalable solution.

There are many specialized problem-solving techniques and methods in fields such as engineering, business, medicine, mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and social organization. The mental techniques to identify, analyze, and solve problems are studied in psychology and cognitive sciences. Also widely researched are the mental obstacles that prevent people from finding solutions; problem-solving impediments include confirmation bias, mental set, and functional fixedness.

Definition
The term problem solving has a slightly different meaning depending on the discipline. For instance, it is a mental process in psychology and a computerized process in computer science. There are two different types of problems: ill-defined and well-defined; different approaches are used for each. Well-defined problems have specific end goals and clearly expected solutions, while ill-defined problems do not. Well-defined problems allow for more initial planning than ill-defined problems. Solving problems sometimes involves dealing with pragmatics (the way that context contributes to meaning) and semantics (the interpretation of the problem). The ability to understand what the end goal of the problem is, and what rules could be applied, represents the key to solving the problem. Sometimes a problem requires abstract thinking or coming up with a creative solution.

Problem solving has two major domains: mathematical problem solving and personal problem solving. Each concerns some difficulty or barrier that is encountered.

Psychology
Problem solving in psychology refers to the process of finding solutions to problems encountered in life. Solutions to these problems are usually situation- or context-specific. The process starts with problem finding and problem shaping, in which the problem is discovered and simplified. The next step is to generate possible solutions and evaluate them. Finally a solution is selected to be implemented and verified. Problems have an end goal to be reached; how you get there depends upon problem orientation (problem-solving coping style and skills) and systematic analysis.

Mental health professionals study the human problem-solving processes using methods such as introspection, behaviorism, simulation, computer modeling, and experiment. Social psychologists look into the person-environment relationship aspect of the problem and independent and interdependent problem-solving methods. Problem solving has been defined as a higher-order cognitive process and intellectual function that requires the modulation and control of more routine or fundamental skills.

Empirical research shows many different strategies and factors influence everyday problem solving. Rehabilitation psychologists studying people with frontal lobe injuries have found that deficits in emotional control and reasoning can be re-mediated with effective rehabilitation and could improve the capacity of injured persons to resolve everyday problems. Interpersonal everyday problem solving is dependent upon personal motivational and contextual components. One such component is the emotional valence of "real-world" problems, which can either impede or aid problem-solving performance. Researchers have focused on the role of emotions in problem solving, demonstrating that poor emotional control can disrupt focus on the target task, impede problem resolution, and lead to negative outcomes such as fatigue, depression, and inertia. human problem solving consists of two related processes: problem orientation, and the motivational/attitudinal/affective approach to problematic situations and problem-solving skills. People's strategies cohere with their goals and stem from the process of comparing oneself with others.

Cognitive sciences
Among the first experimental psychologists to study problem solving were the Gestaltists in Germany, such as Karl Duncker in The Psychology of Productive Thinking (1935). Perhaps best known is the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon.

Experiments in the 1960s and early 1970s asked participants to solve relatively simple, well-defined, but not previously seen laboratory tasks. These simple problems, such as the Tower of Hanoi, admitted optimal solutions that could be found quickly, allowing researchers to observe the full problem-solving process. Researchers assumed that these model problems would elicit the characteristic cognitive processes by which more complex "real world" problems are solved.

An outstanding problem-solving technique found by this research is the principle of decomposition.

Computer science
Much of computer science and artificial intelligence involves designing automated systems to solve a specified type of problem: to accept input data and calculate a correct or adequate response, reasonably quickly. Algorithms are recipes or instructions that direct such systems, written into computer programs.

Steps for designing such systems include problem determination, heuristics, root cause analysis, de-duplication, analysis, diagnosis, and repair. Analytic techniques include linear and nonlinear programming, queuing systems, and simulation. A large, perennial obstacle is to find and fix errors in computer programs: debugging.

Logic
Formal logic concerns issues like validity, truth, inference, argumentation, and proof. In a problem-solving context, it can be used to formally represent a problem as a theorem to be proved, and to represent the knowledge needed to solve the problem as the premises to be used in a proof that the problem has a solution.

The use of computers to prove mathematical theorems using formal logic emerged as the field of automated theorem proving in the 1950s. It included the use of heuristic methods designed to simulate human problem solving, as in the Logic Theory Machine, developed by Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon and J. C. Shaw, as well as algorithmic methods such as the resolution principle developed by John Alan Robinson.

In addition to its use for finding proofs of mathematical theorems, automated theorem-proving has also been used for program verification in computer science. In 1958, John McCarthy proposed the advice taker, to represent information in formal logic and to derive answers to questions using automated theorem-proving. An important step in this direction was made by Cordell Green in 1969, who used a resolution theorem prover for question-answering and for such other applications in artificial intelligence as robot planning.

The resolution theorem-prover used by Cordell Green bore little resemblance to human problem solving methods. In response to criticism of that approach from researchers at MIT, Robert Kowalski developed logic programming and SLD resolution, which solves problems by problem decomposition. He has advocated logic for both computer and human problem solving and computational logic to improve human thinking.

Engineering
When products or processes fail, problem solving techniques can be used to develop corrective actions that can be taken to prevent further failures. Such techniques can also be applied to a product or process prior to an actual failure event—to predict, analyze, and mitigate a potential problem in advance. Techniques such as failure mode and effects analysis can proactively reduce the likelihood of problems.

In either the reactive or the proactive case, it is necessary to build a causal explanation through a process of diagnosis. In deriving an explanation of effects in terms of causes, abduction generates new ideas or hypotheses (asking "how?"); deduction evaluates and refines hypotheses based on other plausible premises (asking "why?"); and induction justifies a hypothesis with empirical data (asking "how much?"). The objective of abduction is to determine which hypothesis or proposition to test, not which one to adopt or assert. In the Peircean logical system, the logic of abduction and deduction contribute to our conceptual understanding of a phenomenon, while the logic of induction adds quantitative details (empirical substantiation) to our conceptual knowledge.

Forensic engineering is an important technique of failure analysis that involves tracing product defects and flaws. Corrective action can then be taken to prevent further failures.

Reverse engineering attempts to discover the original problem-solving logic used in developing a product by disassembling the product and developing a plausible pathway to creating and assembling its parts.

Military science
In military science, problem solving is linked to the concept of "end-states", the conditions or situations which are the aims of the strategy. Ability to solve problems is important at any military rank, but is essential at the command and control level. It results from deep qualitative and quantitative understanding of possible scenarios. Effectiveness in this context is an evaluation of results: to what extent the end states were accomplished. Planning is the process of determining how to effect those end states.

Processes
Some models of problem solving involve identifying a goal and then a sequence of subgoals towards achieving this goal. Andersson, who introduced the ACT-R model of cognition, modelled this collection of goals and subgoals as a goal stack in which the mind contains a stack of goals and subgoals to be completed, and a single task being carried out at any time.

