text:
Lorelai Gilmore

Lorelai Victoria Gilmore is a fictional character in The WB dramedy television series Gilmore Girls. Created by Amy Sherman-Palladino and portrayed by actress Lauren Graham, she appeared in every episode of the show from 2000 to 2007.

Lorelai is introduced as a young single mother of a teenage daughter, Rory. Lorelai has a strained relationship with her wealthy parents, Richard and Emily, after running away as a teen to raise her daughter on her own. Lorelai remains estranged from her parents for many years, until the events of the pilot episode, where she asks her parents for help with paying Rory's tuition. Her parents agree, on the condition that she visits them for dinner every Friday.

Besides an on-again, off-again relationship with Rory's father, Christopher Hayden, Lorelai had a few romantic relationships that included Max Medina, a teacher at Rory's school, Chilton, to whom she was briefly engaged; Alex Lesman, an outdoorsy coffee house entrepreneur; Jason Stiles, a childhood acquaintance, and Luke Danes, the owner of Luke's Diner in her adopted hometown of Stars Hollow. As Lorelai frequented Luke's Diner, they grew to be close friends and eventually fell in love. In the Netflix revival miniseries A Year in the Life, Luke and Lorelai married.

Graham received widespread critical acclaim for portraying her character, and was nominated for several awards. She won two Teen Choice Awards and was also nominated for two Screen Actors Guild Awards and a Golden Globe Award. Lorelai is often included on lists of "top TV moms".

Background
Lorelai Victoria Gilmore was born to Richard and Emily Gilmore on April 25, 1968. Named after her paternal grandmother, Lorelai was raised in Hartford, Connecticut by her wealthy parents who wanted her to be a proper young lady of high society, go to an Ivy League college, and marry a man with wealth and status. Her early life was complicated by the high expectations of an overbearing mother and workaholic father; both parents wanted their daughter to fulfill the aspirations of their world of privilege. As a teenager, she discovered she was pregnant with her boyfriend Christopher's baby. Her parents discovered her pregnancy during a fitting for her debutante dress. This greatly embarrassed and disappointed her parents as well as the parents of Christopher, Straub and Francine Hayden. Straub Hayden initially suggested that Lorelai have an abortion; however, Emily would not allow this, and Richard suggested that Lorelai and Christopher should marry instead. Christopher agreed, but Lorelai refused, convinced that marrying so young simply wouldn't work out. When Lorelai realized she was in labor, she left a note for her parents and drove alone to the hospital. After giving birth to her daughter, Rory, on October 8, 1984, at the age of 16, Lorelai lived with her parents at their mansion in Hartford briefly before running away to Stars Hollow, a small fictional town in rural Connecticut, to find her own life. The owner of the Independence Inn, Mia, gave Lorelai a job as a maid, and let her and Rory live in the back in a renovated potting shed. The Independence Inn is where she met her best friend, Sookie St. James, who was executive chef at the Independence Inn. Lorelai worked her way up over the years and was eventually promoted to executive management, which is her job as the show opens. For many years after running away from home, Lorelai had almost no contact with her parents, except for visits during major holidays.

Storylines
When the series starts, Rory gets accepted into Chilton Preparatory School, a private and expensive high school. In order to pay the attendance fees, Lorelai goes as a last choice to Emily and Richard who agree to loan the money. In exchange for paying for Rory's tuition at Chilton, Emily and Richard instate mandatory "Friday night dinners" to which Lorelai reluctantly agrees, which allows them to get to know their granddaughter. Lorelai meets Rory's teacher Max Medina at Rory's first parent-teacher meeting in Chilton. They both become interested in one another and soon start seeing each other. When Lorelai wants to split as it becomes too serious, she kisses Max in Chilton, which provokes a scandal in the school and puts an end to their relationship. While they are separate, Lorelai has a one-night stand with Christopher after a heated argument with her parents. Christopher proposes to her, but she rejects him telling him he is not ready to take care of Rory and her. Lorelai later rekindles her relationship with Max and they become engaged. As their wedding is approaching, Lorelai has second thoughts and calls Christopher during her bachelorette party. Suddenly, Lorelai calls off the wedding and decides to go on a road-trip with Rory during which they visit Harvard University.

Christopher comes back to town for Rory's debutante ball. During the evening, Lorelai and Christopher share a kiss as she finds him changed, but he tells her he is now in a serious relationship with a woman named Sherry. Afterward, Lorelai and Sookie make plans about opening their Inn, but the building they want, Fran Weston's inn 'the Dragonfly', is not for sale. When Luke Danes' nephew Jess Mariano and Rory get into a car accident, Lorelai blames Jess which leads to a serious argument between Luke and Lorelai. They reconcile only months later. Christopher returns to Stars Hollow and after he tells Lorelai he has problems in his relationship with Sherry, they spend the night together before Sookie's wedding. They are both now ready to commit, but when Christopher learns Sherry is pregnant, he leaves Lorelai and returns to Sherry. In the third season, Lorelai then meets Alex Lesman at a lecture about inns and they begin dating. While she is on her way to the Friday night dinner, Lorelai comes across Max and they catch up. They again run into each other at Chilton's bicentennial and share a kiss. After several days, the two meet at a Chilton's parent committee evening and Max makes it clear he does not want them to reunite. On Lorelai's birthday, Richard gives her payout from an investment he had made at her birth; however, she decides to repay her parents for the loan, which shocks Emily. Fran dies which gives the possibility to Lorelai and Sookie to buy the Dragonfly. The Independence Inn closes and Lorelai plans on using the money aimed for the Dragonfly to pay for Yale University's fees; however, Rory refuses to let her pay for Yale and instead asks her grandparents for their financial help, reinstating in return the Friday night dinners. This then allows Lorelai and Sookie to buy the Dragonfly on Rory's graduation day.

In the fourth season, Luke marries lawyer Nicole on a cruise but they soon divorce, and Lorelai and Sookie begin the renovations of the inn. Richard forms a new partnership with his former associate's son, Jason Stiles, who happens to be an old summer camp friend of Lorelai's. After he has a disagreement with Emily about Richard's new business launch party, Lorelai furious goes to talk to him and at the end of their discussion he invites her to dinner, but she refuses. Later on, Jason succeeds into getting invited by Emily to a Friday night dinner and he and Lorelai get closer. She eventually accepts his invitation to dinner and start seeing each other without telling her parents. As she is running out of money to renovate the inn, Lorelai asks Luke's help who offers her a loan. When Emily organizes a dinner with Jason's parents, Jason's father, Floyd, announces he is going to sue his son and Richard because they have taken his clients. Floyd also tells Lorelai's parents about her relationship with his son, which shocks Emily. In the fallout of Floyd's announcement, Richard decides to associate with Floyd jeopardizing Jason's career. When the former tells her he will sue her father, Lorelai breaks up with him. Luke, whose marriage to lawyer Nicole failed, finally realizes the woman he truly loves is Lorelai. She serves as a date for his sister's wedding and sees him under a new light. At the end of the evening he tells her they should spend more time together. Lorelai and Sookie open their inn and after a misunderstanding about Jason, Luke and Lorelai finally kiss for the first time.

In the fifth season, Lorelai embarks on a relationship with Luke and after she discovers Rory has lost her virginity to married Dean, who was her first love and former boyfriend. Dean had married another girl after breaking up with Rory. This entanglement with a married man strains Rory and Lorelai's mother-daughter relationship. Eventually Rory apologizes. Christopher panicking over Sherrie's departure to Paris, leaving him alone with their baby, calls Lorelai for help. Rory later tells Christopher to leave her mother alone. After no news following her visit to his house, she invites Christopher to the inn with Rory and notices the tension between them. Luke also worries when he learns about the dinner. When Christopher's father dies, Lorelai and Rory go at his house to support him. However, Lorelai does not mention her visit to Luke. Emily tells Christopher that the relationship between Lorelai and Luke is getting serious and that he should do something if he wants to end up with Lorelai. At Richard and Emily's wedding renewal ceremony, Lorelai finally admits to Luke her visit to Christopher when she notices his presence. Christopher tells Luke that his relationship with Lorelai won't last because he is destined to be with Lorelai. This leads to Luke breaking up with Lorelai, but they later reunite. Lorelai, however, remains furious at Emily for some time and eventually forgives her. Lorelai is worried about Rory's relationship with Logan Huntzberger and his family's influence on her. At the conclusion of the season, they steal a yacht and end up at the police station. Rory decides to take a year off from Yale which upsets Lorelai and when her parents, who initially agreed to help, change their mind and permit Rory to move in with them, prompts Lorelai to propose to Luke.

