of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- 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.
June 7
SPAM link farm?
- Human Rights and Democracy Network
- {{Cite web|title=Bahigo |url=http://www.canli-iddaa-siteleri37.com/bahigo.php?Page=41|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210608131142/http://www.canli-iddaa-siteleri37.com/bahigo.php?Page=41|url-status=usurped|archive-date=June 8, 2021|access-date=2021-06-08|website=www.canli-iddaa-siteleri37.com}}
- "Bahigo". www.canli-iddaa-siteleri37.com. Archived from the original on June 8, 2021. Retrieved 2021-06-08.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - https://web.archive.org/web/20210609093749/http://www.canli-iddaa-siteleri37.com/bahigo.php
- Turkish ? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is a link to a page about a Turkish online betting website. It appears to have been inserted by some strange mistake, not intentionally as spam. --Lambiam 01:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia:Link rot/cases/Judi. -sche (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is a link to a page about a Turkish online betting website. It appears to have been inserted by some strange mistake, not intentionally as spam. --Lambiam 01:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
June 8
Which temple image this might be?
This 1858 image of a temple in Ramanathapuram district Tamil Nadu India. seems to be from book The Wesleyan juvenile offering. United Kingdom, n.p, 1858. Page 84. (Google books link). Page 85 seem to criticize temple idolatry but does not mention name of the temple.
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)
- I'm not convinced that the original attribution of the picture by the Wesleyan juvenile offering editors was adequate. The nearest similar hill shape as in the background which I could find is in the Virudhunagar district: Azhagiya Shanta Manavaalan Temple to Vishnu. The temple is of a different architecture. At virudhunagar-districts, virudhunagar-districts there is a more recent temple of the correct structure. Here an older type. An other nearest mountainous area would be the Vellore district. --Askedonty (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Emergency War Plan: The American Doomsday Machine, 1945-1960 - Appendix A says that the actual plans are "not available at this time", but has a target list which is a "close approximation". Some pages are missing from the Google Books preview, so you may need to acquire a copy for the full text. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a pretty scathing review of Anthony Cave Brown's Operation World War III: Secret American Plan (Dropshot) for War with the Soviet Union in 1957. If the link given in the article is really to "...Outline Plan for Use in the Event of War in 1957" then 4. Conduct an Air Offensive Against the Soviet Powers is probably the extent of the "target list". I don't think the "Appendix A." above is actually 'Dropshot', but if you are interested in any target lists, National Security Archive's Nuclear Valut has done some work. fiveby(zero) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the "Appendix A" list seems to be an amalgam of the plans for 1949 and 1951. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
June 9
Is Jack Ruby unique?
I know of only one case where
- person A was murdered/assassinated
- person B was arrested for that murder
- while B was in custody and before B could be brought to trial, B was himself murdered by person C
- person C was a member of the general public, not any kind of officer, and not himself in custody
That one case, as I indicated, is Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Has this in fact happened on other known occasions, or is it possible that the Ruby/Oswald case is unique in history? --142.112.221.43 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- List of lynching victims in the United States contains several cases, such as the 1858 lynching of Thompson and Despano. If awaiting a retrial after a failed trial counts, see also the 1891 New Orleans lynchings. --Lambiam 09:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- This story from CNN documents a similar case from India in 2021: [2]. --Amble (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you believe Hollywood movies and TV westerns, the Old West was replete with such cases. 136.54.99.98 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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] --Lambiam 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well found. Thanks again. --142.112.221.43 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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] --Lambiam 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
“Miss Otis Regrets” …DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Classifying Dunkin' Donuts
Wikipedia's American fast food restaurant template classifies it as a beverage place, but this article:
Visualizing America’s Most Popular Fast Food Chains (visualcapitalist.com)
still classifies it as a doughnut place regardless of what it now is. Do people disagree about restaurant categories?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The name contains both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- People disagree about any categories. --Lambiam 09:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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. --Lambiam 06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Google translate handles them well. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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
". --Lambiam 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- They should be enough to demonstrate that the definition corresponds though. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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: "
- They should be enough to demonstrate that the definition corresponds though. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- These are post-2004. This one is from 1931: "
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".
P.S. There's also the similar term "Outer Northwest" (the areas ceded at the 1864 Treaty of Tarbagatai). Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- Double sharp (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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
- — kwami (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- 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!)
- And yes, I agree that in the cite kwami has given, "outer Manchuria" cannot possibly mean Priamurye. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Geographyinitiative, WP doesn't seem to have an appropriate article, but you're aware of "Space and Place", have seen Mark Elliott's "The Limits of Tartary" and all the other terms? zh:中國東北地區 'Northeast' and zh:外東北 'Outer Northeast', Chinese Tartary, 'East Tartary', Russian Manchuria? In Black Dragon River Dominic Ziegler uses 'Outer Tartary', saying synonymous with 'Outer Manchuria' after Nerchinsk (which seem a little off, but maybe). 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? Means what the author intends it to mean based on context. fiveby(zero) 16:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts! I'm becoming more and more confident that this is citogenesis.
- Some further evidence that these were not normal phrases in Chinese pre-2004:
- @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)
- 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)
- I think, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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. --Lambiam 05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Did we see "Phantom Pains in Manchuria: Dreams, Loss, and Projection" yet? fn# 10
The name Wai Dongbei does not appear to be used by Chinese academics, but it has gained prominence in non-academic sites such as Chinese Wikipedia (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/外东北)
Note Wai Dongbei that is not "Outer Manchuria" but "Outer Northeast" as discussed in the text p. 73. There are other examples such as [7]For China the loss of ‘Outer Manchuria’ (wai dongbei 外东北) in 1860...
