text:
Intentionality

Intentionality is the mental ability to refer to or represent something. Sometimes regarded as the mark of the mental, it is found in mental states like perceptions, beliefs or desires. For example, the perception of a tree has intentionality because it represents a tree to the perceiver. A central issue for theories of intentionality has been the problem of intentional inexistence: to determine the ontological status of the entities which are the objects of intentional states.

An early theory of intentionality is associated with Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument for the existence of God, and with his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality. The idea fell out of discussion with the end of the medieval scholastic period, but in recent times was resurrected by empirical psychologist Franz Brentano and later adopted by contemporary phenomenological philosopher Edmund Husserl. Today, intentionality is a live concern among philosophers of mind and language. A common dispute is between naturalism, the view that intentional properties are reducible to natural properties as studied by the natural sciences, and the phenomenal intentionality theory, the view that intentionality is grounded in consciousness.

Overview
The concept of intentionality was reintroduced in 19th-century contemporary philosophy by Franz Brentano (a German philosopher and psychologist who is generally regarded as the founder of act psychology, also called intentionalism) in his work Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). Brentano described intentionality as a characteristic of all acts of consciousness that are thus "psychical" or "mental" phenomena, by which they may be set apart from "physical" or "natural" phenomena. "Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves."

- Franz Brentano

Brentano coined the expression "intentional inexistence" to indicate the peculiar ontological status of the contents of mental phenomena. According to some interpreters the "in-" of "in-existence" is to be read as locative, i.e. as indicating that "an intended object ... exists in or has in-existence, existing not externally but in the psychological state" (Jacquette 2004, p. 102), while others are more cautious, stating: "It is not clear whether in 1874 this ... was intended to carry any ontological commitment" (Chrudzimski and Smith 2004, p. 205).

A major problem within discourse on intentionality is that participants often fail to make explicit whether or not they use the term to imply concepts such as agency or desire, i.e. whether it involves teleology. Dennett (see below) explicitly invokes teleological concepts in the "intentional stance". However, most philosophers use "intentionality" to mean something with no teleological import. Thus, a thought of a chair can be about a chair without any implication of an intention or even a belief relating to the chair. For philosophers of language, what is meant by intentionality is largely an issue of how symbols can have meaning. This lack of clarity may underpin some of the differences of view indicated below.

To bear out further the diversity of sentiment evoked from the notion of intentionality, Husserl followed on Brentano, and gave the concept of intentionality more widespread attention, both in continental and analytic philosophy. In contrast to Brentano's view, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (Being and Nothingness) identified intentionality with consciousness, stating that the two were indistinguishable. German philosopher Martin Heidegger (Being and Time), defined intentionality as "care" (Sorge), a sentient condition where an individual's existence, facticity, and being in the world identifies their ontological significance, in contrast to that which is merely ontic ("thinghood").

Other 20th-century philosophers such as Gilbert Ryle and A.J. Ayer were critical of Husserl's concept of intentionality and his many layers of consciousness. Ryle insisted that perceiving is not a process, and Ayer that describing one's knowledge is not to describe mental processes. The effect of these positions is that consciousness is so fully intentional that the mental act has been emptied of all content, and that the idea of pure consciousness is that it is nothing. (Sartre also referred to "consciousness" as "nothing").

Platonist Roderick Chisholm has revived the Brentano thesis through linguistic analysis, distinguishing two parts to Brentano's concept, the ontological aspect and the psychological aspect. Chisholm's writings have attempted to summarize the suitable and unsuitable criteria of the concept since the Scholastics, arriving at a criterion of intentionality identified by the two aspects of Brentano's thesis and defined by the logical properties that distinguish language describing psychological phenomena from language describing non-psychological phenomena. Chisholm's criteria for the intentional use of sentences are: existence independence, truth-value indifference, and referential opacity.

In current artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind, intentionality is sometimes linked with questions of semantic inference, with both skeptical and supportive adherents. John Searle argued for this position with the Chinese room thought experiment, according to which no syntactic operations that occurred in a computer would provide it with semantic content. Others are more skeptical of the human ability to make such an assertion, arguing that the kind of intentionality that emerges from self-organizing networks of automata will always be undecidable because it will never be possible to make our subjective introspective experience of intentionality and decision making coincide with our objective observation of the behavior of a self-organizing machine.