In the sixth season, Lorelai and Rory do not talk for months while Luke agrees to marry Lorelai and they renovate her house. When Luke reveals he cannot trust Lorelai after she has received a message from Christopher, the two fight. Lorelai and Rory finally reconcile and she decides to return to Yale. Luke learns he has a daughter but does not tell Lorelai. Lorelai later finds out about Luke's daughter and they decide to postpone the wedding. When Christopher receives an inheritance, he starts to pay for Yale and the Friday night dinners aren't so mandatory anymore. After posing an ultimatum to Luke which leads to their break-up, Lorelai finds comfort in Christopher and they start dating again.

In the final season of the original series, Lorelai and Christopher jet off to Paris, where they impulsively get married. When Lorelai returns home and informs Rory and the rest of Stars Hollow, including Luke that she and Christopher are married she gets mixed reactions. Rory is upset at first, but comes around since she all she really wants is her mom (and for that matter her dad) to be happy. Throughout the season, Christopher and Lorelai face some significant problems, the biggest one is when Lorelai needs to write a character reference for Luke so he can get partial custody of his daughter, April. Christopher finds a draft of the letter and when reading it, he realizes that Lorelai still loves Luke. Lorelai tries to deny it, but they both soon realize that they're better off as friends. In the end, Lorelai reunites with Luke. She realizes how much she loves Luke when she finds out that he was the one who planned Rory's goodbye party for the entire town. Lorelai realizes that Luke has been there for her from the beginning, and he loves her and her daughter. In one of the final scenes of the show, Lorelai and Luke share a passionate kiss and get back together, finally ready to settle into a stable relationship.

In the Netflix revival miniseries, A Year in the Life, Lorelai and Luke have built a life together. They are living together in her home, he still runs the diner and she still owns her inn, but they have not married. Throughout the four episodes, Lorelai goes through a lot, especially with her relationship with her mother. Lorelai and Emily always had a strained relationship yet over the years it had gotten better. In the revival, the two go to family therapy. Lorelai also goes on her own version of "Wild" where she tries to find herself. When she returns, she realizes her life is with Luke in Stars Hollow and she's happy. The show ends with Lorelai and Luke's wedding in the center of Stars Hollow at dawn with some of her closest friends, Michel, Lane, Kirk and Rory.

In the very last scene of the show, Lorelai sits with Rory as they reflect on 'it all'. Suddenly, Rory turns to her mother and tells her she is pregnant.

Casting
Three other actresses, including Nina Garbiras, were initially considered to play Lorelai, but the network rejected them and instead mentioned the name of Lauren Graham. Before landing the role of Lorelai in Gilmore Girls, Graham starred in many short-lived TV shows, guest appeared in a number of top 10 prime-time comedies and did commercial work.

She obtained the role in Gilmore Girls because she had all the characteristics producer Amy Sherman-Palladino was looking for. "The fact that you had someone that talented running around Hollywood, not found yet, was the biggest coup in the world", she said "Because Lorelai's a hard part. You've got to be funny, you've got to talk really fast, you've got to be able to act, you've got to be sexy, but not scary sexy. You've got to be strong, but not like 'I hate men.' It's a lot that goes into this character, and it was really a tough find. And to find it and be able to feel like you broke somebody fresh, even though everybody in town knew Lauren, like everybody here was like, 'When is Lauren going to get something great.' But America didn't know Lauren, and that was a real coup for us."

Characterization
Virginia Heffernan of The New York Times described Lorelai and Rory as "unsentimental brainiacs" who, if they could see Gilmore Girls, would hate its sentimentality of the last and final season. She talks fast and uses words to keep her "loneliness at bay" which, while opinion, seems to be a relatively insightful view of her. Lorelai feels that to "swoon, even once," would make her lose her verbal power and her "reason for being." On the characteristic of talking fast, Sherman-Palladino noted: "Just by listening to Lorelai's vocal patterns, it says volumes about this woman: First of all, that she's bright enough to put that many words together that quickly... and it says a lot about her emotionally, that she's got a deflection shield that's sort of the way she gets through the world, which says survivor." She also said of the character: "Lorelai's humor was her guard and her deflection and what kept her strong. It was her Wonder Woman cuffs."

Margaret Lyons of Vulture.com wrote an analysis on Lorelai pointing out her flaws: "Both Gilmores have an exaggerated sense of their own wonderfulness, though I suppose, in their defense, those around them seem to play along. [...] Lorelai's downfall is her intense, overwhelming self-absorption. She's chronically rude to people in the service industry, and she is always in the market for special treatment. She is not a good friend to Sookie, even though she thinks she is; she kinda, sorta takes advantage of Sookie's pleaser tendencies and frequently ignores, minimizes, or dismisses Sookie's ideas and problems. Her self-absorption erodes any opportunity for self-awareness. She likes to refer to her "emotional baggage," but she assiduously avoids doing anything about it. Lorelai knows how to push Emily and Richard's buttons, and she never hesitates to do so."

In the fifth season, Lorelai started a relationship with Luke Danes; Sherman-Palladino commented: "I thought we had enough time invested in the relationship that people would care. We had a good four years, and in those four years, we saw Luke go through relationships, and we saw Lorelai go through three relationships. I felt like it was time."

Reception
E! Online's Lia Harberman summarized Lorelai as "a woman we’re dying to call Mom. [...] Finally, the ultratalented actress gets a chance to shine in a show that looks like it just might stick around." Willa Paskin of PopMatters wrote Lorelai is "perhaps the most fully developed female character on television." The New York Times TV columnist Virginia Heffernan said the character was "painful and surprising and exciting to watch — a marvelous high-wire act." According to Michael Ausiello, fans were reluctant to let Luke and Lorelai go.

In 2005, in honor of Mother's Day, Inside TV, a newly-published weekly magazine for television fans, chose its picks for Top 10 All-Time Greatest TV Moms. Gilmore Girls Lorelai Gilmore ranked 5th ahead of classic television mothers Marion Cunningham of Happy Days, Caroline Ingalls from Little House on the Prairie and Carol Brady. of The Brady Bunch. On May 11, 2008, TiVo released the results of a survey conducted by eRewards Market Research on Television's Top Moms. Lorelai ranked 14th, with 20 percent of respondents selecting her among their top 20 TV moms. In the 1000th issue of Entertainment Weekly, Lorelai Gilmore was selected as the Mom for The Perfect TV Family. In 2009, she was voted the "Best Mom" in Zap2it first poll of the best television characters in the 2000s. She was listed in the Top 5 Modern TV Moms by Film.com. In February 2012, Zap2it held a poll to determine TV's Most Crushworthy. Lorelai was elected TV's Most Crushworthy Mom over Gloria Delgado-Pritchett of Modern Family. In May 2012, Lorelai was one of the 13 moms chosen by users of iVillage on their list of "Mommy Dearest: The TV Moms You Love". Lauren Graham was selected twice for her portrayal of Lorelai by the Teen Choice Awards, winning "Choice TV Parental Unit" in 2005 and 2006.