Knowledge of how to solve one problem can be applied to another problem, in a process known as transfer.

Problem-solving strategies
Problem-solving strategies are steps to overcoming the obstacles to achieving a goal. The iteration of such strategies over the course of solving a problem is the "problem-solving cycle".

Common steps in this cycle include recognizing the problem, defining it, developing a strategy to fix it, organizing knowledge and resources available, monitoring progress, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. Once a solution is achieved, another problem usually arises, and the cycle starts again.

Insight is the sudden aha! solution to a problem, the birth of a new idea to simplify a complex situation. Solutions found through insight are often more incisive than those from step-by-step analysis. A quick solution process requires insight to select productive moves at different stages of the problem-solving cycle. Unlike Newell and Simon's formal definition of a move problem, there is no consensus definition of an insight problem.

Some problem-solving strategies include:
 * Abstraction: solving the problem in a tractable model system to gain insight into the real system
 * Analogy: adapting the solution to a previous problem which has similar features or mechanisms
 * Brainstorming: (especially among groups of people) suggesting a large number of solutions or ideas and combining and developing them until an optimum solution is found
 * Bypasses: transform the problem into another problem that is easier to solve, bypassing the barrier, then transform that solution back to a solution to the original problem.
 * Critical thinking: analysis of available evidence and arguments to form a judgement via rational, skeptical, and unbiased evaluation
 * Divide and conquer: breaking down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems
 * Help-seeking: obtaining external assistance to deal with obstacles
 * Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove (or, in some contexts, disprove) the assumption
 * Lateral thinking: approaching solutions indirectly and creatively
 * Means-ends analysis: choosing an action at each step to move closer to the goal
 * Morphological analysis: assessing the output and interactions of an entire system
 * Observation / Question: in the natural sciences an observation is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. A question is an utterance which serves as a request for information.
 * Proof of impossibility: try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. The point where the proof fails will be the starting point for solving it
 * Reduction: transforming the problem into another problem for which solutions exist
 * Research: employing existing ideas or adapting existing solutions to similar problems
 * Root cause analysis: identifying the cause of a problem
 * Trial-and-error: testing possible solutions until the right one is found

Problem-solving methods

 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.
 * Scientific method – is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science.

Common barriers
Common barriers to problem solving include mental constructs that impede an efficient search for solutions. Five of the most common identified by researchers are: confirmation bias, mental set, functional fixedness, unnecessary constraints, and irrelevant information.

Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is an unintentional tendency to collect and use data which favors preconceived notions. Such notions may be incidental rather than motivated by important personal beliefs: the desire to be right may be sufficient motivation.

Scientific and technical professionals also experience confirmation bias. One online experiment, for example, suggested that professionals within the field of psychological research are likely to view scientific studies that agree with their preconceived notions more favorably than clashing studies. According to Raymond Nickerson, one can see the consequences of confirmation bias in real-life situations, which range in severity from inefficient government policies to genocide. Nickerson argued that those who killed people accused of witchcraft demonstrated confirmation bias with motivation. Researcher Michael Allen found evidence for confirmation bias with motivation in school children who worked to manipulate their science experiments to produce favorable results.

However, confirmation bias does not necessarily require motivation. In 1960, Peter Cathcart Wason conducted an experiment in which participants first viewed three numbers and then created a hypothesis in the form of a rule that could have been used to create that triplet of numbers. When testing their hypotheses, participants tended to only create additional triplets of numbers that would confirm their hypotheses, and tended not to create triplets that would negate or disprove their hypotheses.

Mental set
Mental set is the inclination to re-use a previously successful solution, rather than search for new and better solutions. It is a reliance on habit.

It was first articulated by Abraham S. Luchins in the 1940s with his well-known water jug experiments. Participants were asked to fill one jug with a specific amount of water by using other jugs with different maximum capacities. After Luchins gave a set of jug problems that could all be solved by a single technique, he then introduced a problem that could be solved by the same technique, but also by a novel and simpler method. His participants tended to use the accustomed technique, oblivious of the simpler alternative. This was again demonstrated in Norman Maier's 1931 experiment, which challenged participants to solve a problem by using a familiar tool (pliers) in an unconventional manner. Participants were often unable to view the object in a way that strayed from its typical use, a type of mental set known as functional fixedness (see the following section).

Rigidly clinging to a mental set is called fixation, which can deepen to an obsession or preoccupation with attempted strategies that are repeatedly unsuccessful. In the late 1990s, researcher Jennifer Wiley found that professional expertise in a field can create a mental set, perhaps leading to fixation.

Groupthink, in which each individual takes on the mindset of the rest of the group, can produce and exacerbate mental set. Social pressure leads to everybody thinking the same thing and reaching the same conclusions.

Functional fixedness
Functional fixedness is the tendency to view an object as having only one function, and to be unable to conceive of any novel use, as in the Maier pliers experiment described above. Functional fixedness is a specific form of mental set, and is one of the most common forms of cognitive bias in daily life.

As an example, imagine a man wants to kill a bug in his house, but the only thing at hand is a can of air freshener. He may start searching for something to kill the bug instead of squashing it with the can, thinking only of its main function of deodorizing.

Tim German and Clark Barrett describe this barrier: "subjects become 'fixed' on the design function of the objects, and problem solving suffers relative to control conditions in which the object's function is not demonstrated." Their research found that young children's limited knowledge of an object's intended function reduces this barrier Research has also discovered functional fixedness in educational contexts, as an obstacle to understanding: "functional fixedness may be found in learning concepts as well as in solving chemistry problems."

There are several hypotheses in regards to how functional fixedness relates to problem solving. It may waste time, delaying or entirely preventing the correct use of a tool.

Unnecessary constraints
Unnecessary constraints are arbitrary boundaries imposed unconsciously on the task at hand, which foreclose a productive avenue of solution. The solver may become fixated on only one type of solution, as if it were an inevitable requirement of the problem. Typically, this combines with mental set—clinging to a previously successful method.

Visual problems can also produce mentally invented constraints. A famous example is the dot problem: nine dots arranged in a three-by-three grid pattern must be connected by drawing four straight line segments, without lifting pen from paper or backtracking along a line. The subject typically assumes the pen must stay within the outer square of dots, but the solution requires lines continuing beyond this frame, and researchers have found a 0% solution rate within a brief allotted time.

This problem has produced the expression "think outside the box". Such problems are typically solved via a sudden insight which leaps over the mental barriers, often after long toil against them. This can be difficult depending on how the subject has structured the problem in their mind, how they draw on past experiences, and how well they juggle this information in their working memory. In the example, envisioning the dots connected outside the framing square requires visualizing an unconventional arrangement, which is a strain on working memory.

