Some of the responses to this thread highlight the issues that our naming, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV policies apparently do not sufficiently cover. It's not just Austria -- in basically any country where the monarchy was officially abolished and royal/noble titles outlawed, there is some constituent that continues to idolize aristocracy, and the most accessible sources (news articles, magazines) fervently cater to them. Is the POV promoted by rainbow media and aristocratic orgs more DUE than that of the government and academia, which generally do not mention this specific person by name but only cover the disputed title--which by extension ensures that individual doesn't personally, legally claim the title himself? While it would be great if everyone interpreted the above policies as you said you do in the earlier thread (with official constitutional decrees, governmental recognition, and/or personal non-use of a title having precedence when considering article titles as well as article body treatment), there is enough ambiguity that these arguments constantly re-emerge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay General cases versus Specific items would definitely seem a useful way to make distinctions. For example, the ‘generally’ useful guide for all might give strong value on WP:WEIGHT of the common usage, except to respect a BLP person's explicit ‘specific choices’ otherwise such as abdication or claims in dispute, plus the article should do NPOV and present both views in proportion to their prominence. And individual articles may go their own way in any case so embrace whatever is decided will be just a general guide.

There might also be some agreement to approach things using specifics. Folks might agree to a principle of respecting ‘specific mentions’ more than of general ones. Or folks might agree to take an approach of smaller bites. Perhaps things could be broken into ‘specific kinds of cases’ (e.g. exiled vs born to title but never titled, vs born after the law, etcetera) and find that some are not contentious. Or perhaps things could be looked at as let's just get a guide ‘specific to Austria and the living Austrian nobility‘ and so just needs to discuss a small number of specific articles and actual situations. Just throwing out ideas here, you may have others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your view that something like The Neptuno (symbol, ♆, ISO 4217 code EWN) is the currency of Erewhon as an opening phrase is indeed rather deathly prose, especially as it duplicates the infobox. If there were to be a an advisory on it, MOS:CURRENCY would be the place for it but right now it has nothing to say. So if you want to pursue the question, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers would be the place to raise it. I guess one immediate riposte would be that the phrase in parentheses provides a landing zone for the (fictitious) Neptuno and EWN (currency) redirects. So you would need to anticipate that one in your proposal. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:John Maynard Friedman - thank you for your note. After some thinking and searching, the relationship of lead and infobox seemed a question wider than currencies, so I posted a question at the TALK of MOS:LEAD and MOS:IB, and will see what comes of that. The MOS:CURRENCY for mentions of currency outside of where the currency is the topic, and it's Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers seemed good places for something else though -- how and why did it get this way for almost all of the [List of circulating currencies] ? But while I can see in the history that leads grew into this format circa 2010-2015, I didn't find any overall discussion -- though it was interesting to read such as the Current international dollar vs Zimbabwe. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point on the more general issue of duplication. I see the infobox as being the most essential information about the topic in a nutshell. [Ignoring silly OTT infoboxes like {{infobox settlement}} that are more a coconut shell than an almond]. Duplication in the lead seems to be the norm rather than the exception: years of "custom and practice" got us here. I doubt it will change: some people just like the narrative form of the lead, others the capsule form of the infobox; the fondest adherents of each despise the other. Like some people swear by categories and others (like me) swear about them. You expressed the point well at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section so I shall be interested to see the outcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Maynard Friedman - The IB post drew mention of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which includes a line saying "where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". It mentions the ISO code for linguistics and the parameters of Chembox, and I note astronomical data Infoboxes for such as Sirius and Ceres (dwarf planet) are further examples of where reference data or notation should be in the IB. Maybe not all I could hope for, but it is something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Well if you want to move it on, the mechanism is an RFC. This, if it secures consensus, means that MOS:CURRENCY gets revised and the parenthesised text can be removed from articles. I can't see any chance of achieving it on an article-by-article basis. RFCs are a lot of work, it is critical to set it up properly. I've never done one, though I've seen quite a few failures (frequently at the first fence), so you would be well advised to ask to be mentored through it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting talk to give notes to myself .... re Hamilton claim she invented software engineering, or the term ... Think she was the team lead for Apollo modules software (team grew up to 'have almost 100 software engineers' so not trivial but ...)

