text:
Talk:May Fourth Movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yanjun-Liu3. Peer reviewers: Mjwng, Ldc30507, Sf999129.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Please proceed with speed. This article is in incredibly bad shape, as has been pointed out for more than a decade. Tjobrien.seoul (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The Significance of the May Fourth Movement to Chinese Literature.
I've removed the video link to John Denson's lecture, "The Six Months That Changed the World", from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It's an interesting alternative perspective on the impact of World War I on world history, but nearly all of it is not relevant to an article on the May Fourth Movement in China.

In anycase, it would be nice if this article had more references, especially books and other offline sources. Like much of Chinese history, there is very little online information about the May Fourth Movement, even in Chinese.

As important as the May Fourth Movement is to the political history of modern China, the May Fourth Movement today is best known as a literary movement. EVERYONE studying Chinese literature also studies the May Fourth Movement. I've been working on some articles about specific writers from this era. It would also be nice if someone would write an expanded section within this article elaborating on May Fourth Literature and the development of the Bai Hua style of writing, which is the basis of modern Chinese writing. Such an article should include a list of May Fourth writers, particularly Lu Xun, Mao Dun, Lao She, Xiao Hong, Ba Jin, Shen Congwen, and Ding Ling. Such a section should focus on the relationship between these writers, how these writers were all heavily influenced by Western writers and ideologies, how the movement was a reaction against traditional Chinese literature and values, and the impact these writers had on modern Chinese literature.
 * Winston Ho (2006 Dec. 25).
 * Metairie, Louisiana.

Congratulations
Hey everybody. I checked this page a year ago for an essay I was writing and I would like to say that it is much better than it was before. Congratulations to those involved.

I just wanted to add that there is a difference between the May 4th Movement and the May 4th Incident. The movement from 1911-1919 resulted in the May 4th Incident on May 4th 1919.

 * It was a movement that aimed to introduce to China western concepts such as democracy, equality and liberty.

What happened after 1919 to block the adoption of the Western of democracy, equality and liberty? How did Mao and the Marxists gain power instead? --Ed Poor

 * Same as in Russia. Marxism is an attractive theory, it promises democracy, equality and liberty.  However Marxists need a strong man, like Lenin and Mao, to gain power.  Strong man will not give up power easily, and eventually he will get rid of the democrats in the Communist's Party.  Wshun

 * Furthermore, Mao was helped into power considerably by his determination to fight the Japanese during their invasion of Manchuria. Mao's rival, the Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, pretty much refused to fight the Japanese and was resigned to letting them have Manchuria (he had more than enough problems trying consolidate his rule in the south).  This of course didn't sit well with anyone who heard about it, and curried lots of favor for Mao, especially after the Japanese were defeated and forced to withdraw from Manchuria. --Andrew (Non-User)

 * And furthermore still, Western democracy, equality and liberty had shown themselves to be hollow words to the patriotic Chinese. After the meeting of the Allies in Paris 1919, the Chinese were shocked to find out that their fellow allies had given Japan the right to take over the Shandong province which had been taken over by Western imperialism (Germany).  Wilson's fourteen points proved a lie and the Western Allies appeared to care nothing for China except to further their own ambitions.  Were as the Bolshevik (msp?) Revolution gave many of the patriots a model in which to bring about absolute change in China; something many believed necessary to overcome Imperialism, humiliation and China's own weakness.  See Hunt, Michael "The Genesis of Chinese Communist Foreign Policy".  Subotai

- Re: "more than 3000 students from 13 colleges and universities in Beijing gathered together in Tiananmen Square"

Is it supposed to be "more than 3000 students from 13 colleges and universities [...] gathered together in Tiananmen Square, Beijing"?

The first version says that there are no non-Beijing universities there. Was there? --Menchi 07:34, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * The first statement is clearly false. Tianjin University, originally Peiyang University, was founded as a modern public university in 1895.  Nankai University, also in Tianjin, was founded in 1919.  There were also numerous small private universities throughout China at the time, mostly funded by missionaries and other Western organizations, especially in the concessions.  Nevertheless, I think there could have been 13 colleges and universities in Beijing itself at that time.  Beijing University was founded in 1898 during the last years of the Qing Dynasty.  Also, Qinghua University had been founded in Beijing 1911, although it was originally a college preparatory school.  It became a true university with undergraduate and graduate schools in 1925.  Its too bad there is no reference source for 13 colleges statement.  After the first demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, students in Tianjin and Shanghai began similar protests in their own cities.

 * Winston Ho (2006 Dec. 25).
 * Metairie, Louisiana.

- Arent the New Culture Movement and May Fourth Movement different things? Why are they in one article?--Jiang 06:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Link to Chinese page?
I see a link to a Chinese language version when I use Internet Explorer, but not when using Mozilla or Safari...

-

This article isn't exactly neutral nor is it telling the whole story. Think about this. Why did the northern warlords end up cracking down on the student demonstrators? It doesn't make sense according to that article. In reality, it was because the real spark of the May 4th movement was when Duan Qirui, a powerful northern warlord who happened to be barely hanging on to the premiership at that time, CONCEEDED Shandong to the Japanese in return for a generous loan in order to build an army powerful enough to crush his rivals.

This is RUBBISH
This whole article is terrible, I can't understand how Wikipedia has allowed it onto their site. It reads like a "Chinese Communist Party History of the May Fourth Movement for 8 Year Olds" or something. This article totally lacks rigour, objectivity or even a firm grasp of the English language. It reads like some cheap propaganda effort by the Chinese authorities and as such I recommend it be struck out from Wikipedia.

I agree, this really needs revision. In particular "Japan and the UNITED STATES seized the opportunity to speed up their occupation of lands in China" " The victory of the October Revolution in Russia had pointed out the road of liberation for the Chinese people." Northern Warlords gave itself up to the imperialist countries externally and betrayed the benefits and rights of their own country without restraint" And then we have both "upsurge of nationalist feeling, with unity of purpose among patriotic Chinese of all classes" AND "The domestic class contradictions, which were deepened day by day, became the fundamental cause of the outbreak of the May Fourth Movement". I sadly don't know much of subject so I'm afraid to edit too much, but it still needs some serious editing. --CJWilly 20:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: just about everything
For the revision of this document, I propose total simplification. We should focus on the few key points that just about everyone should be able to agree on: May Fourth was DIRECTLY (of course there were other factors) protesting the WWI treaty.

May Fourth is claimed as the birth of modern Chinese political thought. Both the communists and nationalists claim its heritage.

May Fourth was predominantly student, but intellectuals from accross the board were all in attendance.

Yes, we can claim that this was a good starting point for the communist party, but it wasn't founded until much later, and merits its own article. Similarly, let's not spend so much time talking about nationalist/communist rivalries and tendencies in an article about MAY FOURTH. ie, we don't need to know from this article that the much later communist revolution (completed 30 years later) was part of a worldwide proletarian movement.

I see most of this article's controversy stemming from points that are not directly relevant to the specific event this article is about. There's my two cents. Xiefei

I do not think we need a revision, but we need to splice the article up into Chinese Communist view, English Imperialist View, American Hegemonic view etc to show each individual histories with their biais and what sense they are trying to make of these events. People who object this version and add sarcastic comments about the lack of English fluency fail to see that 1 billion of the earth's population hold this view. Perhaps the critics need to learn Mandarin instead, rather than imposing their bigoted Imperialist view on other countries. European colonialism is after all, rather dead, and needs to be cremated.

