Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Conversio industrialis" differant

Summarium vacuum
:Technically wrong, as it is in every other language, but not absolutely wrong since it is the popular usage. Revolutio Industrialis appears in hitherto red links all over vicipaedia and has the advantage of being instantly recognisable. Conversio and commutatio might be more accurate, but I don't think Revolutio ought to be completely disallowed, or pedantry get too much in the way of producing a useful encyclopaedia. By the way, I am just translating this article from the one in Spanish Wikipaedia. Please help me out and continue it if you've got time! Its a bit more concise than the English one. [[Specialis:Conlationes/|]] 12:36, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::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)
:::::'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)
:::::Being Catholic doesn't require the Industrial Revolution to be a bad thing. What is being enumerated, so far as I can tell, is the same negative sense we attach to 'revolution' in English—albeit with Catholic flavor—but that is not the same sense as that used in the proper noun 'revolutio industrialis'/'industrial revolution'. Certainly a Catholic would have no trouble numbering the industrial revolution among '[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_19990721_unispace-iii_en.html revolutions, in the benign sense of the word]'. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 03:25, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::Icouldn't find the original but this explains: [http://books.google.com/books?id=XKALAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=revolutionem+ecclesia+galliae&source=bl&ots=Sv0SDohFz-&sig=pePTrD0kX0GXQRFM-Wrr8tsNvHo&hl=en&ei=rROHStTEOuO_tgfQi9nnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=revolutio&f=false Juris naturæ et gentium privati et publici fundamenta By Guglielmo Audisio]--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 20:05, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::::I added Revolutio Industrialis to the beginning since there are more than one source, with an explanation to look here for an explanation. If someone moves it back to Revolutio Industrialis, I will try to argue anymore. Maybe when someone writes a page on Revolutio politica, they will one day explain how the term evolved in the early 21st century to encompass all rerum commutationes by back borrowing from Romance Languages. The pressure to do so by latin learners seems somehow insurmountable, despite the utter obviousness of the word.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 03:12, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::::For the record: Cassell's has ''conversio'' as 'change' (and other things), but doesn't have ''revolutio'' at all. For 'revolution' in the sense of 'turning round', it has ''conversio, orbis, ambitus.'' For 'political revolution', it has ''res novae, reipublicae conversio,'' and ''reipublicae commutatio.'' So ''conversio'' would seem to be at least one fair possibility for the kind of social upheaval induced by what English-speakers call an industrial revolution. But then for the 'Industrial' part, in place of ''reipublicae,'' you'd be looking for a genitive, right? Ergo [[Industriae Conversio]] ~ [[Industriae Commutatio]]? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:28, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
90 045