The problem of intentional inexistence
A central issue for theories of intentionality has been the problem of intentional inexistence: to determine the ontological status of the entities which are the objects of intentional states. This is particularly relevant for cases involving objects that have no existence outside the mind, as in the case of mere fantasies or hallucinations.

For example, assume that Mary is thinking about Superman. On the one hand, it seems that this thought is intentional: Mary is thinking about something. On the other hand, Superman does not exist. This suggests that Mary either is not thinking about something or is thinking about something that does not exist (that Superman fiction exists is beside the point). Various theories have been proposed in order to reconcile these conflicting intuitions. These theories can roughly be divided into eliminativism, relationalism, and adverbialism. Eliminativists deny that this kind of problematic mental state is possible. Relationalists try to solve the problem by interpreting intentional states as relations while Adverbialists interpret them as properties.

Eliminativism
Eliminativists deny that the example above is possible. It might seem to us and to Mary that she is thinking about something but she is not really thinking at all. Such a position could be motivated by a form of semantic externalism, the view that the meaning of a term, or in this example the content of a thought, is determined by factors external to the subject. If meaning depends on successful reference then failing to refer would result in a lack of meaning. The difficulty for such a position is to explain why it seems to Mary that she is thinking about something and how seeming to think is different from actual thinking.

Relationalism
Relationalists hold that having an intentional state involves standing in a relation to the intentional object. This is the most natural position for non-problematic cases. So if Mary perceives a tree, we might say that a perceptual relation holds between Mary, the subject of this relation, and the tree, the object of this relation. Relations are usually assumed to be existence-entailing: the instance of a relation entails the existence of its relata. This principle rules out that we can bear relations to non-existing entities. One way to solve the problem is to deny this principle and argue for a kind of intentionality exceptionalism: that intentionality is different from all other relations in the sense that this principle does not apply to it.

A more common relationalist solution is to look for existing objects that can play the role that the non-existing object was supposed to play. Such objects are sometimes called "proxies", "traces", or "ersatz objects". It has been suggested that abstract objects or Platonic forms can play this role. Abstract objects have actual existence but they exist outside space and time. So when Mary thinks about Superman, she is standing in a thinking relation to the abstract object or the Platonic form that corresponds to Superman. A similar solution replaces abstract objects with concrete mental objects. In this case, there exists a mental object corresponding to Superman in Mary's mind. As Mary starts to think about Superman, she enters into a relationship with this mental object. One problem for both of these theories is that they seem to mischaracterize the experience of thinking. As Mary is thinking about Superman, she is neither thinking about a Platonic form outside space-time nor about a mental object. Instead, she is thinking about a concrete physical being. A related solution sees possible objects as intentional objects. This involves a commitment to modal realism, for example in the form of the Lewisian model or as envisioned by Takashi Yagisawa.

Adverbialism
Adverbialists hold that intentional states are properties of subjects. So no independent objects are needed besides the subject, which is how adverbialists avoid the problem of non-existence. This approach has been termed "adverbialism" since the object of the intentional state is seen as a modification of this state, which can be linguistically expressed through adverbs. Instead of saying that Mary is thinking about Superman, it would be more precise, according to adverbialists, to say that Mary is thinking in a superman-ly manner or that Mary is thinking superman-ly. Adverbialism has been challenged on the grounds that it puts a strain on natural language and the metaphysical insights encoded in it. Another objection is that, by treating intentional objects as mere modifications of intentional states, adverbialism loses the power to distinguish between different complex intentional contents, the so-called many-property-problem.

Dennett's taxonomy of current theories about intentionality
Daniel Dennett offers a taxonomy of the current theories about intentionality in Chapter 10 of his book The Intentional Stance. Most, if not all, current theories on intentionality accept Brentano's thesis of the irreducibility of intentional idiom. From this thesis the following positions emerge:
 * intentional idiom is problematic for science;
 * intentional idiom is not problematic for science, which is divided into:
 * Eliminative materialism;
 * Epistemological realism;
 * Quinean double standard (see below) which is divided into:
 * adherence to Normative Principle (epistemology), which is divided into:
 * who makes an Assumption of Rationality;
 * who follows the Principle of Charity;
 * adherence to Projective Principle.

