text:
Phlegmariurus

Phlegmariurus is a genus of lycophyte plants in the family Lycopodiaceae. The genus is recognized in the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification of 2016 (PPG I), but not by some other sources, which keep it in a broadly defined Huperzia.

Taxonomy
The genus was first described in 1909 by Wilhelm Herter as the section Phlegmariurus of the genus Lycopodium. The section was elevated to a genus by Josef Ludwig Holub in 1964.

Within the family Lycopodiaceae, Phlegmariurus is placed in the subfamily Huperzioideae. A phylogenetic study in 2016, employing both molecular and morphological data, concluded that either a one-genus or a three-genus division of the subfamily produced monophyletic taxa. The authors preferred the three-genus division, recognizing Huperzia, Phlegmariurus and Phylloglossum. Their preferred hypothesis for the relationships of the three genera was:

The majority of the species formerly placed in a broadly defined Huperzia belong in Phlegmariurus. However, the genera are difficult to separate morphologically, and others have preferred the one-genus division of the subfamily.

Species
, the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World accepted over 300 species:

 * Phlegmariurus acerosus (Sw.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus acifolius (Rolleri) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus acutus (Rolleri) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus affinis (Trevis.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus afromontanus Pic. Serm.
 * Phlegmariurus ambrensis (Rakotondr.) A.R.Field & Bauret
 * Phlegmariurus amentaceus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus andinus (Rosenst.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus aqualupianus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus arcuatus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus aristei (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ascendens (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus attenuatus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus australis (Willd.) A.R.Field
 * Phlegmariurus austroecuadoricus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus austrosinicus (Ching) Li Bing Zhang
 * Phlegmariurus axillaris (Roxb.) comb. ined., currently Huperzia axillaris (Roxb.) Rothm.
 * Phlegmariurus badinianus (B.Øllg. & P.G.Windisch) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus balansae (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus bampsianus (Pic. Serm.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus banayanicus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus beitelii (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus biformis (Hook.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus billardierei (Spring) Trevis.
 * Phlegmariurus binervius (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus bolanicus (Rosenst.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus brachiatus (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus brachystachys (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus bradeorum (Christ) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus brevifolius (Hook. & Grev.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus brongniartii (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus callitrichifolius (Mett.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus campianus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cancellatus (Spring) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus capellae (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus capillaris (Sodiro) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus carinatus (Poir.) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus catacachiensis (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cavifolius (C.Chr.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus chamaeleon (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus changii T.Y.Hsieh
 * Phlegmariurus chiricanus (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus christii (Silveira) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ciliatospiculatus B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ciliolatus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cleefianus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cocouyensis B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus colanensis (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus columnaris (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus comans (Herter ex Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus compactus (Hook.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus copelandianus (R.C.Y.Chou & Bartlett) A.R.Field
 * Phlegmariurus coralium (Spring) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus crassus (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus creber (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus crucis-australis (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cruentus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cryptomerinus (Maxim.) Satou
 * Phlegmariurus cuernavacensis (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cumingii (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cuneifolius (Hieron.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus cunninghamioides (Hayata) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus curiosus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus curvifolius (Kunze) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus dacrydioides (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus dalhousieanus (Spring) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus darwinianus (Herter ex Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus delbrueckii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus deminuens (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus dentatus (Herter) Arana
 * Phlegmariurus dianae (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus dichaeoides (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus dichotomus (Jacq.) W.H.Wagner
 * Phlegmariurus dielsii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus divergens (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus durus (Pic. Serm.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus echinatus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ellenbeckii (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus elmeri (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus elongatus (Lag ex Sw.), comb. ined., currently Lycopodium elongatum Lag ex Sw.
 * Phlegmariurus engleri (Hieron. & Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus eremorum (Rolleri) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ericifolius (C.Presl) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus erythrocaulos (Fée) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus espinosanus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus eversus (Poir.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus fargesii (Herter) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus filicaulos (Copel.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus filiformis (Sw.) W.H.Wagner
 * Phlegmariurus firmus (Mett.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus flagellaceus (Kuhn) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus flexibilis (Fée) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus foliaceus (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus foliosus (Copel.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus fontinaloides (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus fordii (Baker) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus friburgensis (Herter ex Nessel & Hoehne) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus funiculus (Herter) comb. ined., currently Huperzia funicula (Herter) J.P.Roux
 * Phlegmariurus funiformis (Cham. ex Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus gagnepainianus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus galapagensis (O.J.Hamann) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus giganteus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus gnidioides (L. fil.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus goebelii (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus gracilis A.Rojas & R.Calderón
 * Phlegmariurus guandongensis Ching
 * Phlegmariurus gunturensis (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus haeckelii (Herter) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus haitensis (Herter) comb. ined., currently Huperzia haitensis (Herter) Holub
 * Phlegmariurus hamiltonii (Spreng.) Á.Löve & D.Löve
 * Phlegmariurus harmsii (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus hartwegianus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hastatus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hellwigii (Warb.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus hemleri (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus henryi (Baker) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus heterocarpos (Fée) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus heteroclitus (Desv. ex Poir.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hexastichus (B.Øllg. & P.G.Windisch) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hildebrandtii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bauret
 * Phlegmariurus hippurideus (Christ) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hippuris (Desv. ex Poir.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus hoffmannii (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hohenackeri (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus holstii (Hieron.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus homocarpus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus horizontalis (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus huberi (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hugoi B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus humbertii (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus humbertii-henrici (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus hypogaeus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus hystrix (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus idroboi B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus iminii Kiew
 * Phlegmariurus intermedius (Trevis.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus itambensis (B.Øllg. & P.G.Windisch) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus jaegeri (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus josesantae B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus kajewskii (Copel.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus killipii (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus kuesteri (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus lancifolius (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus lauterbachii (E.Pritz. ex K.Schum. & Lauterb.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus lecomteanus (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus ledermannii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus lehnertii Testo
 * Phlegmariurus lignosus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus lindenii (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus linifolius (L.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus llanganatensis (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus lockyeri (D.Jones & B.Gray) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus loefgrenianus (Silveira) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus longus (Copel.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus loxensis (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus luteynii B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus macbridei (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus macgregorii (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus macrostachys (Hook. ex Spring) N.C.Nair & S.R.Ghosh
 * Phlegmariurus magnusianus (Herter) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus mandiocanus (Raddi) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus mannii (Hillebr.) W.H.Wagner
 * Phlegmariurus marsupiiformis (D.Jones & B.Gray) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus martii (Wawra) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus megastachyus (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus melanesicus (Brownlie) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus merrillii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus mesoamericanus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus mexicanus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus mildbraedii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus mingcheensis Ching
 * Phlegmariurus minutifolius (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus mirabilis (Willd.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus mollicomus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus monticola Kiew
 * Phlegmariurus mooreanus (Sander ex Baker) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus multifarius (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus myrsinites (Lam.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus myrtifolius (G.Forst.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus myrtuosus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus neocaledonicus (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus nesselii (Brause ex Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus niligaricus (Spring) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus nudus (Christ ex Nessel & Hoehne) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus nummularifolius (Blume) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus nutans (Brack.) W.H.Wagner
 * Phlegmariurus nyalamensis (Ching & S.K.Wu) H.S.Kung & L.B.Zhang
 * Phlegmariurus obovalifolius (Bonap.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus obtusifolius (P.Beauv.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus ocananus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus oceanianus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus oellgaardii (A.Rojas) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus oltmannsii (Herter ex Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus ophioglossoides (Lam.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus orizabae (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ovatifolius (Ching) W.M.Chu ex H.S.Kung & Li Bing Zhang
 * Phlegmariurus pachyphyllus (Kuhn ex Herter) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus pachyskelos B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus parksii (Copel.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus patentissimus (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus pecten (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus perrierianus (Tardieu) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus pflanzii (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus phlegmaria (L.) Holub
 * Phlegmariurus phlegmarioides (Gaudich.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus phylicifolius (Desv. ex Poir.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus phyllanthus (Hook. & Arn.) R.D.Dixit
 * Phlegmariurus picardae (Krug) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus pichianus (Tardieu) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus pinifolius (Trevis.) Kiew
 * Phlegmariurus pithyoides (Schltdl. & Cham.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus pittieri (Christ) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus podocarpensis B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus polycarpos (Kunze) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus polycladus (Sodiro) comb. ined., currently Huperzia polyclada (Sodiro) Rolleri & Deferrari
 * Phlegmariurus polydactylus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus polylepidetorum (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus portoricensis (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) comb. ined., currently Lycopodium portoricense Underw. & F.E.Lloyd
 * Phlegmariurus pringlei (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus proliferus (Blume) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus pruinosus (Hieron. & Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus pseudovarius (Brownlie) Rouhan & A.R.Field
 * Phlegmariurus pulcherrimus (Hook. & Grev.) Á. & D.Löve
 * Phlegmariurus pungentifolius (Silveira) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus quadrifariatus (Bory) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus recurvifolius (Rolleri) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus reflexus (Lam.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus regnellii (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ribourtii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus riobambensis (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus robustus (Klotzsch) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus rosenstockianus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus rostrifolius (Silveira) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ruber (Cham. & Schltdl.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus rubricus (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus rufescens (Hook.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus rupicola (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus sagasteguianus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus salvinioides (Herter) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus samoanus (Herter ex Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus sarmentosus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus saururus (Lam.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus scabridus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus schlechteri (E.Pritz.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus schlimii (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus schmidtchenii (Hieron.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus sellifolius (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus sellowianus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus serpentiformis (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus setifolius (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus shangsiensis C.Y.Yang
 * Phlegmariurus shingianus R.H.Jiang & X.C.Zhang
 * Phlegmariurus sieberianus (Spring) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus sieboldii (Miq.) Ching
 * Phlegmariurus silveirae (Herter ex Nessel & Hoehne) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus silverstonei B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus sintenisii (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus societensis (J.W.Moore) A.R.Field
 * Phlegmariurus sooianus Lawalrée
 * Phlegmariurus sphagnicola B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus squarrosus (G.Forst.) Á. & D.Löve
 * Phlegmariurus staudtii (Nessel) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus stemmermanniae A.C.Medeiros & Wagner
 * Phlegmariurus stephani B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus strictus (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus subfalciformis (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus subtubulosus (Herter) comb. ined., currently Huperzia subtubulosa (Herter) Holub
 * Phlegmariurus subulatus (Desv. ex Poir.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus tafaensis (Nessel) A.R.Field & C.W.Chen
 * Phlegmariurus talamancanus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus talamauanus (Alderw.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus talpiphilus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus tardieuae (Herter) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus tauri (Herter) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus taxifolius (Sm.) Á. & D.Löve
 * Phlegmariurus tenuicaulis (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus tenuis (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus terrae-guilelmi (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus tetragonus (Hook. & Grev.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus tetrastichoides (A.R.Field & Bostock) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus tetrastichus (Kunze) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus tico A.Rojas
 * Phlegmariurus toppingii (Herter) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus tournayanus Lawalrée
 * Phlegmariurus transilla (Sodiro ex Baker) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus treitubensis (Silveira) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus trifoliatus (Copel.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus trigonus (C.Chr.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus tryonorum B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus tubulosus (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus ulixis (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus unguiculatus (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus urbanii (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus vanuatuensis A.R.Field
 * Phlegmariurus varius (R.Br.) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus venezuelanicus (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus vernicosus (Hook. & Grev.) Á. & D.Löve
 * Phlegmariurus verticillatus (L.f.) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus villonacensis (B.Øllg.) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus warneckei (Herter ex Nessel) A.R.Field & Testo
 * Phlegmariurus watsonianus (Maxon) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus weberbaueri (Nessel) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus weddellii (Herter) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus wilsonii (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg.
 * Phlegmariurus xiphophyllus (Baker) A.R.Field & Bostock
 * Phlegmariurus yunfengii R.H.Jiang & X.C.Zhang
 * Phlegmariurus yunnanensis Ching