Irrelevant information
Irrelevant information is a specification or data presented in a problem that is unrelated to the solution. If the solver assumes that all information presented needs to be used, this often derails the problem solving process, making relatively simple problems much harder.

For example: "Fifteen percent of the people in Topeka have unlisted telephone numbers. You select 200 names at random from the Topeka phone book. How many of these people have unlisted phone numbers?" The "obvious" answer is 15%, but in fact none of the unlisted people would be listed among the 200. This kind of "trick question" is often used in aptitude tests or cognitive evaluations. Though not inherently difficult, they require independent thinking that is not necessarily common. Mathematical word problems often include irrelevant qualitative or numerical information as an extra challenge.

Avoiding barriers by changing problem representation
The disruption caused by the above cognitive biases can depend on how the information is represented: visually, verbally, or mathematically. A classic example is the Buddhist monk problem:

"A Buddhist monk begins at dawn one day walking up a mountain, reaches the top at sunset, meditates at the top for several days until one dawn when he begins to walk back to the foot of the mountain, which he reaches at sunset. Making no assumptions about his starting or stopping or about his pace during the trips, prove that there is a place on the path which he occupies at the same hour of the day on the two separate journeys."

The problem cannot be addressed in a verbal context, trying to describe the monk's progress on each day. It becomes much easier when the paragraph is represented mathematically by a function: one visualizes a graph whose horizontal axis is time of day, and whose vertical axis shows the monk's position (or altitude) on the path at each time. Superimposing the two journey curves, which traverse opposite diagonals of a rectangle, one sees they must cross each other somewhere. The visual representation by graphing has resolved the difficulty.

Similar strategies can often improve problem solving on tests.

Other barriers for individuals
People who are engaged in problem solving tend to overlook subtractive changes, even those that are critical elements of efficient solutions. This tendency to solve by first, only, or mostly creating or adding elements, rather than by subtracting elements or processes is shown to intensify with higher cognitive loads such as information overload.

Dreaming: problem solving without waking consciousness
People can also solve problems while they are asleep. There are many reports of scientists and engineers who solved problems in their dreams. For example, Elias Howe, inventor of the sewing machine, figured out the structure of the bobbin from a dream.

The chemist August Kekulé was considering how benzene arranged its six carbon and hydrogen atoms. Thinking about the problem, he dozed off, and dreamt of dancing atoms that fell into a snakelike pattern, which led him to discover the benzene ring. As Kekulé wrote in his diary,

"One of the snakes seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis."

There also are empirical studies of how people can think consciously about a problem before going to sleep, and then solve the problem with a dream image. Dream researcher William C. Dement told his undergraduate class of 500 students that he wanted them to think about an infinite series, whose first elements were OTTFF, to see if they could deduce the principle behind it and to say what the next elements of the series would be. He asked them to think about this problem every night for 15 minutes before going to sleep and to write down any dreams that they then had. They were instructed to think about the problem again for 15 minutes when they awakened in the morning.

The sequence OTTFF is the first letters of the numbers: one, two, three, four, five. The next five elements of the series are SSENT (six, seven, eight, nine, ten). Some of the students solved the puzzle by reflecting on their dreams. One example was a student who reported the following dream:

"I was standing in an art gallery, looking at the paintings on the wall. As I walked down the hall, I began to count the paintings: one, two, three, four, five. As I came to the sixth and seventh, the paintings had been ripped from their frames. I stared at the empty frames with a peculiar feeling that some mystery was about to be solved. Suddenly I realized that the sixth and seventh spaces were the solution to the problem!"

With more than 500 undergraduate students, 87 dreams were judged to be related to the problems students were assigned (53 directly related and 34 indirectly related). Yet of the people who had dreams that apparently solved the problem, only seven were actually able to consciously know the solution. The rest (46 out of 53) thought they did not know the solution.

Mark Blechner conducted this experiment and obtained results similar to Dement's. He found that while trying to solve the problem, people had dreams in which the solution appeared to be obvious from the dream, but it was rare for the dreamers to realize how their dreams had solved the puzzle. Coaxing or hints did not get them to realize it, although once they heard the solution, they recognized how their dream had solved it. For example, one person in that OTTFF experiment dreamed:

"There is a big clock. You can see the movement. The big hand of the clock was on the number six. You could see it move up, number by number, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. The dream focused on the small parts of the machinery. You could see the gears inside."

In the dream, the person counted out the next elements of the series—six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve—yet he did not realize that this was the solution of the problem. His sleeping mindbrain solved the problem, but his waking mindbrain was not aware how.

Albert Einstein believed that much problem solving goes on unconsciously, and the person must then figure out and formulate consciously what the mindbrain has already solved. He believed this was his process in formulating the theory of relativity: "The creator of the problem possesses the solution." Einstein said that he did his problem solving without words, mostly in images. "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined."

Cognitive sciences: two schools
Problem-solving processes differ across knowledge domains and across levels of expertise. For this reason, cognitive sciences findings obtained in the laboratory cannot necessarily generalize to problem-solving situations outside the laboratory. This has led to a research emphasis on real-world problem solving, since the 1990s. This emphasis has been expressed quite differently in North America and Europe, however. Whereas North American research has typically concentrated on studying problem solving in separate, natural knowledge domains, much of the European research has focused on novel, complex problems, and has been performed with computerized scenarios.

Europe
In Europe, two main approaches have surfaced, one initiated by Donald Broadbent in the United Kingdom and the other one by Dietrich Dörner in Germany. The two approaches share an emphasis on relatively complex, semantically rich, computerized laboratory tasks, constructed to resemble real-life problems. The approaches differ somewhat in their theoretical goals and methodology. The tradition initiated by Broadbent emphasizes the distinction between cognitive problem-solving processes that operate under awareness versus outside of awareness, and typically employs mathematically well-defined computerized systems. The tradition initiated by Dörner, on the other hand, has an interest in the interplay of the cognitive, motivational, and social components of problem solving, and utilizes very complex computerized scenarios that contain up to 2,000 highly interconnected variables.

North America
In North America, initiated by the work of Herbert A. Simon on "learning by doing" in semantically rich domains, researchers began to investigate problem solving separately in different natural knowledge domains—such as physics, writing, or chess playing—rather than attempt to extract a global theory of problem solving. These researchers have focused on the development of problem solving within certain domains, that is on the development of expertise.

