The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
I am working on a draft of the Ramanathapuram museum palace of 17-18 century, which has a temple too. Hence looking for information, Which temple (pictured above) this might be? Bookku (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps for the identification, the accompanying text in the Wesleyan Juvenile Offering reads, "Cape Comorin is the most southern point of India, separated from Ceylon by a narrow strait. The Temple of Ramnad is situated among the mountains on this southern coast."[1] As there are multiple temples in Ramnad (some 200 kilometres (120 mi) away from Cape Comorin!), referring to this one as "the Temple" is strange; apparently, the author of the text did not understand the term Ramnad and assumed it was the name of a deity. I bet the artist who did the "embellishment" also never laid eyes on the building; it seems to be based on either an inadequate verbal description or a very poor sketching. --Lambiam16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dropshot
Our article on Operation Dropshot says: Dropshot included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85 percent of the Soviet Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Is there a list of those targets? Thank you! 195.62.160.60 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks. Now let me add one more requirement: person A must have been famous/important enough that the first murder was called an "assassination". Now have there been any other examples? --142.112.221.43 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of Sheriff McHargue before, but apparently he was locally famous enough that his murder was called an "assassination" by the press, and the alleged assassins were lynched the next day while in county jail.[3] --Lambiam09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's wild. When I visited Dunkin' in the early 1990s, it was definitely categorized as a doughnut place, but it's entirely possible that it is much more than that now in the 2020s, and is indeed a beverage place. Things change over time. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past few months, I have been coming back again and again to Outer Manchuria. I've concluded that the sense of Outer Manchuria referring specifically to Outer Manchuria as the territories ceded by China to Russia in 1858 and 1860 is a Wikipedia citogenesis from 2004. That is to say: "Outer Manchuria" (referring to the ceded territories) was made up on Wikipedia in 2004. (1) Is that true? Please explain any opinion. (2) There's no second question. I'd just like to have a direct and clear confirmation or disconfirmation on that first question, or, barring that, a clear "maybe". (3) Please go check out and build up the Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries for Outer Manchuria, which I've done work on. I'm coming here because I can't believe what I seem to have discovered, and I'm hoping you will put me in my place. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a calque of French Mandchourie extérieure or German äußere Mandschurei, both of which can be found earlier.[4][5] I have not checked, though, to what extent the areas referred to by these uses coincide with the ceded territory. --Lambiam06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
La Mandchourie intérieure avait été sous influence russe jusqu'à la victoire japonaise dans la guerre russo-japonaise (1904/05) qui a amené la région sous influence japonaise. En 1906, le Japon a posé le chemin de fer de Mandchourie du Sud à Port Arthur (Japon: Ryojun). Le chaos qui a suivi la Révolution russe de 1917 a permis au Japon d'étendre temporairement son contrôle à la Mandchourie extérieure, mais la région est revenue sous contrôle soviétique en 1925. La Mandchourie intérieure est passée sous le contrôle du seigneur de guerre chinois Zhang Zuolin pendant la période du seigneur de guerre en Chine.
(Jennifer Guirado 2019 Colonialisme et son Histoire)
L'empire colonial [japonais] comprenait ... et enfin l'espace mandchourien -- en réalité la Mandchourie du Sud puisque la Mandchourie extérieure (au-delà des fleuves Ousseuri et Amour) avait été annexée par la Russie en 1858-1860.