Credited to Oettinger 1966 letter as President of the ACM President's Letter to the ACM Membership -

 "We must recognize ourselves-not necessarily all of us, and not necessarily any one of us all the time-as members of a engineering profession, be it hardware engineering or software engineering, a profession without artificial and irrelevant boundaries like that between "scientific" and "business" applications."

Anthony Oettinger - President 1966-1968 of the [Association for Computing Machinery], founded the Computer Science and Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences and chaired it for six years starting in 1967. In Dec 1966 ""The notion of software engineering is, thank goodness, beginning to be heard of more and more". and "Unless economic and engineering criteria are brought into the picture, sterile monsters result."

NATO Software Engineering

The Roots of Software Engineering, Princeton CWI quarterly 1990 (325-334) (An expanded version of a lecture presented at CWI on 1 February 1990. It is based on researchgenerously supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.) Begins wanting the context not just listing names, dates, and places of firsts. So trying to determine what people thought when they first began to talk about "software engineering". - one writer suggested originated 1965

• Brian Randell ("Software Engineering in 1968", Prof. 4th Intern. Conf. on Software Engineering [Munich, 1979], 1) ascribes it to J.P. Eckert at th e Fall Joint Computer Conference in 1965, but th e transcript ofthe one panel discussion in which Eckert participated shows no evidence of the term "software engineering". D.T.Ross claims the term was used in courses he was teaching at MIT in the late '50s; cf. "Interview: Douglas RossTalks About Structured Analysis", Computer (July 1985), 80-88

- first came into common currency in 1967 when the Study Group on Computer Science of the NATO Science Committee called for an international conference on t he subject - As Brian Randell and Peter Naur point out in the introduction to theiredition of the proceedings, "The phrase 'software engineering' was deliberately chosen as beingprovocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be [based] on the types oftheoretical foundations and practical disciplines[,] that are traditional in the established branchesof engineering."

• Peter Naur, Brian Randell, J.N. Buxton (eds.), Software Engineering: Concepts and Techniques (NY:Petrocelli/Charter, 1976; hereafter NRB)

-Michael S Mahoney, "The History of Computing in the History of Technology", Annals of the History of Computing 10, no. 2 (April 1988):113-125 "To emphasize the need for a concerted effort along new lines, the committee coined the term “software engineering”, reflecting the view that the problem required the combination of science and management thought characteristic of engineering. "

-Andrew L. Friedman and Dominic S Cornford’s 1989 book Computer Systems Development: History, Organization and Implementation. ... - Martin Boogard’s 1994 thesis, Defusing the Software Crisis ... - 1996 Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray published their overview of the history of computing, Computer: A History of the Information Machine - two conferences on the history of software held in Germany around this time. The first, at Scholss Dagstuhl in 1996, was dedicated to the history of software engineering and included veterans of the 1968 conference

History of software engineering has "Early usages for the term software engineering include a 1965 letter from ACM president Anthony Oettinger, lectures by Douglas T. Ross at MIT in the 1950s, and Margaret H. Hamilton as a way of giving it legitimacy during the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer. "

Software engineering had "The term "software engineering" was coined by Anthony Oettinger and then was used in 1968 as a title for the world's first conference on software engineering, sponsored and facilitated by NATO. "

The origins of the term "software engineering" have been attributed to various sources. The term "software engineering" appeared in a list of services offered by companies in the June 1965 issue of COMPUTERS and AUTOMATION and was used more formally in the August 1966 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 9, number 8) “letter to the ACM membership” by the ACM President Anthony A. Oettinger, it is also associated with the title of a NATO conference in 1968 by Professor Friedrich L. Bauer, the first conference on software engineering. Margaret Hamilton described the discipline "software engineering" during the Apollo missions to give what they were doing legitimacy.