One hybrid is known:
 * Phlegmariurus × koolauensis W.H.Wagner

title: Phlegmariurus


text:
Ben Mondor

Bernard Georges "Ben" Mondor (March 26, 1925 – October 3, 2010) was a Canadian-born American business executive and baseball executive, best known as the owner of the Pawtucket Red Sox from 1977 until his death.

Biography
Mondor was born in March 1925 in Saint-Ignace-du-Lac, Maskinongé, Quebec, son of Rosario Mondor (1888–1962) and Marie Anne Brault (1892–1963). The village he was born in disappeared under water in 1931 due to the construction of the Taureau Reservoir on the Matawin River and was annexed by the neighbouring village of Saint-Michel-des-Saints.

Mondor grew up in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and graduated from Mount St. Charles Academy there. As of March 1943, he was employed by the Verdun Manufacturing Company there. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Mondor was in private business from the late 1950s through his retirement in 1973; he owned textile mills in several states.

In 1977, Mondor bought the Pawtucket Red Sox, the Triple-A affiliate of the Boston Red Sox, out of bankruptcy. He turned it into one of the model franchises in Minor League Baseball. McCoy Stadium, the team's home ballpark, was renovated and became "one of the most fan-friendly minor league venues in the country". Attendance increased from 70,000 in 1977 to over 600,000 annually during the 2000s. He was a two-time winner of the International League's executive of the year award (1978, 1999).

In 1982, Mondor was awarded an honorary doctorate of public service degree from Rhode Island College, and was inducted to the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame in 1984. He was inducted into the Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame in 2004, and given an honorary day at Fenway Park on May 30 of that year. Mondor was elected to the International League Hall of Fame in 2008.

Mondor died in October 2010 at his home in Warwick Neck, Rhode Island. He was survived by his wife, Madeleine. He is interred at Rhode Island Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Exeter, Rhode Island.

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

title: Ben Mondor


text:
User talk:D. liman

Image copyright problem with Image:TripleBottomLine.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:TripleBottomLine.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:D. liman


text:
User talk:Dimmu Borgir

Children of Bodom
Hey there, man. Pretty much anything which comes from the band's official website can be considered promotional material, so the safest way to post an image would be, I think, using the tag and referencing the band's official website from which you took the image on the image's text body. That should solve your problems. Regards, --Sn0wflake 23:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding the basic idea of Commons. You can only upload images with licenses such as Public Domain or GFDL to Commons. Fair use images are individual to each wiki. Upload the image to the wiki you want it to appear in with the tag and that's it. --Sn0wflake 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dimmu Borgir


text:
User talk:Jasra

Hey Jasra! You know that to get Democratic Belarus you've got to find a Leader, have you got one?

P.S. J. T. Don't take seriously.

P.P.S. Forgot to sign. Ilyak 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you know (have article link) on who've they choose?

Anyway, people would not vote for someone unknow (only if as "vote against"). So they would have to make him popular somehow. Ющенко was an ex-prime minister, for sure: He had his publicity and also had pro-himself media.

My cousin (двоюродный брат) lived in Belarus for a while and he've said he have not met much pro-opposition people, and ones he met wasn't really taken seriously by anyone.

I've noted your interest in ex-USSR political life. Have you visited ex-USSR? If yes, where?

Ilyak 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I don't really understand people who care for Belarusian authoriarity, but not about, say, things happening in Turkmenistan. That's strange. Or you have no interests in outside Europe?

Hi!

As far as profession is concerned - physicist. Oh, physicist. As far as I remember, belarussian politican who took part in "ussr break" treaty (в Беловежской Пуще), was a physicist too. Moreover, the great Soviet/Ukrainian science fiction writer Савченко describes him as "the only fair person of them tree" (i.e. Ельцын(rf), Шушкевич(bel) и Кравчук(ukr)). So maybe another physicist have chances. Ex-mayor is good too, we'll see if he would be able to get popularity.