 * I just have to point out that those 1 billion people could be dead wrong, too! Elliott C. Bäck 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the following website does a pretty good job of explaining it: http://www.answers.com/topic/may-fourth-movement. It is from Columbia University Press. Wikipedia should look into it as an alternative.

"This whole article is terrible, I can't understand how Wikipedia has allowed it onto their site."

It is ironic that you complain about the writer's English skils, when your first sentence already contains a plethora of basic ESL errors. (ex. comma splice, misused article )

May Fourth Movement or New Culture Movement?
The New Culture Movement a.k.a the May Fourth Movement is generally acknowledged to have happened in the years 1916-23. Why so? and what happend in 1919? The beginning is marked with the emergence of the magazine "Xin Qingnian" or in the subtitle "La Jeunesse" in summer 1915. why not say the New Culture Movement began earlier? "The Tiger" or "Jiayin Zazhi" was a most influential magazine during the Yuan Shikai-Era. The difference is The Tiger, even though liberal-minded, was much more concerned with political and institutional matters of republicanism whereas the "New Youth" was more concerned with cultural preconditions of republicanism. In other words: It was concerned with how to make the chinese fit for democracy and get the "dust" of monarchical and confucian thought out of their heads. The first issues article: "Call to Youth" proclaimed "Be independant not servile. progressive not concervative. aggressive not retiring. cosmopolitan not isolationist. utalitarian not formalistic. scientific not imaginative."

The May 4th. demonstrations were exactly that - demonstrations. Against Imperialism, japanese agression. You name it. Afterwards the movement got this second name. During the last years of the movement(1919-23), before marxism-leninism became predominent in intellectual circles there was a shift towards a more pragmatic thinking. The building of houses for Mr.De and Mr.Sai (science and democracy) and the ridicule of "Confucius and Sons, Inc." seemed to have shown some results and other ways were sought. It is interesting to see that Communism provided answers for some essencial questions: It replaced confucian historiography with its own and proved an important tool for critque on imperialism. Communism came from the west and thus helped to relief some of the tensions that reformers had to deal with, standing between the lines of powerpolitics of either side and enlightenment (western style). It might be said that May 4th. demonstrations marked a turningpoint. however it cannot, in my opinion, be solely seen as anti-imperialist, nationalist. It was also giving air to the disappointment with would-be enlightened westerners. (Wilson did oppose the Japanese at first but was persuaded later). [please excuse spelling or grammatical errors; also I wrote most of it out of memory, and am of course open to criticism]

 * New Culture Movement currently redirects here. I don't think we'd want to rename the present article, since the name "May Fourth Movement" is very well known. But if you have sources that distinguish the two terms, you could expand the present article, or, if it becomes too long, write a stand-alone article on the New Culture Movement. --MarkSweep 19:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I dont have specific sources to back this up... just previously read reference materials. The May Fourth Movement and the New Culture Movement are istinctly seperate. The May Fourth Movement was a Movement of large-scale protest. Although it had its roots in western thought, it itself was not a intellectual movement. Founded by western-oriented intellectuals in Beijing, the New Culture Movment was a movement of evolving Chinese ideas, pulling many influences from a variety of Western ideologies. The New Culture Movement gave birth to intellectuals such as Hu Shih and the future leader of China, Mao Zedong. The New Culture Movement found its roots in the rebellion of the May Fourth Period, but was not itself a period of rebellion. The May Fourth Movement and New Culture Movement are clearly seperate ideas (and by extension, they should be seperate pages!) that both deserve the attention of an expert. Branman515 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why rubbish????
As an American History scholar currently studying Chinese history, if anything the only reason this article is rubbish is because it does not cover the socialist angle and commmunist influence enough. It also barely talks about the anti-imperialist mood of the time, not only concerning the Japanese, but the past one hundred years of Western involvement. (English, European, and U.S.-all seen as imperialist countries.) After the revolution in 1912, China was basically without leadership and a government. In contrast, Russia had a revolution and then set up a socialist government-- a brand new concept and something never tried before. The Chinese scholars that led the May 4th movement had been publishing socialist/anti-imperialist literature for over 20 years and the Russian experiment must have been very exciting. Even in the United States the Socialist party was very popular until the US government began arresting its members for not supporting America's involvement in W.W.I. They even had the Socialist Party candidate, Eugene Debs, thrown in prison for speaking out against the war. He still received over a million votes while locked up. In other words, the period of time that the May 4th movement took place was very different than the world we see today. The socialist revolution in Russia had not been taken over by dictators such as Lenin and Stalin, who refused to give up power once they received it. In addition no one knew that Chairman Mao would do the same thing in China--retain power and favor Stalinism over Trotsky. Marxist theory dictated that once the revolution had started, the leaders of the revolution would then relinquish power to the workers. A step that the world has never seen or happened before, but to the May 4th revolutionists, a step that they would have been familiar with and anticipated at the time. This is not Communist propaganda, just history as it was. I think they did a pretty good job of covering the event except for the obvious US bias, that everything centers around the US. Remember that the Socialists of the early 20th century believed that instead of waiting to get to heaven to have everything equal, that they could set up a "heaven on earth." That all people should have equal shares and equal rights. What's wrong with that? Jesus would definately have been a Socialist in today's world. I can't see him living in a big house, driving an SUV, and refusing to help his neighbors, let alone killing them to take their resources. (remember what he did to the money changers in the church and the comment about the eye of the needle....)

yeah the article reads really bad, I'll do what I can to fix it. BlueShirts 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The US had very little to do with it
The US had very little to do with any of this. The most that can be said about US imperialistic behavior in China was extra-territoriality (which was understandable given the feudal Qing laws and judicial system when it was established). Unlike the other foreign powers, the US gave its "reparations" from the Boxer Rebellion back to China in the form of building infrastructure within China; in effect, transferring those funds from the corrupt Qing to the Chinese people.

Really? You need to source that.Subotai

 * Indeed. The American part of the foreign extortion from China, after the joint foreign suppression of the Chinese rebellion, was spent on the building of institutions in China and Manhattan for the teaching of American views to Chinese students. There is no reason or evidence to suppose that missionary schools established by foreigners with the Chinese extortion money were in any respect superior to those being created by the Chinese on their own.
 * Loh Diwei (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the Fourteen Points and other precepts is that the US never followed through. Later, the US would think that giving military support to the KMT (in opposition to what the US saw as USSR aggression in the form of the CCP) constituted support for Chinese "self-determination." Many Americans saw China's civil as being between "nationalist" (a literal translation of KMT) China against Stalin's slaves; a completely incorrect but widespread belief.

The US role in this part of China's history is best seen not as bad guys, but of repeated missed opportunities and complete failure to understand what was going on in China. There were numerous missed opportunities on the Chinese side as well, but that is of a later context than the May 4th movement.