Areas that have attracted rather intensive attention in North America include:
 * calculation
 * computer skills
 * game playing
 * lawyers' reasoning
 * managerial problem solving
 * mathematical problem solving
 * mechanical problem solving
 * personal problem solving
 * political decision making
 * problem solving in electronics
 * problem solving for innovations and inventions: TRIZ
 * reading
 * social problem solving
 * writing

Characteristics of complex problems
Complex problem solving (CPS) is distinguishable from simple problem solving (SPS). In SPS there is a singular and simple obstacle. In CPS there may be multiple simultaneous obstacles. For example, a surgeon at work has far more complex problems than an individual deciding what shoes to wear. As elucidated by Dietrich Dörner, and later expanded upon by Joachim Funke, complex problems have some typical characteristics, which include:

 * complexity (large numbers of items, interrelations, and decisions)
 * enumerability
 * heterogeneity
 * connectivity (hierarchy relation, communication relation, allocation relation)
 * dynamics (time considerations)
 * temporal constraints
 * temporal sensitivity
 * phase effects
 * dynamic unpredictability
 * intransparency (lack of clarity of the situation)
 * commencement opacity
 * continuation opacity
 * polytely (multiple goals)
 * inexpressivenes
 * opposition
 * transience

Collective problem solving
People solve problems on many different levels—from the individual to the civilizational. Collective problem solving refers to problem solving performed collectively. Social issues and global issues can typically only be solved collectively.

The complexity of contemporary problems exceeds the cognitive capacity of any individual and requires different but complementary varieties of expertise and collective problem solving ability.

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals.

In collaborative problem solving people work together to solve real-world problems. Members of problem-solving groups share a common concern, a similar passion, and/or a commitment to their work. Members can ask questions, wonder, and try to understand common issues. They share expertise, experiences, tools, and methods. Groups may be fluid based on need, may only occur temporarily to finish an assigned task, or may be more permanent depending on the nature of the problems.

For example, in the educational context, members of a group may all have input into the decision-making process and a role in the learning process. Members may be responsible for the thinking, teaching, and monitoring of all members in the group. Group work may be coordinated among members so that each member makes an equal contribution to the whole work. Members can identify and build on their individual strengths so that everyone can make a significant contribution to the task. Collaborative group work has the ability to promote critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, social skills, and self-esteem. By using collaboration and communication, members often learn from one another and construct meaningful knowledge that often leads to better learning outcomes than individual work.

Collaborative groups require joint intellectual efforts between the members and involve social interactions to solve problems together. The knowledge shared during these interactions is acquired during communication, negotiation, and production of materials. Members actively seek information from others by asking questions. The capacity to use questions to acquire new information increases understanding and the ability to solve problems.

In a 1962 research report, Douglas Engelbart linked collective intelligence to organizational effectiveness, and predicted that proactively "augmenting human intellect" would yield a multiplier effect in group problem solving: "Three people working together in this augmented mode [would] seem to be more than three times as effective in solving a complex problem as is one augmented person working alone".

Henry Jenkins, a theorist of new media and media convergence, draws on the theory that collective intelligence can be attributed to media convergence and participatory culture. He criticizes contemporary education for failing to incorporate online trends of collective problem solving into the classroom, stating "whereas a collective intelligence community encourages ownership of work as a group, schools grade individuals". Jenkins argues that interaction within a knowledge community builds vital skills for young people, and teamwork through collective intelligence communities contributes to the development of such skills.

Collective impact is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem, using a structured form of collaboration.

After World War II the UN, the Bretton Woods organization, and the WTO were created. Collective problem solving on the international level crystallized around these three types of organization from the 1980s onward. As these global institutions remain state-like or state-centric it is unsurprising that they perpetuate state-like or state-centric approaches to collective problem solving rather than alternative ones.

Crowdsourcing is a process of accumulating ideas, thoughts, or information from many independent participants, with aim of finding the best solution for a given challenge. Modern information technologies allow for many people to be involved and facilitate managing their suggestions in ways that provide good results. The Internet allows for a new capacity of collective (including planetary-scale) problem solving.

title: Problem solving


text:
Talk:Ephemeris

untitled
The changes on Feb 5, 2005, attributed to 69.244.72.110 were due to Pdn, who thought he was logged in, but that was in a different window. sorry

The Wikisource ephemerides are empty - does anybody know where the data is? Autarch

Panchanga tables under "History"
Not sure if this is the right place but, the Rig Veda definitely postdates the Middle Bronze Age; the bullet under "History" that:

2nd Millennium BC — Panchanga tables based on Jyotisha in the Vedic period of Indian astronomy.[citation needed]

isn't strictly false in the sense that the Rig Veda was likely composed in the second millennium but, what is considered "Jyotisha" or Hindu astrology, wasn't elaborated till much later. For example, the Rig Veda mentions demons causing eclipses and some of the later material (Atharvaveda and Chandogya Upanishad) also mention eclipse-demons, especially Rahu. The most firmly datable Indian astrological/astronomical texts are either translations from Greek (Yavanajataka) or much later medieval compositions (Brihat Parashara Horashastra). (sources are from the wiki article on Hindu astrology which is well sourced. In essence this bullet point is like attributing astronomy to the ancient Hebrews because of Joshua 10:13, when the sun stood still for Joshua at Gibeon and Ajalon. So if it's okay, and because the citation needed has been there for almost 4 years, I will go ahead and delete this bullet point. This is the citation left there: 2601:480:4101:B790:8C8D:90FF:C2DC:65AC (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

astronomical tables distinct from ephemeris
The articles does currently not differentiate between astronomical tables, like Tabulae Rudolphinae, and an actually computed ephemeris.

An Ephemeris is an actual list of daily (or other regular interval) positions of a celestial body. Astronomical tables are something different, they contain tabular data out of which positions of a celestial body can be computed, by a more or less simple procedure orf multiple steps (looking up numbers, adding, mulitplying, interpolating) but they do not yet contain the actual positions.--213.3.22.4 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like verification of the claim, "The majority of astrologers study tropical astrology" Warrensson (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate astronomy from astrology?
I would really like to see these separated into two articles. Opinions? Pro: much easier to elaborate on both subjects. Astronomers mostly think of astrology as a pseudo-science, Astrologers have little use for astronomer's ephemerides, as they calculate a completely different way. Con: ephemeris is the same word, with essentially the same meaning, for each of the two Tfr000 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This would also allow to stop using the words "scientific" and "astrological" every time the word "ephemeris" appears. No one in the astronomical community uses a term like "scientific ephemeris". Tfr000 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MocuAed (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) says: Re: separating Astronomy from Astrology: I agree with your approach because I am of the same opinion. At the same time I am under the impression that this particular article was intended as a "comparison" or as a "parallel" of astronomic and astrologic ephemerides, so maybe there is a place for it as such? If the historical perspective be enhanced and the content organized, it might become of some value. This is just a suggestion. Which, if applied, would rise the question: since it is a parallel look at ephemerides in astronomy and astrology, would it be reasonable to coin them "astronomic ephemerides" and "astrologic ephemerides" for this purpose? MocuAed (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'll just move the astrology stuff to ephemeris (astrology) and keep the unqualified name for ephemeris in its scientific sense, as in a encyclopedia, science has priority over obscurantism. Bomazi (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see someone deleted the astrology content. Hopefully, they moved it someplace appropriate before doing so. There's nothing wrong about non-scientific content, it simply isn't a good idea to blend the two together in one article - confusing. An encyclopedia, being encylopedic, should cover both. Tfr000 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone simply deleted the astrology stuff (diff) and it looks as if it was never put anywhere else. I think this improved the present article but it seems a pity the information was not put in Ephemeris (astrology) (if indeed there is such a thing). I know nothing about astrology and so can't sort it out. Thincat (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd be inclined to keep both kinds of ephemeris in the same article. The calculation of the positions of interest only to astrologers is, as far as I know, carried out in a neutral manner, in much the same way as it would be computed by astronomers. The pseudoscience comes in how the astrological ephemerides are used. Some of the data which the removed material claims is not present in astronomical ephemerides is only absent from paper astronomical ephemerides. In electronic ephemerides such as the Multiyear Computer Interactive Almanac some of the so-called astrological data is present, such as geocentric ecliptic latitude and longitude of planets.