(Pierre Brocheux 2012 Les décolonisations au XXe siècle)
These are post-2004. This one is from 1931: "Nun beschränken sich seine imperialistischen Ziele zunächst auf die Mongolei, die äußere Mandschurei und Ostturkestan."[6] (Google Books only allows one to see the first four words), in which "seine" refers to "das Reich Stalin’s". --Lambiam09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami and Lambiam: Hey, thank you two for looking into this. Kwamikagami, the question is whether this word was made up in 2004 or not, that's the question I want answered. The side question of internet-age usage of the neologism is totally different. My point is that between 1860 and 2004 (144 years), no one called this area Outer Manchuria. Once we figure out the answer to that, then the implications of that fact will flow from it naturally. Just focus right on that specific question. I think it was only the anonymous British IP who created the article that ever called the area Outer Manchuria, and then it's all been citogenesis from there. I will check out all of Kwamikagami's stuff later, but I just want to say that I did a "sniff check" on Lambiam's German sentence from 1931: "Nun beschränken sich seine imperialistischen Ziele zunächst auf die Mongolei, die äußere Mandschurei und Ostturkestan.". Google Translate gives: "Now his imperialist goals are initially limited to Mongolia, outer Manchuria and East Turkestan." Think about it like this Lambiam: in 1931, did Stalin have imperialist goals in controlling Vladivostok? Hell no he didn't: Vladivostok was not an imperial goal, it was a foregone conclusion that it was part of the USSR. He had goals in areas that weren't part of the USSR. In that text, I would tell you that äußere Mandschurei refers to the fringes of the Manchuria inside China that was not part of the USSR, that is, the parts near the Chinese Eastern Railway. Check out my work at Wiktionary:Citations:Outer_Manchuria#outer_Manchuria_(remote_region). I think that this German cite would fit snuggly into that pattern, if I'm understanding the source correctly. (This was just a cursory glance not a full analysis.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)(Modified)[reply]
I am impressed and surprised. You seem to have made a very solid case with your citations. I also looked up the Chinese equivalents 外滿洲 and 外東北 on Google, but again can't find anything pre-2004 that uses that to mean the areas ceded in 1858 and 1860. (Though I suppose I could have missed something.)
Nonetheless, I have to ask: so what if it is citogenesis from there? If it was a recent citogenesis, sure, but the citogenesis has been going on for almost two decades. By now the term is, as you've demonstrated with citations, quite securely attested with this new meaning in post-2004 academic sources, and Chinese websites have very much picked it up. That seems to be enough to hang an article on: whatever it used to mean before 2004, "outer Manchuria" now very much means "the areas ceded in 1858 and 1860".
Yes, the phrase means what it means, regardless of whether the current meaning got started on WP. (And do we really expect French and German sources to pick up on what someone invented for WP-en? Though my German's not good enough to evaluate those uses. I'll stick to the French.) But the reader would need to be careful not to read the current meaning into older sources. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some further evidence that these were not normal phrases in Chinese pre-2004:
This 1999 RFA article mentioning the lands lost in the late Qing and beyond: it uses 外蒙古 "Outer Mongolia", and mentions the cessions of 1858, 1860, and 1864, but does not use the terms 外滿洲, 外東北, 外西北 for those lands.
Another old Chinese article, I guess (based on the URL) from 2004, about the unequal treaties: despite mentioning the cessions of 1858 and 1860, the lands in question are never called 外滿洲or外東北.
The WP-ja article was translated from WP-en and WP-zh. I'm not familiar with Japanese sources anyway, but if they exist, apparently the WP-ja article wasn't based on them. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a French sources from 1911 that speaks of "Mandchourie extérieur et intérieur", so evidently the distinction had some meaning, but they don't define what it was. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"S'appuyant sur le fait que la proclamation du protectorat russe sur la Mandchourie Extérieure menaçait de rouvrir la question chinoise, il demande la création de deux nouvelles divisions destinées à tenir garnison en Corée, création qui devait, paraît-il, ètre suivie dans quelques années, de celle de quatre autres divisions."
"Relying on the fact that the proclamation of the Russian protectorate over Outer Manchuria threatened to reopen the Chinese question, he demanded the creation of two new divisions intended to garrison Korea, a creation which was, it seems, to be followed in a few years, with that of four other divisions."
[quotes in original] This was reg. the "Crisis of Dec. 1912 to Feb. 1913."
-- Antoine Rous de La Mazelière 1913 Le Japon: histoire et civilisation, vol. 6
Thanks for your efforts! I'm becoming more and more confident that this is citogenesis. @Double sharp:: I don't want to discuss anything else in this particular discussion thread except precisely whether or not this sense of this word was created on Wikipedia in 2004. Once that determination is made, then there can be a fuller exploration of "what should be done". (My guess is that it would definitely have some kind of effect, but I'm not really sure what that would look like, because this is the first citogenesis I've ever discovered personally.) @Kwamikagami:: Just eyeballing this: when you read "Russian protectorate over Outer Manchuria", what does that mean to you? Russian "protectorate" over Vladivostok? Or Russian protectorate over the area around the China Eastern Railway area? What makes more sense in context? Vladivostok was not a protectorate of Russia, it is Russia. No one in their right mind would call Vladivostok a protectorate. But the term 'protectorate' could easily apply to territories outside Russia that Russia excercised control over, like the China Eastern Railway area. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a familiarity with the history that I don't have. That's why I was so careful to provide the date they were covering: someone who does know the history could probably make sense of it. — kwami (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding the exact question you are asking, I am convinced that the term is unattested in English and Chinese with the meaning "the areas ceded in 1858 and 1860" prior to 2004. The evidence suggests that the term is citogenesis from en.wp, as it only appears on zh.wp from 2005. (It appears on de.wp from 2008 and fr.wp from 2022!)