As far as I understand, Lukashenko, while being somewhat tyrannic, still is not "for sale, sold" as many and many political leaders in post-soviets are. Neither do he act like a colonial government. People aren't sure anyone new will share same positive traits. New president may: 1) get popularity. 2) piss off Russia. 3) say a few promising words about joining EU. 4) lose popularity. And the country is disrupted - main russian markets (furniture, heavy- and preciese- device manufacturing) are lost during piss out, european markets are closed to them, and EU will not, to be honest, taking belarus in for nearest 10 years regardless of what belarus do. That's exactly what other rainbowrevoluting states did so far. Consider Саакашвилли (new georgian president) has lost his popularity from 90% to 50% for now, and new ukrainian government is disrupted - main orange engine Тимошенко was expelled and now she is in opposition, expect more. But Ukraine was not dependant on Russia - it exports steel worldwide, while their steel production was still hurt by revolution, - for Belarus that standard "pissing off Russia" may mean serious economic troubles. EU will not make markets for them, EU always have its own industry and Chinese are cheaper anyway.

About Turkmenistan - in Europe we can sometimes forget that, but there are places where democracy isn't just the priority. First example is Turkmenistan. Their beloved President (permanent president, as it tends to be in such countries - not very democratic, eh?) has closed all the hospitals outside capital. He said that they lack of capable medics, and if someone will become ill he can always travel to capital. Nice, eh? And, for sure, they don't have medics because he had also cut length of university study to one year. From, as you might guess, sovietic 5.5 years. In short, he's ruining his country. What's strange is that this info is not on Turkmenistan, while Belarus have quite a few phrases about human right violations. If you can read russian language I can give you a few links about it, consider yourself.

By the way, what's your positions on other indepence/separatist movements, like in Transnistria in Moldova or Abkhasia in Georgia? They might be less mass-shouted-at, but there are still people dying.

I must admit I do not know much about the situation in the countries you mentioned. (sigh) And this is how that 'human rights' thing works. You know precisely that in distant Chechnya things are very bad, because you've seen it numerous times on TV, and was told about that. Moreover, you know that, say, elections xxx (for exapmle, referendum on Belarussian flag) was reported unjust by some cryptious ogranization that is surely paid by someone and for a reason. Meanwhile, you don't really know that same thing happens in something like 500 km from you (Moldova, that's between Ukraine and Romaina). That's because noone likes to sharpen it on things that should be under control but in meantime they aren't. Moreover, article for Chechnya does say words about human violations and Ichkeria one does not say such words; from which you might assume that Ichkeria was a much more hospitable place than Chechnya is. But, in fact, Ichkeria was a bandit-in-law country, with ethnical confrontations (my uncle lived in Grozny in early 9x and was forced to leave, so assume I know it) and slavery. Chechnya is a bad place for now - it's unsafe, different nationality people don't like one another and that - but at least there is a portion of law here for now.

I'm not defending a bunch of Russian and Chechen bastards, which made every effort to make this war happen, but from a personal view it looks like that.

On other hand, every man will tell you that if you had to recount votes for 10 times to actually get 'correct' result, there's something wrong with your election system. But that's USA, and no obscure organizations even allowed to say something about it.

All the questions of separatism should be solved by talks, not by force. That is a very good opinion, and, as you might see, it was respected in some cases. USSR willingly gave some authonomy to developed and economically parts of country populated by a nation, that's how SSRs was formed. That was a point in lenin's doctrine. And when USSR collapsed it did it by the borders of SSRs. Now, quite a few SSRs have integrity problems - Russia, Georgia, Moldova among them. In two of these 3 there was a war. That's sad, but that shows you two things: 1) If part of country have a separate government, it might, under circumstances, go independent. That's beacuse their leaders prefer to be first among 10 than 10th among 1000. And leaders can easily provoke a tide of nacionalism and separatism to do so. 2) This part of country should be not interdependent economically with rest of country. It should be able to live on its own. Its authonomy should be accepted by the whole country to some extent.

If first condition is met, and second is not, we'll get another Chechnya, Kosovo, or Abkhasia. This might be evil or not, this might be just or not, but this, as I believe, is how things work.

 * First - election in the US - the problem that Bush and Gore got very similar number of votes is different. There was a question whether a machine counting is a proper way to count, but this way of counting was accepted before election started and it could not favor any of the candidates.

As far as I know, problem was not only in machine counting votes. I have got a long technical article about these elections and about which real weirnesses happened during them, if you can read Russian fine, I will point you to that article. One of the points of it that republicans influence main voting machine maker, Diebold, and that in areas with machine voting results, for some reason, seriously differ from earlier years' always in favor of Republicans. But, another point, they don't have obscure organizations like OBSE which always say then did not like some elections if they elected something they don't like, and never say a word about elections whose result they did like.

 * On the other hand the access of people not sharing Lukashenko's views to the media looks limited. Correct me if I'm wrong (i.e. prove that opposition to Lukashenko has the same or comparable access to media). When the access to media is limited, even if the referendum or elections are fair the government can get a "proper" result.

When you have to choose a banner, I don't think you need to see a lot of POWs, consider them, and choose carefully. It is just a matter of personal taste.

But anyway, how does it work in, say, USA? Each party have a lot of supporting indistries and corporations. They favor 'their' party (Republicans - real sector, Democratians - IT and financial). They invest money in publicity and stuff.

On other hand, in most post-USSR countries we don't still have such system. Understand that, in russia as of 2000, if Oil companies wished to push some candidate, they could summon a LOT of publicity for him. Buying out half papers, a few TV channels and so on. But they did not do that. Same in Belarus. Opposition candidates just have not got money to finance publicity, and noone who have wants to give that money. Or you expect government to finance candidates? That would not work. See, in Ukraine, a real lot of people did not wanted Янукович to be elected. They loathed him. And not just ordinary people, but governments of a few big cities including capital, and a lot of commercial organizations. First gave areas, second gave money, and suddently Ющенко have got quite a lot of publicity. Лукашенко, i beleive, really suppresses opposition, but he does all right in other areas. And people care about that except for some marginal percent, say, 10%. Assume you can somehow overthrow Лукашенко and elect someone else. That 10% might become happy, but the rest? I doubt new randomly chosed leader will do all right. I double doubt he will do all right if he'll be pushed by europe. Europe, having put money into him, will ask him to work out these money. That's what we call "Colonial government" - when leader of country have to work for another country. Noone wants that, believe me.

 * As far as Chechnya is concerned - I know many Chechens who fled their country to Poland or Western Europe. They admitted that there was chaos after the first war, but they blame the Russians for creating such situation.

First war, maybe. I don't myself know much about what happened there, I was too young. But, in the meantime before first war my uncle's family was forced to leave Grozny. There was tension between russians and chechens growing, and I happely reflect first war as a reaction on violences against ethnical russians in chechnya. That's like Kosovo war - what do you think of Kosovo. Of course, there was bastards involved from both sides. From Chechnya side ruling bastards made situation hot by encouraging nationalism and violence, from Russian - bastards who actually started this war. I guess this war would better NOT happened, and AT THAT POINT chechnya released as an independent country.

 * Chechnya was informally blocked economically.

That might have happened. But sorry, newly-independent and inadvanced country is a best place for narcotrafic, banditism and other such things. I would've think now we should have expelled Chechnya, built a high wall around it, and passed people only unidirectional - Chcchens in, Russians out. And that way they have to do whatever in their box. And I'm not alone in this position.

 * The lack of recognition did not allow establishing normal relationships with other countries.

Which ones? They really needed relationship with Russia, but that could not happen after their suddent independence, and with other Caucasian republics, noone prevented them from that. What else do they need? Taiwan, in fact, does not suffer from such problem :)

 * Can you say that the war in Chechnya ended?