 * People interested in astronomy who don't understand how to use some of the sophisticated electronic ephemerides and don't have the skills to transform positions in printed ephemerides to the coordinate system they are interested in might like to know about astrological ephemerides, since they might happen to have the data they are interested in without having to do any tricky transformations.

 * I know very little about astrology, but maybe astrologers would want to be exposed to the data available in astronomical ephemerides too; maybe they would have some use for the data that isn't usually provided in astrological ephemerides. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd have thought if an astrologer wanted to know where some celestial body actually was in the sky by using an astronomical ephemeris, they could do so and read up a bit about it here and not be bogged down with all sorts of baggage. But I thought (and I expect I'm wrong) astrologers didn't give a toss about what was where in the sky. When they say the sun is in Aries its really in the constellation of Pisces (generally). Astrological sign hints at this: "Precession results in Western astrology's zodiacal divisions not corresponding in the current era to the constellations that carry similar names". Thincat (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The popular western astrologers (who would be writing the horoscopes published in American newspapers, for instance) do keep track of the actual locations of the planets. They use the same ecliptic coordinate system that astronomers do, they just use different nomenclature for the coordinates. So an ecliptic longitude between 0 and 30° would be called Aries, between 30 and 60° would be called Taurus, etc. I believe astronomers used to use this nomenclature a few hundred years ago. An abbreviated version of this nomenclature can be found in Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris for the year 1767; numbers are used instead of names for the signs, but otherwise the nomenclature is the same as used by astrologers. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When I moved to a new job in Aberdeen, people would talk about the "blue buses". Since I had never seen a blue bus I plucked up courage to ask what they were. This caused great amusement because the blue buses were painted yellow and green. The livery had been changed years and years earlier but everyone still referred to them as "blue". Thincat (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation (ephĕmeris vs ĕphēmĕrĭs)
Since my was, there seems to be a need for discussion.

Firstly, about the factual content. Since the original Greek ἐφημερίς/ἐφήμερος has a (long) η in that position (a short e would be ε), it would be very surprising if the Latin had a short e (denoted ĕ) in this place. Vowel lenght was felt much more important in ancient Latin and Greek than in modern English, so this would not normally have changed easily.

Secondly, the citations. I don't have access to the source given (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), but I have a different paper source supporting what I wrote (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Lateinisch–Deutsch). Also the English Wiktionary entry gives a macron in this position, and while it isn't itself a valid source and also doesn't give one, it's French sister entry (which also gives a long IPA pronunciation) does give an online source.

Perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was referring to English pronunciation or simply made a mistake. --SpecMade (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I suggest we just remove the disputed Latin; it doesn't add much to the Greek anyway. (I will go ahead with that if there are no objections.) --SpecMade (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with removing the Latin, since the Greek origin is probably more interesting. I do have the American Heritage Dictionary and just read the notes about how the etymologies were done; they did intend to provide their opinion of how the late Latin was pronounced. Maybe they got it wrong; I'm no expert on Latin. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I do agree that you rightly reverted my edit, since it contradicted the source that had already been given, and I thank you for your vigilance. I have now changed it to be a bit more vague (and less controversial) and added another reference. There are simply more references to find for Classical Latin than for Late Latin, but if the only difference is the vowel lenght (which got less strict by Late Latin anyway), we are probably best off not to make any claim about that detail and not specify a particular stage of Latin. --SpecMade (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

insufficient clarity on modern use
Think some comment on this above, needs to be clearer about use in modern space ops, maneuver planning, antennae positioning, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ephemeris. 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/20050226015740/http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/README to http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/iau-comm4/README

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) 23:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarity Needed
The key to a definition is the verb "is" not "does" or "gives". The first sentence should be "... an ephemeris is _____". As written the question goes unanswered. Is an ephemeris a book? A chart? A set of numbers? A calculator? A pumpkin? Without a clear definition the rest of the article is a struggle to fully understand. Once one knows what an object *is*, then and only then is what it *does* or *gives* become relevant. ArtKocsis (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 * It's a means by which a person or process can look up the positions of naturally occurring astronomical objects as well as artificial satellites in the sky at a given time or times. It could be a book, a chart, a set of numbers, or a calculator. Not a pumpkin. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 * My point was that it needs to be clearly defined in the article. Most people are not going to read these talk pages to find what should be in the main article in the first place. (BTW, I'm relieved to know that it is not a pumpkin!) ;-) ;-)

 * Since "a means" is singular and "objects" is plural, does that mean one ephemeris (which, according to your definition, could be multiple pages or a book), only displays the coordinates(?) for multiple positions of a single object? Multiple positions of multiple objects? Multiple positions of multiple objects for multiple times? If so, then what is ephemerides?

 * It would help tremendously to have a readable example of a modern ephemeris with an explanation of the various entries and how to use it. The historical ones are interesting but unreadable. Also, where/how do ephemerides fit in with terrestrial (especially nautical), navigation? ArtKocsis (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Typically, an ephemeris will provide positions for a substantial number of objects for at least a year, but possibly many centuries. Keep in mind that some almanacs could also be called ephemerides. For one example of where the plural would be useful, look at the article Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris. JPL has produced dozens of ephemerides, which differ due to more up-to-date data, a goal to be as accurate as possible over a shorter span of years vs. being reasonably accurate over many centuries, etc. Of course, these JPL ephemerides are computer models, not books. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note 7 Link
A working link found for Note 7 is https://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_24/GAKVAB.pdf Drankinatty (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Ephemeris


text:
Talk:Jesus and the woman taken in adultery

Ligature
I am I the only person who finds it pretentious to insist on using a ligitature here, instead of the far simpler (& accurate) use of separate letters --  Pericope Adulterae? -- llywrch 03:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you're not. -Silence 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

isn't 'pericope' Greek -- not Latin?
If 'pericope' is Greek, then 'pericope adulterae' should not be described as 'anglicised Latin', eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius3 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Lots of words were borrowed from Greek into Latin, and "Adultera" is a native Latin word... AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the dude who is without sin...