Roderick Chisholm (1956), G.E.M. Anscombe (1957), Peter Geach (1957), and Charles Taylor (1964) all adhere to the former position, namely that intentional idiom is problematic and cannot be integrated with the natural sciences. Members of this category also maintain realism in regard to intentional objects, which may imply some kind of dualism (though this is debatable).

The latter position, which maintains the unity of intentionality with the natural sciences, is further divided into three standpoints:
 * Eliminative materialism, supported by W.V. Quine (1960) and Churchland (1981)
 * Realism, advocated by Jerry Fodor (1975), as well as Burge, Dretske, Kripke, and the early Hilary Putnam
 * those who adhere to the Quinean double standard.

Proponents of the eliminative materialism, understand intentional idiom, such as "belief", "desire", and the like, to be replaceable either with behavioristic language (e.g. Quine) or with the language of neuroscience (e.g. Churchland).

Holders of realism argue that there is a deeper fact of the matter to both translation and belief attribution. In other words, manuals for translating one language into another cannot be set up in different yet behaviorally identical ways and ontologically there are intentional objects. Famously, Fodor has attempted to ground such realist claims about intentionality in a language of thought. Dennett comments on this issue, Fodor "attempt[s] to make these irreducible realities acceptable to the physical sciences by grounding them (somehow) in the 'syntax' of a system of physically realized mental representations" (Dennett 1987, 345).

Those who adhere to the so-called Quinean double standard (namely that ontologically there is nothing intentional, but that the language of intentionality is indispensable), accept Quine's thesis of the indeterminacy of radical translation and its implications, while the other positions so far mentioned do not. As Quine puts it, indeterminacy of radical translation is the thesis that "manuals for translating one language into another can be set up in divergent ways, all compatible with the totality of speech dispositions, yet incompatible with one another" (Quine 1960, 27). Quine (1960) and Wilfrid Sellars (1958) both comment on this intermediary position. One such implication would be that there is, in principle, no deeper fact of the matter that could settle two interpretative strategies on what belief to attribute to a physical system. In other words, the behavior (including speech dispositions) of any physical system, in theory, could be interpreted by two different predictive strategies and both would be equally warranted in their belief attribution. This category can be seen to be a medial position between the realists and the eliminativists since it attempts to blend attributes of both into a theory of intentionality. Dennett, for example, argues in True Believers (1981) that intentional idiom (or "folk psychology") is a predictive strategy and if such a strategy successfully and voluminously predicts the actions of a physical system, then that physical system can be said to have those beliefs attributed to it. Dennett calls this predictive strategy the intentional stance.

They are further divided into two theses:
 * adherence to the Normative Principle
 * adherence to the Projective Principle

Advocates of the former, the Normative Principle, argue that attributions of intentional idioms to physical systems should be the propositional attitudes that the physical system ought to have in those circumstances (Dennett 1987, 342). However, exponents of this view are still further divided into those who make an Assumption of Rationality and those who adhere to the Principle of Charity. Dennett (1969, 1971, 1975), Cherniak (1981, 1986), and the more recent work of Putnam (1983) recommend the Assumption of Rationality, which unsurprisingly assumes that the physical system in question is rational. Donald Davidson (1967, 1973, 1974, 1985) and Lewis (1974) defend the Principle of Charity.

The latter is advocated by Grandy (1973) and Stich (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984), who maintain that attributions of intentional idioms to any physical system (e.g. humans, artifacts, non-human animals, etc.) should be the propositional attitude (e.g. "belief", "desire", etc.) that one would suppose one would have in the same circumstances (Dennett 1987, 343).

Basic intentionality types according to Le Morvan
Working on the intentionality of vision, belief, and knowledge, Pierre Le Morvan (2005) has distinguished between three basic kinds of intentionality that he dubs "transparent", "translucent", and "opaque" respectively. The threefold distinction may be explained as follows. Let's call the "intendum" what an intentional state is about, and the "intender" the subject who is in the intentional state. An intentional state is transparent if it satisfies the following two conditions: (i) it is genuinely relational in that it entails the existence of not just the intender but the intendum as well, and (ii) substitutivity of identicals applies to the intendum (i.e. if the intentional state is about a, and a = b, then the intentional state is about b as well). An intentional state is translucent if it satisfies (i) but not (ii). An intentional state is opaque if it satisfies neither (i) nor (ii).