In can say that, currently, there is no war in Chechnya. More, it seems that Chechnya is slowly calming. But that may change to worse, I hope it will not.

 * Do you believe the hostilities can ever end?

I do. Remember Great Britain? First there were Celts, then there Romans, conquered island. There was a lot of resistance for centuries. Then there came Anglo Saxons, conquered island again, few hungred years more of brutality and resistances. Now, could you differ Celt from Anglo Saxon? Have you herad about any 'hostilities'?

 * Do you think giving independence and recognizing Chechnya internationally would end the hostilities?

That would do the trick in 1991, except from that they'll drive out and/or kill something like 200 000 Russians from their newly-independent state. As this happened in other 'independent overnight' countries, FYI. For some reason these 'newly independent' countries develop nacionalistic movement that cause a lot of violence even if they are already independent. They can't do without it, and, for that sole reason, I don't think independence should be provided to anyone who ask. Some areas can become countries without becoming blood bath, some just can not. I, as you may assume, don't like Russians being killed.

Now, how would you inagine Chechnya independence? Russia suddently drops government there and moves army out? Oh, bandits will come down from mountains, kill everyone who was associated with Russian government, kick out and/or kill rest of russian population, again wreak chaos over the whole country. Moreover, they'll continue to terrorise russian southwest near chechnya. After another one Beslan or Nord-Ost we'll have to do third chechen war, excatly because noone will tolerate such things happening near his borders.

Nation which fights its independence by killing children* and innocents clearly does not deserve this freedom. No respectable countries I know took this barbaric route to fight their independence, if you know one, I listen.

 * In Beslan, in fact, there was mostly Ossetian children killed. Chechnyans** don't just hate Russians, they just don't care about any lifes in general, be them whatever nationality, even if their own (see their terrorism against other Chechnyans now).
 * There I say only about Chechen bandits and otherwise armed fighters, not Chechens as nationality.

Ilyak 09:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchor Rodríguez García
Sługa uniżony :) Halibutt 03:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * A tak przy okazji - z polskiej wiki wygoniono mnie już dawno, więc zamiast próbować się ze mną kontaktować tam, lepiej będzie tu :) Halibutt

 * Może to i dobrze że Cię polemiki omijają ;)

 * Co do artykułu - niewiele tam ze mnie, po prostu przetłumaczyłem dość luźno tekst hiszpański. W oryginale autor hiszpańskiego artykułu wymienia powody częstych samosądów w punktach. Dosłownie fragment ten brzmiałby tak:

Najczęstszymi przyczynami tego stanu rzeczy były:

 * dostarczenie broni u zarania konfliktu różnym stronnictwom politycznym, często niezdolnym do dyscypliny
 * walki między grupami politycznymi (dosł. "zaostrzanie rywalizacji politycznej"), widoczne już w latach poprzedzających wojnę, a nasilające się w sposób znaczący podczas częstych bombardowań obiektów cywilnych
 * Świadomość że rebelianci także mordują ludzi bez sądów w strefie przez nich kontrolowanej
 * Słabość rządu republiki w pierwszych miesiącach wojny, która sprawiła, że tego typu akty nieczęsto były karane.

 * Pozdrawiam - i jestem do dyspozycji :) Halibutt 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Santiago Carrillo
Hello Diego, I have just looked at the discussion about Carrillo. You say that his responsibility for the massacre in Paracuellos del Jarama was not proved. However, from the text I have read it looks that at least his moral responsibility can be proved. The main arguments is the following: - his successor at the post (Melchor Rodriguez Garcia) had no problem with finding out what was going on and preventing killing of prisoners. Rodriguez acted in exactly the same conditions. It is impossible that one of the two could know about crimes and the other one could not. If Carrillo is not guilty of ordering the massacre staight forward, he is guilty of doing nothing to prevent it.

BTW. I am interested in the topic of the Spanish Civil War. This issue has been presented in a very biassed way many times. Either it is idealization of the Republic or of general Franco. ~

Regards, Jasra 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jasra. It's nice having some foreign people caring of our war, as it's sometimes difficult for Spanish people to remain objective. According to article at Spanish Wikipedia Víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española, precisely Melchor Rodríguez García was delegated by Carrillo in order to stop the killings as soon as these were noticed. You have to take into account that there wasn't a strong government in Madrid at that time (the Republic government had flewn to Valencia) and that the enemy forces were besieging the city, so the situation was doubtlessly chaotic; there's a reason for these facts to remain controversial.

 * I can see you're linking to sources strongly related to francoist ideologists (spainherald.com, from LibertadDigital). You'll have to check sources from both fronts in order to get a balanced view (the main historian of the Republican side being Ian Gibson). So far, I haven't seen convincing evidence (other than some gossip by a russian officer) that people in the Junta de Defensa had notice of these killings while they were taking place. Maybe you can dive into the sources and provide some better references of these facts? Diego Moya 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Erika Steinbach
As the article is on my watchlist, I've seen your comment, of course. I did not just revert by the way but picked what is good and left out the usual Molobonian partisan bias. Of course Molobo and Space Cadet will go on fighting, they always do. But strictness is not the reason. It is because too many people think by just trying to mix the pretty neutral and Molobo's partisan version, a conflict could be avoided. Appeasing him through concessions is to shift the POV in his direction, which is what he wants, which sows the seed of the next revert war. Sciurinæ 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
Cześć. You might be interested in WP:SPR. Karol 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo
Consider him reported to an administrator. I am that administrator, and I have reviewed the case. Ghirla was quite entitled to remove your commend from his talk page, and I'll thank you not to press the issue with him. You're quite welcome to take it up, as he suggested, with User:Jimbo Wales, although how Jimbo will feel about this offer I cannot say. Have a nice day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your message. I'll answer them in points:
 * Templates that are divisive or offensive can be speedy deleted at any time by any admin. However, what constitutes "divisive" is not entirely clear.  I am probably not the best person to ask on userbox issues (I think they're silly), but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that a userbox like User independent Chechnya doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving for long without being deleted by somebody.
 * Templates can be deleted by any administrator, as I've said above. A non-admin user can tag an article that ought to be speedy deleted with a template, , and an admin will review the argument for deletion and either delete the page/article/template/whatever, or remove the template.
 * We have a process called deletion review, where improper speedies and incorrect AfDs can be overturned. However, per WP:SNOW, I'd suggest you don't try it for this particular userbox.
 * Well, your message wasn't the cleverest one I've ever seen on talkpage (talking about censorship and templates being the only way you can state our POV and so on), but that's not what I meant. Basically, with some exceptions (like block messages), users can remove messages from their talkpage: it's generally considered bad form, but a lot of users remove messages they don't like, or even just messages they've read, from their talkpage, and we don't really try to stop them.  There's nothing actually wrong, normally, with removing messages from your talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * There is a large anti-userboxes crusade on Wiki. Don't worry - there are solutions: 1) restore the userbox in your userspace as a template 2) restore it as a non-template for your userpage only (this is what I am going to do now for myself). As for Ghirla, don't expect much civility from him. He is a valuable contributor to Russia-related articles, unfortunataly his 'Greater Russia' POV is very strong - but so far he is acting mostly alone and receives little support from other Russian contribs (although he receives no discouragement, either). If he continies his behaviour, he will face an RfA (he already had an RfC). Feel free to copy the text form my personal Babel (Editing User:Piotrus/Babel).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Alternatively, if it really matters, he can write it down on his userpage rather than taking cookie-cutter text ... and he can do it all without resorting to paranoid "crusade!" nonsense. People tend to appear so much smarter when they don't cover their userpages in silly boxen ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
I don't think it would be a good idea. Of course, we should avoid double standards here, but that's how the life is. Firstly, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that some hot-headed admin took part in a revert war and supported Great Russian patriots (I was asked not to call them nationalists) clearly against the rules of wikipedia does not mean that we should ask them to follow the same steps in the case of other userboxes. Also, not having one template and having all of the rest seems like a lesser evil to me.