 * 34,200 results for "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" on Google.
 * 14,500 results for "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" on Google.
 * 69,400 results for just "Let he who is without sin" on Google.
 * 23,400 results for just "Let him who is without sin" on Google.

Looks pretty clear to me which translation we should go with. -Silence 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Except that virtually all Bibles will go with "him", since it's the object of the main clause verb "let", and therefore requires the accusative case. It also happens to be the antecedent of "who", the subject of the relative clause verb "is", but only "who" has to be in the nominative case, not "him" as well. Take the relative clause out and see what makes sense, and that's what traditional grammar will choose: obviously "Let him [...] cast the first stone" rather than "Let he [...] cast the first stone".
 * I imagine the desire to use "he" is related to the hypercorrection that is concerned to avoid the accusative case of pronouns in subject position ("Me and Jim went to the cinema"), and ends up using the nominative case in places where traditionally the accusative case was required ("Show Jim and I what you've done"). DTOx (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Justification for prostitution
Cut from article:

 * It has also been used to defend the existence of prostitution, and from mediæval times to the Victorian era, prostitutes would often be found most frequently in regions around Bishop's palaces, known as liberties.

No source, and in 30 years as a Christian this is the first I've ever heard of this. Maybe I'm just not well-read? :-)

 * Yes, you need to read more critical history. The Church had brodels and slaves up until the Reformation.--Againme (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sources? Brothels and slaves? Which "church"? Misty MH (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The go and sin no more part would seem to label the "act" of adultery as a sin. One which she should "no more" engage in, implying it's wrong. Or am I missing something? --Uncle Ed 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point! LOL. Misty MH (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Yup, except that what prostitutes did was not seen as adultery, but as a service to the public. The Catholic Church sided with Aristotle, who stated that men have to discharge their sperm in order to be healthy. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 * What about some sources for all this? 216.198.80.202 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Embedded structures
There are no references for this diagram. Where has it been published; or is it original research? TomHennell 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

History of textual criticism
I have edited this section to remove references to the passage being "removed" from witnesses. While there are a number of manuscripts that lack the passage, and have had it subsequently added by a corrector, I know of none that had the passage, but where it was subsequently deleted.

I have also rephrased the final para of the section. There is no text critical dispute that I am aware over the origin of this story, and little over its age. It is agreed on all side that this is a primitive narrative tradition, almost certainly transmitting a historical episode in the life and teaching of Jesus. The question is rather whether it was bound into John's Gospel from the beginning, or whether it was only incorporated into the Gospel text at a later date. TomHennell 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I love this level of detail, but is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Should it be placed in a separate article, perhaps entitled "Detailed ..."?Scorwin (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of a ms where this was deleted - but then I seldom see any deletions of anything in any ms - but several mss have this paragraph bordered with oblii or other marks of doubts, and in some instances those marks could have been added to a ms that already had the paragraph without the marks of doubt. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The 18th Century Anglican divine John Gill has an account of the textual history of this passage. He found an earlier source than anything mentioned directly here, so it should be looked into. From his “Exposition of the Bible”:

“This history of the woman taken in adultery, is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus, Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius says, it is in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question.” 216.198.80.202 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Original Research
I am ignoring Tom Hennell's attempt to classify a simple table of quotations as "original research".

This is an absurd application of the rules concerning original research. The chart was merely an easy to read table of OT quotations from the Gospel of John, showing their position relative to the Pericope de Adultera.

To call this "original research" is absurd. Any child could tabulate the published footnoted OT quotations in any copy of the NT. If you delete every unordered list or disallow every organized presentation of facts, the wikipedia would lose 10% of its content.

Stop being anal about something so trivially simple.

I have removed Tom Hennell's undocumented opinions from the article. Citations were lacking, and as it stands, his edits have the shape of an attempt to form his own opinion rather than cite accepted and recognized authorities on the subject.

If you're going to insist on this level of strictness for edits, you can expect the same for your own. --Nazaroo 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I have reverted (again) the additions by user Nazroo that he admits are original research - and not yet published in peer reviewed journals or otherwise.

I give below Nazroo's justification for the insertions.

Naz

I regret that this is not "nonsense", but non-negotiable policy for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not the place to discuss the evidence for and against the passage - but rather the place to summarise the published opinions of scholars concerning the passage (including for and against its authenticity in John, and elswhere in the Apostolic Tradition). I, personally, have no axe to grind on this issue - but I am concerned that an informative summary of the range of opinion (as I believe the article as now stands aimed to be) should not become a contraversialist lecture. In particular, it is not good practice to attach critical comments of your own to othe scholars published opinions - let them stand, and confront them with the published opinions of contrary scholars.

But not your own research please - see the policy article no original research

regards

Tom

TomHennell 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki

"You deleted my chart with this note:

Is this original reasearch of your own, or has it been published? If the former, then - whatever its merits - it should be removed.

What kind of nonsense is that? It is original research of my own, and it has every right to be in the article, which is a discussion of the evidence for and against the passage.

"whatever its merits - it should be removed" ??? what are you talking about?

Facts and theories should always of course be evaluated based upon their merits, and not just "authorities". If you object to its implications, or question its interpretation as evidence, then just add your own comments, and keep them separate from mine.

This passage in John is a controversial passage, with many variations to be found in contemporary scholarly opinion. You can't just impose your own here at Wikipedia. A good article on this subject will eventually accumulate a wide variety of opinion and evidence from independant research, and that is what will make it a good article. At least 100 articles a year are published on John, and dozens on this passage.

Don't try to censor research or filibuster accumulated evidence. If you can't contribute constructively, leave the article alone.