In June 2010, Lorelai was named one of the 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years along with her daughter Rory by Entertainment Weekly. She was also listed in AfterEllen.com's Top 50 Favorite Female TV Characters. AOL TV ranked her the 57th Most Memorable Female TV Character. Lorelai and Rory were listed in Paste 35 Greatest TV Duos of All Time. Her relationship with Luke was included in TV Guide's list of the best TV couples of all time. They were also part of Entertainment Weekly "30 Best 'Will They/Won't They?' TV Couples". AOL TV placed their kisses among the "10 Best Smooches in Television". For her portrayal of Lorelai, Graham received a nomination for the award of Best Actress in a Drama Series at the 2002 Golden Globe Awards, but lost to Jennifer Garner from Alias. She was also nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series in 2000 and in 2001. Several critics felt Graham's performance deserved an Emmy Award nomination;  however, she never received any, leading Megan Friedman of Time magazine to list her in her "Top 10 Emmy Snubs".

title: Lorelai Gilmore


text:
Talk:Boyd K. Packer

NPOV in Controversy Section
This section should be deleted:

Despite Packer saying "I am not recommending that course," Packer's comments constitute an endorsement of gay bashing, and the church itself endorses such behavior by continuing to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form.[15][16]

Because these claims are assumptions, they must be attributed to a person as an opinion. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've restored it to it's original state, where the claims were attributed to specific critics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It still represents a bias, and should be put in context. Something like, "Some people view this as an endorsement by the church as they continue to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." Ejnogarb (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure why it still represents bias. It says, "some critics have argued that Packer's comments constitute an endorsement of gay bashing, and that the church itself endorses such behavior by continuing to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." That statement is followed by two citations to the "critics" who have made these claims—Quinn and Hardy. I don't see how this is any different than saying, "Some people view this as an endorsement by the church [of gay bashing] as they continue to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form." The two phrases mean virtually the identical thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That's because someone changed it recently. The text used to read (see 5 paragraphs up), but now it seems acceptable. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I changed it back to the original state, as I said above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Packer's views have been recently confirmed in a sermon he gave in April 2009. This is published on the official LDS website. They are highly relevant as they indicate this stance has not altered over time. It is a matter of fact that he said what he did. Why does somebody have a problem with this? You are deleting accurate factual information. Is this because it is "true but not useful"? You demonstarte bias by removing this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.22.62 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem with the disputed paragraph is that no reference is given for the statement that some (who are these "some"?) see his 2009 conference address as "being mysogynostic [sic] and demonstrating his continued endorsement of his controversial views on sexual restrictions." Citing just the conference address is insufficient and fails original synthesis, as the statement that the address is controversial is conjectural interpretation of that source. We can say that Packer said such and such, but in order to say that such comments are controversial in this manner requires a reliable source. At least that's why I've removed the paragraph, and I would imagine the other editors were similarly motivated. I'm sure they'll chime in if I've missed anything. Also, since this is a living person, policy is to remove unsourced, contentious material (see Biographies of living persons). --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The above is a good summary of the reason I also removed the paragraphs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, WikiPedia. Home to all that is timid. Are we really supposed to pretend that there's no "controversy" over Packer's statement, just because nobody has posted it to their Blog yet? This is what's so infuriating about WikiPedia these days, and why it's become next to useless. You can find ten thousand words on fictional Light Sabre techniques, but if one of the leaders of a major American religion says something stupid and homophobic on national television, WikiPedia pretends that it couldn't possibly have caused any "controversy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Don't blame Wikipedia for the Biographies_of_living_persons rules, they only exist because Wikipedia was tired of getting sued (that article's out of date). Blame the people who sued the Foundation. Banaticus (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some things that are true are not very useful"
I am thinking that this statement attributed to Packer should be included in the 'controversy' section, but I am willing to insert it into another part of the article if other editors believe it would be a better fit elsewhere. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not sure why the quote was gutted the way it was ... 'undue weight'  issues seem to be a matter of opinion. My belief is that Packer's quotes should include the following:
 * ""That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs"!"

 * that is the gist of Packer's message to these teachers, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Apparently some editors are above discussing this important change here (like we are supposed to do); taking out that section is simply ignoring the entire purpose of this speech. I am adding it back until some consensus is reached, either here or at a broader WP forum. Please leave it in until we come to an agreement about this, one way or the other. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be direct - there is only you and I. I think the quote is too much, you think more is better. There is no concensus, just you adding it and me removing it. I'll leave it in for a while to see if anyone else chimes in, but I plan to still remove it if there is none, since there is no concensus either way. -- Trödel 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) PS - I see you still will accuse me of not explaining changes, when your comments here clearly illustrate that you read my explanation in the edit summaries and responded to them above.

 * Terse edit summaries are no replacement for a discussion on an article's talk page (but you already knew that). I followed the proper procedure and asked for discussion here before I added it. (No responses were supplied) If you remove it again I will ask for help from other WP editors in reading the cited source and determining how important the entire quote is; as far as I am concerned you have gutted the main gist of Packer's speech (and the intent of his speech) when you delete that large part of the quote. I don't see how you feel that it is your right to delete it solely on your opinion. The 'undue weight' excuse is not enough; I cited proper sources for what I added; if you want a differing opinion in addition to that, find some sourced material. Duke53 | Talk 04:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no wonder that I avoid discussion with you, they are always contentious.
 * You proposed including a specific quote,
 * I didn't object - any comment I could make would probably start some kind of argument. I think - its a short quote, I can find references, no reason to respond and get into some kind of argument.
 * You inserted a much larger quote with POV commentary
 * Without pointing out the improper wikiformatting or the fact that you inserted much more than you proposed on the talk page, I fix, summarize, and tighten the language
 * I include an explanation for the removal in my edit summary,
 * You responded here and, true to all my interactions with you, begin the attacks,
 * I've found several news articles that refer to this quote that could be used as references, NONE identify the extended quote. Perhaps you could do the research for a secondary source for what you want to include, then I might be persuaded. -- Trödel 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The 'second most senior apostle among the ranks of the church' urges church teachers to lie and you feel that including this info is not relevant? It is incredible to me that you take this stance. No matter how many strawmen you build and include here, the info is relevant. Unless consensus is reached to delete it (not a couple comments from a couple people) it will be included in this article. I sourced the material I added; it is not your right to delete things you don't agree with; if you feel that it is POV, then find sources with a differing POV to attain NPOV. I don't feel that what I added is POV, and it is not my job to research items to support your belief. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I am ignoring your 'argument' allegations on the grounds that they are simply ludicrous ... try a different tactic, please.