 * I changed the sentence about Wilson's incapacity and US isolationism. First, Wilson's stroke occurred around October 2, 1919, so this cannot be a cause for his failure to promote his 14 points at the conference which ended June 28, 1919.  Second, US isolationism was a politically-motivated justification for the Senate's rejection of the Versailles treaty.  If US isolationism is true, then how does one explain US involvement in the Washington Naval Conference, the Dawes Plan, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, or Young Plan, and other foreign adventures of the US during the 1920s? --RedJ 17 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See the Monroe Doctrine. The Jade Knight 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations
The May Fourth Movement was very similar to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China. They are an excellent example of how history repeats itself. Many historians see parallels between the demonstrations in Beijing in 1919 and in 1989. The May Fourth Movement happened exactly 70 years and 1 month before the demonstration and massacre in June 4th, 1989. Both demonstrations were held by people who wanted democracy in China. Both demonstrations failed to bring democracy to China. It is a sad pity that two attempts in which ordinary people protested for democracy and tried to bring it to China failed.
 * Oh, believe in what you like. History is always more complex than views of fundamentalists. For one, concepts never translate into people's minds perfectly, especially foreign and distant concepts. For two, people seldom know what they want, but are often induced into fervour of various kinds, like a desire for the national might. It seems that most of all people want people around them to be like-minded to them on many issues that they do not even consciously understand, because that heightens their feeling of “living in a home”. - 91.122.13.34 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

May 4 in which calendar?
Can anyone comment on which calendar (Chinese or Gregorian) was in effect in Beijing at the time? Capybara 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's in reference to the Gregorian calendar, which was officially adopted when the republic was started in 1912. Caorongjin 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

5000 years
The 5000 years figure is a political myth. The earliest archaelogical finding confirming the official record dates to the Shang dynasty in Anyang, and that is only 3000 years old. No written records have been found confirming the existence of the Xia dynasty. Usually, when we speak of "imperial China" we refer to the period between 221BC and 1912. (There has to be an "empire" ruled by an "emperor" for it to be "imperial"). The period before 221BC is "ancient China."

But I think this will all be irrelevant once I get to rewriting this article, which is in a sad state.--Jiang 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * On using a strict definition of "imperial", that's basically playing with semantics, and English semantics at that. But Chinese historical records do mention the Xia dynasty.  It's the first dynasty that was ever described.  However, yes, archaeologists do disagree on whether there is archaeological evidence to lend truth to its existence.  The purpose here should be to point out that China had been ruled by kings/emperors since the beginning of its civilisation.  How about a compromise?  I can think of two alternatives:
 * ...marking the end of 5,000 years of dynastic rule...
 * or
 * ...marking the end of thousands of years of imperial rule...
 * One thing I can easily agree with you on though, is that this article is in a sad state. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The word diguo did not enter the Chinese language until the 20th century and this is an English encyclopedia and we should expect readers to draw conclusions from whatever words we use.

The second is fine. The first implies that Shang and whatever was before it truly ruled over a realm encompassing the present China proper. There is no evidence to suggest that Shang rulers controlled much outside of Anyang and much to suggest that it interacted with societies in close proximity that were very culturally different from itself. I am hesitant to assign a specific date as to when the dynastic system began. Erlitou surely had a stratified society, but do we know whether it was dynastic? I think this whole issue should be left for another article. We're talking 20th century here... --Jiang 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, if you're talking about what dynasty ruled over a "realm encompassing the present China proper", the answer would be, none of them, or maybe Qing would be the only one. As for dynastic rule, if we're to count Shang as the part of Chinese history that came before Zhou, then I think we'd have to consider Shang and Zhou as two distinct dynasties because Zhou definitively replaced Shang.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the dynastic timeline to the right of the article, The correct order is "Qin, Western Han, Eastern Han." It currently has "Qin, Han, Western Han." Must have been a simple mistake.

Opposition to the May Fourth movement - Cultural movement
I think we should add a section on oppositions to the cultural side of the May Fourth movement. Academics with a negative view towards the cultural arm include Lin Shu, Xiong Shili, New Confucians including Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan, Chien Mu (who are now all deceased) etc, and up until 1985 it was still fairly common to hear Hong Kong's Chinese History teachers at schools who criticized the movement as far as Chinese culture is concerned. Nowadays it seems the opposition voice is on an ebb with not many living persons denouncing the movement. I can only count Hsu Cho-yun, Yu Ying-shih, and To Kit as prominent examples as at 2007.

It will be nice if anyone can find more information on these areas and add a section on Critics of the May Fourth movement. --JNZ 10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

...This is not a stub anymore, right?

Sorry if this post is off topic, not a wikipedian.

76.202.60.62 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Need inline citations
I know that it would take a lot of efforts to convert this article to inline citations. However, without it, it is difficult to perform fact checking, as well as picking out parts that are WP:OR. This flag is added not to judge the quality of the article, but to point out the deficiency in the area of references. Coconut99 99 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

May Fourth // New Culture?
Since the New Culture Movement came first, wouldn't it be better to have a separate article or at least have May Fourth Movement as a section of the New Culture article? This article is confusing because it starts in 1919, then just mentions New Culture as a section. Many important things are left out and there are many mistakes (eg Lu Xun was not a novelist, he was not the first to write in the vernacular, and True Story of Ah Q was not a book, but a short story).

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see the merge discussed on this page. Was the discussion someplace else? ch (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some user merged May 4th and New culture movement into the same article. They are not the same and caused confusion.  I just undid the changes. Benjwong (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong's move and comment seem right to me, so I tried to clear up the confusion by rearranging and tightening. These two articles still need more work, both in filling out and in editing for style and smoothness. ch (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of 德
As per the dictionary that I use (the Big Chinese-Russian Dictionary by Oshanin), 德 means something like “good morality”, not “democracy” as a "rule by people" (whatever the latter means on any specific occasion). I. e. there is no reason to merge it either with the American concept that is most commonly associated with the word nowadays, or with any other concept that comes to be associated with that concept in the post-Aristotle West. I don't know the details of what this concept meant among the Chinese intellectuals of that era (I even doubt that it should have acquired any definite meaning), but I think the translation should underline the difference whatever it might have been. “Mr. Democracy” sounds like Bush deliviring a speech to the Senate over a religion that all people in the world are obliged to want to accept, and do what they want… - 91.122.13.34 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The characters De and Sai were chosen for their sound, not their meaning, that is, "Mr De" was "Mr De mocracy," and "Mr. Sai" was "Mr. Sci ence." ch (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:May Fourth Movement


text:
Mass of Paul VI

The Mass of Paul VI, also known as the Ordinary Form or Novus Ordo, is the most commonly used liturgy in the Catholic Church. It was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 and its liturgical books were published in 1970; those books were then revised in 1975, they were revised again by Pope John Paul II in 2000, and a third revision was published in 2002.

It largely displaced the Tridentine Mass, the final edition of which had been published in 1962 under the title Missale Romanum ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum ('The Roman Missal restored by decree of the Most Holy Council of Trent'). The editions of the Mass of Paul VI Roman Missal (1970, 1975, 2002) have as title Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum ('The Roman Missal renewed by decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican'), followed in the case of the 2002 edition by auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum ('promulgated by the authority of Pope Paul VI and revised at the direction of Pope John Paul II').

Names
In its official documents, the Catholic Church identifies the forms of the Roman Rite Mass by the editions of the Roman Missal used in celebrating them. Thus Pope Benedict XVI referred to this form of the Roman Rite Mass by linking it, in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007, with "the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970" or, in his accompanying letter of the same date to the bishops of the church, "the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II".

The now less frequently used names 'Mass of Paul VI' and 'Pauline Mass' refer to Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the first edition (which was followed by later editions promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

In his letter to bishops which accompanied his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI wrote that "the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy." Since then, the term Ordinary Form (abbreviated OF) is used to distinguish this form of the Roman Rite of Mass from the 1962 edition of the Tridentine Mass, the Extraordinary Form (EF), because in his motu proprio Pope Benedict declared the latter an "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite. Pope Francis further emphasized the importance of the Ordinary Form in this capacity with his 2021 motu proprio Traditionis custodes, referring to it as "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."

