Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Conversio industrialis" differant

Summarium vacuum
::::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)
:::::'all'? I see [http://books.google.com/books?id=O-y0zmwLcXsC&q=%22revolutio+industrialis%22&dq=%22revolutio+industrialis%22&ei=6kOHSpqPJ6GozQTVioTgDQ one] of them does; the [http://books.google.com/books?id=WtsrAAAAIAAJ&q=%22revolutio+industrialis%22&dq=%22revolutio+industrialis%22&ei=6kOHSpqPJ6GozQTVioTgDQ one I quoted] doesn't seem to show enough context to tell, though what's there is pretty neutral; and of course the linked sample doesn't really have anything else. Switching to the web, Ephemeris uses it [http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/libri.php?id=339 in an article] from this past year, some German Latinist uses it in a couple places such as [http://vonhelmrich.de/electriraeda.htm this 2005 piece] ... The original sense of ''revolutio'', as far as I can tell is just a ''return'', really - motion back towards a point, not necessarily retrograde motion or reversion from some ideal as you interpret the one locus to read; 'revolutio animarum' for example was just reincarnation whether "hominum in bestias, vel in homines bestiarum". If a negative sense is felt, I expect it's mostly due to context. Now, I'm not saying 'revolutio' is the best word here, or even that it's a terribly good one; just that 'revolutio industrialis' is the only name I've seen for it so far, apt or not, and [[VP:TNP]] repeats several times "if a Latin name exists, use it." Of course, if someone can turn up a source calling it the ''res novae industriales'' or something, then by all means let's go for a change. But until then, the general rule of "don't make stuff up" applies — there's no good in sitting the page at a title that a tiro would neither think to search for [because too dissimilar from familiar terms] nor be educated by [because entirely fictitious]. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 00:58, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::They are all CATHOLIC sources (the ones you provided before), that's context enough. Did you read the treatease below on what their definition is of revolution?? The original sense you mention is in physics, the original sense in politics is a turning back against religious order, or as Guglielmo Audisio says "separationem Ecclesiae a Statu, quasi nihil esset aut vulgare quiddam Eccelsea in civitate" and "Deificatio rationis-deificatio carnis" and "Est revolutio peccatum capitale in re civili et politica." (sorry yes according to Catholic George Washington is in hell unless he repented for his mortal sin of revolution) and "Revolutio est constitutio publici status ex hominis voluntate, exluso iure divino; doctrina est, omnem auctoritatem non ex Deo, sed ex homine, vel ex populo '''repetens'''..".--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 01:38, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::Moreover, no one is inventing anything or making anything up, I was just translating revolution, using one of several universally accepted neutral non point-of-view term for it. The industrial revolution is not '''returning''' to any conceivable point, except from an extreme religious point of view. --[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 01:45, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::Of course, the revolutionaries in France did indeed publicly and actively favor turning back to the pagan past, with crazy 10 week calendars with no sundays to keep people from knowing when to worship the sabbath. The Catholics were right to call it a revolution. Also the October revolution is also a revolution in the latin sense. The American revolution wasn't and many others, except from a certain point of view.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 01:51, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
22 224