 * I agree that it would be a more interesting controversy if that were the case, unfortunately for you Packer was a junior apostle at the time and gave this talk 30 years ago. Finally, you still have not added any secondary source support for the claim that this is notable. You still have not provided any secondary source material in support of the quote. Thus it remains an attempt to put your view into the article with a quote from the original source material - the very definition of OR. -- Trödel  21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It would help to know how much of the quote to include if we had a reliable source that discusses the "controversy" surrounding the speech, but right now we don't have that. But anyway, I was a little bit familiar with the speech, but the only part I had ever heard discussed as being controversial was the part Trodel is leaving in. The other part could be seen as controversial, but it's not part of the speech I ever hear quoted. Not having a source to demonstrate otherwise, I would say from my point of view the part Trodel is including is the important part of the speech and is probably the only part that needs to be included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * My original comment here addressed whether my post should be included in the 'controversy' section or elsewhere in the article: "I am thinking that this statement attributed to Packer should be included in the 'controversy' section, but I am willing to insert it into another part of the article if other editors believe it would be a better fit elsewhere. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)". No responses so I just stuck it there. Duke53 | Talk 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I've no problem it being there. I think it's only a notable quote because it's been criticised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * "I think it's only a notable quote because it's been criticised [sic]...". Wow. I think it's a notable quote because in it one of the top leaders of the lds church was encouraging church teachers to lie. Duke53 | Talk 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you see how that view is "original research" - i.e. you are trying to insert something in an article not because it is independently notable but because you find it notable for a specific reason. Additionally, your interpretation of Packer's comments isn't the only interpretation, that is why we should stick to secondary sources that provide that interpretation and not the interpretation of the editors here. -- Trödel  16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't really care what I or any other WP editor thinks about the quote. What I care about is what reliable sources have said about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree partly with Trödel and Good Ol’factory. I'd go the more extreme and remove the quote entirely per WP:BLP until a reliable source is provided that calls the quote controversial or notable. Otherwise, it's our own opinion that the quote is controversial or notable, and conjectural interpretation of a source. The reliable source would then determine which parts of the quote to use. So, I'd say, per WP:BLP, remove the quote entirely to the talk page where the final form can be discussed, and once a consensus is reached the quote and secondary source can be put back. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think there are two separate questions: (1) is Packer's overall point notable, well documented, and discussed by at least one reliable source that portrays it as controversial?, and (2) how much of Packer's speech needs to be quoted to fairly convey the point of the controversy? Clearly, the answer to #1 is yes.  The answer to #2 is debatable. It is possible to quote more than has been specifically discussed by other sources, if having an expanded quote would add something, such as context or further explanation. In any event, I think some of the criticism of Packer's speech (e.g., D. Michael Quinn's 1981 speech to Phi Alpha Theta, later republished) were about Packer's entire speech, not just about one or two quoted passages. Quinn's speech critical of Packer's speech may be found here, and in D. Michael Quinn (1992) "On Being a Mormon Historian (and It's Aftermath), in Faithful History, George D. Smith, ed., Salt Lake City: Signature Books.  He quotes different parts of Packer's speech than those currently cited in the article, but his discussion is generally about the speech as a whole. CO GDEN  22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Same stuff, new context
So now some of the same quotes have been included in a new section called "Some of Packer's teachings". Now there is no mention of "controversy", but there are still no secondary sources referred to. Shouldn't we still have some reliable sources that discuss these teachings in particular, rather than just WP editors selecting what to include from the many primary sources that include Packer's teachings? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It is becoming very obvious that certain editors do not want this included in the article ... they are running through the menu of excuses for not including it. Now we have a secondary source (that discusses these teachings in particular); it was simply copied & pasted to avoid the dreaded 'original research' attack. Duke53 | Talk 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The time is now here to have editors WP-wide discuss and decide whether this section should be included in the packer article. I am not sure how to go about doing that, so if an admin would assist me here I would be most appreciative. Duke53 | Talk 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Instead of misinterpreting the actions of other users and assuming what we do and do not want—why don't you just focus on the concerns specific expressed? Many editors have a hard time believing that not every action of another editor is part of either a pro- or anti-Mormon conspiracy. I have no problem with the speech being referred to, as long as it's being referred to by a reliable source. But there is no excuse for adding a word-for-word copying of text and not indicating by quotes or indenting or otherwise that the material was a quote, as you did previously. If you need to brush up on how to format quotes, then do so, but don't jump to a conspiratorial conclusion if it's done improperly and gets removed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * " ... but don't jump to a conspiratorial conclusion if it's done improperly and gets removed." So, the best way to improve an article is to simply remove sections, rather than help by re-formatting them ? Interesting concept ... one I will have to remember to use. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't say it was necessarily the best way, though you may wish to refer to WP:COPYVIO. Some of us only have so much time and can't always do what would be "best" in every situation. For instance, it would probably be "best" if administrators could research and re-write every page that is 100% copyright violation rather than just deleting it, but that's not what we do because it is takes more time. In this case removing it was better than have it standing as a cut and paste copy, though, so I did improve the situation in the limited time I had. (Anyway, I had little doubt that you would format it properly and re-add it, as I suggested in my edit summary, since you seem to have been monitoring the page over the past few days.) It would be "best" if I could spend all day on WP, but of course I can't. But if you don't assume good faith, you're liable to misinterpret a lot of what other users do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the current attempt is entirely the wrong approach. Like any good biographical article, there ought to be a Teachings or Positions section that outlines his most notable (as measured by the amount of secondary discussion or criticism) teachings or positions on various subjects.  One of those positions should be his views on "faithful history", which should include both quotes from his speeches (not just the 1981 speech to CES), as well as critical commentary by Quinn and others.  Another one of his positions should be his well-documented views on homosexuality, as well as critical discussion, again, by Quinn and others. The "arts" section can be inserted into this section as well.  I don't think we even need to really say that Packer's views are "controversial", because that will be obvious given the context. CO GDEN  16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * " ... there ought to be a Teachings or Positions section ...." Have at it ... I just recently discovered the part that I added but I will also add others as I learn of them. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. Wasn't Packer also the leader who delivered the speech to missionaries about the 'evils' of masturbation ? It would seem like that should be included in sections like that which you describe. Duke53 | Talk 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I just organized everything in the framework I think the article ought to follow. I didn't really change anything, just organized it in a way that there is a natural framework for discussion of his controversial (and notable non-controversial, as well) positions. CO GDEN  17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
I just added the OR notice to this section. I still see no secondary sources, but only a synthesis of the information by Wikipedia editors along with references to the source material which is the very definition of Original Research. I'm sure that there are some secondary sources that could be quoted, as I've said from the beginning, and with COgden verifying that there are such sources (as opposed to Duke53's unreliable profers), I am just putting the notice on until addiitonal secondary sources are added to the article. -- Trödel 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The erroneous link in the following contrib has been struck thru.See my comment below. --Jerzy•t --Jerzy•t 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * •"... as opposed to Duke53's unreliable profers." I offered a good, reliable secondary source (John Krakauer) which now has disappeared 'somehow'. Nice job of keeping up with the personal attacks, BTW. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx for the compliment - you make it fun - Sorry I missed the reliable source -- Trödel 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * John Krakauer does not write in a relevant area. Jon Krakauer (mentioned further down this talk page) does. --Jerzy•t 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of a large number of secondary sources does not constitute original research, so long as the text does not make any controversial interpretations about the existing sources. As far as I can tell, the text follows the sources pretty closely. Do you have any specific examples of an improper extrapolation based on a source? There is a footnote that says that Packer's reference to "milk before meat" was apparently a reference to 1 Cor. 3:2, but I think that's pretty obvious and not at all controversial. CO GDEN  22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reading an old version of the text I had opened up and didn't notice your changes after I clicked edit and added the OR tag - I will remove. -- Trödel 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * To me the section as it stands now also looks fine from an OR perspective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Regarding Duke53's comment above, I was the one that removed the Jon Krakauer citation. We can still use Krakauer, but I couldn't see how to use his quoted commentary in the present text. In any event, I think Quinn is probably the most important source criticizing Packer on this point. I'll see if I can find some other good ones. CO GDEN  16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I knew where the citation went, but apparently that other editor can 'pretend' that no reliable source was supplied, if he maintains that he didn't see it. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To the One
The reference to the talk "To the One" given in the References section (http://www.lds-mormon.com/tto.shtml) seems to contain broken links to the images that are supposed to be the pages of the talk. Does anyone know if this site is still operational or if there is another location where the text/image of the talk can be found? Gandalf (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it would be available on line, but I do have a hard copy that was published by the LDS Church in small pamphlet form in 1979. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just from looking around, I can only find the text of the speech on a few blogs, such as at this one, where "To Young Men Only" and "To the One" are reproduced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the document is on the lds.org website, it is likely that any online version would be a copyright violation so we cannot link to it. 72Dino (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. It was removed from lds.org a number of years ago. The text is published in Packer's book That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982) on pp 186–200, so that's probably the best place to cite it to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer's military rank
It is stated in the article that Boyd K. Packer was a pilot in the Army Air Force. In the right sidebar it shows his rank as Senior Airman, with an image of the current U.S. Air Force rank of Senior Airman. This is incorrect because the rank of Senior Airman is an enlisted grade of the Air Force, and not the grade of a military pilot. Boyd was probably a Lieutenant, Captain, or Major when he was a pilot. The rank listed in the article, along with the symbol of that rank should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I will remove the rank entry from the infobox until his rank is concretely ascertained from a reliable source.  White Whirlwind  咨   21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Packer's official biography on LDS.org just refers to him as a pilot without making mention of a rank. And the 2012 Church Almanac is even less informative than that. I don't know exactly where we'd find that information. But I'll look around and see what I can find. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Temple Dedications
As Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Packer dedicated the Regina Saskatchewan Temple. As President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he dedicated the Brigham City Utah Temple. I feel this information is pertinent enough to add, but the question is, where should it be added? Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it makes much difference, as it is noted under his service in the Quorum of the Twelve. There is not much value added in distinguishing between dedicating a temple as Acting President versus President of the Twelve.  It is of course unique that he did this not as a member of the First Presidency, and that is highlighted in the current article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not know that this information was already included in the article. Looked it over, and what is there satisfies me perfectly. Thanks, and sorry I didn't notice that before. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed while rereading this article that the mention of Packer's participation in temples was not chronological. So I turned that information into its own section and made it chronological. I would be fine if it was to be edited to be worded better. I just don't want to see this section eliminated without discussion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Church Presidents: Appointed vs. Ordained.
Recently, in connection with Packer's call to the twelve, in referring to the new Church President, the word "ordained" replaced the word "appointed" because one editor felt it would violate WP:NPOV to imply that a Church President was appointed by God. My take on this issue: As an active member of the LDS Church, I believe that prophets truly are appointed by God. However, for WP purposes, the word "appointed" would still be accurate, as all Church Presidents since Brigham Young have been appointed by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. So I feel it would be beneficial to employ both terms. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm LDS too, but what we personally believe is irrelevant here (and on Wikipedia in general). The word "appointed" is never used in any reliable sources on the subject of new Church presidents that I've ever read. "Ordained" is a religious word that translates very well across both an LDS and non-LDS spectrum in terms of its connotations being fairly similar to readers from both groups, unlike terms like "set apart", which is highly LDS-specific, or "appointed", which is used more in political or business situations.   White Whirlwind  咨   06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. However, since they are also "appointed," I still feel both terms should be employed. A short explanation as to how that comes to pass would explain the term quite nicely. But I am just one voice, and I see your point. Any other thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Too Much Tolerance Being a Sin...
Should an addition be made to the 'sexuality' section as an update? His recent talk (Spring 2013 General Conference) -- again encouraging intolerance strikes me as a necessary addition. The inclusion would support the other entries as not being occasional misstatements, but rather a recurring and favored theme. -sorry, I've forgotten my username, it's been so long since I made an entry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.163.201 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Twisting Packer's words is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Packer did not encourage intolerance. Rather, he reiterated the Church's longstanding policy on homosexuality. The policy states that Church members are to reach out in love towards those struggling with homosexuality while at the same time not excusing what the LDS Church and most of Christianity views as a sin. I agree this talk could be added to the list of Packer's talks on controversial topics, but it should be added in a way that remains true to what Packer said without making judgments one way or the other about the rightness or wrongness of what he said. To do otherwise would go contrary to WP:NPOV. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Packer's talk should not be added to the controversy section until it is referenced as such by a reliable source. To do otherwise is essentially WP:Original research.  White Whirlwind  咨   01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with White Whirlwind on this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Bomber Pilot"
The existing version says Packer flew several bombing missions in WWII. That is not supported by any of the references. An Ensign article says this: "Young manhood came to Boyd Packer about the time World War II began. After graduation from high school, he worked for a time on construction of an army hospital in his hometown. Like many young LDS men of his generation, he was unable to serve a proselyting mission because of the war. In the spring of 1943, he enlisted in the Army Air Force, graduating as a pilot the following year, a few days before his twentieth birthday. He was then trained to fly bombers and ordered to the Pacific Theater. He was stationed in Japan for nearly a year after the end of the war." So he got his wings in September 1944, then went to bomber-training school. Another source says that he was on Okinawa when the war ended, then was stationed in Japan until 1946. I haven't found any official statement that he "flew in combat" as such. Therefore I am revising the text to agree. If someone can find certifiable details that the facts are otherwise, feel free to re-edit that section. Thanks ! --Spray787 (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment it states he entered the forces in 1948, and then went on to qualify as a pilot in 1944... can someone correct. thanks. Deadstar (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boyd K. Packer. 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/20120928060814/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com:80/brighamcity/ to http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/brighamcity/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boyd K. Packer. 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/20130319124254/http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/33382_eng.pdf to http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/33382_eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310045326/https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5472 to https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5472
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319124254/http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/33382_eng.pdf to http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/33382_eng.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) 06:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boyd K. Packer. 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/20101013160708/http://www.hrc.org/news/14971.htm to http://www.hrc.org/news/14971.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613200859/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C9725 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C9725
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527234212/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/faithful/chapter6.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/faithful/chapter6.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) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Teachings and Legacy - split into two sections?
Would the paragraphs on his teachings on homosexuality and history be better placed in a different section called "criticism"? Smachable (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Boyd K. Packer