Anyway, check my babel box to see how one could use the template anyway (I never used the original one, BTW).  // Halibutt 14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It's his common procedure to delete comments he doesn't know how to respond to. He's been a trouble user for quite some time, and was even RfCed some time in the past, but he has his ups and downs. At times the guy simply astonishes me with his knowledge, and at times he's the most rude person I've ever met (, for instance). If I were you, I'd simply avoided the guy not to be called names.

 * As to userboxes, I'd leave it as it is. Let the Russian nationalists and Ghirlandajo (he's asked me not to include him in the list) have the userboxes deleted, it's not worth the effort to fight for them. As long as they stay out of articles it's ok with me.  // Halibutt 15:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

calling names
please read WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Cicceroa 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen
G'day Jasra,

I'm afraid I haven't a clue about what you mean. Could you please point out (say, using the exact template name) the offensive userboxen? Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya
Dear Pani Alexandra, Thanks for your support for Chechen cause. I'd like to co-operate with you in future and we can share many ideas concerning politics and history. I’m also interested in Poland and history of this beautiful country (i been there many times, my favourite is Krakow). Thanks again-Jinkue Barzo and all the best! Niech Zhivi Polsha :) Noxchi Borz 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Alexandra Hi, why was Chechnya symbol removed from commons? Noxchi Borz 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Portal
If you support to create Georgia Portal please vote here Portal/Proposals. Thanks. Noxchi Borz 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

for you
No prob. When i learn alot from someone I gotta give them credit where they deserve it.:-) Vmrgrsergr 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

=Learn English=

I noticed a sentence that was so terrible that I just had to look up the author: "Sanja Trumbić was the singer, and this was one of her nationalistic songs the artistic values were criticized." What the hell is wrong with you? And YOU edit Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.219.245 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer non-anonymous comments. If you want to correct English - just corrert it, without being rude. You have no even courage to use your name or nick. Jasra (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jasra


text:
Talk:Mike Davis (scholar)

Untitled
An important issue in Ecology of Fear was that of fires... now that LA is on fire (well, part of it...) and some controversial hypotheses by Davis seem to have just come true, shouldn't this entry be updated?--213.140.21.227 08:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this article far too subjective and critical of its subject. By including quotes from such a questionable and low grade source as the 'New Times' i feel that the work of Mike Davis is being completely undermined. Please refer to writings including that of Nation contributor Jon Wiener which address the issue of Davis' credibility. Because Davis is a prominent left-wing thinker, he has been the subject of a ridiculous campaign to mar both his sense of honesty and intellectual validity. Opinions such as that currently expressed in this article are heavily biased and distract from the importance of Davis' work.

The reason that 'New Times LA' is defunct is because they offerred poor factually unsupported criticisms. Anyone can critique a person for being a liberal or a conservative, but to me an effective critique of a writer is an effective critique of his books, and thus far I have failed to see an effective negative critique of the books written by Dr. Mike Davis. On the other hand I have seen multiple praise of the books by Dr. Davis by such non-defunct organizations as Kirkus Reviews, San Francisco Chronicle and The Nation.

 * New Times LA is defunct because it got bought out by its competitor, the LA Weekly (owned by Village Voice), in an exchange that raised more than a few eyebrows in LA's journalism community. It had nothing to do with Davis.  (And, IMHO, New Times was a far more interesting paper than LA Weekly).  The paper's criticism of Davis was lame, I agree -- in their obsession with scandal, writers Jill Stewart and Rick Barrs ("the Finger"), picked up on then-Malibu real estate agent and amateur fact-checker Brady Westwater's 20-page screed attacking Davis based on dubious analysis of alleged errors in Davis' footnotes.  Some of the errors were indeed errors; some were simply not; none of them were as significant as Westwater claimed and the whole thing was blown ridiculously out of proportion first by Westwater and then by a series of articles in New Times LA.  Joel Kotkin was thrilled, but everyone with an academic background familiar with Davis' work knew it was BS.  Westwater, a real estate agent in Malibu, was irate for pretty obvious reasons when the chapter from Ecology of Fear showed up in the LA Weekly, with a photo of a Malibu fire on the cover, and the title "LET MALIBU BURN."  So he devoted his life to combing through every footnote in Davis' books and trying to destroy his credibility.  Apparently, he is still obsessed with undermining Davis' credibility, to no avail.  Anyway, the point is, New Times LA's undoing had nothing to do with its Davis criticism, and it was actually an excellent alternative paper in its day -- what it lacked in comprehensiveness it more than made up for in irreverence.  And no LA paper since - not the Weekly and none of the alternative papers that have cropped up in its wake - has produced a column as cool as "the Finger."--csloat 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat makes a good point that there is two sided debate regarding Davis' veracity. The Los Angeles trilogy has been shown to contain factual errors, as well as a politically biased theme. Davis is a self-avowed Marxist and his work regards the inequities of Los Angeles real estate politics. The debate itself deserves mention so those reading Davis' work are aware that it is political in nature and is not uniformly acknowledged. While Westwater's work is also not above critism the Salon article linked in the biography provides a useful counterpoint. Pchoate 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Westwater's "work" is a joke.  True, by combing the footnotes carefully he found some errors and exaggerations, as one could with just about any academic manuscript.  But he did not find evidence that Davis was a fraud or that there was a systematic attempt to distort things, as he claimed.  There is only a two-sided debate about this because one "side" is populated by ideologues like Westwater and Jill Stewart and... well, not really anyone else.  I don't know of any credentialed academic who takes the claims seriously.  Don't get me wrong - everyone knows Davis has a literary flair, and there is hyperbole in his work; in addition, I don't think he has ever tried to hide or disavow his politics.  But the claims made by Stewart and Westwater that he has been discredited are ridiculous.--csloat 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about Westwater or Stewart, but the NPOV of this article regarding Davis' work as a scholar. "Literary flair" and "hyperbole" are understatements, his reporting selectively supports his thesis, and contains well established overstatements and logical fallacies. Davis makes minimal effort to balance his arguments or present them in a larger context and thus are more political than scientific. His work certainly is eye-opening and interesting, but his books are classic examples of confirmation bias. Regards - Pchoate 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But Westwater and Stewart are pretty much the only published sources that can back up your claims. The "well established overstatements and logical fallacies" that Westwater claimed to have found were mostly themselves overblown exaggerations.  If you got this information from elsewhere, let us know, but this isn't the place for original research.  Also, let's not confuse an inability (or perhaps an unwillingness) to understand particular methods or claims with "confirmation bias."  As I've said, I don't know of a single credentialed academic who takes these claims about Davis seriously.  If you know of one, please share (and, of course, feel free to add their published research to the article).  But if there is none, we are left with the likes of Jill Stewart and Brady Westwater.--csloat 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have a problem with the level of hyperbole in his writing. I do find several references confirming academic acceptance of his work. The NationRadical Urban Theory Pchoate 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I could certainly understand that - as I said, he has a literary flair; some passages are hilarious if read out of context. (As an example, look for his comment in Ecology of Fear that mountain lions and coyotes have become an integral part of the Los Angeles street scene.)  But I think the criticism that came from Stewart et al had its origins in Westwater's screed.  It was provoked by the LA Weekly publishing "Let Malibu Burn" (along with a lurid photo of a Malibu fire on the cover), and my sense is that certain people in the press -- people already known for digging up sensationalism -- picked it up because they wanted to bring down a scholar who had just won a "genius" award.  The criticism died down since then, and if you look at academic sources, his work is no more controversial than it was before the flap.  I'm going to try to edit the sentence again to reflect this; see what you think.--csloat 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The change I made was pretty minor; it would not be a bad idea, if this article is expanded at some point, to include more information about the controversy; as I said, I think that controversy was very limited in time and that it had as its main source Brady Westwater's obviously invested screed. Some indication that it was a time-bound event is probably necessary here.--csloat 00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Angotti's and other detractors' criticisms of Davis's alleged "anti-urbanism" are without foundation. The pejorative "anti-urban" was often used by centrist, pro-metropolitan, pro-market capitalist writers in the 1960s--authors such as Jane Jacobs, in the introduction to her The Death and Life of Great American Cities and Morton White and his wife Lucia White, in their The Intellectual vs. the City, so as to demagogically dismiss as "suburbany," (Jacobs) "patrician," and/or "pastoralist" (the Whites), the powerful criticisms of the unsustainability of the big city form, made by such authors as Davis, Lewis Mumford, Garrett Eckbo, all the way back to Marx and Engels themselves, and their proposals for decentralization. Angotti, Andy Merrifield, and Marshall Berman, from a left-liberal standpoint, today follow in the footsteps of Jane Jacobs and the Whites, in detracting critics of the metropolis like Davis and Mumford. The implication, which Angotti makes explicit, is that such "anti-urban" writers are actually indifferent or hostile to the plight of the poor and the workers who happen now to LIVE in these cities--as if they CHOSE to live in these "slums," as if to call them "slums" and decry the poor conditions under which the poor live there, was an insult to them, rather than an analysis which might serve toward their liberation from those conditions. In addition, these "metropolitans" brand the "anti-urbanists" insufficiently cognizant of the capacity of the lower classes to somehow reform the big city to make it livable. To be critical of the contemporary, overcongested, polluted, fossil fuel dependent metropolis, and to seek radical alternatives to it, however, is obviously not equivalent to being against any and all urban forms or urbanity, in general. To accuse a powerful Marxist writer like Davis, who has always been solidly on the side of the working class and the poor, of being "elitist," is to say the least, misdirected. The difference between these two schools is not that the "MetroMarxism" and "Dialectical Urbanism" championed by Merrifield and co. is populist, while mega-urban critics like Davis are elitist. Rather, the former are reformist, Davis and his co-thinkers, revolutionary. It is reformist, in the tradition of Edward Bernstein and Martynov, to argue that local (at their largest, citywide) groups of poor and workers can reform, piece by piece, existing institutions like the metropolis for the better, while leaving their fundamental contours in place. It is revolutionary, as Davis insists upon pointing out time and time again, in the tradition of Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, and Lenin, to insist that all such capitalist institutions are contradictory, crisis-bound, and in need of fundamental transformation, and that this must be done by an organized, conscious, global, socialist working class movement. Davis should be congratulated, not racist-baited, for keeping the latter revolutionary tradition alive today..--Tomsword 4 December 2007