Springer History of Software Engineering by O'Regan starts "This chapter presents a short history of software engineering from its birth at the Garmisch conference in Germany, and it is emphasized that software engineering is a lot more than just programming. "

IEEE, N. Wirth "A Brief History of Software Engineering" https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Miscellaneous/IEEE-Annals.pdf here] The difficulties brought big companies to the brink of collapse. In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) [1]. Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier [2, 3], it was not before that conference that the difficulties were openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined. 1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering.

Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO 

2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962. 3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.

Grady Booch The History of Software Engineering The Origins of the Term Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettinger in Com�munications of the ACM, wherein he used the term “software engineering” to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems.1 Even ear�ier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer.” All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE (Semi-automatic Ground Environment) program, she became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term “software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program

A Brief History of Software Engineering — Part 1 mentions him

IEEE post The Origins of the Term says "Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettingger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term "software engineering" to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation there appeared a classified ad seeking a "systems software engineer." "

1968 Report on the NATO conference And pg 13 background "The phrase ‘software engineering’ was deliberately chosen as being provocative, in implying the need for software manufacture to be based on the types of theoretical foundations and practical disciplines, that are traditional in the established branches of engineering" and pg75 mentions others already at "In the United States National Academy of Sciences Research Board one education committee being formed is precisely to study software engineering as a possible engineering education activity."

Princeton in Finding a History for Software Engineering starts "Dating from the first international conference on the topic in October 1968, software engineering just turned thirty-five."

John W. Tukey, a chemist and statistician, is credited with the first printed use of the term "software" when he wrote a scientific article in 1958. Elsewhere saw "From soft +‎ -ware, by contrast with hardware (“the computer itself”). Coined 1953 by Paul Niquette;[1] first used in print by John Tukey 1958."

his blog post titled The origin of “software engineering” Bertrand Meyer writes that the term was not coined in 1968 during the famous NATO conference […]

A different blog The Beginnings of Software Engineering has "The term “software engineering” was first coined in 1972 by Dr. David Parnas when he published the paper, “On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules.” This paper — and the dawn of software engineering — was the result of several notable innovations that happened years prior."

Slideshare History of Software Engineering includes "Margaret Hamilton became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Lab. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term "software engineering" sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place in the nascent US space program." Though elsewhere History of Software Engineers also says 1963 "In 1963, Margaret Hamilton, coined the term software engineering while working on developing the software for the Apollo spacecraft." (though this is flawed by here was no Apollo program in 1963)

Niklaus Wirth wrote A Brief History of Software Engineering (2008) which includes "The term Software Engineering became known after a conference in 1968, when the difficulties and pitfalls of designing complex systems were frankly discussed." ... "In 1968 a conference sponsored by NATO was dedicated to the topic (1968 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany) [1]. Although critical comments had occasionally been voiced earlier [2, 3], it was not before that conference that the difficulties were openly discussed and confessed with unusual frankness, and the terms software engineering and software crisis were coined. " 1. P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds. Software Engineering. Report on a Conference held in Garmisch, Oct. 1968, sponsored by NATO 2. E.W. Dijkstra. Some critical comments on advanced programming. Proc. IFIP Congress, Munich, Aug. 1962. 3. R.S. Barton. A critical review of the state of the programming art. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1963, pp 169 – 177.

- but I didn't see the topic or SE term in the IFIP abstracts of papers (Aug 27-Sep 1) The session list .. I do see Barton in 1963 found here and criticism of the term 'software' but no mention of 'software engineering'