NOTE: Nothing in yellow was part of China proper. A migration of Chinese persons from the northernmost Chinese provinces of China proper to outer Manchuria did not per se leave the domain of the Chinese Empire. It just means that Chinese people were moving north, not that they were entering Russian controlled territories.
@Fiveby: You write: "Rather than 'citogenesis' maybe just the impetus to describe a somewhat loose geographic term with a definite boundary and create a map for an article?" What you have described there is precisely a neologism. That, if that's what happened, would be EXACTLY the sort of thing that I'm claiming happened. The IP made this sense up, and then citogenesis bolstered it. (PS: I'm going to start working on 'Russian Manchuria' on Wiktionary to see what that exactly refers to.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the impetus was from a reinterpretation of the names "Inner Mongolia" and "Outer Mongolia". These come from actual Qing administrative divisions, whereas there never was an administrative division under the Qing between "Outer Manchuria" and the rest of Manchuria, and neither was there between the "Outer Northwest" and the rest of Xinjiang. (The areas now called "Outer Manchuria" were just parts of Jilin and Heilongjiang.) But if you only know "Inner Mongolia" and "Outer Mongolia" as names (which is plausible, since "Inner Mongolia" is the name of a Chinese province today), and then look up the modern situation on the map, then you notice that Inner Mongolia is today part of China, whereas Outer Mongolia isn't. So the words "inner" and "outer" must have been reinterpreted as meaning "today still within China" and "today no longer in China" by the IP and by everyone who picked up the term, and then extended to the territories lost to Tsarist Russia in the northeast and northwest. Double sharp (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ithink, tho way out on a limb, that 'inner' and 'outer' in a geographic sense always have some connotation of the part inside and the part outside and not so much near and far. wikt:extra#Latin as in Ptolemy extra Imaon. fiveby(zero) 18:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have collected evidence of usage without an implied boundary and of those pushing back against the term using 'so-called' or quoting etc. But treaties create boundaries that can be drawn on a map and that would seem to be pretty natural usage at some times. It's hard to prove a negative. I would hope that serious authors are looking at usage of 'Outer Northeast' by China instead of looking to Wikipedia, so citogenesis seems unlikely. What is undoubtedly true is the irredentist usage is now current. fiveby(zero) 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to sum up what we know for certain.
Part of Qing China that was historically part of Manchuria was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1858 and officially ceded to Russia in a treaty between China and Russia that was part of the 1860 Convention of Peking. For the purpose of the discussion, let us refer to this ceded territory as "Ceded Manchuria". When the Russian Empire was succeeded by, successively, the Russian Republic, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and the Russian Federation, Ceded Manchuria remained part of Russia.
The term "Outer Manchuria" has been used as a name for Ceded Manchuria. The question under discussion here is, when was the term "Outer Manchuria" first used specifically as a name for Ceded Manchuria?
We know that the term was introduced in this specific sense in Wikipedia on 10 May 2004 at 15:54 (UTC). We know that the term was used earlier (elsewhere) in a different sense. So the question before us is, did the (anonymous) editor who introduced the term here coin the term, or had it been used in this specific sense before 10 May 2004? (Note that the same edit also introduced the term "Inner Manchuria".)