title: File:Killer7boxnew.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board/QCOTW

Each week a Quebec Collaboration of the Week will be picked using this page. This is a Quebec-related topic which either has no article or a basic stub page, the aim being to have a decent (i.e. Unstubbed and fairly comprehensive) article by the end of the week, from widespread cooperative editing.

Collaborators
People listed there have committed themselves to the collaboration, and accepts to be told each time a new collaboration is selected.

 * 1) Circeus
 * 2) Earl Andrew
 * 3) Beltz

Voting

 * Please limit your vote to no more than one or two at any given time. Being so few, we can't afford to have everybody vote for each nomination.
 *  Only registered users should vote.
 * To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with "# ~" . This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.
 * A vote will be taken to include a pledge that the voter will contribute to the article if it is selected. Voters will be reminded with, which looks like

 * Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see Approval voting).

Tie-breakers

 * In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins.

Nominations

 * New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of this page. Please use the template at the bottom of this page.

Considerations for nominations

 * Please only nominate articles that do not exist, are stubs (2 paragraphs or less than 1000 characters) or simply way too short to ever be considered comprehensive.
 * You can also nominate an article from the French Wikipedia for translation instead.
 * Please give your reason for nominating the article.

Pruning

 * The nomination will be moved to /Removed if it has not received 2 votes (not including the nominator) after 7 days on the list, 4 votes after 14 days, 6 votes after 21 days, and so on, or it has not been choosed for 3 consecutive weeks.

Candidates for next week
If an article wins, please add to the top of the article, which will show up as:

Monteregian Hills
Nominated April 17 2005

Support:
 * 1) Circeus 19:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * A group of mountains with a fascinating geology. The name is etymology to Montérégie. Circeus 19:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Passe-Partout
Nominated April 17 2005

Support:

 * 1) User:Red Star I'm not old enough to have watched it a lot, but I remember the beginning scared me when I was very young.

 * What was it that scared you ?--Marc pasquin 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing in particular I think, or maybe it was the music.

Comments:
 * A whole generation (actually, my generation) grew up with this childrem program, a major (if odd) element of quebec culture comparable to English Sesame Street. Circeus 19:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've put some of what I could remember (from 25 years ago). Check and see if you can confirm, contradict or embellish anything.--Marc pasquin 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of Quebec City
Nominated April 26 2005

Support:

 * 1) Circeus 01:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Beltz 07:45, May 28, 2005

Comments:
 * About time we get down to this one. Circeus 01:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Before we get to popular culture and recent historical happenings, I think it would be good to write down the critically important aspects of our history. The history of Quebec City would be a great start, with a lot of potential if we put enough effort. We also have enough material to make it a featured article if we really want. Beltz 07:35, May 28, 2005

Parlement Jeunesse du Québec
''Nominated April 27 2006; needs 3 votes by May 5 2006

'''Support:
 * 1) Fluit 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:

 * I've tried to get this article started, but as most of the resources I found are in french (in which I have little proficiency), and given that I'm nowhere near Quebec, it might be helpful if some Quebec based editors took a stab at improving it. Fluit 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To nominate an article
To add a new nomination, please: === Title of article===  Nominated April n  2005; needs 3 votes by  April n+7  2005  Support: # ~  Comments:
 * 1) Copy the template below
 * 2) Paste it ABOVE the "== To nominate an article=="
 * 3) Replace "n Month" and "n+7 Month" with the appropriate dates.


text:
Steven V. Roberts

Steven V. Roberts (born February 11, 1943) is an American journalist, writer, and political commentator.

