Talk:Utopia (book)

Utopia - Eutopia vs. Outopia
From the article: "That is something that More himself addresses in an addendum to his book: 'Wherfore not Utopie, but rather rightely my name is Eutopie, a place of felicitie.'" This is in the last paragraph of TITLE and the quote directly contradicts the idea of the paragraph, being that "ou" is the "U" in Utopia.

Am I reading this quote incorrectly, or does More directly address the possible confusion and clearly state that "eu"topia is the derivation of Utopia? I think this should transcend the traditional dictionary etymology, and it seems to be in direct contradiction to the popular thought of "ou" being the Greek rather than "eu".

I'm doing a deep dive into this etymological history, now, but if there are other quotes or references that precede the 2020 citation, it would be great to add and clarify. I've come across at least one thesis paper that states it's both "eu" and "ou" at the same time, which seems most likely, if only for the literary double entendre. I'd love to see actual historical reference for the etymology.

Bainst — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmshin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Periodic Table?
Why is the periodic table being used to label alternative titles for the book? I read one of the comments below (...maybe from the author of that edit?) and it just descends into literal madness. I'm a chemist, but this doesn't seem like a pertinent place for the periodic table...

174.63.107.108 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above, it has no business here. FlippingGerman (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Map of Utopia
I am a student from Magway division Myanmar.

Question [Homoproteus, 21st Jan. 2008]: Why is the text re Book II citing Goodey's conclusion from "Mapping Utopia" that More's description is a geometric impossibility?

I.) This is not pertinant to the original text of More's Utopia, it is immaterial if it is or isn't possible.

II.) Goodey's conclusion is wrong anyway. The circle whose circumference the text describes, is the inner circle of the crescent (which the two tapering arms curve around to form), not the outer circle defining the island's outer boundary with the sea. i.e. The circle which is 500 miles in circumference is the great Lagoon. The original book was illustrated by Martini, not Holbein, and Martini's illustration illustrates quite clearly both the great lagoon, and the fortified rock in its entrance. More's descriptions are too precise to be dismissed offhand by someone who has clearly misread the text.

Questionable
"More was not aware that the work would be published, nor did he himself publish it. His good friend Erasmus had it published for him after reading it."

This line appears near the end of the article, but seems questionable based on the edition of Utopia that I have to hand (Cambridge revised edition of 2002). First the editor of this edition has the following footnote mentioning letters of More, on pg 6 of the book:

"although More's letters express considerable anxiety about the reception of Utopia, the claim that he is ambivalent about publishing it would seem to be largely conventional. In a letter of c. 20 September 1516 he told Erasmus (who saw the book through the press), 'I am most amxious to have it published soon', and on 15 December he confided that 'from day to day I look forward to my Utopia with the feelings of a mother waiting for her son to return from abroad' (Selected Letters pp 76, 87)."

Second though this may be original research and thus should not be used in the article itself, it's worth noting while considering the question that the preface contains all the rhetorical markers which would be expected from a Renaissance work intended for publication, and it's quite unlikely that More would have written such a preface for a work that he was not aware would be published. Comparing More's preface to the prefaces of other Renaissance authors of carefully prepared texts (Castiglione/book of the courtier is one who I have specifically in mind) the rhetorical markers that the work was intended for circulation should be fairly obvious (including the one mentioned above - the rhetorical claim in the preface that the author is ambivalent about publishing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.187 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Amaurot
Is the correct spelling of the city Amaurot or Amaurote? Both seem to be in use. Which was used in the original latin? Drutt (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In Latin it's amauroton, meaning 'made dark or dim' (in another letter to Giles, he calls the city 'a phantom'). The Cambridge edition uses Amaurot, I'm not sure about others... Yohan euan o4 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir Saint?
Identifying the author as "Sir Saint Thomas More" is ridiculous. It should be either "Sir Thomas More" or "Saint Thomas More." If he absolutely must be given both titles simultaneously, "Saint Sir Thomas More" would be preferable, since he was a Sir before he was a Saint.

Since Utopia is primarily a political as opposed to a religious work, calling him "Sir Thomas More" would make more sense. Also, he actually was Sir Thomas More when he wrote it; he did not become Saint Thomas More until over 400 years later. But since he is identified in the original Latin edition of the book itself simply as "Thomas Morus"—with no title at all—he should be identified here as simply "Thomas More."

I'm going to remove "Sir Saint." If someone feels compelled to restore it, please make it "Saint Sir," not "Sir Saint." "Sir Saint" makes him sound like a mascot or a cartoon character. --Jim10701 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"planet-worshippers"
Planet-worshippers is linked to Chthonic? This is not correct. 198.168.48.43 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful external link
Possibly useful external link; I'll let someone else be the judge of whether it should be added at this time.