Text
The current official text in Latin is that in the third typical edition of the Roman Missal, published in 2002 and reprinted with corrections and updating in 2008. Translations into the vernacular languages have appeared; the current English translation was promulgated in 2010 and was introduced progressively from September 2011. Two earlier typical editions of the Missal were issued in 1970 (promulgated in 1969) and 1975. The liturgy contained in the 1570–1962 editions of the Roman Missal is frequently referred to as the Tridentine Mass: all these editions placed at the start the text of the papal bull Quo primum in which Pope Pius V linked the issuance of his edition of the Roman Missal to the Council of Trent. Only in the 1962 edition is this text preceded by a short decree, Novo rubricarum corpore, declaring that edition to be, from then on, the typical edition, to which other printings of the Missal were to conform.

The Roman Missal promulged by John Paul II differs in many points from that promulged by Paul VI. The changes include the addition of 13 new feasts of saints, a new preface of martyrs, several new Mass formulas, including five of the Blessed Virgin Mary, two votive Masses (one of which was taken from the 1962 Roman Missal), and complete formulas for the ferial days of Advent and Eastertide. Prayers over the faithful are added to the Lenten Mass formulas and the Apostles' Creed is provided as an alternative to the Nicene Creed. The Mass of Paul VI thus became the Mass of Paul VI and John Paul II.

Liturgical Movement
The Liturgical Movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which arose from the work of Dom Prosper Guéranger, a former abbot of Solesmes Abbey, encouraged the laity to live the liturgy by attending services (not only Mass) often, understanding what they meant, and following the priest in heart and mind.

Beginnings of the modern revision, 1948–1962
Liturgical reforms took place under Pius XII, specially in 1955, when the liturgy of Holy Week was reformed.

Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium and a new liturgy
The liturgy was the first matter considered by the Second Vatican Council of 1962–1965. On 4 December 1963, the Council issued a Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy known as Sacrosanctum Concilium, section 50 of which read as follows:

"The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary."

Sacrosanctum Concilium further provided that (amongst other things) a greater use of the Scriptures should be made at Mass, communion under both kinds for the laity (under limited circumstances), and that vernacular languages should be more widely employed (while retaining the use of Latin), a declaration whose implementation made the Second Vatican Council "a milestone for Catholic, Protestants, [and] the Orthodox".

In 1964, Pope Paul VI, who had succeeded John XXIII the previous year, established the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, the Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The instruction Inter oecumenici of 26 September 1964, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites while the Council was still in session, and coming into effect on 7 March 1965 made significant changes to the existing liturgy. The 1967 document Tres abhinc annos, the second instruction on the implementation of the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, made only minimal changes to the text, but simplified the rubrics and the vestments. Concelebration and Communion under both kinds had meanwhile been permitted.

By October 1967, the Consilium had produced a complete draft revision of the Mass liturgy, known as the Normative Mass, and this revision was presented to the Synod of Bishops that met in Rome in that month. The bishops attended the first public celebration of the revised rite in the Sistine Chapel. When asked to vote on the new liturgy, 71 bishops voted placet ('approved'), 43 voted non-placet ('not approved'), and 62 voted placet iuxta modum ('approved with reservations'). In response to the bishops' concerns, some changes were made to the text. Pope Paul VI and the Consilium interpreted this as lack of approval for the Normative Mass, which was replaced by the text included in the book Novus Ordo Missae (The New Order of Mass) in 1969.

On 25 September 1969, two retired cardinals, 79-year-old Alfredo Ottaviani and 84-year-old Antonio Bacci, wrote a letter with which they sent Pope Paul VI the text of the "Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass". The cardinals warned the New Order of the Mass "represented, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". The study that they transmitted said that on many points the New Mass had much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant. Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the document contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false". However, some of its observations were taken into account in preparing the definitive version of the new Order of the Mass. In 1974, Annibale Bugnini announced that the Novus Ordo Missae was "a major conquest of the Roman Catholic Church." Ottaviani would later acknowledge his satisfaction with the new missal after reassurance by Paul VI in a letter dated February 17, 1970.

Paul VI's publication of the 1970 Missal
Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised rite of Mass with his apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, setting the first Sunday of Advent at the end of that year as the date on which it would enter into force. However, because he was dissatisfied with the edition that was produced, the revised Missal itself was not published until the following year, and full vernacular translations appeared much later.

The revisions called for by Vatican II were guided by historical and Biblical studies that were not available at the Council of Trent when the rite was fixed to forestall any heretical accretions. Missale Romanum made particular mention of the following significant changes from the previous edition of the Roman Missal:

 * "Other elements that have suffered injury through accident of history" are restored "to the tradition of the Fathers" (SC art. 50), for example, the homily (see SC art. 52), the general intercessions or prayer of the faithful (see SC art. 53), and the penitential rite or act of reconciliation with God and the community at the beginning of the Mass.
 * The proportion of the Bible read at Mass was greatly increased, although some verses included in the older readings have been omitted in the new. Before the reforms of Pius XII, which reduced the proportions further, 1% of the Old Testament and 16.5% of the New Testament had been read at Mass. Since 1970, the equivalent proportions for Sundays and weekdays (leaving aside major feasts) have been 13.5% of the Old Testament and 71.5% of the New Testament.

Vernacular language
In his 1962 apostolic constitution Veterum sapientia on the teaching of Latin, Pope John XXIII spoke of that language as the one the church uses: "The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular." However, the only mention of the liturgy in that document was in relation to the study of Greek.

The Second Vatican Council stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36:

"# Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
 * 1) But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
 * 2) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language."

Three new Eucharistic Prayers
As noted above, three new Eucharistic Prayers were introduced as alternatives to the Roman Canon (known as "Eucharistic Prayer I" within the missal), which had for 1,600 years been the only Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Rite. After Sacrosanctum concilium, between the years 1963 and 1968 there were private initiatives by liberal reformers to either revise the Roman Canon, or to create new Eucharistic Prayers. Hans Küng and Karl Amon both published articles demanding this. In addition, the Bishops' Conference of the Netherlands under Johannes Bluyssen, around 1965–1966, did not wait for the Canon to be permitted in the vernacular and started experimenting with their own translations and adding new "Eucharistic Prayers", then asking for permission from Rome to do so after the fact, causing political pressure. Benedictine member of the Consilium Cipriano Vagaggini, while noting what he called the Roman Canon's "undeniable defects", concluded that its suppression was unthinkable; he proposed that it be retained but that two further Eucharistic Prayers be added. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 1969 states that the "Eucharistic Prayer I" (the Roman Canon) may always be used, including on Sundays, but it rarely is in local diocesan parishes since 1969–1970.

In response to requests from various quarters, Pope Paul VI authorized the composition of new Eucharistic Prayers, which were examined by himself and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and which he authorized for use in 1968.

The original Bugnini draft, drawing from the skeleton which is typically thought to be the lost Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolitus but is also considered to be of later, non-Roman origin, would have excluded even the Sanctus and the intercessions. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 1969 states that Eucharistic Prayer II is "useful on weekdays."

The Third Eucharistic Prayer's structure follows the Roman Canon. It is based on the 4th-century Anaphora of St Basil. Both the Third and Fourth Eucharistic Prayers were created by Cipriano Vagaggini of the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm at Rome in 1966.