外东北 ngram fiveby(zero) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) - Callahan, William A. (2009). "The Cartography of National Humiliation and the Emergence of China's Geobody" (PDF). Public Culture. 21 (1): 141–173. see pages 163-4 beginning
Because it is located at the crossroads of various empires, Manchuria exemplifies the cartographic complexity of colliding geobodies.
fiveby(zero) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- These sources date from after 2004 and so have no bearing on the issue. --Lambiam 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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
- These sources date from after 2004 and so have no bearing on the issue. --Lambiam 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- In this (1862 in English by a British naval officer) source, it is very clear that the phrase refers to areas at the time within China. The Chinese are peculiarly averse to leaving their own country, and it is not on the account of the prospect of higher wages that they do so, but because their native districts are overpopulated. This has been exemplified of late by the sudden overflow of the inhabitants of the northern provinces into outer Manchuria.70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 24#Current age in info box is out of date. 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:24FC:4B46:8DAC:E612 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
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".
Well, which is it? Card Zero (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- William Irvine argues against the accusations of poisoning[8], made by Muhammad Hadi Kamwar Khan? and others. fiveby(zero) 23:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- OK I'm puzzled now: here's the book by G S Chhabra, and here's the same book by J L Mehta. They can't both have written it (well, they could have cowritten it, but nobody claims that). Also, here's Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India by J L Mehta. I don't know, I suspect a mix-up. Card Zero (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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] --Lambiam 05:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thaw was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". This does not alter the fact that his killing of White was murder. --Lambiam 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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"? -- GreenC 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would assume it means that there are no criminal charges, a.k.a. "slap on the wrist". If he puts the cookies back in the cookie jar, then no harm done. 136.54.99.98 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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). --Lambiam 11:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the judgement, which found Lemelson guilty on count 1, which concerns SEC Rule 10b-5, which is section (b) in SEC_Rule_10b-5#Language_of_the_rule. I assume this is fraud. -- GreenC 15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Here is the judgement, which found Lemelson guilty on count 1, which concerns SEC Rule 10b-5, which is section (b) in SEC_Rule_10b-5#Language_of_the_rule. I assume this is fraud. -- GreenC 15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- "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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- Quantitative fallacy and definist fallacy are similar, as is the application of verisimilitude. 136.54.99.98 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 11:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
June 11
Pope Martin V
The introduction to Pope Sixtus IV, and its "Foreign policy" section, note that Sixtus annulled the decrees of the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance article notes that its activities included electing Pope Martin V. Why isn't he considered an antipope? Ditto with Antipope John XXIII and Antipope Benedict XIII, whom the council deposed; why aren't they considered legitimate popes? Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- It seems likely he was making a decree opposing conciliarism and not declaring Martin V illegitimate, but struggling to find anything which states that. fiveby(zero) 01:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- tho i wonder what Deceptus fuit papa Johannes in this hard to decode footnote could mean. fiveby(zero) 02:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- tho i wonder what Deceptus fuit papa Johannes in this hard to decode footnote could mean. fiveby(zero) 02:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 06:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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" by Francis 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)
- 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)
- 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" by Francis 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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. --Lambiam 06:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I totally missed the 7 in the front there. Mel Gervais (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Vladimir Lenin
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)
- 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. --Lambiam 19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
June 13
Royal College of Art, School of Film and Television
Is the Royal College of Art, School of Film and Television a former name of the National Film and Television School?
As...
- - I'm wondering why it redirects there, if it isn't a former name.
- - Why there's no mention of the filmmaking school and its former names, on the Royal College of Art or the National Film and Television School if it is a former name.
- - And also because...
...a 37+ year old film was made at...
The Royal College of Art Film Department according to the BBC, and
The Royal College of Art (Department of Film & Television) according to the BFI
[1][2][3][4] Danstarr69 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- ^ "Royal College of Art Film School". BFI. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ "Royal College of Art (Department of Film & Television)". BFI. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ "Royal College of Arts". BFI. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ "Royal College of Art". BFI. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- Not sure if this helps, but:
- 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 (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- Do the Royal College of Art film students get sent to the National Film and Television School do their courses?
- Has the Royal College of Art ever had its own building with its own film school/department, or have they always been sent elsewhere?
- If there's no definite answers in a few days, I might just redirect it to the Royal College of Art article where it makes more sense. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Frayling, Christopher (1987). The Royal College of Art : One Hundred & Fifty Years of Art & Design. London: Barrie & Jenkins. ISBN 0-7126-1799-X. has mentions of people doing film courses at the RCA. I have only had a very quick glance, it may repay closer reading. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
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
- Abetting/abetted - they were aided, but wrong subject and seems too obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Rejected outright:
- Refugee - They haven't left the country
- Submergers - they aren't going underwater
Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is just no simple English noun phrase of the same meaning. Our articles Dutch resistance and Netherlands in World War II use the Dutch term in italics, while of course explaining its meaning. We find this code switching also here, here and here. --Lambiam 21:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- How about "fugitives"? — Kpalion(talk) 21:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered fugitives.
- 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]
- I am considering it. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Fugitive" has negative connotations that seem inappropriate for this situation. Actually, any such term seems odd to me. But that might just be my personal take. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur.
- 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)
- How about "escapees"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- sorry, I think i'm going with the advice by Lambian. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then you could template this section as "Resolved". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- i was looking for how to close it, but i didn't come across it in the explanations.
- maybe i read past it. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then you could template this section as "Resolved". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- sorry, I think i'm going with the advice by Lambian. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- How about "escapees"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Fugitive" has negative connotations that seem inappropriate for this situation. Actually, any such term seems odd to me. But that might just be my personal take. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- How about "fugitives"? — Kpalion(talk) 21:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
June 14
the goal of science
how is controlled experiment different from field study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.88.63.125 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- You might like to start by reading controlled experiment and field study. Shantavira|feed me 10:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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. --Lambiam 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)