The Open Utopia, a project by Stephen Duncombe of NYU, providing multiple versions of the text, wiki-based annotation, etc. Might be premature to add - it's in its infancy - but probably at least worth keeping an eye on for whether it becomes substantive. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is lacking
This article is lacking when compared to other Utopia topics which is odd as this is the original.Smallman12q (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi fiction?
The introductory paragraph describes the book as "hi fiction", but what is meant by that? Tweisbach (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Notes section
note #2 links to a blog on phonetics but doesn't link to any specific blog post, just the main page (most recent post).

i found two different posts when searching for utopia.

number 1.

and number 2, which is an update on the the earlier post.

i can't determine which is the most relevant to link to. maybe both combine to form one consistent piece relevant to referenced section of the article.

i'm not super familiar with the terminology around phonetics and pronunciation, and the International Phonetic Alphabet is something i've never managed to master.. so i am at a loss.

can someone with a background in linguistics un-muddy this? ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Skinner and Greenblatt consistent?
This looks like a well-meaning transition sentence: "Quentin Skinner's interpretation of Utopia is consistent with the speculation that Stephen Greenblatt made in The Swerve: How the World Became Modern." However, it looks doubtful to me. Does Greenblatt ever say that Skinner's analysis is consistent with his? I ask because the Epicureans are pretty explicit that communal life should not include the abolition of private property (on this they opposed the Pythagoreans). So it would be surprising (and risable) for an author writing about Epicurus or Lucretius or whomever to say, "Oh yeah, the abolition of private property that Skinner talks about? That's consistent with Epicureanism." It looks to me like the person who wrote this thought this would make a good transition sentence, even though it turns out to assert something that's pretty doubtful in my view. But I would have to know more about the cite to Greenblatt's book, which I have not read.68.63.148.22 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add that a Google Books search for "Skinner" in Greenblatt's book only includes a single acknowledgment on page 265.68.63.148.22 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

a table of appositive epitopes
Why have you created a table in this article? Edit summaries like "Break-out board on a divers mass of Utopia 'short-title' translations. As a Lǎoshī 老师 (en: Teacher), i assert this Periodic Number 'appositive epitope' reinstates +advances Utopian Education for Our grandstudents cradle-to-cradle. Don't revert, pls." not only make little sense, it is also a false argument to authority which no one possesses on Wikipedia. You will have to gain consensus as the burden is on those who add content, not those who remove it. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. Mostly. But there are some arguments that i do have unusual demographic authority, let alone some imperative authority, as any Eutopic Religious Finder would (don't flinch: i'm talking about Religion Civic, or Civil Religion here), over the edit summary entries (not the edits themselves, which have to be brought to concensus), which are more explanatory of any conflicts-of-interest that may need criticized with regularity, not my edits. If edits are subject to concensus pressure more so than Potential COI Ideological Disclosure pressure, i'd be rather surprised.

There's a policy on Wikipedia that no one on Capitol Hill working in Congress can edit Wikipedia. That's a really valuable and important policy. It turns out that IP Addresses on Capitol Hill are commonly associated with abuse of fact. I'm not on Capitol Hill, but i've said on my Talkpage that i would resist editing Articles directly myself, just to be 100% above board, and find myself slipping the chain on that commitment, like i recently did writing about doing this to [ this] and [ this]. So, if i keep writing, whenever i do write or wright something that is questionable, or meets a dogmatic drive, i want to make sure that i make it clear that it's coming from a dogmatic lens that other Wikipedians could very, very, _very_ reasonably revert, reject, and criticize just as you have.