Communion under both species
A council at Lambeth in 1281 directed that the people were to be given unconsecrated wine. The Council of Trent taught that only the priest who celebrated Mass was bound by divine law to receive Communion under both species, and that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone, and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation; and it decreed: "If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema." While the Council had declared that reception of Communion under one form alone deprived the communicant of no grace necessary to salvation, the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia states theologians had surmised that receiving both forms may confer a greater grace, either in itself (a minority view) or only accidentally (the majority view).

Liturgical orientation

The Tridentine Missal speaks of celebrating versus populum, and gives corresponding instructions for the priest when performing actions that in the other orientation involved turning around in order to face the people.

In The Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) attributed to the influence of Saint Peter's Basilica the fact that other churches in Rome are built with the apse to the west and also attributed to topographical circumstances that arrangement for Saint Peter's. However, the arrangement whereby the apse with the altar is at the west end of the church and the entrance on the east is found also in Roman churches contemporary with Saint Peter's (such as the original Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls) that were under no such constraints of terrain, and the same arrangement remained the usual one until the 6th century. In this early layout, the people were situated in the side aisles of the church, not in the central nave. While the priest faced both the altar and east throughout the Mass, the people would face the altar (from the sides) until the high point of the Mass, where they would then turn to face east along with the priest.

In its guidelines for the arrangement of churches, the current Roman Missal directs: "The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible." The English also states that both the construction of the altar away from the wall and the celebration versus populum are "desirable wherever possible." A 2000 statement by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated that "There is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church." However, it is possible the GIRM which was promulgated 10 days after this statement has superseded it.

The rubrics of the Roman Missal now prescribe that the priest should face the people at six points of the Mass. The priest celebrating the Tridentine Mass was required to face the people, turning his back to the altar if necessary, eight times.

Repositioning of the tabernacle
The revised Roman Missal states that it is "more appropriate as a sign that on an altar on which Mass is celebrated there not be a tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved", in which case it is "preferable that the tabernacle be located":

 * Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in an appropriate form and place, not excluding its being positioned on an old altar no longer used for celebration;
 * Or in some chapel suitable for the private adoration and prayer of the faithful and organically connected to the church and readily noticeable to the Christian faithful.

The Missal does direct that the tabernacle be situated "in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, conspicuous, worthily decorated, and suitable for prayer".

Changes to the role of the deacon
In the usus antiquor (a.k.a. Tridentine Form) the liturgical role of the deacon was largely limited to his role in the missa solemnis (a.k.a.  the Solemn High Mass) and some rites in the Rituale Romanum. Furthermore, in the usus antiquor the deacon's role was rarely used apart from the subdeacon. In the Mass of Paul VI, the deacon was now to be included (if he was present), at any level of solemnity, and not just the solemn form of the Mass. Furthermore, it was often the practice in the usus antiquor, that the role of the deacon and subdeacon were filled by clerics who were actually ordained as priests or bishops (additionally, sometimes the subdeacon's role was performed by minor clerics who were not yet subdeacons, a practice called a straw subdeacon). However, the Missal of Paul VI required that the role of the deacon be filled by one who was, in fact, a deacon (and not a priest or bishop). This restriction of the role of the deacon to clerics who were, in fact, only deacons makes sense in light of the restoration of the Latin deaconate to a stable ministry – as opposed to the inherited practice of the deacon being almost entirely (except for a few, limited cases) a transitional phase in cursu honorum to the priesthood. Nonetheless, the practice of bishops and priests assuming the vestments and roles of deacons does continue in some papal ceremonies.

When the deacon proclaimed the Gospel at Mass, it was no longer proclaimed facing the side of the sanctuary, also known as liturgical North, (symbolizing the announcement of the Gospel to the unevangelized), but rather from the ambo towards the people. Furthermore, the priest no longer had to read the Gospel before the deacon proclaimed it, the subdeacon (being soon eliminated) no longer held the Book of the Gospels (a.k.a. Evangelium), and the Gospel no longer had to be sung by the deacon, but could (optionally) be read. Having been lost by the time of the Leonine Sacramentary in 560 A.D., the Oratio Universalis (a.k.a. Prayer of the Faithful) was restored to its former location after the Creed and before the Offertory (indicated in the usus antiquor by the priest turning immediately before the Offertory, and saying Oremus and the immediately proceeding to the Offertory), as a properly deacon's part. However, in practice the intentions in the Oratio Universalis are still commonly read by laypersons (sometimes even when deacons are present, contrary to directives). The Oratio Universalis may be sung in the style of a litany, with provided music in the 2002 Missale Romanum.

The deacon's duties at the Offertory also changed. Absent the subdeacon after 1972, the deacon was responsible for placing both the wine and the water into the chalice (instead of having the subdeacon place the water in the chalice). After presenting the chalice to the priest, the deacon formerly (in the usus antiquor) would support either the priest's arm or the base of the chalice and saying with the priest, "Offerimus tibi...", but in the Missal of Paul VI, the deacon presents the chalice to the priest, who offers it alone, saying "Benedictus Es..."

Changes to the subdeacon
From its promulgation in 1969 to 1972 the Mass of Paul VI had briefly included a subdeacon, whose task it was to "serve at the altar and to assist the priest and deacon. In particular he prepares the altar and the sacred vessels and reads the epistle." However, it was soon eliminated due to the suppression of subdeaconate by Pope Paul VI in 1972 in the motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam.

Other matters
A procession is now allowed at the Offertory or Presentation of the Gifts, when bread, wine, and water are brought to the altar. The homily has been made an integral part of the Mass instead of being treated as an adjunct, and the ancient Prayer of the Faithful has been restored. The exchange of a sign of peace before Communion, previously limited to the clergy at High Mass, is permitted (not made obligatory) at every Mass, even for the laity. "As for the actual sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. However, it is appropriate that each person, in a sober manner, offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest." (GIRM, 82.) "While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, The peace of the Lord be with you always, to which the reply is Amen" (GIRM, 154).

Criticism of the revision
There are two distinct forms of criticisms of the liturgical reform: criticisms of the text of the revised Missal and criticisms of ways in which the rite has been celebrated in practice.

Ottaviani Intervention
In 1969 Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci sent to Pope Paul VI a Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, commonly known as the "Ottaviani Intervention". In it, they described the new Missal as "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, as it was formulated by the Council of Trent". The mind behind the document is alleged to be theologian Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, who later became a sedeprivationist bishop and was excommunicated.

Pope Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the document contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false". Nonetheless, the contents of the Intervention were used by Paul VI to amend the Missal and remove the most controversial parts from it; Cardinal Ottaviani later stated to be satisfied by the amendments.

Other criticism
In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, said: "In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." As Pope Benedict, he later wrote: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."

The Society of Saint Pius X has argued that the promulgation of the revised liturgy was legally invalid due to alleged technical deficiencies in the wording of Missale Romanum. However, the Society has later stated that the Mass of Paul VI is valid, though illicit.

Revision of the English translation
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy worked for 17 years on a new translation, presented in 1998, formed in response to critiques of the earlier translation. However, their proposed translation ran afoul of new leadership in Rome. On 28 March 2001, the Holy See issued the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, including the requirement that, in translations of the liturgical texts from the official Latin originals, "the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet." The following year, the third typical edition of the revised Roman Missal in Latin was released.