To qualify, when used in a historical context after 1858–60, as an attestation of a use of the term "Outer Manchuria" in the specific sense of Ceded Manchuria, it is necessary that the area referred to is in that context part of Russia. There are uses of "outer Manchuria" referring to parts of China after 1860. Evidently, these parts were not ceded to Russia, and are therefore distinct from Ceded Manchuria. It appears that, thus far, the search for earlier attestations than 2004 has come up empty-handed. --Lambiam05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are good sources for the article, highlighting the usage of 外东北 Wai Dongbei 'Outer Northeast' mostly on internet forums, which is rendered as 'Outer Manchuria' in English sources. Callahan points to an episode in 2004 where Beijing was harshly criticized on the China Daily’s online forum for the treasonous act of ceding Chinese territory... traced to the Web site of the China Cartographic Press...the Chinese government quickly removed these Web pages. That would have been October, but maybe a spike in interest within China running up to the signing? They don't go toward saying the IP was or wasn't the first to render as 'Outer Manchuria', but at least point to the newness of the concept and internet usage. fiveby(zero) 20:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it appears to show the opposite: (1) The Chinese are averse to leaving China. (2) However, they may do so [i.e., leave China] because of overpopulation. (3) A recent example are [Chinese] inhabitants of certain [Chinese] provinces leaving for outer Manchuria. Ergo, in the mind of the writer, leaving for outer Manchuria means leaving China. --Lambiam20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe clearer: had another try for more recent book hits (1993-2003). Only two non-list results on first page, both read like the term means Heilongjiang. All results were snippet view.
Manchuria: An Ethnic History - Juha Janhunen · 1996 · - Found inside – Page 6 - ... allowing , for certain purposes , the two subregions of Southern and Central Manchuria to be viewed as a single complex which may be termed Inner Manchuria , as opposed to the periphery or Outer Manchuria
Feminine Or (un)feminine: Struggles Over the Meanings of ...-Hong Jiang · 2001 · - Found inside – Page 27 - Like many urban youth of her generation , she was sent to a military farm in the Great Northern Wilderness of outer Manchuria to accept education from farmers and soldiers during the Cultural Revolution in 1969. (Wiki article on Nie Gannu says Great Northern Wilderness is in Heilongjiang.)70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
June 10
New problem
Look at the Daryl Bem article. (Today is his 85th birthday.) When I visit the article originally it always says he's 84. But after I edit the article simply by clicking edit and then publish (without doing any edits) it says he's 85. Have you had experience with similar events?? Georgia guy (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you first looked you were probably seeing a cached version that might be a day or so old. After the "edit", the cache would be flushed. I've looked just now and he's 85, so I'm probably seeing a "Georgia guy" version whereas you initially saw the "Carchasm" version of 31 May. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the question about Jack Ruby (above), I was looking through the category for assassinated heads of state. This particular Mughal emperor is in several categories to do with having been murdered, but is it true? The article as it stands at the moment says that he died of tuberculosis. When the article was created it said he died of a possible cancer. The second edit changed this to assassination (deposed and killed by the Sayyid brothers). this edit in 2010 changed the cause of death back to lung cancer. From the start of 2013 to May 2015 the article said "Like his brother, he died of lung cancer or was murdered", but the article was then almost completely blanked by an IP editor, and remained that way until March 2019! At this point somebody restored the information that he had tuberculosis, and that he died, without making the connection explicit. But the article was still in categories "Murdered Indian monarchs" and "18th-century murdered monarchs"! Subsequently, it has acquired categories "1719 murders in Asia" and "18th-century murders in India", while the text has settled on "he died of tuberculosis".
Thanks, I'm using that reference. I'm also using Advanced Study in the History of Modern India Vol 1, 1707–1813 as a reference for his tuberculosis. These were both in the article already, but in a vague way as general references and I think the latter was attributed to the wrong author.
Here is a link to the J L Mehta version [9] (2005), with ISBN number. There is also a link attributing it a publishing date of 1971 but with a pair of dead-end ISBN numbers (10: 0842603417, 13: 9780842603416). Searching the ISBN number associated with the 2005 version redirects sometimes to Chhabra versions - if I, or them haven't gotten lost along the way, that is. --Askedonty (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should present all significant points of view, like, P has speculated that the cause of death was A,[123] Q suspects B[124] and R thinks it was C,[125], which however is disputed by S.[126] --Lambiam05:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is the opposite of being categorical, so I suppose I should remove it from the several murder categories. But I see Stanford White is categorized under American murder victims, despite his killer Harry Kendall Thaw being categorized under People acquitted of murder, so perhaps any allegation, unlawful killing, or suspicious death is sufficient for the placement in a murder category. Card Zero (talk)12:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thaw was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". This does not alter the fact that his killing of White was murder. --Lambiam20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does legal 'liability' mean?