But i am thinking here about how to lay the Groundwork for a Metaphysik on Morals, one that hits all Branches of Government with questions, as further enriched by Religious Branches. If you think of Humanity as one Richly Interconnected Family Tree, you might wonder where Religious Civics and Civil Religion fits into the Tree. It depends, in part on whom you are, as some would eventually come to say that this Religious CORE is a lateral root to their Religious Life, and others would call it their Primary Root. Others would say it's their Second Primary Root. All might say that it's the Trunk, or that Religious CORE is conclusively a major part of the Trunk of Life. But there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of Religious Branches, and the key is not to impose on Religious Branch Beliefs. In shorthand, i often refer to Religious CORE as the Trunk, with Diverse Religious Branches + a Diversity of Available Religious Roots. In States United, for instance, we share the Constitution of States United as a Religious CORE Root, upon which the CORE's Trunk is based. Some believe it to be primary, some hold it lateral, and some hold it to be a second primary, and all those Religious Beliefs are welcome, as long as we find ways to unify on the Religious CORE. Nor do you need to have or declare a Religious Branch to be heavily active, even guided exclusively by the Religious CORE, in your view of your life. Most people have found eudæmonias through the Branches, and that's probably the way that it will be forever, as Religious CORE is necessarily limited in what it can constrain and constraint, and optimization really only reaches extremely fluid levels under constraints that go beyond where Religious CORE stops. But the Religion Civic, the Civil Religion, is fully compatible with the Separation of Church and State, and proposes no dogma that would cause any Sectarian Faction to form. It's something more than living under the brutal rule of law. It's to try, among other things, to find common, calming ground, and CALM each world thereby. That acronym, CALM, collapses in hundreds of Century Assuring Lifeserving Moments, minutes, months, and millenially valuable populational service permutations. That's one tip of the iceberg: Consensus Century Compact Covenant Contract Community Calmunity Contribution CALM. There's more langauge here than meets the eye, and more than i can recreate at instant.

Let me move back to the question of Consensus Contributions Altaring Life Mechanics. I think the break-out of the table of translations on Utopia was a worthwhile contribution. The contrib notes, not the contrib exactly, is controversial, and the only residual in the contrib you might debate is just an Epitope of the Periodic Table, as a reminder that there are other systems for counting that are numerically educational, without being too mystical for widespread adoption, that can move us nearer to a Utopia together, whatever our beliefs may be. As a Science Teacher, interested in finding places where i can without any harm point students to the Periodic Sequence, again i'll say, it's clearly very important for students, teachers, parents to be able to speak fluently about the Periodic Table, in proper sequence, to build out Utopias together in this world. What we anchor into each of these age markers and when on the Periodic Table is up for argument, but the idea that there are no age-appropriate developmental landmarks that we'll have to landmark track in Utopia, like "Last year of (1st) Marriage, to (nearly) full closure" (proposed for Zn³⁰), is not that tractable in any stable community.

My edit summary was an attempt mostly to self-log in Δ (which has some features that rely on conceptual shorthand) to make that clear, in part because it's more powerfully expressive and clear, and in part because there's a CHAR Limit i had to work with, and i was thinking a bit asocially about the edit summary. I'll have to be more mindful that a lot of, or a number of, other people will be reading the edit summary logs. But let me take another stab at it, this time in something closer to Standard ENglish Vernacular:

This is a break-out on this diverse mass of Utopia 'short-title' translations. As a Lǎoshī 老师 (en: Teacher), I assert this Periodic Number 'appositive epitope' reinstates positively advances our ability to +norm Utopian Education for our Grandstudents from Cradle-to-cradle. Don't revert, please.

For convenience, the original read:

Break-out board on a divers mass of Utopia 'short-title' translations. As a Lǎoshī 老师 (en: Teacher), i assert this Periodic Number 'appositive epitope' reinstates +advances Utopian Education for Our grandstudents cradle-to-cradle. Don't revert, pls.

But if you contrast it, you'll see some things missing. The edited version loses the sense of a "physical break-out board" like this. It loses the sense of "various" enclosed in "divers" that's rewritten here as diverse. I'm not compromising 老师 Teacher, as i think it's quite important for students to be exposed to the title of Teacher in a variety of langauges, and this one i earned by working for it abroad. Others might adopt their word for Teacher from their own Cultures, and that helps us come closer to a Utopia. I'm also not compromising on Grandstudents. Students doesn't express the generation count on what Teachers conserve and do, and we're educating our Grand:students to not just be successful Parents, but successful Grandparents, and we have to remind them of that, or families become detached from Education. Cradle-to-cradle is a McDonough pointer, but really is meant to touch on and extend Seventh Generation Outlook from three generations in the previous sentence to Seven Generations on Cradle-to-cradle Models.

"Don't revert, please" is pretty self-explanatory. The best reason you have to revert might be to say that the Periodic Table is extraneous to this article. The best reason to not revert is that it's not extraneous: first, it's educational, and second, it's maybe the only numerology we have that can conceivably be communicated globally. No other natural whole number sequence of numbers like this exists in Nature, or is as "Storied". While langauges diverge in how the Elements are described, it can still be landmarked together, fanning out from any meaning found by any node that is we come to agree, in conscience, meets the burden of proof for being committed into the basic code on life in Grade School, Middle School, and High School Chemistry Classes worldwide. I know the EN best, but the best way to teach the Phases of Matter at Standard Temperature and Pressure is definitely in the 普通话 Path. Other langauges, without a doubt, have other lessons to teach, which we can (and have) anchored the best of within the Periodic Table. I'm very open to being revised, even reverted, but take a good hard look at the arguments for and against first. My belief, having studied this Table more than most, is that it's an underutilized Guidance Counseling Resource on pacing each family's pursuit of Utopias, and it's important that we pace our Grandkids together, so as to be in sync: If they're not in sync on some of key developmental milestones, there's so much harm and pain.