Life and career
Roberts was born in Bayonne, New Jersey, and graduated from Bayonne High School. He attended Harvard University, where he served as editor of the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. After graduating with a B.A. in Government in 1964, Roberts was hired by The New York Times as research assistant to James Reston, then the paper's Washington, D.C. bureau chief. He was a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report for seven years, and later a contributing editor. As a Washington pundit, Roberts appears regularly on ABC Radio, Washington Week in Review, CNN, Hardball with Chris Matthews. He often filled in as substitute host of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR (National Public Radio). He also appears regularly on America Abroad. Roberts has taught journalism and political communication at The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs since 1997.

Roberts and his wife, Cokie Roberts, wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column and were contributing writers for USA Weekend, a Sunday magazine that appears in 500 newspapers nationwide. In February 2000, they jointly published From This Day Forward. They have two children, Lee and Rebecca, and six grandchildren.

Books

 * Cokie: A Life Well Lived (ISBN 978-0-06-285147-5) is Steve's 2021 tribute about Cokie and her legacy.
 * Our Haggadah: Uniting Traditions for Interfaith Families (ISBN 978-0062018106) is his 2011 book co-authored with his wife, Cokie Roberts.
 * From Every End of This Earth: 13 Families and the New Lives They Made in America, 2009.
 * My Fathers' Houses, 2005.
 * From This Day Forward, (with Cokie Roberts), Morrow, 2000.

title: Steven V. Roberts


text:
The Farmer in the Dell

"The Farmer in the Dell" is a singing game, nursery rhyme, folksong, and children's song. It probably originated in Germany and was brought to America by immigrants. From there, it spread to many other nations and is popular in a number of languages. It is Roud Folk Song Index number 6306.

Lyrics
Lyrics vary even within the same country. The following is a common version in the United States:

"The farmer in the dell. The farmer in the dell. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The farmer in the dell.

The farmer takes a wife. The farmer takes a wife. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The farmer takes a wife.

The wife takes a child. The wife takes a child. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The wife takes a child.

The child takes a nurse. The child takes a nurse. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The child takes a nurse.

The nurse takes a cow. The nurse takes a cow. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The nurse takes a cow.

The cow takes a dog. The cow takes a dog. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The cow takes a dog.

The dog takes a cat. The dog takes a cat. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The dog takes a cat.

The cat takes the mouse (or rat). The cat takes the mouse (or rat). Hi-ho, the derry-o! The cat takes the mouse (or rat).

The mouse (or rat) takes the cheese. The mouse (or rat) takes the cheese. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The mouse (or rat) takes the cheese.

The cheese stands alone. The cheese stands alone. Hi-ho, the derry-o! The cheese stands alone."

One UK variant has "The nurse takes a dog"; it ends by clapping [patting] the dog.

Origin and dissemination
The rhyme was first recorded in Germany in 1826, as "Es fuhr ein Bau'r ins Holz". It was more clearly a courtship game, with a farmer choosing a wife, then selecting a child, maid, and serving man who leaves the maid after kissing her. This was probably taken to America by German immigrants, where it next surfaced in New York City in 1883, in its modern form and using a melody similar to "A-Hunting We Will Go". From there, it seems to have been adopted throughout the United States, Canada (noted from 1893), the Netherlands (1894), and Great Britain; it is first found in Scotland in 1898 and England from 1909. In the early twentieth century, it was evident in France ("Le fermier dans son pré"), Sweden ("En bonde i vår by"), Australia, and South Africa.

Variations
Like most children's songs, there are geographic variations. In the United Kingdom, the first line is frequently changed to "The Farmer's in his den". The rhyme progresses through the farmer being in the dell or his den, his desire for a wife, hers for a child, its for a nurse, a dog, then a bone, and ending in: "we all pat the bone". Every player then pats the one picked as the bone. The "Hi-Ho, the derry-o" lyric is variously replaced with, "Ee-i, tiddly-i", in London, "Ee-i, adio", "Ee-i, andio,", "Ee-i, en-gee-oh" or "Ee-i, entio", in Northern England, and "Ee-i, ee-i", in the West Country.

The Romanian language version is "Țăranul e pe câmp" ("The farmer is on the field"), but the "Hey-o" is replaced with "Ura, drăguţa mea" ("Hooray, my sweetheart"), and the last verses are: "the child has a nurse, the nurse has a cat, the cat catches a mouse, the mouse eats a cheese, the cheese is in a cask, the cask is in the garbage, the farmer to choose."

Game
The players form a circle, holding hands while singing the first verse and moving around the player in the middle, who is designated as the farmer. When the verse is over they stop, and the farmer makes his choice of a wife (sometimes without looking). The wife joins him in the center for her verse, and this pattern is repeated through the verses until either the cheese or dog is selected, or only one person is left to become the last character, who usually becomes the farmer for the next round. This game is referred to in Robert Cormier's 1977 novel I Am the Cheese. Children playing the game are shown in the opening sequence of the 1983 film based upon that novel.

In popular culture

 * In the 1931 film Street Scene, the opening and closing sequences show children playing and singing "The Farmer in the Dell". The closing lyrics are changed to "The farmer kills the wife." and "The wife kills the child.".
 * The last line of the song was referenced in the 1998 Magic: The Gathering parody expansion Unglued.

title: The Farmer in the Dell


text:
User talk:Dan3k5~enwiki

Welcome!
Hi Dan3k5, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 17:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dan3k5. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dan3k5~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan3k5~enwiki


text:
User talk:Flyingv45

Welcome!
Hi Flyingv45, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 17:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Youthpic1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Youthpic1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ahashake.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ahashake.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Flyingv45


text:
User talk:EricArtist

Welcome!
Hi EricArtist, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 17:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:EricArtist


text:
Embassy of Luxembourg, Washington, D.C.

The Embassy of Luxembourg in Washington, D.C. is the diplomatic mission of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the United States. It is located in an ornate manor at 2200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW on Embassy Row.

The embassy also serves as Luxembourg's mission to Canada and Mexico. The current ambassador is Nicole Bintner-Bakshian.

Building
The building was originally constructed for lumber baron and former Congressman Alexander Stewart in 1909. It was designed by Jules Henri de Sibour and built in the French style of Louis XIV. Stewart died in 1912 and his widow lived in the building until her death in 1931. In 1941, her daughter sold it to Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg who was then in exile due to the German occupation of her country in the Second World War. It was bought by the government of Luxembourg in 1962 and has been home to the embassy ever since. The building was refurbished and renovated in 2003.

title: Embassy of Luxembourg, Washington, D.C.


text:
Selective Repeat ARQ

Selective Repeat ARQ or Selective Reject ARQ is a specific instance of the automatic repeat request (ARQ) protocol used to manage sequence numbers and retransmissions in reliable communications.

Summary
Selective Repeat is part of the automatic repeat request (ARQ). With selective repeat, the sender sends a number of frames specified by a window size even without the need to wait for individual ACK from the receiver as in Go-Back-N ARQ. The receiver may selectively reject a single frame, which may be retransmitted alone; this contrasts with other forms of ARQ, which must send every frame from that point again. The receiver accepts out-of-order frames and buffers them. The sender individually retransmits frames that have timed out.

Concept
It may be used as a protocol for the delivery and acknowledgement of message units, or it may be used as a protocol for the delivery of subdivided message sub-units.

When used as the protocol for the delivery of messages, the sending process continues to send a number of frames specified by a window size even after a frame loss. Unlike Go-Back-N ARQ, the receiving process will continue to accept and acknowledge frames sent after an initial error; this is the general case of the sliding window protocol with both transmit and receive window sizes greater than 1.

The receiver process keeps track of the sequence number of the earliest frame it has not received, and sends that number with every acknowledgement (ACK) it sends. If a frame from the sender does not reach the receiver, the sender continues to send subsequent frames until it has emptied its window. The receiver continues to fill its receiving window with the subsequent frames, replying each time with an ACK containing the sequence number of the earliest missing frame. Once the sender has sent all the frames in its window, it re-sends the frame number given by the ACKs, and then continues where it left off.

