Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Conversio industrialis" differant

Summarium vacuum
::Recognizable to who? A Latin reader, or a Romance one? This is after all a latin encyclopedia....right?
:::It's Latin, yes, but it's also an encyclopedia, which means not to make up new facts, even if we don't like the existing ones. 'Conversio industrialis' doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia, while there's at least a couple instances of '[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22revolutio+industrialis%22 revolutio industrialis]' (e.g. "''Industrialis revolutio'', quae circa medium saeculi XVIII coepit, adscribi debet inventioni perfectiorum instrumentorum in rebus arte factis.") Now, if a term of better Latinity has been in use, then by all means we could change it; but otherwise, it's kind of like renaming civil wars because they're uncivil. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 19:45, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes but when you see a term you have to be careful whether it is used attributely or descriptively; the only way to tell is by understanding what they are saying and why amongst other things. In this case, the sources, which are all Catholic Church related, are arguing that the industrial revolution is just an example of the continuing movement backwards (revolutio) from God, which is a distinctly religious arguement or point of view rather than a provable fact.
::::Of course, one should include in the article that some religious people consider it a revolution. That they do heightens the specific Latin meaning of the term, as a rolling back, rather than diminishes it.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 20:17, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::When languages borrow terms from other languages they often take a secondary meaning as the primary meaning of the borrowing, so technically it is not wrong in spanish english etc. But in this case the term comes from Latin..
22 224