Let me offer a quick Teaching example, of how the Periodic Table can help us stride toward a Utopic Eutopia.

In the English Teaching, it is quite natural to teach young children that we all become Fe²⁶Mn²⁵ist by or before 25 and 26. It's just practically inevitable now, so there's no point in resisting it. It's ok to think that boys have cooties when you're a small kid, and to some extent, adults play games _with each other_ (with other adults) through their children, by cuing them to act in funny ways, and believe funny things, about other kids. Most of the time it's mostly innocuous. But we shed all that as we mature, and we all become Fe²⁶Mn²⁵ist by 25/26. If we're not, the immaturity really shows in any Utopia on the EN Version of the Periodic Table. It's more Noble, of course, for our Grandstudents to hit FeMnist by Ar[18], or even Ne[10]. Those are both Noble Gas Ages, and moments that we science teachers can anchor with natural significance, as we do, for instance, with 3rd Grade Reading and Math Tests. But in every generation so far, we've had to tolerate worse from the ignoble than having to wait until 25/26 for a full Generational Closure on a more Matured Fe²⁶Mn²⁵ism. This is one sample of a Teaching that becomes available with the Periodic Table Numberings pointing the way toward Utopic Eutopias, and although i only know the 普通话 Path and EN Versions, i'd very much like to see the best of the rest, and borrow / raid them for life wisdom we can share in Platforming School Communities toward Century Assuring Life Milestones Unity (Calmunity).

This is somewhat ideological, even, to a degree, Religiously Periodic. You can revert it if you think it's necessary, but i would argue necessity in the other direction, toward a Religious CORE that we can share, no matter our Branch Belief Structure. It would help enormously in engauging and engaging families in reverse synthesizing a Utopia for each of their Grand:children. What's more, this is not meant to be a totalitarian, dystopic force-function. It's choice architexture that helps nudge students and families gently toward better default choices.

Another more complete example is this Fractional Distillation: Waiting until you're 31 to get serious and marry is quite late and biologically mutagenic. We can argue this and settle on how many decades after puberty a child has to wait in extended adolescence until they Unionize (Marry) and found and form a family of their own. Bachelors can banter about their treasured independence until Kingdom Come. But when it gets right down to it, we all converge on Union, and we almost without exception (typically abusive or tragic exception) want to do so before hitting 30. With the Periodic Table, we can embed and teach that in the Conscience Curriculum, as a 'Fractional Distillation', marked in EN at Ti²², V²³; Fe²⁶Mn²⁵; and Cu²⁹ stop, Zn³⁰ stop. We'll have plenty of chances to fail, and learn from those failures, but we won't continuously fail, over and over again, without understanding that our time is limited, and being in synchronized seasons with each other for once, with Courtship (with Practice Problems) at earlier ages. Let students prevent divorces before children are born with more exhaustive testincg in those special ranges of age, and we'll be able to focus energy on them then, very fairly (to say this modestly, with increasing fairness) and well. We'll be able to commit Institutions to perform their practices or build Institutions that are Eutopic around a Number Sequence on our Grandstudents' Ages, but first, we have to get in synchrony. There's no such thing as 'laserlike focus' without a better synchronized coherence, first, to reach Pair-Wise Synchrony, helped by Periodic (Phasic) Reasoning.

Another good example is that the average age of first marriage for females and males should be a perfect match. Right now, in States United for instance, it is out of sync, with males of 29 marrying females of 27. Females live longer than males, and leading or leaving younger females to marry older males is just plain cruel to females later in life. If you've ever been to a nursing home, you see the outcomes of this cruel age gap at first marriage. These males pass away, leaving their partners two years just to reach their starting 'age advantage', then suffering another 4 odd years based on present naturally advantaged longevity. 6 years to funeral, alone. Science teachers, in concert with families and Century-focused Unities, can close the gap quickly, if not instantly. It might take a year (+) to clear the unmatched bulge, but the measure can be taught immediately, and we can handle the corrective demography. It's like two lines of rope, side by side, fed at constant rate forward. When you hold one still, for even a moment, you see slack open briefly, before the intake can wholly catch up. That's not a problem for high school or college students, but it's a problem for people who slacked until 30, being part of that slack. But in the rising cohorts, this should be a nonissue: we can erase it with the Periodic Table of Mendeleev. Call it the Mendalove Table, by appositive, in EN, to get Grandstudents attention. They're exceptionally attentive, as all 老师 Teachers know, to the obstacle course that leads to Loving Marriage. We just have to show them that there exists a better way.