The size of the sending and receiving windows must be equal, and half the maximum sequence number (assuming that sequence numbers are numbered from 0 to n−1) to avoid miscommunication in all cases of packets being dropped. To understand this, consider the case when all ACKs are destroyed. If the receiving window is larger than half the maximum sequence number, some, possibly even all, of the packets that are present after timeouts are duplicates that are not recognized as such. The sender moves its window for every packet that is acknowledged.

When used as the protocol for the delivery of subdivided messages it works somewhat differently. In non-continuous channels where messages may be variable in length, standard ARQ or Hybrid ARQ protocols may treat the message as a single unit. Alternately selective retransmission may be employed in conjunction with the basic ARQ mechanism where the message is first subdivided into sub-blocks (typically of fixed length) in a process called packet segmentation. The original variable length message is thus represented as a concatenation of a variable number of sub-blocks. While in standard ARQ the message as a whole is either acknowledged (ACKed) or negatively acknowledged (NAKed), in ARQ with selective transmission the ACK response would additionally carry a bit flag indicating the identity of each sub-block successfully received. In ARQ with selective retransmission of sub-divided messages each retransmission diminishes in length, needing to only contain the sub-blocks that were linked.

In most channel models with variable length messages, the probability of error-free reception diminishes in inverse proportion with increasing message length. In other words, it's easier to receive a short message than a longer message. Therefore, standard ARQ techniques involving variable length messages have increased difficulty delivering longer messages, as each repeat is the full length. Selective re-transmission applied to variable length messages completely eliminates the difficulty in delivering longer messages, as successfully delivered sub-blocks are retained after each transmission, and the number of outstanding sub-blocks in following transmissions diminishes. Selective Repeat is implemented in UDP transmission.

Examples
The Transmission Control Protocol uses a variant of Go-Back-N ARQ to ensure reliable transmission of data over the Internet Protocol, which does not provide guaranteed delivery of packets; with Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) extension, it may also use Selective Repeat ARQ.

The ITU-T G.hn standard, which provides a way to create a high-speed (up to 1 Gigabit/s) Local area network using existing home wiring (power lines, phone lines and coaxial cables), uses Selective Repeat ARQ to ensure reliable transmission over noisy media. G.hn employs packet segmentation to sub-divide messages into smaller units, to increase the probability that each one is received correctly.

The STANAG 5066 Profile for High Frequency (HF) Radio Data Communication uses selective repeat ARQ, with a maximum window size of 128 protocol-data units (PDUs).

title: Selective Repeat ARQ


text:
Challis railway station

Challis railway station (officially Challis Station) is a suburban railway station in Kelmscott, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia. It is on the Armadale line which is part of the Transperth network, and is 27.3 km southwest of Perth station and 3.1 km north of Armadale station. The station opened on 29 October 1973, as did the adjacent Sherwood station, filling the large gap between Armadale station and Kelmscott station. It consists of two side platforms with a pedestrian level crossing. It is not fully accessible due to steep ramps and wide gaps at the pedestrian level crossing.

Services are operated by Transperth Train Operations, a division of the state government's Public Transport Authority. Peak services reach seven trains per hour in each direction, whilst off-peak services are four trains per hour. The station is one of the least used ones on the Transperth network, with just 259 boardings per day in October 2017. The City of Armadale rezoned nearby land in the 2010s with the goal of increasing patronage.

Description

Challis station is on the South Western Railway, which links Perth to Bunbury. The northern 30.4 km of this railway, between Perth and Armadale, is used by Armadale line suburban rail services as part of the Transperth network. The line and the station are owned by the Public Transport Authority (PTA), an agency of the Government of Western Australia. Challis station is located between Kelmscott station to the north and Sherwood station to the south, within the suburb of Kelmscott, Western Australia. The station is between Streich Avenue to the east and Railway Avenue to the west, 27.3 km, or a 30-minute train journey, from Perth station, and 3.1 km, or a 5-minute train journey, from Armadale station. This places the station in Transperth fare zone three.

Challis station consists of two side platforms which are approximately 100 m long, enough for a four-car train but not a six-car train. Eventually, as part of the PTA's efforts to make all stations compatible with six-car trains, the platform will be lengthened to 150 m. The only way to cross the tracks is at a pedestrian level crossing at the northern end of the station. Two car parks with 32 bays in total are on either side of the station, and there are bike racks as well. Challis station is not fully accessible due to the ramps to the platforms being too steep and the pedestrian crossing containing large gaps.

History
With the 1970 Corridor Plan for Perth, new areas between Armadale and Kelmscott were opened up for development. The Armadale–Kelmscott Shire Council began lobbying the state government for new stations within the large gap between Armadale and Kelmscott stations. Plans were completed by May 1973 for two new stations, with construction commencing soon afterwards. Originally planned to open on 20 October 1973, Challis station opened on 29 October, as did the adjacent Sherwood station (then known as Kingsley station). The shire council wanted the station to be named "Streich" after a well known local doctor, but the Western Australian Government Railways decided on "Challis", which came from the nearby Challis Primary School. The school was named after Challis Road, which was named after a family who had established an orchard in the area in the 1910s.

Shelters were added in 1982–83. The City of Armadale rezoned nearby land for higher densities in the late 2010s, with the goal of increasing patronage.

Services

Challis station is served by Armadale line services operated by Transperth Train Operations, a division of the PTA. The line goes between Perth station and Armadale station. Armadale line services reach seven trains per hour during peak, dropping to four trains per hour between peaks. At night, there are two trains per hour, dropping to one train per hour in the early hours of the morning. Apart from at night and on Sundays/public holidays, most train services follow the "C" stopping pattern, which skips Burswood, Victoria Park, Carlisle, Welshpool and Queens Park stations. There are also two "B" stopping pattern services which run during the afternoon Armadale-bound. Those services are the same as the "C" pattern except they stop at Queens Park. Starting at night, trains stop at all stations. On Sundays and public holidays, half of all trains are "C" pattern trains and half are all stops trains.

On Railway Avenue is a pair of bus stops for route 907, the rail replacement bus service.

In the 2013–14 financial year, Challis station had 73,805 boardings, making it the second least used station on the Armadale and Thornlie lines behind Seaforth station. On an average weekday in October 2017, the station had 259 boardings, making it the third least used Transperth station behind Seaforth station (136) and Success Hill station (139). The weekend average number of boardings was 209 in October 2018, the third lowest after Success Hill station (124) and Seaforth (170).

title: Challis railway station


text:
Dodgson condensation

In mathematics, Dodgson condensation or method of contractants is a method of computing the determinants of square matrices. It is named for its inventor, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (better known by his pseudonym, as Lewis Carroll, the popular author), who discovered it in 1866. The method in the case of an n × n matrix is to construct an (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix, an (n − 2) × (n − 2), and so on, finishing with a 1 × 1 matrix, which has one entry, the determinant of the original matrix.

General method
This algorithm can be described in the following four steps:
 * 1) Let A be the given n × n matrix. Arrange A so that no zeros occur in its interior. An explicit definition of interior would be all ai,j with $$i,j\ne1,n$$. One can do this using any operation that one could normally perform without changing the value of the determinant, such as adding a multiple of one row to another.
 * 2) Create an (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix B, consisting of the determinants of every 2 × 2 submatrix of A. Explicitly, we write $$ b_{i,j}=\begin{vmatrix}  a_{i, j} & a_{i, j + 1} \\ a_{i + 1, j} & a_{i + 1, j + 1} \end{vmatrix}. $$
 * 3) Using this (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix, perform step 2 to obtain an (n − 2) × (n − 2) matrix C. Divide each term in C by the corresponding term in the interior of A so $$ c_{i,j}=\begin{vmatrix}  b_{i, j} & b_{i, j + 1} \\ b_{i + 1, j} & b_{i + 1, j + 1} \end{vmatrix} / a_{i + 1, j + 1} $$.
 * 4) Let A = B, and B = C. Repeat step 3 as necessary until the 1 × 1 matrix is found; its only entry is the determinant.