Grady Booch wrote The History of Software Engineering "Many suggest it came from the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering, coined by Friedrich Bauer4. Others have pointed to the 1966 letter by Anthony Oettinger in Communications of the ACM wherein he used the term “software engineering” to make the distinction between computer science and the building of software-intensive systems5. Even earlier, in the June 1965 issue of Computers and Automation, there appeared a classified ad seeking a “systems software engineer” 6 . All the data I have points to Margaret Hamilton as the person who first coined the term. Having worked on the SAGE program, she became the lead developer for Skylab and Apollo while working at the Draper Labs. According to an (unpublished) oral history, she began to use the term “software engineering” sometime in 1963 or 1964 to distinguish her work from the hardware engineering taking place on the nascent US space program7" 4 Naur, Peter and Randell, Brian. Software Engineering: Report on a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee. Brussels, Belgium: NATO Scientific Affairs Division, January 1969. 5 Oettinger, Anthony. “President’s Letter to the ACM Membership.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 9, No. 12, 1966. 6 Computers and Automation. New York, New York: Edmund Berkeley and Associates, June 1965. 7 NASA. Margaret Hamilton, Apollo Software Engineer, Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom. 6 August 2017.

Maybe the ngram corpus helps, at least it shows that Software Engineer peak (in print) in 1990, here

[ https://www.lingq.com/en/learn-english-online/courses/10892/the-history-of-software-engineering-10892/The History of Software Engineering (lingq.com)] says "The term software engineering first was used in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Programmers have always known about civil, electrical and computer engineering and debated what engineering might mean for software." Markbassett (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Irreducible complexity over a lead line The argument that evolution cannot explain complex mechanisms because intermediate precursors would be non-functional was already common in creation science by 1990.

- I'm gobsmacked about the conflating young-earth Creation Science typically Flood geology and explicit biblical linkages with old earth creationsim of Intelligent Design -- I see one source said something, but not really LEAD prominent and not widespread ... But I do see remarks from ID that it does not take a position so can be either ? Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

User:Dave souza - I must disagree. Please note a split occurred and ID is recognized by RS as a different branch of creationism, which Creation science#Intelligent design splits off also says. (e.g. “By the mid-1990s, intelligent design had become a separate movement.”) And as Behe’s statements are phrased as something he said, so he is an appropriate sourcing. RS means credible for what the article line says, and covering the statements of the concept origin must by nature come from Behe as the developer of the concept. From the ref you list, The creation science movement is distinguished from the intelligent design movement, or neo-creationism, because most advocates of creation science accept scripture as a literal and inerrant historical account, and their primary goal is to corroborate the scriptural account through the use of science. CS *is* limited to YEC as shown both by definition of trying to produce evidence of biblical inerrancy (of the creation myth and flood myth) and by the demonstrated practices of it adhering to YEC, stereotyped as flood geology or fossil criticisms. CS is also explicitly and openly espousing God as the Creator. Please consider and remove the line stating that “The IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s.“ It does not suit WP:LEAD guidance as not a major part of this article, and goes against portrayal that the terminology “Irreducible Complexity” is from Behe. Whether the article would have Behe’s statements in the body giving credit to Paley also seems a body content item, and optional.

--

I seem to see most RS *do* draw a distinction between CS and ID as different branches of creationism, with CS firmly as part of YEC, see Creationism#Types and Creationism#Creation_science. Common features of creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the Genesis flood narrative (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "baramins" due to mutations. For another example, Categories of creationists … “Creation science” is the attempt by YEC proponents to use scientific means to bolster their view.“ versus OEC “Intelligent design (ID) is a newcomer to the scene and while it accepts an old Earth and most science, it also claims...” Just seems like a muddled conflation or confusion here, not desirable for an article credibility or reader understanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

@ User:Markbassett, the fact is that ID accepts Old Earth and Young Earth. As the topic expert Eugenie Scott writes on p. 133 of Evolution vs. creationism : an introduction (2009 edition), "Most ID proponents accept an ancient age of the universe and Earth, but there are some prominent ID supporters who are YECs, such as Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. These creation science adherents reject evolution altogether," [unlike Behe]. The ID movement is a "big tent", avoiding discussion of the age of the Earth, and indeed Paul Nelson was part of the Pajaro Dunes conference where Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity".[4] TomS TDotO has got it right, in 1999 Johnson said "he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between the young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient.