I don't know with scientifically conscientious certainty if older females should propose to younger males. What i do know is that i have faith that male longevity will catch up one day on the horizon with female longevity, and the longevity gap at the back-end may become a non-issue, allowing us just to operate by a simpler, more natural heuristic: Court your age, Sage. Don't stray. If you do, don't exceed this narrowed formulæ. You don't want to leave your Partner lonely. It's unnatural for Melania Knauss to marry Donald Trump: Melania will have to bury Donald, then, if not saved by celebrity, live as a lonely widow for not just an additional 24 years, their age gap, but all the years of longevity progress between now and then. Their gap could turn out to be 44 years, if Donald Trump passes at 80. Melania Trump might find someone. But let's not live like the Trumps. There's something objectively, uncontroversially wrong about Age Gaps, even small ones that everyone has tolerated, when we think of it in light of the whole Course of Life. Even your Parents are going to leave each other lonely. Can you calculate how many years they carry a longevity gap? Did they know at the time they were married?

No, we never used to calculate this with Couples before Marriage. In almost all cases, they really, honestly didn't think to teach themselves this clearly. We used to use this really faulty N/2 + 7 Rule. It's _completely wrong_. Here's why.. let's graph it out, in four different ways.. and to be perfectly clear, and not beat around the bush, let's count the Longevity Gap | (PG-13¹: Burial Gap).

¹: Check with your Principal and GPA-GPS, Grand:parent, Grand:student Association. Personally, i don't see why we can't speak of Burial Gaps at very young ages. It's an essential fact of life and the most essential Guarantor of the Gift cycle. But other views exist, and some such views are extremely factional, about when and how to talk to children about Burial and Death, particularly in thinking about the eventuality with their own Grand:parents. But you'd be hard-pressed to find 6, 7, 8 year olds who don't have a lot of thought behind this already. I've worked with a large number of children in this age range. By 8, it's just really hard to argue that Burial Gaps can't be broadly discussed, even specifically discussed, as Grand:students will have Grand:parents who passed in the Class, and will have memories of it. It's better for them to be prepared together to face it, and appreciate sympathetically and systematically why their surviving Grand:parent is so (typically) alone for so long, based on older, less-rectified notions of Match Math that didn't self-correct without an ongoing conversational nudge, converging more and more on a measured law, once social and customary, now more positive, enshrined organically.

This conversation can happen with the Periodic Table better than any other. Part of the reason why is because it terminates, naturally, at 118: a very, very, very high number. It's an important Utopia Conversation Starter, and as this gets running, we'll work together to make sure it's Eutopic, for everyone without exception, not Dystopic. It takes time to make 'Pareto Optimal Distributions' fall into place with perfect correctness. But this one can, given some room for growth and learning, as long as we're more flexible about space and how mobile we are when we Court in committed fashion (Century Closure Reverse Synth Outlooks) and more inflexible about age heuristic breakage.

But if you remove the appositive column, this maybe can't get running. Or maybe you just drop an educational epitope that's helpful for students of Chemistry, that most people just might ignore if they don't know the Periodic Theses yet. I just think it's a minimal, supportive, interesting numerical column that is lightweight, and opens the door on Eutopic Utopias we've never seen before that become Teachable in ways that we didn't have before, and connect to one of the most storied cultural archives that IUPAC Affiliated STEAM Teachers like this 老师 Lǎoshī carry. The Periodic Table can merge the Liberating Arts with the Consciences. Let's make better use of it than we have, and i can't think of a better article to start anchoring it in Wikipedia as an altarnative numerical index to the plain numerals than this.

H¹ He² Li³ Be⁴ B⁵ C⁶ N⁷ O⁸ F⁹ Ne¹⁰

Oh, this might be hard to type on your KBs. You should get a KB that's more Century: one that has superscripts and subscripts available quickly.

I'll just work for the next hour, or however long it takes, to load out the 4 KBs i would recommend reviewing for trunking. There are two versions that are Dv (Mac / Windows), and two versions that are QWERKY (Mac / Windows). I'll drop the link here to make it really easy to rapidly subscript, superscript. This Numerical Index, as an Appositive, might not make much sense to someone who has to search one-by-one for each superscript, everytime they want to support the conversation on conscience scripting numerately and scientifically. It's insane that it takes so much work for the typical member of the Wikipedia Calmunity to type "H₂O" or "x²". The Edit menus help, but it's still not nearly as spontaneous as it ought to be, and these special characters and inserts are only available to Wikipedians when they're working on Wk³⁶, versus when they're, let's say, writing a School Report, needing to rely on some different, even more cumbersome cursor-based super/subscript access interface. You can rewrite these KBs all you want. I think they'll converge on some better forms that are sensitive to multilingual needs than i've found. You'll also notice gaps in coverage and care. I'm hoping linguists and Religious Free Speech Activists, both amateur and pro, will pick up this CORE work where i left off.