Intentionalism
Intentionalism is the thesis that all mental states are intentional, i.e. that they are about something: about their intentional object. This thesis has also been referred to as "representationalism". Intentionalism is entailed by Brentano's claim that intentionality is "the mark of the mental": if all and only mental states are intentional then it is surely the case that all mental states are intentional.

Discussions of intentionalism often focus on the intentionality of conscious states. One can distinguish in such states their phenomenal features, or what it is like for a subject to have such a state, from their intentional features, or what they are about. These two features seem to be closely related to each other, which is why intentionalists have proposed various theories in order to capture the exact form of this relatedness.

Forms of intentionalism
These theories can roughly be divided into three categories: pure intentionalism, impure intentionalism, and qualia theories. Both pure and impure intentionalism hold that there is a supervenience relation between phenomenal features and intentional features, for example, that two intentional states cannot differ regarding their phenomenal features without differing at the same time in their intentional features. Qualia theories, on the other hand, assert that among the phenomenal features of a mental state there are at least some non-intentional phenomenal properties, so-called "Qualia", which are not determined by intentional features. Pure and impure intentionalism disagree with each other concerning which intentional features are responsible for determining the phenomenal features. Pure intentionalists hold that only intentional content is responsible, while impure intentionalists assert that the manner or mode how this content is presented also plays a role.

Tim Crane, himself an impure intentionalist, explains this difference by distinguishing three aspects of intentional states: the intentional object, the intentional content, and the intentional mode. For example, seeing that an apple is round and tasting that this apple is sweet both have the same intentional object: the apple. But they involve different contents: the visual perception ascribes the property of roundness to the apple while the gustatory perception ascribes the property of sweetness to the apple. Touching the apple will also result in a perceptual experience ascribing roundness to the apple, but the roundness is presented in a different manner. So the visual perception and the haptic perception agree in both intentional object and intentional content but differ in intentional mode. Pure intentionalists may not agree with this distinction. They may argue, for example, that the difference in the last case also belongs to intentional content, because two different properties are ascribed to the apple: seen-roundness and felt-roundness.

Mental states without intentionality
Critics of intentionalism, so-called anti-intentionalists, have proposed various apparent counterexamples to intentionalism: states that are considered mental but lack intentionality.

Some anti-intentionalist theories, such as that of Ned Block, are based on the argument that phenomenal conscious experience or qualia is also a vital component of consciousness, and that it is not intentional. (The latter claim is itself disputed by Michael Tye.)

Another form of anti-intentionalism associated with John Searle regards phenomenality itself, not intentionality, as the "mark of the mental" and thereby sidelines intentionality, since such anti-intentionalists "might accept the thesis that intentionality coincides with the mental, but they hold the view that intentionality derives from consciousness".

A further form argues that some unusual states of consciousness are non-intentional, although an individual might live a lifetime without experiencing them. Robert K.C. Forman argues that some of the unusual states of consciousness typical of mystical experience are pure consciousness events in which awareness exists, but has no object, is not awareness "of" anything.

Phenomenal intentionality
Phenomenal intentionality is the type of intentionality grounded in phenomenal or conscious mental states. It contrasts with non-phenomenal intentionality, which is often ascribed to e.g. language and unconscious states. The distinction is important to philosophers who hold that phenomenal intentionality has a privileged status over non-phenomenal intentionality. This position is known as the phenomenal intentionality theory. This privileged status can take two forms. In the moderate version, phenomenal intentionality is privileged because other types of intentionality depend on it or are grounded in it. They are therefore not intrinsically intentional. The stronger version goes further and denies that there are other types of intentionality. Phenomenal intentionality theory is commonly contrasted with naturalism about intentionality, the view that intentional properties are reducible to natural properties as studied by the natural sciences.