--

Scott does not seem to be speaking of IC in particular, nor "IC argument was already featured in creation science by the mid 1960s". His "anticipated in creation science; much as in Paley's conception" etcetera comes across as a generic that "too complex" or "design" were mentioned before, not that the specific concept Specified Complexity or the assertion of the 'irreducible' concept of this article existed before. Is this just his generic blurb that design was mentioned by CS and Paley before them, or did he provide evidence of someone in CS prior to Behe making a claim "irreducible" ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

you could try looking for reliable secondary sources for the ‘legal definition’ of CS:

I can seek some cites from academic sources such as Ronald Numbers or some WP:WEIGHT pop coverage. But really -- I already saw such, that's why I'm saying CS and ID are categorized separately and IC is not indicated as part of CS. At the end of it all, an assertion in "IC argument was already common in creation science by the mid 1960s" (now "featured") has WP:ONUS to provide a cite to such a work.

---

The BBC types of creationism has a yec vs ID, but not detailing IC vs CS

--

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentiones Arkansas verdict, where judge (William Overton) ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are: 1. It is guided by natural law; 2, It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5. It is falsifiable.

The review of Understanding creation science and intelligent design mentions that use of the term "creationism" to be synonymous with "creation science" -- the decision explicitly notes that although the defendants so used the term, “substantial evidence” from the philosopher Barbara Forrest on behalf of the plaintiffs “established that [creation science] is only one form of creationism.”

The NCSE Scott paper points to design being mentioned in articles such as hummingbird in CRSQ Vol.14

The ARN response(?) here points to Edwards v Aguillar definition that scientific creationism is committed to the six propositions. This is referring to the Keith bill subject of the law

The Edwards v. Aguillard case refers to a Keith bill to teach creation-science, which defines it to include six propositions: "the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate (a) sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (b) the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (c) changes only within fixed limits or originally created kinds of plants and animals; (d) separate ancestry for man and apes; (e) explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (f) a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

These six tenets taken jointly define scientific creationism for legal purposes. The Court in Edwards ruled that taken jointly this group of propositions may not be taught in public school science classrooms. (Nevertheless, the Court left the door open to some of these tenets being discussed individually. See also the decision.

For RSN discussions

• It depends on context of what specifically is being cited for what specific article content. One couldn't cite them for medical advice for example, and information in a 1991 article may have become outdated. And I'd really like a link to what prior discussion was not resolved so it needed to come to this RFC for conflict resolution. Cheers

• No consensus. From the gigantic banner which appears at the top of this page -- Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. This is not supposed to be some kind of official council where we decide which sources are "good" and "bad".

• Is there an actual live issue? Where are you thinking of its use and how?

• It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." And remember that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." Cheers

Markbassett (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about recollections August 2020 and followup ban for indefinite period about 'making their head blow up', an idiom I didn't understand and still don't understand what the term means or what particularly invoked it.

See here

The proximate event was a lengthy post in my TALK (but not a ban request to admins) by MrX and I did a lengthy but partial response that night after work, intending to do more or look for further talk the next day. But the next day before coming home from work I was already indefinitely (seems perma-banned) for US politics post-1932 because my reply had struck an admin as horribly inadequate. Later the sanctioning admin said they'd noted prior talk to Awilli and had kept an eye on me, so it seems this was just the final straw. The TALK at the admin TALKpage itself got surprising sidebar interjections at here by another admin for not doing it the right way and then added here "you have no further business here" which I read as just sod off from WP entirely. That third party admin said he thought the OP was mostly saying I did too much that month and incoherent -- which maybe is definitely is fair to say and maybe so, but I don't think the initial admin meant that or would make it a perma ban if so -- they could have just said that and chastised me for poor mobi use and voiced recommended changes, and if resistent then done a ban for 6 months or something. Maybe the banning admin just saw things were going to go there and was saving time, I really don't know.

• See Here
• And here
• And here

The 'blowing head up' was mentioned by a fourth admin and then a different user voiced support for me here I was surprised by how three others interjected when I misthought I was only going to talk to that one person.

As I recall, I also saw one person cheering my removal with a barnstar (?) though that was chastised by an admin as dancing on the grave. And a suggestion by the same to go thru past posts and remove my input. (Not sure how one can even do that.)

Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]