Windows - Quite simplex for Trunk study (KB LINKS GO HERE) (KB LINKS GO HERE)

Mac OS X - More complex (KB LINKS GO HERE) - Most complex upper Ukulele ranges (KB LINKS GO HERE) - Less complex key range distill

Once you have superscripts enshrined in your KB, this proposal of linkage between Elements and Ages, + Sage Countdown, becomes reasonable. Without them, without frustration-free equal capacity to speak, you'll struggle to approve the column as "Pragmatic", as "Kinetically favorable" and "Thermodynamically Stable".

One other note: I spoke quite a bit about Religious CORE Integrations, and these are of course i18n Compatible.

The CORE itself might be abbreviated into: Harmless hands [Work] Hippocratic homes [Home] Helpful hints [Your default on how to explain a gentle Hippocratic nudge] Hidden hands [If you simply don't care to mention which Religious Bloc you are in]

Hh [+ Religious Branch] = A Tree

It's just a lightweight syntax for Calmunity.

Me? I'm personally HhÆAJ. But that's pretty rare, and i don't talk about that publicly unless i'm forced. To do so could even, as i'm working on this, breach the traditional and treasured Separation of Sect from State in States United, et. al. The Religious CORE permits rich collaboration within the Religious CORE on synchronizing Assurance Life Movements.

If you're an Atheist, you might wonder or worry about where you fit in. You might try DA on for size, Devil's Advocate, or AHh, for Atheist Hippocratic hand. But you might face namespace competition on AHh, whereas DA or Hh DA you can really own. Of course i know many Atheists who regularly go above and beyond in Hh. I'm counting Atheism as a Branch, even if you want to say it's a virtual and honorary Branch. If you'll allow some empathy, i can't be bothered to say "Branch or Nonbranch", and Atheists shouldn't have to fight for Branch Dignity. If you're an Agnostic, you have choices. I don't know what would be most resonant for you; you'll have to figure that out. You can present as a DA, or if you want to join a Branch Bloc, you might do a play on words, and describe yourself as Ætheists. It's indistinguishable without a further question from what all members of the Judeochrislamhai Branch Bloc are. We're all Ætheists. I don't know other Langauges and Religious blocs so deeply as to find a similar deep match in Bharat/a, but if you work the problem, you might find something for other Agnostics to fit in more easily in contributing to all major concentrations of Faith through Religious CORE. You don't have to be a DA or an Ætheist. You might find something finer for you than i know. Hh CORE is extremely accommodating. ______ [DAs] and _________ [Ætheists] can trust that it will stay that way, and diversify and ratchet, if you can, these Protective Codes. It's true that you need more protection than most to contribute fully, openly, and 'out-of-the-closet' in Hh CORE. Formerly Ætheist, and for a brief time a DA, that's something that this Hh (Often Hidden HhÆAJ) knows.

If you're of a Branch, please consider incorporating Hh explicitly into your representation of the Tree of Human Life. We have so much more in common than single labels like "Christian", "Bhuddist", "Hindu", "Muslim", or "Jew" calmunicate. Hhindus only requires one more silent letter, and makes explicit the deep mutual interdependence and esteem that Monotheism and Polytheism share for each other today. We still have pesky differences about statue-smashing, but we work around those with Calmpromise, Religious Freedom, and dozens of unbreachable Property Rights. Maybe we Monotheists can stop eating so many cows: they're an enormous endangerment to Earth's future. Harmless hands certainly point toward meat reduction, all the way to vegetarianism. As for HhÆAJ, HhÆAC, HhÆAI, and HhÆAB (Judeochrislamhai), they are, in theological terms, exactly the same all the way to Abramism. All Judeochrislamhai are both Ædamics _and_ Abramics, without exception. There are too few persons describing themselves as Æ Theists, Ædamic, and Abramic first, then Jewish (J), Islamic (I), Christian (C), or Bahai (B) second. With HhÆAJ, HhÆAC, HhÆAI, and HhÆAB, it's one syllable to cite the Tree. There's far more discord than necessary built out of 'Narcissism of Small Differences', and HhÆA__ helps cut through the noise to get to the signal: the Sanctity of Life.