Intentionality and self-consciousness
Several authors have attempted to construct philosophical models describing how intentionality relates to the human capacity to be self-conscious. Cedric Evans contributed greatly to the discussion with his "The Subject of Self-Consciousness" in 1970. He centered his model on the idea that executive attention need not be propositional in form.

title: Intentionality


text: Talk:Intentionality

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

title: Talk:Intentionality


text:
Sadducees

The Sadducees (צְדוּקִים) were a sect of Jews active in Judea during the Second Temple period, from the second century BCE to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The Sadducees are described in contemporary literary sources in contrast to the two other major sects at the time, the Pharisees and the Essenes.

Josephus, writing at the end of the 1st century CE, associates the sect with the upper echelons of Judean society. As a whole, they fulfilled various political, social, and religious roles, including maintaining the Temple in Jerusalem. The group became extinct sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Etymology
The English term entered via Latin from. The name Zadok is related to the root צָדַק, (to be right, just), which could be indicative of their aristocratic status in society in the initial period of their existence.

History
According to Abraham Geiger, the Sadducee sect of Judaism derived their name from that of Zadok, the first High Priest of Israel to serve in Solomon's Temple. The leaders of the sect were proposed as the Kohanim (priests, the "Sons of Zadok", descendants of Eleazar, son of Aaron). The aggadic work Avot of Rabbi Natan tells the story of the two disciples of Antigonus of Sokho (3rd century BCE), Zadok and Boethus. Antigonus having taught the maxim, "Be not like the servants who serve their masters for the sake of the wages, but be rather like those who serve without thought of receiving wages", his students repeated this maxim to their students. Eventually, either the two teachers or their pupils understood this to express the belief that there was neither an afterlife nor a resurrection of the dead, and founded the Sadducee and Boethusian sects. They lived luxuriously, using silver and golden vessels, because (as they claimed) the Pharisees led a hard life on earth and yet would have nothing to show for it in the world to come. The two sects of the Sadducees and Boethusians are thus, in all later Rabbinic sources, always mentioned together, not only as being similar, but as originating at the same time. The use of gold and silver vessels perhaps argues against a priestly association for these groups, as priests at the time would typically use stone vessels, to prevent transmission of impurity.

Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that "one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt". Paul L. Maier suggests that the sect drew their name from the Sadduc mentioned by Josephus.

The Second Temple period

The Second Temple period is the period between the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 516 BCE and its destruction by the Romans during the Siege of Jerusalem. Throughout the Second Temple period, Jerusalem saw several shifts in rule. In Achaemenid Judea, the Temple in Jerusalem became the center of worship in Judea. Its priests and attendants appear to have been powerful and influential in secular matters as well, a trend that would continue into the Hellenistic period.

This power and influence also brought accusations of corruption. Alexander's conquest of the Mediterranean world brought an end to Achaemenid control of Jerusalem (539–334/333 BCE) and ushered in the Hellenistic period, which saw the spread of Greek language, culture, and philosophical ideas, which intermixed with Judaism and created Hellenistic Judaism.

After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, his generals divided the empire amongst themselves, and for the next 30 years they fought for control of the empire. Judea was first controlled by Ptolemaic Egypt ((r. 301 – 200 BCE)) and later by the Seleucid Empire of Syria ((r. 200 – 142 BCE)). During this period, the High Priest of Israel was generally appointed with the direct approval of the Greek rulership, continuing the intermixing of religious politics with government. King Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucids began a persecution of traditional Jewish practices around 168–167 BCE, which set off a rebellion in Judea. The most successful rebels were led by the Hasmonean family in what became the Maccabean Revolt, and eventually established the independent Hasmonean kingdom around 142 BCE. While the Sadducees are not attested to this early, many scholars presume that the later sects began to form during the Maccabean era (see Jewish sectarianism below). It is often speculated that the Sadducees grew out of the Judean religious elite in the early Hasmonean period, under rulers such as John Hyrcanus.

Hasmonean rule lasted until 63 BCE, when the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem, at which point the Roman period of Judea began. The province of Roman Judea was created in 6 CE (see also Syria Palaestina). While cooperation between the Romans and the Jews had been strongest during the reigns of Herod and his grandson, Agrippa I, the Romans moved power out of the hands of vassal kings and into the hands of Roman administrators, beginning with the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE. The First Jewish–Roman War broke out in 66 CE. After a few years of conflict, the Romans retook Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, bringing an end to the Second Temple period in 70 CE.