In 2002 the leadership of the ICEL was changed, under insistence from the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship and to obtain a translation that was as close as possible to the wording of the Latin original. In spite of push-back by some in the church, Rome prevailed and nine years later a new English translation, closer to that of the Latin and consequently approved by the Holy See, was adopted by English-speaking episcopal conferences.

Most episcopal conferences set the first Sunday in Advent (27 November) 2011 as the date when the new translation would come into use. However, the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland) put into effect the changes in the people's parts of the revised English translation of the Order of Mass from 28 November 2008, when the Missal as a whole was not yet available. Protests were voiced on grounds of content  and because it meant that Southern Africa was thus out of line with other English-speaking areas. One bishop claimed that the English-speaking conferences should have withstood the Holy See's insistence on a more literal translation. However, when in February 2009 the Holy See declared that the change should have waited until the whole of the Missal had been translated, the bishops' conference appealed, with the result that those parishes that had adopted the new translation of the Order of Mass were directed to continue using it, while those that had not were told to await further instructions before doing so.

In December 2016, Pope Francis authorized a commission to study Liturgiam authenticam, the document promulgated by Pope John Paul II which governs authorized vernacular translations of the liturgy.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mass of Paul VI


text:
Riccardo Giacconi

Riccardo Giacconi (, ; October 6, 1931 – December 9, 2018) was an Italian-American Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist who laid down the foundations of X-ray astronomy. He was a professor at the Johns Hopkins University.

Biography
Born in Genoa, Italy, Giacconi received his Laurea from the Physics Department of University of Milan before moving to the US to pursue a career in astrophysics research. In 1956, his Fulbright Fellowship led him to go to the United States to collaborate with physics professor R. W. Thompson at Indiana University.

Since cosmic X-ray radiation is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, space-based telescopes are needed for X-ray astronomy. Applying himself to this problem, Giacconi worked on the instrumentation for X-ray astronomy; from rocket-borne detectors in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to Uhuru, the first orbiting X-ray astronomy satellite, in the 1970s. Giacconi's pioneering research continued in 1978 with the Einstein Observatory, the first fully imaging X-ray telescope put into space, and later with the Chandra X-ray Observatory, which was launched in 1999 and is still in operation. Giacconi also applied his expertise to other fields of astronomy, becoming the first permanent director (1981-1993) of the Space Telescope Science Institute (the science operations center for the Hubble Space Telescope), followed by Director General of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) from 1993 to 1999, overseeing the construction of the Very Large Telescope, then President of Associated Universities, Inc. (1999-2004) managing the early years of the ALMA array.

Giacconi was awarded a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2002 "for pioneering contributions to astrophysics, which have led to the discovery of cosmic X-ray sources". The other shares of the Prize in that year were awarded to Masatoshi Koshiba and Raymond Davis, Jr. for neutrino astronomy.

Giacconi held the positions of professor of physics and astronomy (1982–1997) and research professor (from 1998 to his death in 2018) at Johns Hopkins University, and was a university professor. During the 2000s he was principal investigator for the major Chandra Deep Field-South project with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Giacconi died on December 9, 2018.

Honors and awards

 * Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy (1966)
 * Member of the National Academy of Sciences (1971)
 * Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1971)
 * Bruce Medal (1981)
 * Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1981)
 * Heineman Prize (1981)
 * Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1982)
 * Wolf Prize in Physics (1987)
 * Member of the American Philosophical Society (2001)
 * Nobel Prize in Physics (2002)
 * National Medal of Science (2003)
 * Asteroid 3371 Giacconi

title: Riccardo Giacconi


text:
Talk:United States Atomic Energy Commission

Abolition of the AEC
I found a reference for the first sentence of the paragraph discussing the abolition of the AEC, "By 1974, the AEC’s regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish AEC." I am having some trouble with the correct citation format, but the URL is http://rampac.energy.gov/docs/DOE%20PCH/PCP-09.pdf if someone else would be interested in adding it for that sentence. Thanks. Ichabod313 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I cannot find a specific reference to this, my father was at the AEC during formation of ERDA. A very strong influence on that decision was that the AEC was the only government agency with experience working with the oil companies to increase domestic oil and gas production. This had been one of the key projects for the AEC's Plowshare program, which was developing civilian applications for atomic energy (reactors, nuclear excavation, and fracturing rock strata). The AEC was the perfect agency to lead the US in responding to the Arab Oil Embargo.Bdavy92960 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I reviewed this article as part of a class peer review. This article is very well researched and displays the information in an unbiased way. I think one of the strengths to this article is that the use of hyperlinks to other articles are abundant, and allow for easy further reading or research on specific subjects. The sections seem to all relate to the article and in doing so follow the outline of the lead section. With that said while there are strong points in the history section I think that it would be helpful to use some subheadings. Because you have it organized in a chronological way perhaps it would be useful to use dates as the subheadings. This would helpful to someone looking for quick information in a particular time period.

In addition I love the section on how the AEC played a role in expanding Arctic ecology. It is very useful and certainly pertains to the overall impact of the AEC but it may be better organized into a subheading or perhaps it’s own heading.

This article uses a multitude of of great resources but it may also be helpful to use reference names so that the resources section does not list the same source over and over.

Overall great job!

JessicaCmaguire (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)JessicaCmaguireJessicaCmaguire (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article is very well written and very informational; thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. First of all, I believe that the lead section is a strong point of this article. The lead section gives a great summary of the history of the AEC while not going into too much detail on any one matter. Although I thought the lead section was well done, I believe that in comparison to the article as a whole, the ecology part of the lead section was possibly too long and could be condensed.

Also, I like the organization and flow of this article. The AEC Chair section was convenient and easy to read, and the pictures were helpful and placed in the correct location. However, I do believe that the history section of the article is in need of subheadings. Subheadings would make it easier to find certain points in the history of the AEC, and it would improve the appearance of the article. Subheadings that I believe would make sense would be a “public opinion” subheading. This could explain the ecological problems you discuss.

By the nature of this article, I believe that it was wise to focus the article on the history of the AEC. Additionally, I thought the section on ecology was creative and useful, as many people may not know the effect the AEC had on the history of ecology. Finally, although I thought the history section was useful, I believe to balance the article further, the article could touch on the lasting impact of the AEC Hopefully this section would allow readers to see what the AEC meant to future generations.

The AEC was obviously a controversial commission as most subjects dealing with nuclear energy. I believe that this article does an excellent job of presenting the facts of the AEC without favoring any view – the ecology aspect of the article highlights important positive aspects. However, I do question the neutrality of the sections discussing experiments done by the AEC. Did any good come of the experiments conducted? If so, it would improve the neutrality of the article if these were highlighted.

The references used for this article are high quality. Also, the interspersed use of different articles throughout each section improves the quality of this article. I noticed, however, that there are several important facts that “need citations”; this would further improve the quality of the article.

Overall this is a very well done article. Great work. Gtn001 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a very strong, well-researched article. The lead-in section provides a clear overview of the article with important, basic information on the AEC. Although the lead-in section is includes many needed details, I thought it could be condensed a little more. For example, I think it could be shortened by getting rid of a few things, such as the examples of the AEC's techniques used for ecological research. Although definitely needed for the article, I think this could be saved for a later section.