In the outcome of this SEC case, where a jury found the short-seller Lemelson was 'legally liable for securities fraud', specifically for lying about a company 'recklessly'; but he was not guilty of engaging in a short and distort scheme to defraud investors ie. he lied recklessly but not with the intention of defrauding investors with a short and distort "scheme". I'm confused, does this mean Lemelson is only responsible for liability (paying a fine?), or can we say unambiguously he was found guilty of fraud ie. a convicted fraudster? More info from Barrons, and CFO which says "Ruling only on issues of liability". What does that mean "only on issues of liability"? -- GreenC21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a defendant in a civil lawsuit is found liable for a charge, it means that the charge will be held against them; they will have to answer for it and can expect remedies to be imposed on them. In this specific case, the defendant was found liable for one charge (intentionally or recklessly making untrue statements of a material fact), but not for a stronger charge (intentionally or recklessly engaging in a scheme to defraud). --Lambiam11:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty and not guilty (and not proven, when available) are verdicts in criminal trials, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". As Lambiam notes, liability is a civil issue, which has a somewhat lower standard of proof. Look at O.J. Simpson's legal issues: he was found not guilty of killing the two people, but he was judged liable for their wrongful deaths. Nyttend (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Liability" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (the standard legal dictionary in the United States) as "[t]he quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment." So this means that the defendants were found to have committed wrong-doing and to be responsible for any legal remedies that the court might (and subsequently did) assess. Rule 10b-5 - the single most important rule in the entire Code of Federal Regulations - is the general rule prohibiting fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Since the defendants were found to have engaged in intentional fraud, that is considered a very serious matter, just as serious as the scheme liability charge that was rejected.
As noted by GreenC, Lemelson was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $160,000 and was enjoined from violating Rule 10b-5 for a five-year period. The order was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. But that is not the end of the matter. The SEC's Division of Enforcement has brought an administrative proceeding seeking to bar Lemelson from the securities industry, and that proceeding remains pending. John M Baker (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key point to make in response to the question as worded (I think John M Baker buried the lede a little bit) is that "liability" is not limited to civil matters or even fines. Criminal liability can entail any punishment allowed by law, even death in jurisdictions that use it.
Now, in the particular SEC case, I haven't looked it up and don't know whether the "liability" being referred to is civil or criminal. But you can't assume the only consequences are financial simply because the word "liability" was used. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SEC can only bring civil cases; the government can bring criminal cases for willful violations of the securities laws, but those are brought by the Department of Justice (normally the U.S. Attorney for the relevant district), not the SEC. So it would be incorrect to refer to Lemelson as a convicted fraudster; "convicted" always means a criminal conviction. Still, Lemelson remains at risk of losing his livelihood through being barred from the securities industry, so this is not a slap on the wrist or even a purely financial penalty. John M Baker (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The jury rejected the allegation of "manipulative and deceptive practices" or "fraud" under Securities and Exchange Act Rule 10b. The jury found only "misstatements," under subsection [10b-5, subsection (b)], a subsection of a subsection of 10b. The jury rejected subsections; (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, and (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Parts (a) and (c), that deal with fraud, and the required [elements] are necessary for a violation of the 10b statute. The sources cite the false press release. The jury also rejected two fraud claims under the [Advisors Act], and five other allegedly fraudulent statements. The $2.3 million sought by regulators was reduced to just $160,000 with no disgorement of profits.--RomaTomatos (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Real-life Thermian argument
Is there a term for arguments that are like the so-called Thermian argument, but applied to things other than fiction? That is, justifying something within a surface-level ruleset without addressing the justifications for that ruleset. It seems like a weaker form of begging the question, in that the unsupported premise doesn't entirely presuppose the truth of the argument but merely lays some of the groundwork for it. Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a similar non-fiction argument is the Nuremberg defence, "I was just following orders". The Deific-decree defence and the closely-related Matrix defence may also apply, if we extend the concept of "surface-level ruleset" to the rules of a universe created by a psychotic mind. I don't know an umbrella term for this type of argument. In all these cases, fictional or non-fictional, the crux is that the rules are used as an argument to justify the rules (compare the saying rules are rules), which is a special form of petitio principii. --Lambiam11:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means, "Pope John was cheated". Not only was the poor man deposed by the Council, but also put on trial, found guilty of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest, and imprisoned. --Lambiam06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long before Sixtus IV, Martin V had already refused to recognize the decrees of the Council of Constance.[10] Clearly, he did not mean to refuse to recognize his own position as as supreme pontiff. The solution is simple: a papal election is not by decree. Somewhat in general, who is a genuine authentic pope and who is an usurping antipope is decided by the winning faction, which gets to (re)write history. Martin V himself considered the Council of Pisa, in which he participated, legitimate and hence the first John XXIII as authentic, but the powers that be in the Vatican later decided otherwise. --Lambiam06:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the scales fall from mine eyes, and now I see why the Council of Florence article is so mealy-mouthed about Basel: conciliarism is actually a heresy in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church. See my much earlier proposed re-write at Talk:Council of Florence#Enough, already!. The article is a load of pro-papal propaganda which completely minimise the importance of Basel... Most popes must have been anti-conciliar: but was even Martin V, who reluctantly called the Council of Basel because of Frequens, legitimate? "...the binding character of the decrees of Constance is not to be evaded," and that "the (traditionally understood) legitimacy of Martin V and all other subsequent popes up to the present day depends on the legitimacy of the Council of Constance and its procedure in the question of the popes." ("Constance and its Aftermath: The Legacy of Conciliar Theory"byFrancis Oakley), a most interesting and diverting read, with such gems as "As...Harold J. Laski put it later on, "the road from Constance" to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England was therefore, "a direct one." "And so at one clappe, at the counseil holden at Constaunce. . . were three popes popped out of their places." So the distinctly French conciliarism at Constance and Basel seems to lead to the French Revolution and the ousting of Charles I and James II. Wow. MinorProphet (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam's cite above of Ludwig von Pastor's History of the Popes, Vol 4. made me seek out Volume 1 which includes the lives and deeds of Martin V and Eugene IV. Although the entire series apparently qualifies as something like an official history (since Pastor had access to the 'secret Vatican library') and is therefore consistently and ardently pro-papal, the first [translated] volume (with copious refs) reads remarkably smoothly and cogently for all its bias, and includes a number of interesting details which I hadn't previously picked up on. According to Pistor, Rome and the Vatican were in a total state of collapse when Martin acceded to the papacy, and despite his nepotism he certainly made huge improvements to the city, its buildings and to the church in general. Lots to consider. MinorProphet (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
June 12
"US PAT 455,487 B2"
This tool[11] says "US PAT 455,487 B2" on the side. I tried searching for U.S. Patent number 455487 B2 but couldn't find anything. What is "US PAT 455,487 B2" referring to? Mel Gervais (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
US patent 455,487 (now referred to on the web site as 0455487) was issued in 1891. But what it actually says on the tool you're looking at is patent 7,455,487 B2, which was issued in 2008. (I don't know what the B2 suffix means; a search for 7455487 on the site finds only the B2 version.) --142.112.221.43 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B2 means, "having a previously published pre-grant publication and available March 2001".[12] So the patent application had already been published when the patent was granted. --Lambiam06:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my fellow epistemophiliacs. My question is simple and to the point: did Vladimir Lenin ever use the firehose of falsehood or some variation of this strategy? I ask, because Steve Bannon considers himself a "Leninist" of sorts (in terms of strategy and tactics) and in 2018, came out in favor of the firehose of falsehood, which is associated with modern Russian tactics. Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first regular broadcast of a Russian radio station went on the air on 23 November 1924 (see Radio in the Soviet Union § Beginning), ten months after Lenin's death. Even if Lenin had lived to see the station operational, very few people would have had a receiver. It has been demonstrated that the propaganda technique of the Big Lie can work effectively using mainly books and newspapers, but this does not meet the description of the FoF. --Lambiam19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The College [i.e. the Royal College of Arts] has three UK partners. Each works under different collaborative arrangements: a joint award is delivered with the Victoria and Albert Museum, a dual award is delivered with Imperial College London, and the College has a validation arrangement with the National Film and Television School. (May 2012)[13]
Alansplodge a little bit. I've just Googled what "validation arrangement" means.
They don't make sense to me at all, as they're basically making another school/college/university do all the work, while they take all the credit because they're on their books.