After the Temple destruction
After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Sadducees appear only in a few references in the Talmud and some Christian texts. In the beginning of Karaite Judaism, the followers of Anan ben David were called "Sadducees" and set a claim of the former being a historical continuity from the latter.

The Sadducee concept of the mortality of the soul is reflected on by Uriel da Costa, who mentions them in his writings.

Religious
The religious responsibilities of the Sadducees included the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. Their high social status was reinforced by their priestly responsibilities, as mandated in the Torah. The priests were responsible for performing sacrifices at the Temple, the primary method of worship in ancient Israel. This included presiding over sacrifices during the three festivals of pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Their religious beliefs and social status were mutually reinforcing, as the priesthood often represented the highest class in Judean society. However, Sadducees and the priests were not completely synonymous. Cohen writes that "not all priests, high priests, and aristocrats were Sadducees; many were Pharisees, and many were not members of any group at all."

Political
The Sadducees oversaw many formal affairs of the state. Members of the Sadducees:
 * Administered the state domestically
 * Represented the state internationally
 * Participated in the Sanhedrin, and often encountered the Pharisees there.
 * Collected taxes. These also came in the form of international tribute from Jews in the Diaspora.
 * Equipped and led the army
 * Regulated relations with the Roman Empire
 * Mediated domestic grievances

Beliefs
Knowledge about the beliefs of the Sadducees is limited by the fact that not a single line of their own writings has survived out of antiquity, as the destruction of Jerusalem and much of the Judean elite in 70 CE seems to have broken them. Extant writings on the Sadducees are often from sources hostile to them; Josephus was a rival Pharisee, Christian records were generally not sympathetic, and the rabbinic tradition (descended from the Pharisees) is uniformly hostile.

General
The Sadducees rejected the Oral Torah as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Written Torah as the sole source of divine authority. Later writings of the Pharisees criticized this belief as one that strengthened the Sadducees' own power.

According to Josephus, the Sadducees beliefs included:
 * Rejection of the idea of fate or a pre-ordained future.
 * God does not commit or even think evil.
 * Man has free will; "man has the free choice of good or evil".
 * The soul is not immortal and there is no afterlife, and no rewards or penalties after death.
 * It is a virtue to debate and dispute with philosophy teachers.

The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed (contrary to the claim of Josephus) in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died. Josephus also includes a claim that the Sadducees are rude compared to loving and compassionate Pharisees, but this is generally considered more of a sectarian insult rather than an unbiased judgment of the Sadducees on their own terms. Similarly, Josephus brags that the Sadducees were often forced to back down if their judgments clashed with the Pharisees, as he says that the Pharisees were more popular with the multitude.

The Sadducees occasionally show up in the Christian gospels, but without much detail: usually merely as parts of a list of opponents of Jesus. The Christian Acts of the Apostles contains somewhat more information:
 * The Sadducees were associated with the party of the high priest of the era, and seem to have had a majority of the Sanhedrin, if not all (Gamaliel is a Pharisee member).
 * The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, whereas the Pharisees did. In Acts, Paul of Tarsus chose this point of division to attempt to gain the protection of the Pharisees (around 59 CE).
 * The Sadducees rejected the notion of spirits or angels, whereas the Pharisees acknowledged them.