The structure of the article is well-organized and logical. The article describes important, interesting details about the AEC's history and its relationship with ecology and other sciences. However, these sections are both fairly long, and could maybe be broken up into subsections so that readers can more easily find something specific they may be looking for. The coverage of the article is well-balanced between these two main sections, but could maybe use more detail in the Reports section. I wonder if it might be possible to give some sort of explanation or examples of what the AEC's reports were about. Overall, though, the structure and content of the article is executed very well.

The content of the article also appears to be neutral. I could not detect any biases, as the author discusses both good aspects of the AEC and the work the organization did, as well as criticisms and controversies surrounding the agency. The article also has a long list of sources, which appear to be reliable. There are a number of various publications listed as well as government websites which gives details into the AEC and its work. Great job with your research and writing!! Ashleyweir (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment
The United States' Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was responsible for creating the Atomic Energy Commission.

The Atomic Energy Commission was specifically established to maintain civilian government control over the field of atomic research and development. During the early Cold War Years, the Commission focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ended exclusive government use of the atom and began the growth of the commercial nuclear power industry, giving the Atomic Energy Commission authority to regulate the new industry.

In response to changing needs in the mid 1970's, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created two new agencies: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate the nuclear power industry and the Energy Research and Development Administration to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs.

May-Johnson Bill
Probably the May-Johnson bill or May-Johnson Bill, precursor to the McMahon Act, deserves attention in this article. Our Andrew J. May and Edwin C. Johnson bios don't mention it either. History Detectives did a segment on the opposition to the M-J B, in the new episode aired this week. "I'm curious whether those who created the document in the segment were closely connected with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", as they'd say on the show. --Jerzy•t 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Chariot
I think this article should at least mention project chariot. 72.42.134.253 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AEC Flagship
Should be mention of the United States claiming all radioactive material on or in the entire World as its own and that the AEC's flagship was to own it all, including all of the irradiated People on Earth due to the many nuclear detonations that were or would be accomplished. Isn't it nice being their slave People?216.215.40.65 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Suggestions for this article !
As I read the article, I was looking for at least some information about where is this located. There is no information about it in the lead section of this article. I think the article does a good job in summarizing the key points that described in this article. Although the structure is clear in this article, I should say that history has given more importance which make the article little imbalanced. I think the article is one sided because it only talks about. I personally think that article was biased, but disposal and storage of nuclear waste remains could have been an important issue to talk about in this article. In addition to that, I was expecting to see some more pictures about the actual infrastructure of the commission could added more substance to the article. There are 7 to 8 places where references are lacking ! Abue.chowdhury (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Resources for Future Improvements
Bibliography for Future Research

Allardice, Corbin, and Edward R. Trapnell. The Atomic Energy Commission. New York: Praeger, 1974.

Ford, Daniel F.. The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission. University of California: Simon & Schuster, 1982.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Oscar E. Anderson. A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962.

Hacker, Barton C.. Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947-1974. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Jack M. Holl. Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Matchette, Robert B.. "Records of the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC]." National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/326.html (accessed February 23, 2014).

Seaborg, Glenn Theodore, and Benjamin S. Loeb. The Atomic Energy Commission under Nixon: adjusting to troubled times. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.

University of Wisconsin Press. "Atomic Energy Commission." International Organization 1.1 (1947): 99-102. Print.

Wolfe, John N.. "National Agency Programs and Support of Arctic Biology in the United States: Atomic Energy Commission." BioScience 14, no. 5 (1964): 22-25.

Srk017 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead Section Outline
The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was an agency of the United States government established after World War II by Congress to foster and control the peace time development of atomic science and technology. President Harry S. Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective from January 1, 1947. Public Law 585, 79th Congress. This shift gave the first members of the AEC complete control of the plants, laboratories, equipment, and personnel assembled during the war to produce the atomic bomb. (Hewlett and Anderson)

During its’ initial establishment and subsequent operationalization, the AEC played a key role in the institutional development of Ecosystem ecology. Specifically, it provided crucial financial resources, allowing for ecological research to take place. (Hagen) Perhaps even more importantly, it enabled ecologists with a wide range of groundbreaking techniques for the completion of their research. One of these techniques involved the use of radiation, namely in ecological dating and to study the effects of stresses on the environment. (Hagen) In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the AEC also approved funding for numerous bio-environmental projects in the Arctic and near-Arctic. These projects were designed to examine the effects of nuclear energy upon the environment and were a part of the Commission’s attempt at creating peaceful applications of atomic energy. (Wolfe)

An increasing number of critics during the 1960s charged that the AEC's regulations were insufficiently rigorous in several important areas, including radiation protection standards, nuclear reactor safety, plant siting, and environmental protection. By 1974, the AEC's regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency. The agency was abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which assigned its functions to two new agencies: the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, which created the Department of Energy. The new agency assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and programs of various other agencies.

Srk017 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph indicates what I will be most focusing on adding to the article in the future. While I will be adding some information about the history of the Commission and some of its' lasting impacts, I will mainly be focusing on the AEC in regard to how it further aided the development of ecology.

Some other comments
Hello User: Srk017! Thank you for your work in expanding this article, and especially the detail of the AEC's relationship with ecology and other sciences. This is a wonderful and much needed addition. You have received some comments from your peers on structure and organization, and I think those are worth thinking about and responding to. I also think that if you title the section "Ecology and the other sciences" it would be helpful to state clearly what other sciences the AEC most impacted or had close relationships with. I also wanted to ask about some of the other sources you list in your bibliography, but which don't seem to appear here. First, you make very good use of Hagen's Entangled Bank and (as other reviewers mention) do a nice job using internal links for major ecologists like Odum and sites like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Now having just read the article, I can't recall if you detail the new technique of isotope tracing that was a major development from the AEC for ecosystem ecology, or if you also detail the ways the AEC became embroiled with Environmental Impact Statements through nuclear power plant siting. Both of these issues would be good to expand upon. I also notice that Richard Hewlett's work was cited here in the article, but you have mentioned other sources of his that are not--his 1962 book A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and his 1989 book with Jack Holl Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961 Did you find those books useful for adding information to the history section? Keep up the good work! --Enstandrew (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Human Experimentation
Just wondering about the section on radiation experiments conducted on newborns, foetuses and towns? It appears to all be sourced from a single publication by Andrew Goliszek, which seems to have received criticism for a lack of supporting evidence and citations (at least re:radiation experimentation). It smacks of conspiracy theory hubris, and I wonder if the section should be included without any extra sources.14.201.115.190 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 * It's just a sentence, not a section, but agree that if the comments in the book are disputed we should know about it. Can you cite specific criticisms? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"History"…
Weird. A History section where the first two paragraphs mention not a _single_ actual date. Not even a year. WP *is* a joke. (Feel free to delete, you will anyway) --jae (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Agreed, writen by those with PR intentions, most of the time ...it's hard to know where to begin. People just want notable facts, not opinions.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusing reference
Reference #8 (in the lede, after "peaceful applications of atomic energy") links to two different documents. Only the second matches the author/title/date given. Has the first link been added in error? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed -- many errors
This article contains a number of important errors in it. At some point I will try to contribute to rewriting it, but there is one that really needs to be flagged:

 * Within the AEC, high-level scientific and technical advice was provided by the General Advisory Committee, originally headed by J. Robert Oppenheimer. In its early years, the General Advisory Committee (GAC) made a number of controversial decisions, notably its decision against building the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), announced in 1949. As a result, U.S. Senator Brien McMahon prompted the decision not to reappoint J. Robert Oppenheimer to the GAC when his six-year statutory term expired in 1952. David Lilienthal, the AEC chairman, agreed with Oppenheimer, and he also opposed "a crash program to build the hydrogen bomb ahead of any other nation". Then President Truman asked Lilienthal to leave the AEC, and he did so on February 15, 1950. Lilienthal had been one of the original members of the AEC who granted Dr. Oppenheimer nuclear security clearances in 1947. With Oppenheimer and Lilienthal removed, President Truman announced his decision to develop and produce the hydrogen bomb.