Weasel wording
The article as drafted included a sentence claiming that a Salon article had cited 'several' people accusing Davis of making up facts, 'including' a realtor and a journalist. On reviewing the Salon article, I found just one such person - the realtor, whose case was then 'taken up by' (Salon wording) the journalist cited. This is a pretty sneaky piece of weasel wording - deliberately misrepresenting an article which was already weasel-worded, in that none of the rest of the criticisms of Davis made in the article were in any way substantive, merely interpretive - and I have fixed the sentence to reflect what the article actually said, as opposed to what the WP contributor seems to have wanted it to say. Lexo (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work; thanks for fixing that. csloat (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

POV check
As other posts before on this page have said, it seems like the Criticisms and reviews section might be a bit unbalanced. As written the article provides very little support for Davis' views while quoting many people who disagree with them. Also, I'm concerned that some of the quotes might not contradict this: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." This might be a problem with [WP:UNDUE].

Also, there seem to be some weasel words here that could be a problem with [WP:AVOID]. The section uses alleged, however, and allegation. I dont know if including the 'attacks' by Jacobs on Mumford are an appropriate introduction to Merrifield's 'attacks' on Davis. Also, the phrasing that Stannard has 'argued for the defense' is appropriate in the context it's used here. Svenna (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree the Criticism section is poorly written and quite frankly is larger in scale compared to the rest of the article. It reads like a TMZ listicle. Overhere2000 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough already
I am a socialist myself and love Mike Davis's stuff. I don't see any problems, however, with the section on Critiques and reviews. The general tone of the paragraph is accurate: it is expected that a hefty socialist writer will be attacked. I have added a few sentences summing up and will remove the neutrality warning. Bdubay (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike Davis - title - requested change
I suggest title "Mike Davis - Scholar" be changed to "Mike Davis - Writer and Political Activist" -- more accurate and recognizable. not all of his writing is scholarly, and his work as a political activist is significant -- among both fans and critics.Jonwiener (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

--- Another reason for this change is that there is a famous (within the field) neurobiology scholar named Mike Davis, who studies the fear circuitry in the brain. I googled "Mike Davis Fear" and because this person wrote a book with the word "fear" in the title, I was brought here. http://med.emory.edu/facultyprofiles/profile_research.cfm?id=1688 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.6 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

broken link
He is a self-defined international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Davis (scholar). 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/20110927040527/http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142723/k.28C4/Fellows_List__July_1998.htm to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142723/k.28C4/Fellows_List__July_1998.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220003336/http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums to http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220003336/http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums to http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Davis (scholar). 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/20081201230222/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201230222/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html

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) 12:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Books by Mike Davis and Jon Wiener.jpg

COI
I regretfully did not disclose this earlier with respect to my major contributions to the article, but I may have a personal connection with the subject of the article (not a financial or professional connection in any way). I have mainly been sticking to the Biography section and re-organizing the references. As far as I am aware, conflicted editors are strongly discouraged to edit but not prohibited (Please inform me if I am wrong!). If any arbitrators desire to revert my additions, I am fine with that. I have been trying to maintain a neutral standpoint (please review my contributions and correct them if you believe they are biased) and source all of my edits.

(I accidentally deleted an earlier version of this comment when I pasted the connections template at the top of the page) Toyonbro (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mike Davis (scholar)


title: User:Kevmicester2000


text:
Talk:Pronoia (psychology)

Why is this page still here?
Honestly, I'm confused at how someone can read this article and NOT do something about it.

"A peasant revolt therefore came into being as a result of outsourcing pronoia and the wikipedia. The technopeasants, sick and tired of being landless and ignored for decades by the media, rose up in defiance of the old pronoia laws."

WHAT does this mean? WHERE is this? What region of India? WHAT pronoia laws? An encyclopedia is not a dumping ground for New Age rhetoric, vagueries, or buzzwords like those featured here.

If this is indeed such a phenomenon as the article tries to describe, then let's have it rewritten (if nothing else), or deleted. --Addama 17:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Working on it.
I am going to rewrite this starting from the Wired Magazine article which introduced me to the Pronoia meme. I will attempt to locate subsequent references associated with the figures cited, or others. I too think the India/Africa content is dubious.

Once the edits are done, I wonder if Pronoia_(psychology) is a suitable title? Any suggestions?

I am wading in here... Discovered Articles_for_deletion/Zippies, and apparently the original India/Africa references are referred to in the New York Times although there is no mention of the word pronoia.

tokind 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a start. I welcome additional references and links to more detailed information. tokind 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Two articles?
Perhaps this should be split into Pronoia (philosophy) and Pronoia (psychology), and Pronoia (disambigiation) edited accordingly? tokind 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Message of the Zippies
The mixed message emanating from various quarters needs to be analysed. While some would concur on the belief of Clark, that rave culture involves designer drugs or that trance parties require shamanic medicine, the issue of self-medication needs to be addressed, if only, to avoid the issues associated with substance abuse and so on. I don't subscribe to Clark's message, nor do I have any sympathy for Tim Leary's message taken out of the context of the sixties. I do however agree with Aldous Huxley and do not want to associate myself with any populist appeal to drug usuage.Ethnopunk 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology
This article doesn't belong in the WikiProject Psychology article base. It talks about a philosophy or worldview, not a psychological concept.--Cassmus 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word
The section Pronoia affliction begins:
 * According to Pronoia.net, Dr. Fred H. Goldner claims that he, writing at Queens College in October 1982, published a paper in Social Problems (V.30, N.1:82-91), in which he coined the term pronoia to describe a psychological affliction.