Disputes with the Pharisees

 * According to the Sadducees, spilt water becomes ritually impure through its pouring. The Pharisees denied that this was sufficient grounds for impurity. Many Pharisee–Sadducee disputes revolved around issues of ritual purity.
 * According to the Jewish laws of inheritance, the property of a deceased man is inherited by his sons, but if the man had only daughters, his property is inherited by his daughters upon his death (Numbers 27:8). The Sadducees, however, whenever dividing the inheritance among the relatives of the deceased, such as when the deceased left no issue, would perfunctorily seek for familial ties, so that the near of kin to the deceased and who inherits his property could, hypothetically, be his paternal aunt. The Sadducees would justify their practice by A fortiori, an inference from minor to major premise, saying: "If the daughter of his son's son can inherit him (i.e. such as when her father left no male issue), is it not then fitting that his own daughter inherit him?!" (i.e. who is more closely related to him than his great-granddaughter). Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai tore down their argument, saying that the only reason the daughter was empowered to inherit her father was because her father left no male issue. However, a man's daughter – where there are sons, has no power to inherit her father's estate. Moreover, a deceased man who leaves no issue always has a distant male relative, to whom his estate can be given. The Sadducees eventually agreed with the Pharisaic teaching. The vindication of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Pharisees over the Sadducees gave rise to this date being held in honor in the Scroll of Fasting.
 * The Sadducees demanded that a master pay for damages caused by his slave. The Pharisees imposed no such obligation, viewing that a slave could intentionally cause damage in order to see the liability for it brought on his master.
 * The Pharisees posited that false witnesses should be executed if the verdict was pronounced on the basis of their testimony—even if not yet actually carried out. The Sadducees argued that false witnesses should be executed only if the death penalty had already been carried out on the falsely accused.

Later rabbinic literature took a dim view of both the Sadducees and Boethusian groups, not only due to their perceived carefree approach to keeping to written Torah and oral Torah law, but also due to their attempts to persuade common-folk to join their ranks. Maimonides viewed the Sadducees as rejecting the Oral Torah as an excuse to interpret the Written Torah in a lenient, personally convenient manner. Elsewhere, he describes the Sadducees as "harming Israel and causing the nation to stray from following God".

Jewish sectarianism
The Jewish community of the Second Temple period is often defined by its sectarian and fragmented attributes. Josephus, in Antiquities, contextualizes the Sadducees as opposed to the Pharisees and the Essenes. The Sadducees are also notably distinguishable from the growing Jesus movement, which later evolved into Christianity. These groups differed in their beliefs, social statuses, and sacred texts. Though the Sadducees produced no primary works themselves, their attributes can be derived from other contemporaneous texts, including the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and later, the Mishnah and Talmud. Overall, the Sadducees represented an aristocratic, wealthy, and traditional elite within the hierarchy.

Opposition to the Essenes
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are often attributed to the Essenes, suggest clashing ideologies and social positions between the Essenes and the Sadducees. In fact, some scholars suggest that the Essenes originated as a sect of Zadokites, which would indicate that the group itself had priestly, and thus Sadducaic origins. Within the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Sadducees are often referred to as Manasseh. The scrolls suggest that the Sadducees (Manasseh) and the Pharisees (Ephraim) became religious communities that were distinct from the Essenes, the true Judah. Clashes between the Essenes and the Sadducees are depicted in the Pesher on Nahum, which states "They [Manasseh] are the wicked ones ... whose reign over Israel will be brought down ... his wives, his children, and his infant will go into captivity. His warriors and his honored ones [will perish] by the sword." The reference to the Sadducees as those who reign over Israel corroborates their aristocratic status as opposed to the more fringe group of Essenes. Furthermore, it suggests that the Essenes challenged the authenticity of the rule of the Sadducees, blaming the downfall of ancient Israel and the siege of Jerusalem on their impiety. The Dead Sea Scrolls specify the Sadducaic elite as those who broke the covenant with God in their rule of the Judean state, and thus became targets of divine vengeance.

Opposition to the early Christian church
The New Testament, specifically the books of Mark and Matthew, describe anecdotes which hint at hostility between Jesus and the Sadducaic establishment. A pericope in Mark 12 and Matthew 22 recounts a dispute between Jesus and a Sadducee who challenged the resurrection of the dead by asking who the husband of a resurrected woman would be who had been married to each of seven brothers at one point. Jesus responds by saying that the resurrected "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." He also insults them on their own terms as knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God, presumably a claim that even though the Sadducee insisted on the written law, Jesus considered them to have gotten it wrong.

Matthew records John the Baptist calling both the Pharisees and Sadducees a "brood of vipers".

Opposition to the Pharisees
Josephus, the author of the most extensive historical account of the Second Temple Period, gives a lengthy account of Jewish sectarianism in both The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. In Antiquities, he describes "the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses, and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observance to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers." The Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic use of the Oral Torah to enforce their claims to power, citing the Written Torah as the sole manifestation of divinity.