I think calling what the GAC provided as "advice" sort of misses its role in the AEC system. The GAC was used by the AEC to chart out policy decisions on a wide variety of topics. Its main "controversial" decision was about the H-bomb, and it was not "announced" (it was secret). There were no decision not to reappointed Oppenheimer; he himself decided to resign (there was certainly bad blood, but laying that all on McMahon is wrong). Lilienthal was not asked by Truman to leave the AEC; he himself resigned out of other frustrations (not just the H-bomb, but lots of things). And it is pretty irrelevant to single Lilienthal out (of the entire AEC!) for granting Oppenheimer a clearance. Oppenheimer was still chair of the GAC and Lilienthal was still AEC Chairman when Truman announced the H-bomb development.

There are lots of other errors in the History section. In general it should be totally rewritten. A better approach, to my mind, would be a "prehistory" of the AEC (from the Bush, Conant, and Royall ideas through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as enacted into law), and then something that went through each of the Chairs that called out both the significant issues (like the H-bomb debate, the two-laboratory question, Atoms for Peace and civilian power, the relationship with the military), and then something on why it was dissolved. The current version is bizarre and scattershot, and relies WAY too much on Nichols, who was not a historian but was in fact an enemy of the AEC. (Hewlett is a much better source.) --NuclearSecrets (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


text:
Cultural resource management

In the broadest sense, cultural resource management (CRM) is the vocation and practice of managing heritage assets, and other cultural resources such as contemporary art. It incorporates Cultural Heritage Management which is concerned with traditional and historic culture. It also delves into the material culture of archaeology. Cultural resource management encompasses current culture, including progressive and innovative culture, such as urban culture, rather than simply preserving and presenting traditional forms of culture.

However, the broad usage of the term is relatively recent and as a result it is most often used as synonymous with heritage management. In the United States, cultural resources management is not usually diverse from the heritage context. The term is, "used mostly by archaeologists and much more occasionally by architectural historians and historical architects, to refer to managing historic places of archaeological, architectural, and historical interests and considering such places in compliance with environmental and historic preservation laws."

Cultural resources include both physical assets such as archaeology, architecture, paintings and sculptures and also intangible culture such as folklore and interpretative arts, such as storytelling and drama. Cultural resource managers are typically in charge of museums, galleries, theatres etc., especially those that emphasize culture specific to the local region or ethnic group. Cultural tourism is a significant sector of the tourism industry.

At a national and international level, cultural resource management may be concerned with larger themes, such as languages in danger of extinction, public education, the ethos or operation of multiculturalism, and promoting access to cultural resources. The Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity is an attempt by the United Nations to identify exemplars of intangible culture.

Background
Federal legislation had passed earlier in 1906 under the Antiquities Act, but it was not until the 1970s when the term "cultural resources" was coined by the National Park Service. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, commonly known as the Moss-Bennett Act, helped to fuel the creation of CRM. The National Park Service defines cultural resources as being "Physical evidence or place of past human activity: site, object, landscape, structure; or a site, structure, landscape, object or natural feature of significance to a group of people traditionally associated with it."

Cultural resource management applied to heritage management
Cultural resource management in the heritage context is mainly concerned with the investigation of sites with archaeological potential, the preservation and interpretation of historic sites and artifacts, and the culture of indigenous people. The subject developed from initiatives in rescue archaeology, sensitivities to the treatment of indigenous people, and subsequent legislation to protect cultural heritage.

Current cultural resource management laws and practices in the United States addresses the following resources:
 * Historic properties (as listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places)
 * Older properties that may have cultural value, but may or may not be eligible for the National Register
 * Spiritual places
 * Cultural landscapes
 * Archaeological sites
 * Shipwrecks, submerged aircraft
 * Native American graves and cultural items
 * Historical documents
 * Archaeological and historical artifacts
 * Religious sites
 * Religious practices
 * Cultural use of natural resources
 * Folklife, tradition, and other social institutions

A significant proportion of the archaeological investigation in countries that have heritage management legislation including the United States and United Kingdom is conducted on sites under threat of development. In the US, such investigations are now done by private companies on a consulting basis, and a national organization exists to support the practice of CRM. Museums, besides being popular tourist attractions, often play roles in conservation of, and research on, threatened sites, including as repositories for collections from sites slated for destruction.

National Register eligibility
In the United States, a common Cultural Resource Management task is the implementation of a Section 106 review: CRM archaeologists determine whether federally funded projects are likely to damage or destroy archaeological sites that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This process commonly entails one or more archaeological field surveys.

Careers in CRM
Cultural resource management features people from a wide array of disciplines. The general education of most involved in CRM includes, but is not limited to, sociology, archaeology, architectural history, cultural anthropology, social and cultural geography, and other fields in the social sciences.

In the field of cultural resource management there are many career choices. One could obtain a career with an action agency that works directly with the NEPA or even more specifically, Native American resources. There are also careers that can be found in review agencies like the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), or the state historic preservation office (SHPO). Beyond these choices, one could also obtain a career as part of the local government and work with planning agencies, housing agencies, social service agencies, local museums, libraries, or educational institutions. Jobs at private cultural resource management companies can range from field technicians (see shovelbum) to principal investigators, project archaeologists, historic preservationists, and laboratory work. One could also become a part of an advocacy organization, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Debates
It is commonly debated in cultural resource management how to determine whether cultural or archaeological sites should be considered significant or not. The criteria that is stated by the National Register of Historic Places is said to be able to be "interpreted in different ways so that the significance... may be subjectively argued for many cultural resources." Another issue that arises among scholars is that "protection does not necessarily mean preservation." Any public projects occurring near the cultural resource can have adverse effects. Development plans for a proposed project may not be able to be changed to limit impact and to avoid damage to the resource.

Management of cultural organizations
The vocation of management in cultural and creative sectors is the subject of research and improvement initiatives, by organizations such as Arts and Business which take a partnership approach to involving professional business people in running and mentoring arts organizations. Some universities now offer vocational degrees.

The management of cultural heritage is underpinned by academic research in archaeology, ethnography and history. The broader subject is also underpinned by research in sociology and culture studies.

Anthropology
Understanding the traditional cultures of all peoples (Indigenous or not) is essential in mitigating the adverse impact of development and ensuring that intervention by more developed nations is not prejudicial to the interests of local people or results in the extinction of cultural resources.

Cultural resources policies
Cultural resources policies have developed over time with the recognition of the economic and social importance of heritage and other cultural assets.

The exploitation of cultural resources can be controversial, particularly where the finite cultural heritage resources of developing countries are exported to satisfy the demand for antiquities market in the developed world. The exploitation of the potential intellectual property of traditional remedies in identifying candidates for new drugs has also been controversial. On the other hand, traditional crafts can be important elements of income from tourism, performance of traditional dances, and music that is popular with tourists and traditional designs can be exploited in the fashion industry. Popular culture can also be an important economic asset.

title: Cultural resource management