The wording ("according to...", "claims") implies that Goldner is falsely claiming authorship of the article and/or the term.

The second paragraph of the article includes a straightforward citation for the article, and a URL is listed under External links. I just checked the link, which resolves to a JSTOR page. It is accurate, and the abstract includes the claim of coinage.

The origin of the doubt seems to be Pronoia.net, which is cited as the source of the content of the 3rd paragraph. Their definition page says:
 * The first modern use* of the word pronoia I can trace occurred during the psychedelic 1960s and 1970s - following a charismatic smile from John Perry Barlow. The EFF co-founder, Grateful Dead lyricist, and grizzled veteran of both Millbrook and Haight-Ashbury defined pronoia as: "the suspicion the Universe is a conspiracy on your behalf".
 * * FOOTNOTE
 * It was brought to our attention several years ago, via e-mail by Mr. Fred H. Golder [sic], that he believes HE in fact deserves credit for the revival of the word Pronoia in 1982. To his point, Pronoia.net offers a taste of his serious academic paper here. Writing at Queens College in October 1982 (in SOCIAL PROBLEMS,V.30,N.1:82-91), Mr. Golder summarizes:
 * [...]
 * Our response: Well, maybe feelings of pronoia are always just a "delusion"... or maybe Mr. Golder just hasn't gotten the vibe? :-) Seriously, it seems to us as if this pop-psych definition of the word Pronoia holds up a dysfunctional and delusional minority to a scientific zoom lense [sic], and reports the view as if it were an accurate representation of the larger youth phenomenon. Pronoia.net disagrees with this basic premise.

It's clear there are two different senses of the word here, which this (WP) article separates as Pronoia philosophy and Pronoia affliction. Pronoia.net apparently disagrees, snarkily (and the pop-psych here is not Goldner's), and without seeing Goldner's email it's not clear whether he viewed them as distinct. But Pronoia.net gives no citation for the "1960s and 1970s" origin of the philosophy sense, and there's no reason to doubt Goldner's independent origination of the term for the affliction. FWIW, the OED cites Goldner's paper as the origin of the word in this sense.

I've added the citation to the article here and removed the weasel wording. --Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word by ancient Greeks and especially Proclus
Just to let you guys know that the word was already coined by the Ancient Greeks and was especially elaborated upon in the fifth century by Proclus, the head of the Athenian neo-Platonic academy, in his work on providence and fate. In Latin it would translate as "providentia"/providence, but, unlike in the Christian sense, Proclus used the word to signify the ability of each human being to understand himself, not as in understanding his various individual peculiarities which are bound to his time, but rather to understand how he participates of the eternal and divine idea of a human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.35.15.209 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Further documentation of this ancient origin is S. Bergjan, "Der Fursorgende Gott: Der Begriff Der Pronoia Gottes in Der Apologetischen Literatur Der Alten Kirche" In this work she explores Pronoia in the early Christian sense. The description:
 * "Diese begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung widmet sich der spaetantiken Diskussion zwischen Christen und ihren Zeitgenossen ueber Gottes Vorsehung (Pronoia). Die Ueberzeugung, dass Gott sich um die Welt kuemmert, war in der Spaetantike allgemein verbreitet. Umstritten war in der philosophischen Diskussion des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts, wie man sich dieses Wirken vorzustellen hat: als allgemeinen Sinnhorizont, als gute Ordnung oder als individuelle Fuersorge? Die Autorin analysiert die Bedeutung des Wortes Pronoia und zeichnet eine Diskussion aus der Perspektive der christlichen Autoren nach (vor allem: Justin, Clemens von Alexandrien, Origenes, Euseb von Caesarea)."
 * Pronoia means Providence not in the sense of luck, but of providing. The key sentence of the above is "The belief that God takes care of the world was widespread in late antiquity".
 * p.s. I see now that there is an article on Divine Providence in which these ancient usages are addressed. That article should be referred to here so that people don't get the idea that Goldner coined his usage in a vacuum. In other words, the meaning in Greek is part of the etymology and should not be omitted.
 * 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Order of development is wrong
The order of development in this article is all wrong.

It starts out by citing a fortuitous word-play by J.D. Salinger. While this is exactly the kind of serendipitous particularity that I enjoy learning from Wikipedia, it's not the main line of development.

It then leans on an unpublished, private work of Philip K. Dick as a kind of "origin". Much as I appreciate the brilliant subjectivism of Philip K. Dick, it is simply not the case that a word comes into use when it comes into a brain, but rather when it made available to public discourse.

It's clear that the 1982 article must be taken as the source of the modern usage. The ideas diffused from that article, not from Dick's Exegesis. Exegesis was first published in 2011.

Accordingly I'd suggest that the psychology usage be placed first in the article.

Another thing that concerns me is that citations that merely mention "positive conspiracy of universe" without using the word "pronoia" are too broad to include. That would make the article too much of a cloud-chaser. I'll check if any of these occur, if I can. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I've now implemented this large change of emphasis, and numerous small changes.

 * I removed the Coelho quote entirely for the following reasons.
 * a) First because there is no evidence given in the cited page that he actually uses the word "pronoia" or "pronoid",
 * b) Second because lacking the specific word pronoia, the Coehlo quote is inspiring, but generic, and apparently there is a history of similar inspirational quotes, including one by Ralph Waldo Emerson (disputed).
 * c) Third, because it refers to actual benevolence of the universe, not an irrational or spiritual belief in that benevolence.

 * I checked that the other citations (with the exception of Salinger) actually use the word, and put in explicit quotation marks in appropriate places to make this clear.

 * I removed the moniker "neologism" since pronoia is now in the dictionary with the psychological meaning.

 * I moved the Barlow comment out of the introduction since it is not well attested. In particular the 1993 date, preceding the zippy article, is not attested at all, even in the source. (The source, https://web.archive.org/web/20171021070530/http://www.pronoia.net/def.html, is an unsigned, self-published, online page that lacks detail or citations.)

 * I found two more references below that might be useful. The first is another psychology article in 1983. It looks interesting in itself. The second is a link to the Zippy article in Wired, which was mysteriously missing from the article. [Now added]

 * There is an additional Zippy source in the John Perry Barlow article, I think.

 * 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Another psychology reference
Paranoia and Pronoia: The Visionary and the Banal, Laurence J. Kirmayer, Social Problems, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Dec., 1983), pp. 170-179 (10 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press

https://doi.org/10.2307/800208, https://www.jstor.org/stable/800208 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wired reference
Jules Marshall, May 1, 1994, Zippies!, Wired magazine, https://www.wired.com/1994/05/zippies/ 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added it to the article. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is unrelated and it is only a passing mention. Veverve (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Potentially controversial change
I removed the Philip K. Dick reference entirely for the following reasons.

A) First, it is quite clear from searching all the uses of pronoia in Exegesis that Dick was using the word strictly in the theological historical sense of Divine Providence, and not in the sense of an "opposite to paranoia".

Dick was very familiar with Catholic theology, and Exegesis is loaded with Greek theological terms (including the title), many of them in direct proximity to pronoia. So he knew the Greek meaning. Furthermore, he uses it to refer to the benevolence of the universe, not to his attitude or belief in the benevolence of the universe.

So he's using the classical meaning. Not the antonym-of-paranoia meaning.

He's not reviving it either; scholars were continually studying this term.