Without zeros
One wishes to find

\begin{vmatrix} -2 & -1 & -1 & -4 \\ -1 & -2 & -1 & -6 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 & 4 \\ 2 & 1 & -3 & -8 \end{vmatrix}. $$

All of the interior elements are non-zero, so there is no need to re-arrange the matrix.

We make a matrix of its 2 × 2 submatrices.

\begin{bmatrix} \begin{vmatrix} -2 & -1 \\ -1 & -2 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -1 \\ -2 & -1 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -4 \\ -1 & -6 \end{vmatrix} \\ \\ \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -2 \\ -1 & -1 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -2 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -6 \\ 2 & 4 \end{vmatrix} \\ \\ \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -1 \\ 2 & 1 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -1 & 2 \\ 1 & -3 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} 2 & 4 \\ -3 & -8 \end{vmatrix} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 3 & -1 & 2 \\ -1 & -5 & 8 \\ 1 & 1 & -4 \end{bmatrix}. $$

We then find another matrix of determinants:

\begin{bmatrix} \begin{vmatrix} 3 & -1 \\ -1 & -5 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -1 & 2 \\ -5 & 8 \end{vmatrix} \\ \\ \begin{vmatrix} -1 & -5 \\ 1 & 1 \end{vmatrix} & \begin{vmatrix} -5 & 8 \\ 1 & -4 \end{vmatrix} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -16 & 2 \\ 4 & 12 \end{bmatrix}. $$

We must then divide each element by the corresponding element of our original matrix. The interior of the original matrix is $$ \begin{bmatrix} -2 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{bmatrix} $$, so after dividing we get $$ \begin{bmatrix} 8 & -2 \\ -4 & 6 \end{bmatrix} $$. The process must be repeated to arrive at a 1 × 1 matrix. $$ \begin{bmatrix} \begin{vmatrix} 8 & -2 \\ -4 & 6 \end{vmatrix} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 40 \end{bmatrix}. $$ Dividing by the interior of the 3 × 3 matrix, which is just −5, gives $$\begin{bmatrix} -8 \end{bmatrix}$$ and −8 is indeed the determinant of the original matrix.

With zeros
Simply writing out the matrices:

\begin{bmatrix} 2 & -1 & 2 & 1 & -3 \\ 1 & 2 & 1 & -1 & 2 \\ 1 & -1 & -2 & -1 & -1 \\ 2 & 1 & -1 & -2 & -1 \\ 1 & -2 & -1 & -1 & 2 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} 5 & -5 & -3 & -1 \\ -3 & -3 & -3 & 3 \\ 3 & 3 & 3 & -1 \\ -5 & -3 & -1 & -5 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} -15 & 6 & 12 \\ 0 & 0 & 6 \\ 6 & -6 & 8 \end{bmatrix}. $$

Here we run into trouble. If we continue the process, we will eventually be dividing by 0. We can perform four row exchanges on the initial matrix to preserve the determinant and repeat the process, with most of the determinants precalculated:

\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 1 & -1 & 2 \\ 1 & -1 & -2 & -1 & -1 \\ 2 & 1 & -1 & -2 & -1 \\ 1 & -2 & -1 & -1 & 2 \\ 2 & -1 & 2 & 1 & -3 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} -3 & -3 & -3 & 3 \\ 3 & 3 & 3 & -1 \\ -5 & -3 & -1 & -5 \\ 3 & -5 & 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 6 \\ 6 & -6 & 8 \\ -17 & 8 & -4 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 12 \\ 18 & 40 \end{bmatrix} \to \begin{bmatrix} 36 \end{bmatrix}. $$

Hence, we arrive at a determinant of 36.

Desnanot–Jacobi identity and proof of correctness of the condensation algorithm
The proof that the condensation method computes the determinant of the matrix if no divisions by zero are encountered is based on an identity known as the Desnanot–Jacobi identity (1841) or, more generally, the Sylvester determinant identity (1851).

Let $$M=(m_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^k$$ be a square matrix, and for each $$1\le i, j\le k$$, denote by $$M_i^j$$ the matrix that results from $$M$$ by deleting the $$i$$-th row and the $$j$$-th column. Similarly, for $$1\le i, j, p,q\le k$$, denote by $$M_{i,j}^{p,q}$$ the matrix that results from $$M$$ by deleting the $$i$$-th and $$j$$-th rows and the $$p$$-th and $$q$$-th columns.

Desnanot–Jacobi identity

 * $$\det(M) \det(M_{1,k}^{1,k}) = \det(M_1^1)\det(M_k^k) - \det(M_1^k) \det(M_k^1).$$

Proof of the correctness of Dodgson condensation
Rewrite the identity as

 * $$\det(M) = \frac{\det(M_1^1)\det(M_k^k) - \det(M_1^k) \det(M_k^1)}{\det(M_{1,k}^{1,k})}.$$

Now note that by induction it follows that when applying the Dodgson condensation procedure to a square matrix $$A$$ of order $$n$$, the matrix in the $$k$$-th stage of the computation (where the first stage $$k=1$$ corresponds to the matrix $$A$$ itself) consists of all the connected minors of order $$k$$ of $$A$$, where a connected minor is the determinant of a connected $$k\times k$$ sub-block of adjacent entries of $$A$$. In particular, in the last stage $$k=n$$, one gets a matrix containing a single element equal to the unique connected minor of order $$n$$, namely the determinant of $$A$$.

Proof of the Desnanot-Jacobi identity
We follow the treatment in the book Proofs and Confirmations: The Story of the Alternating Sign Matrix Conjecture; an alternative combinatorial proof was given in a paper by Doron Zeilberger.

Denote $$a_{i,j} = (-1)^{i+j} \det(M_i^j)$$ (up to sign, the $$(i,j)$$-th minor of $$M$$), and define a $$k\times k$$ matrix $$M'$$ by

M' = \begin{pmatrix} a_{1,1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & a_{k,1} \\ a_{1,2} & 1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & a_{k,2} \\ a_{1,3} & 0 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & a_{k,3} \\ a_{1,4} & 0 & 0 & 1 & \ldots & 0 & a_{k,4} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots \\ a_{1,k-1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1 & a_{k,k-1} \\ a_{1,k} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & a_{k,k} \end{pmatrix}. $$

(Note that the first and last column of $$M'$$ are equal to those of the adjugate matrix of $$A$$). The identity is now obtained by computing $$\det(M M')$$ in two ways. First, we can directly compute the matrix product $$M M'$$ (using simple properties of the adjugate matrix, or alternatively using the formula for the expansion of a matrix determinant in terms of a row or a column) to arrive at

M M' = \begin{pmatrix} \det(M) & m_{1,2} & m_{1,3} & \ldots & m_{1,k-1} & 0 \\ 0 & m_{2,2} & m_{2,3} & \ldots & m_{2,k-1} & 0 \\ 0 & m_{3,2} & m_{3,3} & \ldots & m_{3,k-1} & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 0 & m_{k-1,2} & m_{k-1,3} & \ldots & m_{k-1,k-1} & 0 \\ 0 & m_{k,2} & m_{k,3} & \ldots & m_{k,k-1} & \det(M) \end{pmatrix} $$

where we use $$m_{i,j}$$ to denote the $$(i,j)$$-th entry of $$M$$. The determinant of this matrix is $$\det(M)^2 \cdot \det(M_{1,k}^{1,k})$$.

Second, this is equal to the product of the determinants, $$\det(M) \cdot \det(M')$$. But clearly

$$ \det(M') = a_{1,1} a_{k,k} - a_{k,1} a_{1,k} = \det(M_1^1)\det(M_k^k) - \det(M_1^k) \det(M_k^1), $$

so the identity follows from equating the two expressions we obtained for $$\det(M M')$$ and dividing out by $$\det(M)$$ (this is allowed if one thinks of the identities as polynomial identities over the ring of polynomials in the $$k^2$$ indeterminate variables $$(m_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^k$$).

title: Dodgson condensation