I'm very open to criticism on and of this. It's important to me that it reach Concensus within Wikipedia that Religious Civics and the Civil Religion thrives and complements and helps perfect the work of Existing Branches when a Governmental Compelling Interest presents, like Inadequately Appreciated Effects of Age Gaps at Time of Marriage on the Loneliness at End-of-Life, and the expected "Burial Gap" when Vows are Sworn. That's a compelling Government Interest to get involved in better informing, to the point of Studious Statement, if not, in greater gaps, more measured social countermeasures than what we do today, with care for the slack when this load change strikes those who are worst affected as an aromatically resonant induction & orientation runs its course, with the support of some reverse synthetic organic Religious CORE + Branch modeling.

In particular, this should be run back over by every Branch over time. I've done that prereview as best as i could, but it still may fall short. For instance, Hh儒家. How can that best be interleaved into Latin Alphabet? Hh 普通话 Pathh? Any Branch that has an "h" in it, or attaches with care to a Dogma or Religiously Philosophical Langauge with an h in it already can be alphabetically merged without hardship. But what of those that lack an "h"? How do Adherants link languistically to the Hhearth Tree? I fear that i found better starting namespace for Hhinduism, HhÆAJ ('Haj' Judaism), HhÆAC ('Hack' Christianity), HhÆAI ('Hi' Islam), HhÆAB ('Habilitate' Bahá'í), Æ Theists, Ætheists, DAs, Hh 普通话 Pathh ....., than the rest. It's an important Naming question. We're speaking of millions of life years of wasted human effort based on division over the diversity of the Religious CORE, inadequate mutual esteem for each other's Faiths, and the absence of a health-driven human rights protocol for breaking through any remaining enthalpic disputes about who goes where and why, after we first agree that life is sacred, and those who take it are simply not anywhere on the Hippocratic hands Religious Tree. The traditional exceptions, including capital punishment following a FÆR Trial and Just War, are just decompilation targets. The former, with much lower rates of enslavement, would be easy to settle with life accommodations in endless life-cramping, but not life-crimping, jail cells. The latter can be decompiled with the Journal on Asylum, Refugees, and Assassination (JARA), operating off Peer Review of rather objective, increasingly sensitive Moral Math. Those standing for positions of quite Hippocratic Responsibility will not stand unless they can stand the heat of what it is to be subject to sometimes jarring JARA Penultimate Reviews. Hh is not above killing Hitler, or a milli-Hitler. Even µ-Hitlers: those that might attempt to systematically extinguish or with reckless malice take 10 or more lives. It's not clear that a low-grade murderer or manslaughterer deserves Assassination, by Jury or JARA, when they can be shrunk without end in a cell, in the worser and worst cases, and perhaps someday in all.

Part of me, of course, questions if it makes sense to post this here, of all places. But where else would this be propositionally placed for Consensus CALM? I'm not sure there's a better place to speak of this than as a Talk section in search of a better way of molding Utopic treatments of Eutopia.

For the record, i first found myself here because a Judge forbade me, repeatedly, from wearing a head covering unless it was a Jewish head covering, and i resisted, repeatedly, being excluded from the Courtroom thrice, three times missing the chain of argument, having to go on a hunt for __res judicata__, States United Justice Scalia wearing "Holbein's hat" to President Obama's Latter Inauguration: the same as that depicted in the More painting in this article.

I'd just like to see the Periodic Numbers survive as a column here in this article. None of the rest is being asserted yet on Wikipedia: there's a great deal of work to do on Published Sources before it is ready for that. There might be advances i'm unaware of that make that possible earlier, but at this point, this must be marked up on Wikipedia as a Religious Conscience, Religious CALM Experiment. The argument i'm making is that Hh isn't _a Branch of CORE_, but _is CORE_. Local National Branches are welcome. Country Adjusted Local Motions. We can wave-collapse all day. In fact, that's precisely what we do all day in our measurable lives: collapse part-waves.

This began with a false appeal to the authority of a [con]science teacher, to remain unrecognized by special privileges on Wikipedia. That's a sensible policy of inclusion. Physicians should be no more entitled to edit Physics articles than their Grand:students. But perhaps you'd allow me to end with an appeal to the authority of [con]science. There are lives at stake if we can't synchronize the sequence of life better than we have, and if any article on Wikipedia ought to welcome a noninvasive, nonintrusive, nonobtrusive eutopian utopic CALM teaching mechanism, with the epitopic value of refreshing readers on the Periodic Progression, as an altarnative to plain Arabic Numerals, why should it not be this?