It sounds similar to a couple of London Universities which I noticed were mixed up elsewhere a few months ago, as one university, sends its students on a specific course, to a building which is owned by a different university with a similar name.
At some period in time there definitely was an entity one could variously refer to as "the School of Film and Television of the Royal College of Art",[14] "School of Film and Television, Royal College of Art",[15] or "Royal College of Art, School of Film and Television".[16] Some time in 1971–74 it was located on Queen's Gate,[17] and so the NFTS, established in 1971, cannot be its successor. A building labelled "Royal College of Art (School of Film and Television) is represented on a map that is the third sheet in this set, probably from November 2004 (close to the left edge, 75% down to the bottom, just north of the Natural History Museum). The label "QUEEN'S GATE" can be seen at the left bottom corner. As far as I could figure out from Google Maps and OpenStreetMap, there is currently no corresponding structure at that location. The School of Film and Television was most likely either discontinued, or morphed into one of the current schools, such as the School of Communication, which offers courses in Animation and Digital Direction. Re-redirecting to Royal College of Art only makes sense if the School of Film and Television is mentioned in that article. --Lambiam10:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest sign of existence I could find were theses done in 1964 "whilst at the R.C.A. School of Film and T.V.".[18] The latest sign is someone reporting they graduated from the school in 1986.[19] There is a surprising scarcity of material stating anything about the School itself. "The School of Film and Television and the Department of Photography both began in the graphics school".[20] That's about it. Apparently, the fate of the School was sealed in 1984:
The smallness of the space for art in 1984 was brought home to me recently when a frightening document, marked 'Strictly Confidential ', and headed '"New Outlook" For Royal College of Art' came into my hands. For those of you who do not know, the College is the pinnacle of the art education system in Britain. What happens there affects the way art is taught throughout the United Kingdom, and indeed, much further afield than that. This report, commissioned and endorsed by the then Rector, called for wide ranging expansion of the activities of the 'Visual Communications Faculty', leading to a new approach for the whole institution. For example, it was suggested that a glittering new department for the so-called 'Electronic Arts' should be set up within the restructured Faculty, offering courses in computer graphics, electronic typesetting and something called 'text manipulation', with a supporting staff of at least six software engineers. Such a department would be the first of its kind in Europe; linked to a School of the Moving Image, it would replace the now apparently obsolete School of Film and Television.[21][22]
This makes it likely that the School of Film and Television and the Visual Communications Faculty were merged into a School of Communication. --Lambiam11:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for the correct collective noun for jews and others who went into hiding during World War II
I am looking for the correct collective noun, or otherwise, the most accurate way to refer to jews and others who went into hiding during World War 2.
I am working on articles that would be a lot cleaner if there was a collective noun or agreement on what this group is best called.
In dutch, it is "onderduiker", those-who-go-under[ground].
I'm struggling to choose a correct sentence description as most of them carry significantly different connotations.
My favourite candidate is "going into hiding", but they almost always had knowing collaborators, so it's still a little off
I have considered:
absconsion/absconder - obscure
hideaway/hider
going underground - they were made criminals, but not the kind associated with underground
going into hiding
Stashing/ stashed - They were often hidden in crawl spaces or behind walls
Alright, thank you, i will proceed with "going into hiding" and "onderduiker".
One issue i do forsee is that i might give undue weight to borrowing it from dutch, when similar words might exist in other languages, would this be an issue? Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my uneducated knowledge goes, they didn't move much or otherwise run or flee.[citation needed]
They did leave their houses and a lot of their stuff.
The class as a whole were made into fugitives, but it was seperated into those who succeeded at leaving the country (refugees) and those who went into hiding.
But as the war progressed, you might have to move, but also, most people hid people they knew.[citation needed]
Part of it is that we (justifiably) want to use euphemistic meanings because we see the legal order under Nazi rule as fundamentally unjust. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in Dutch and many other languages (Danish, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish) a lower-case common noun is used for English Jew without causing offence, although typically a distinction is made between the term as indicating a religion (an adherent of Judaism), in which case the term is seen as a common noun and lower case is preferred, and as designating an ethnicity (a descendant of the Jewish people), in which case the term is seen as a proper noun and capitalized. The Jews were not prosecuted for their religion but for their descent, so in this context also in Dutch the term is generally capitalized. --Lambiam00:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep this distinction in mind during translation, I completely overlooked this interpretation as I wasn't concerned with naming either one specifically, but the group of all who hid from Nazi persecution for their beliefs or who they were.