Sincerely, Naz

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

Leadwind, thanks for your work in cutting out duplicates and OR, This article continually attracts such matter and has to be regularly pruned. I have, however, added back some elements relating especially to the evidence for the passage as a non-Johannine tradition. There are two distinct debates; whether the passage is original in John 7:53, and whether the story is an authentic tradition from the apostolic age. In my view, as it stood, the article confused these. I hope you don't mind. TomHennell (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Tom, you're right that I didn't carefully distinguish between "genuine" and "original to John." I count on smart people to catch me when I overreach, so thanks. Next, I'd like to find a way to point out that the proponents of "original to John" are the scholarly equivalent of creationists. Leadwind (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I am not sure whether Maurice Robinson is a "creationist", possibly he is; but his position on this pericope is contrary to the common consensus, and (though I do not agree with him) not without substance. In particular, the arguments against the pericope now appears rather less watertight than was thought in the early years of the 20th century.  Firstly, Robinson has convincingly argued that the obelization of the passage in many manuscripts relates to its lectionary usage, and not to any doubts as to authenticity.  Secondly, the discovery of references in Didymus the Blind undercut the argument that the passage is not known in any Greek Father.  Thirdly, arguments from internal consistency are less convincing in John (which shows signs elsewhere of editorial redaction) than in the synoptics.  Hence the passasge may not have been penned by the "original evangelist", but still be considered canonical if incorporated by the "original redactor". Finally, the widely accepted view that "umlauts" in Vaticanus indicate known, rejected, variants, may support the testimony of Western Fathers in ingicating the pericope was widely found in John in the manuscript tradition by the 4th Century.  TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation
I've removed the King James 2000 version, as that's a copyright violation, and replaced it with the original KJV (which is out of copyright in the U.S.). Please discuss here before making further changes to the translation. Superm401 - Talk 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a modern, more accurate translation would be more sensible. I'll put the NRSV in and see what happens... DTOx (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, that version has a copyright too, and is not more, but less accurate, since it is missing essential (underlined) text in parts of the latter verses:

 * NRSV 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. KJV 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

KJV 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
 * NRSV 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

 * When the accusers withdrew, the charges were withdrawn. Innocent unless proven guilty. She remains uncondemned, except maybe for all the people ever since who indirectly condemn her by continuing to call her an adulteress after her acquittal.Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * If it's "missing" the underlined bits it will be because those are now believed - on the basis of modern evidence not available to the makers of the KJV - not to have been present in the earliest manuscripts. Evercat (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, the whole passage is "missing" in the "earliest manuscripts", the SIN-VAT manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The point of the critics is that the passage is missing in whole or in part in some of the manuscripts. What is the point of including the quote from the Bible, but to show what is missing, so people can see what all the fuss is about? The KJV has the whole "missing" passage - the copyrighted NSRV does not.Telpardec (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Many versions that are copyrighted allow quotations to be made from them. Each has its own rules. Misty MH (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Several years later I can now go back to this with the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (2012) open in front of me. Of course it's not simply a case of the NRSV omitting verses willy-nilly. Yes, the whole section is marked as an "early insertion in the textual tradition", but in the manuscripts that it does appear in it appears in many, many variant forms. We can think of this section as first being added, and then as being edited and added to further. There isn't simply a longer and a shorter version: it's much more complicated than that. The KJV chose particular textual variants (and omitted others), and the NRSV chose other textual variants (and omitted others). The KJV doesn't have a more "complete" text, just a different one, probably based on later textual variants than the NRSV, as the tendency in recent Bible translations has been to go back to what is probably the oldest variant. In sections like this, where the oldest manuscripts don't have it at all, but the passage has been important in the Christian tradition, they usually include it within brackets and try to find the oldest version of the added section. Unless we're going to cite all the textual variants here, it seems sensible to go with a translation that reflects more recent scholarly work, like the NRSV.
 * And according to page iv of my version of the NRSV: "The NRSV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor account for 50% or more of the written text of the total work in which they are quoted". There's a notice of copyright to include, but I think we could manage that. DTOx (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What is said by a particular publisher is irrelevant. A short extract of the text for scholarly purposes such as comparing with other versions is always going to be well within "fair use" guidelines. If you did a whole text, or book, that way, the situation might be different. However, not a focused extract in the midst of a scholarly article. No, I am not a lawyer, however I believe this is a rather simple question. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In the article itself, I wouldn't get mad if someone would provide English translations to the segment on the variant Greek readings. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Holding
The section on James Holding's views is borderline original research. While he's fairly well known, he's not an academic Bible scholar, and doesn't even have a relevant degree. Evercat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * It should be removed since most likely, he added it himself but even if not, he is a modern-day apologist with no degrees in any relevant study. He's simply trying to do what Christians have done since day one: insert himself into the game covertly.  Someone should just do a quick search for J.P. Holding and remove all of his edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 * In fact, J.P. Holding isn't even his real name. It's just more of his deception and he doesn't even allow anyone to post differing views on his personal website.  He is no scholar and is looked down upon by every legit scholar that has had the misfortune to run across his writings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually I think he changed his name to be J. Holding. But that's not the point. Evercat (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See the wikipedia article on J. P. Holding for name change info.

So, what did Jesus write on the ground?
--24.6.228.145 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "letters" - (Whatever words he wrote with letters, they were trampled underfoot later.)

 * I like to think that he wrote THEIR sins. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 * WHY was he writing on the ground? :D Misty MH (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus presumably was writing by impressing, with his finger or a twig, into the dust or sand. But this was in the temple courtyard, and I would have supposed that the Temple did not have a dirt or sand floor but a paved or tiled floor, so there wouldn't be enough sand or dust to write. Also, there wouldn't have been loose stones around to use to kill this woman, and I have very serious doubts that it would have been acceptable to kill her or otherwise shed blood in the temple courtyard. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 * He wrote nothing. The story is a late forgery. It is not in the oldest manuscripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Sussmanbern gives further reasons for supposing that the whole story is completely untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wild variations
The Greek manuscripts that do include the story, all of which are late, from the 6th. century A.D. to the 15th., all have wild various readings in it. These suggest that the story is a late forgery and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Textual variants" are only a small fraction of those actually existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The heading has been altered to take account of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.67.31 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed the "Georgian Mss." to "Georgian Mss. of Adysh"
It was very ambiguous and false to write that some "Georgian mss." omit it, when most of the Georgian manuscripts actually have it. But the idea here is that the oldest manuscript, which is of Adysh lacks this, and later ones have it because all the later manuscripts are translations of X-XI century Georgian translation, so scribes just rewrote the Georgian one and didn't translate from Greek. Gospel of Adysh is late 9th century manuscript translated from Greek most possibly, so I just added the link to it and corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherguylb (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic church
Does the Catholic Church have a definite teaching regarding the authenticity of this passage? If so, it might be worth at least mentioning whatever the Catholic church's official point of view is. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the official answer is that as long as the passage is included in the current official edition of the Vulgate (1986) it should be treated as authentic. Dogmatically, only the definitions of Trent about the canon exist (which simply references the Vulgate as the authoritative text). It's probably that some detailed explanation from the Pontificial Commision on Sacred Texts exist, but i haven't checked it properly. If someone is interested in following this thread from a catholic POW i would recommend to get a copy of the University of Navarre's Bible NT volume. The critical apparatus there is enormous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.227.197 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic guide
So I see that the citation for the phonetic guide of pericope adulteræ includes the classical latin phonetic guide in addition to the one being used for the main entry:. I have two questions regarding these two phonetic guides:

1) The classical latin guide shoes that ae in adulterae is pronounced /ai/, but the linked wikipedia article on IPA for Latin shows /aj/, so which is correct?