B) Second, the paragraph about Exegesis is not correct even considered in isolation, unfortunately. It is full of projections and anachronisms. Here is the paragraph as it was:

 * The writer Philip K Dick referred to pronoia as an antidote to paranoia in his private work, Exegesis, in which it is mentioned in relation to his perceived protection by an entity he called V.A.L.I.S., an acronym for Vast Active Living Intelligence System. Published posthumously in 2011, the word "pronoia" first appeared in his Exegesis in January 1980. Dick suggested his own pronoia was based on an "intelligent analysis" of his mystical experiences, and was not "reflexive or mechanical" in its nature.

a) Dick does not refer to pronoia as an "antidote to paranoia". This phrase does not appear in Exegesis, nor does he juxtapose the two words, or set them against each other, despite the obvious play on words.

Indeed, the phrase "an antidote to paranoia" appears (almost) in the title of the book Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring to Shower You with Blessings by the horoscope columnist Rob Brezsny. I think that this title is simply being pasted onto Exegesis as an interpretation.

Now, clearly Dick needed an antidote to paranoia, and from a cursory skimming of Exegesis, it appears that a belief in Divine Providence (pronoia) functioned in that way for him. But that does not mean that Dick used "pronoia" to mean "a belief in Divine Providence", nor "an exuberant or irrational belief that the universe is conspiring in your favor". He's simply using the classical meanings of pronoia and paranoia.

b) The editors of Exegesis get it right. From the glossary of that book:

 * pronoia: In theology, and in the writings of Philo of Alexandria in particular, pronoia refers to God's governance of creation. It is roughly analogous to the concept of divine providence. More recently, the term has assumed a psychological valence as an inverse to paranoia, so that it denotes the belief that the universe is a conspiracy on one's behalf.

They correctly identify the new meaning in psychology as being recent (namely after Dick's book was written) but they don't claim that Dick was using it that way.

c) Consider the sentence

 * Dick suggested his own pronoia was based on an "intelligent analysis" of his mystical experiences, and was not "reflexive or mechanical" in its nature.

in the paragraph about Exegesis. This is a posthumous application of the psychological term to Dick's mental state. The application is being done by a Wikipedia editor, not by Dick. In the book, Dick never referred to himself as "having" pronoia (a mental state). In the book Dick is explaining how he came to understand pronoia, or believe in pronoia (Divine Providence). So it is misleading (anachronistic) to have Dick suggesting something about his own pronoia.

d) Dick's ruminations on "pronoia" in Exegesis are interesting. Maybe a good place to include this material (after making it accurate) is in the article Divine Providence under "Divine providence (pronoia) in popular culture".

Of course, that could be a large category -- like, the solar system in popular culture, or Roman history in popular culture.

e) This got long. Sorry. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 * P.S. I'm happy to discuss this change, but if you want to put back in the Dick material (I admit that it is interesting), for goodness sake make it accurate in the spirit of B) above. The version you'll get if you revert is my provisional rewrite, which does not address the issues in B) and is therefore still incorrect:

 * "The writer Philip K Dick used the word independently in 1980 as an antidote to paranoia in his private work, Exegesis, where it refers to his perceived protection by an entity he called V.A.L.I.S., an acronym for Vast Active Living Intelligence System. Dick suggested his own pronoia was based on an "intelligent analysis" of his mystical experiences, and was not "reflexive or mechanical" in its nature.  The word "pronoia" first appeared in his Exegesis in January 1980. It was published posthumously in 2011."

 * 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pronoia (psychology)


text:
User talk:Gato123

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gato123


text:
Theodosius of Bithynia

Theodosius of Bithynia (Θεοδόσιος Theodosios; 2nd–1st century BC) was a Hellenistic astronomer and mathematician from Bithynia who wrote the Spherics, a treatise about spherical geometry, as well as several other books on mathematics and astronomy, of which two survive, On Habitations and On Days and Nights.

Life
Little is known about Theodosius' life. The Suda (10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia) mentioned him writing a commentary on Archimedes' Method (late 3rd century BC), and Strabo's Geographica mentioned mathematicians Hipparchus (c. 190 – c. 120 BC) and "Theodosius and his sons" as among the residents of Bithynia distinguished for their learning. Vitruvius (1st century BC) mentioned a sundial invented by Theodosius. Thus Theodosius lived sometime after Archimedes and before Vitruvius, likely contemporaneously with or after Hipparchus, probably sometime between 200–50 BC.

Historically he was called Theodosius of Tripolis due to a confusing paragraph in the Suda which probably fused the entries about separate people named Theodosius, and was interpreted to mean that he came either from the Tripolis in Phoenicia or the one in Africa. Some sources claim he moved from Bithynia to Tripolis, or came from a hypothetical city called Tripolis in Bithynia.

Works
Theodosius' chief work, the Spherics (τὰ σφαιρικά ), about spherical geometry, establishes a formal foundation for the mathematics of Greek spherical astronomy similar to the foundation Euclid's Elements provides for geometry in general. Euclid's Phenomena and Autolycus's On the Moving Sphere, both dating from two centuries prior, make use of geometric relationships proven in Spherics, so it has been speculated that they may have expected readers to be familiar with a treatise on elementary spherical geometry, perhaps by Eudoxus of Cnidus (4th century BC), on which the Spherics may have been based. However, no mention of this hypothetical earlier work or its author remains today, and it is also plausible that Theodosius was the first to formalize material which had been previously justified by informal physical demonstrations on a globe or armillary sphere.

In addition to the Spherics, two other works by Theodosius have survived: On Habitations, describing the appearances of the heavens at different climes and different times of the year, and On Days and Nights, a study of the apparent motion of the Sun.

Theodosius was cited by Vitruvius as having invented a sundial suitable for any place on Earth, but nothing else is known about it.

Transmission and influence
All three of Theodosius' extant treatises were transmitted together, as part of a collection now called the Little Astronomy, an assortment of shorter works on geometry and astronomy building on Euclid's Elements. During the Islamic Golden Age, the books in the Little Astronomy were translated into Arabic, and with the addition of a few new works, were known as the Middle Books, intended to fit between the Elements and Ptolemy's Almagest. Spherics was translated into Arabic by Qusṭā ibn Lūqā and Thābit ibn Qurra, and translated from Arabic into Latin in the 12th century by Plato Tiburtinus and Gerard of Cremona. Theodosius' works were published in Latin in the 16th century.

The Spherics was widely copied and highly influential, serving as a theoretical foundation for spherical geometry and astronomy for millennia. Menelaus of Alexandria (c. 100 AD) extended it with his own Spherics, which proved many additional theorems of spherical geometry. Pappus of Alexandria (4th century) commented extensively on Theodosius' Spherics and On Days and Nights in his Collection, Book VI. Spherics was continuously copied and studied in Greek manuscript throughout the Byzantine period, and was a foundational text for medieval Islamic astronomy and for European astronomy starting in the 12th century.

title: Theodosius of Bithynia


text: File:Patent 5019838 Fig3.png

title: File:Patent 5019838 Fig3.png


text:
User talk:Yuusukesakurai

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yuusukesakurai


text: User talk:24.72.202.9

title: User talk:24.72.202.9


text:
User talk:Joebain03

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joebain03


text:
User talk:Decotelli

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Decotelli


text: Template:FloraBase

title: Template:FloraBase


text:
User talk:GaryMull98

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:GaryMull98


text:
User talk:PremierSullivan

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note
Yes you can write a new article. If you click the random page button in the tool bar, you will come a cross small articles or "stubs" as they are called. You can edit these and make them longer or you can click on a red link to start the article. When you click the red link it will take you to a page where you can start the article. If you want you can start an article in the sandbox, or on your userpage, or subpage (example url: User:PremierSullivan/Sandbox).

An example of a red link: William III of Angouleme You can also take a look at the Requested Articles page to see what is currently in need of being added. I hope I answered your question. Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]  01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Quick Note
I noticed that you didn't sign your name on the my talk page. You can sign a page by typing ~. Have a nice day and happy editing! Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

01:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:PremierSullivan


text: Category:Companies of Vietnam

title: Category:Companies of Vietnam


text:
User talk:Cagle

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cagle