An essential difference – next to the striking differences in methodology, like one can be conducted in a lab while the other cannot – is in the goal of the study. The purpose of a controlled experiment is always to test a hypothesis. As part of the experiment, data needs to be collected. This data collection is not by itself a goal, but a necessary means to reach a goal. In contrast, data collection is the primary purpose of a field study. Analyzing the collected data may give rise to hypotheses and help to build a theory. The researchers may hope that their findings support an existing theory, or perhaps overturn it, but there is no control that allows for a statistical test. --Lambiam13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July crisis and start of World War 1
Was it Germany's intention to start a world war? Some sources say yes, that they wanted to defeat Russia and France, while others say the war was started by a large amount of accidents, and that Germany was not solely to blame. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that Germany can be solely to blame, but some of its actions certainly did nothing to make war less likely, such as giving Austria-Hungary an unlimited blank check with respect to German support for the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum against Serbia, or sticking rigidly to a pre-planned schedule of military mobilizations without really considering what the effects of this would be on diplomacy and international opinion. AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hew Strachan says that at the 6 July Crown Council where the "blank cheque" policy was agreed, two assumptions were made:
1. That it was in Germany's interest that Austria-Hungary should dominate the Balkans by subjugating Serbia, and that Russia would be unlikely to go to war on the issue, given that their most recent war had brought about the Revolution of 1905.
2. That if Russia did go to war on behalf of Serbia, France and Britain would not intervene, thus breaking the Triple Entente which would be to Germany's advantage. A war with Russia would also be in Germany's interest, since they saw its rapid economic growth and industrialisation as a threat which needed to be nullified before it became a greater power than Germany. [23]
So his interpretation is that Germany thought that they were in a win-win situation; either no war with Russia and Austria-Hungary is strengthened, or war with Russia leading to long-term German dominance in Eastern Europe and an end to the encirclement by the Entente powers. There was no intention to provoke a war with France or Britain, but this was based on a flawed premise. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They planned to fight both, but there's no evidence that they wanted to. In 1909, Helmuth von Moltke, the chief of the German Army wrote that a full-scale European conflict would be "a war which will utterly exhaust our own people, even if we are victorious". However, France mobilised on 1 August, because they had been caught mid-mobilisation and defeated in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, and this seemed to the Germans to be too great a threat to ignore, so they declared war on France on 3 September August. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Germany supported Austria-Hungary invading Serbia, which was why they issued their blank cheque, creating a localised war, but they didn't intend/want the war to escalate in to a large-scale war? ARandomName123 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Apollo_13#Investigation_and_response. Like many accidents involving complex technology, there doesn't seem to have been a single 'cause'. Rather, a series of events, each of which on its own might not have been serious, but cumulatively leading to failure. Possibly poor design. Modifications made without proper analysis. Poor handling leading to damage which inspection procedures weren't designed to detect. Certainly, no single individual was responsible. Rather, a classic example of what the aviation industry refers to as the 'Swiss cheese model' of accidents. Things can go wrong and not matter, but if enough of the 'holes in the cheese' line up, it all goes bad very quickly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To back up what AndyTheGrump said, airline crash investigators are fond of saying that with modern airplanes most crashes don't necessarily have a single "cause", but are due to multiple things going wrong. AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit too fond. In this case I would argue that there was a single primary cause, which the failure to ensure that the switches were properly upgraded when the circuit's voltage was raised. (As Wikipedia has it, "Under the original 1962 specifications, the switches would be rated for 28 volts, but revised specifications issued in 1965 called for 65 volts to allow for quicker tank pressurization at KSC. Nonetheless, the switches Beech used were not rated for 65 volts.") Depending on how the project was managed, it, and anyway they might or might not be possible to identify a responsible person, but I don't think it's interesting to try to do it. --142.112.221.43 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given US corporate culture's attitude at the time (still ongoing), I'm fairly sure that various clued-up (ie super-geeky) people were completely aware of the problems, but they were probably far too down the org chart to have any clout, and anyway valued their jobs for life. MinorProphet (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks awfully like attempting to debate by condemnation without evidence. It's also possible that they just had too much work assigned to complete it all. --142.112.221.43 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