2) The main phonetic guide for adulterœ shows that ae is pronunced /i/ like the English word "keen". I can't find a reference that allows æ to have this pronunciation, so where does it come from? Mysteryegg (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The notation /ai/ is probably phonemic, and /aj/ a hypothesis about how it was actually pronounced, i.e. a more detailed transcription. They're equivalent. You can find the answer to your second question at Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin. DTOx (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus's Literacy
From the 4th paragraph: To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes, the passage has been taken as confirmation of the literacy of Jesus, otherwise only suggested by implication in the Gospels, but the word "εγραφεν" in 8:8 could mean "draw" as well as "write".

My gripe with the above sentence is the "otherwise only suggested by implication in the Gospels" canard. What about Luke 4:16-21? That section clearly shows Jesus reading--but even more so, depicts Him as being able to open a scroll and find the specific passage He wanted. This is NOT an "implication"...this is an explicit, indisputable narrative.

That said, this part of the article needs to be fixed...or excised.

Mindfruit (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to go. The footnote looks like original research. It mentions a reliable source (which I don't have access to), but simply says "see also". "To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes" seems POVish. Also, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have partly reinstated it, without the POV start, & talking about "writing" rather than "literacy". As explained in (I think) Historical Jesus, in all pre-modern societies reading was a far more common skill than writing, and the two were taught one after the other, not together. As the rest of the article is all about textual issues it does belong in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The text says that Jesus "drew" on the ground - not explicit that he wrote words, maybe drew symbols or caricatures or some simple picture of an event. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Argument against the Death Penalty
Could this be used as an argument against the death penalty?98.228.223.184 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it has been so used: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/22/22-1/22-1-pp045-053_JETS.pdf    Crassiodorus (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Textual History
Under the section "Textual History" we learn that: "Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage"

Technically, so far as can be determined, it was only Eusebius who said that he believed that the story could be found (in Eusebius' day) in a Hebrew gospel. Note that he (Eusebius) used the present tense in stating that the story IS to be found... //And he (Papias) also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which IS to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.// (newadvent.org)

Given that Jerome reported that //the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place (in John's gospel?) in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century.// And that //This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery.//

In other words, Papias noted the story c. 120, then Eusebius thought that it was to be found in a Hebrew gospel c.320, then Jerome & others claimed that it existed in "many Greek & Latin manuscripts" c. 400. Given that Jerome included in the Latin Vulgate in John's gospel, the weight of evidence would seem to say that that was where he found it (rather than in a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMBarber (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Which verses to include?
Does John 7:53 actually belong here? It seems to me that the story actually starts with John 8:1. John 7:53 just says "Then the meeting broke up, and everybody went home." It's the end of the previous story, not the beginning of the next story.Sonicsuns (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Von Soden's Greek NT was especially thorough in covering the variants in this paragraph. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Interpretation" section needs to be split up, or renamed
Of the five paragraphs, the first two (the longest) are about the passage's status as an interpolation and question of canonicity (it is also extremely biased and unbalanced, and almost completely unsourced) and the third and fifth are about the influence of the passage on later art and culture; only the fourth short paragraph deals with interpretation. I do not know exactly how this problem should ne addressed, so I'm posting it here rather than editing directly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've kept 2 paras, & moved the rest to the lead, which was as usual much too short. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. 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/20110409164438/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409164438/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.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) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. 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/20110302185320/http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129 to http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129

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) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mosaic Law
You need to edit the "Mosaic Law" section to also include Deuteronomy 17:7 "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you." The first stone had to be cast by a person who was an actual witness. So, in order to institute stoning a person who actually witnessed the adultery, and who also "without sin" that is to say, not a participant in the adultery was the only one who had legal authority to cast the first stone. From that, one can make such inferences as he wishes I guess. To me it says don't be a gossip. I don't think it is so much about hypocrisy, because when the New Testament talks about hypocrisy, it usually isn't coy. In any event, it is important to explain that the casting of the first stone was a reference to Mosaic law. Hypercallipygian (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Guilty of several vices?
This article as it stands today is to my mind guilty of several vices:
 * it rambles like the Derby ram;
 * it fails to distinguish major from minor points, including far too many of the latter;
 * it gives far too much technical detail of little or no interest to at least 99% of readers;
 * it lacks a sense of history, since people in the past without access to the internet could only go on the documents they had seen and the teaching they had heard;
 * it contains long passages that are unsourced, so their credibility is therefore in doubt and their presence in the article potentially misleading;
 * it is unrepentantly sexist.

Does anybody disagree? Clifford Mill (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading it again, as far as patience allowed, may I put up some positive ideas? Some of the text is about what many would possibly consider one of the relatively significant incidents in the reported life and teaching of Jesus. As such, it probably merits an expanded article that  addresses the context and significance of the incident, which this one barely attempts. The rest of the present article must I suspect be of interest only to the infinitesimal minority of Wikipedia users who want to explore the arcane history of the textual variants and could therefore be (a) hived off into its own article or (b) without great loss deleted. Clifford Mill (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really - the religious significance of the passage is severely compromised by the belief of most textual scholars that it is a later addition. On the other hand, for the many interested in biblical textual issues, it is a very important subject. I would certainly oppose a split. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Clifford has retired. He seems to have over-looked the Wikipedia ban on telling us about his thoughts and feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

History of Pericope Adulterae
Does anyone have the background history or any reason why did these verses called "pericope adulterae"? Seltines

Atrocious bias
This is a remarkably bad article.

It's almost completely unsourced. Its main section is completely dedicated to apologetics against modern scholars' consensus, which is flat out unacceptable. Statements like "Some "experts" have also falsely claimed that no Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 1100s." or "Many modern textual critics have ignored the early church evidence that is available and have speculated that" undermining entire modern scholarship are out of place in encyclopedic entry. Views of the modern scholars are not represented in any shape or form other than such grotesque strawmans.

 * The article requires citations and solid rewriting.

 * Asocjates (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well you are free to edit/rewrite the article FMSky (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Major, recent English Bible translations tell it upfront that it's not a part of the Bible.
 * In case you wonder, the judgment of the Novum Testamentum Graece is final, and it reflects broad academic consensus. Novum Testamentum Graece is the "highest court" of the text of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)