Adam D. Clayman (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Adam D. Clayman (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

satire
somehow, this wikipedia article seems to have "lost" the critical (& blantantly obvious) point that 'UTOPIA' is & was clearly written as a work of SATIRE.

a point which any english major could tell you, & any teaching-book or crib notes would include.

the word itself is barely mentioned, & then only "tentatively"; without acknowledging that this has been the OVERWHELMINGLY predominant view of the work, since it was published.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

also; out of the millions of words that have been written about this work, there are only 3 cited sources in the 'interpretation' section, & they are neither sufficiently varied, nor representative of predominant opinion.

considering how famous the work is, the total number of cited references is pretty small, too.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While the description of Utopia as a satire is indeed widespread, calling it "overwhelming," especially since it was published, seems wrong. After all, it had influence on socialist thought, and even a critic of socialism wrote "is Utopia primarily a satire, not intended to be taken too seriously. . . Or do the devastatingly critical comments of Raphael in fact reflect the mind of More who, confronted with the rather difficult task of living with his contemporaries, chose the path of prudence. . . in the form of an imaginary dialogue, adding in effect that the editor was not responsible for any of the views expressed by his characters?" (Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition, 1947, p. 61) Not to mention even those who accept it as satirical can argue over what, exactly, it's satirizing (e.g. there's clearly humorous references to Swiss mercenaries and the like, but does the satire extend to the communism of the Utopians?) --Ismail (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Influence
"Utopia was the book that invented a new genre of fiction. It was the first book to use a made up world, a “Utopia” in its framing. This spawned books and stories that have continued to dominate the industry of storytelling to this day. Books like “The Hunger Games,” and “Divergent” can all trace their origins back to Thomas More's most famous work (Getty 321). More wrote this story to make a point about socialism, whether in defense or as a criticism of. It could be argued, however, that Utopia's greatest impact could be in its world creation. More was the first to create his idealistic world, and the framework he created has stuck around for hundreds of years (Getty 321)."

Talk about winging it...

More's Utopia did not invent the Utopian genre. Utopian fiction does not "dominate" the "industry of storytelling" (whatever that even means). The Hunger Games and Divergent are Dystopian novels, not Utopian. While More used satire to poke at the politics of the time, he did not write the story about "socialism".

Cultural Impact
As of 08 August 2019, the section on the cultural impact of More's Utopia only mentions an artwork by artist Rory Macbeth and references in the video game Final Fantasy. More's Utopia had a much, much bigger cultural impact than these two references to 20th-century popular culture suggest. The section should therefore be amended to avoid the anecdotal and provide a better insight as to More's impact on literary and philosophical culture from the Renaissance to the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:1A8:E900:293A:2F66:2CBC:4123 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Changed terminology
I changed the following sentence from:

"The eponymous title Utopia has since eclipsed More's original story and the term is now commonly used to describe an idyllic, imaginary society."

to:

"The title of the book has since eclipsed More's original story and the term is now commonly used to describe an idyllic, imaginary society."

I did this because I wasn't sure if the word "Utopia" in the original sentence should have quotation marks or italics. If this edit was made in error, then please let me know. (Edit: Forgot to add section title. Sorry about that.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Article title
I see you moved the article a few months ago diff). Can you go into why exactly?  I don't think it's merited here.  We do partial disambiguation in certain circumstances, generally when one topic is 100x more important than the similar topics, and that's certainly met here: this is one of the most famous books written that's discussed in random high school classes, and Utopia (Child novel) has single-digit pageviews.  Any objection to me just moving it back, via WP:RM/TM if needed?  SnowFire (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are cases where the disambiguator used is ambiguous as there are other articles that would also match. Utopia (Child novel) is also a book, so Utopia (book) is a poor choice of disambiguation. The decision to have such ambiguous disambiguators (!) I think does a disservice to readers/users, no matter the relative merits of each article. However clearly this view is not shared 100%. I am not going to agree to a move back, but I will agree that this could be classed as bold move on my part, so I have no objection to you moving it back per WP:BRD. Tassedethe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a RM discussion as well to check with the community.
 * On the Child novel, I was about to suggest cutting the knot and just merging it rendering the matter moot, but I was able to find at least one independent review. Although maybe it should still be merged, I dunno.  I still think its notability is a bare speck that shouldn't influence this article even if kept separate.  SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I proposed a merge over on Talk:Lincoln Child to something like a List of novels by Lincoln Child. If there's interest in that, then Utopia (Child novel) would become a redirect to a section instead, and maybe be something more clearly worthy of just-a-hatnote.  SnowFire (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done the merger. Assuming nobody objects in the next few days, I'll file a WP:RM/TM to move this back.  SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)