The rabbis, who are traditionally seen as the descendants of the Pharisees, describe the similarities and differences between the two sects in Mishnah Yadaim. The Mishnah explains that the Sadducees state, "So too, regarding the Holy Scriptures, their impurity is according to (our) love for them. But the books of Homer, which are not beloved, do not defile the hands." A passage from the book of Acts suggests that both Pharisees and Sadducees collaborated in the Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court.

title: Sadducees


text:
Talk:Pope John Paul I

Unclear sentence
I really don't understand what this means: "... John Paul I quickly made several decisions that would "humanise" the office of pope, admitting publicly he had turned scarlet when Paul VI placed his stole on Luciani's shoulders while the pontiff visited Venice on 16 September 1972." What's the significance of the placement of the stole? Why is it relevant to humanizing the papacy? What does it mean that "he turned scarlet"? I've seen that mean both anger and embarrassment. Which was it? And did he literally say he turned scarlet, or is that a paraphrase? If he actually said it, it should be in quotes, and if it's a paraphrase, it should be reworded, as that's too much of a rhetorical flourish for encyclopedic style.— Chowbok  ☠  00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's unclear, and I have removed the statement about the stole. Most of that section is unsourced. Sundayclose (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Paus Johannes Paulus I (kop), Bestanddeelnr 929-9074 (cropped).jpg

Does this article inaccurately say he was the last Italian born pope?
John Paul I stated as most recent Italian born pope in a line of succession that predates him. But when you look at the articles about his 2 successors, it says they were both born in Italy… either the sentence is written incorrectly or maybe just not a true fact? I’m confused by it lol RAjiDavis (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two articles say no such thing: the two were born in Poland and Germany respectively. Possibly the two were momentarily vandalised? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

US vs. Commonwealth spelling
The section heading on canonization (I'm American) reads:

Canonization process

The first full sentence in the section reads:

The process for the canonisation for John Paul I formally began in 1990 with the petition by 226 Brazilian bishops, including four cardinals.

(Emphasis added in both cases.)

I don't care which variety we use, but I do want us to be consistent within an article. --Tkynerd (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Opus Dei
The Opus Dei section, as it currently reads, is multiply problematic. It's taken from an opinion piece about Opus Dei, not a work about JPI and his life. The section tells us little about JPI, serving instead to educate the reader on Escriva. It currently reads as UNDUE weight -- Luciani published many articles in his lifetime, why do we single out this one quote? In total, it reads as promotional hagiography of a random third party. I removed it., but it was restored. Feoffer (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I was confused about your edit summary when you removed the section. Having read your comment, I agree and will revert my edit. I wouldn't be opposed to putting JPI's view on Opus Dei in the article (but not a separate section). But I Googled it and found very little. Sundayclose (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Main image

Until last Sunday, the image that appears at the beginning of this section (see top right) was used as the infobox. This photograph, housed in the Dutch National Archives, is licensed under CC0, which makes it valid for use in the infobox (as was the case until last Sunday), because, as indicated in the comment placed just after the image (which is only visible when a modification is made), it is not recommended to use the images of John Paul I licensed with Public Domain claim in Italy, due to their copyright in the US have been restored by the URAA.

However, instead of this notice, between 14 and 15 August, the user Ozone742 changed this image with two photographs with the same feathures of those which the infobox' notice recommended not to use, see here and here.

After those editions were reverted, another user removed the Dutch National Archives' photograph with the reason: "This has been discussed previously. An image WHEN HE WAS POPE is preferred, even if the quality is not as good as pre-pope pics. And this pic is freely available. Stop changing it. It is also the consensus per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Get a consensus to change it."

I'm not sure that, if the photograph description in the Dutch National Archives, gives 19 September 1978 as date, the image could depict Albino Luciani before his election as Pope. However, I think that a consensus could be the appropriate method to decide if this photograph could be kept in the infobox as it was until 14 August.

From my opinion, I believe that the Nationalarchief's image, used until last Sunday, could be kept in the infobox because it is freely available (CC0 license) and depicts John Paul I during his short pontificate (taken on 19 September 1978, nine days before his death).

Pinging as the user who removed the Dutch National Archives' image and  as the top 10 users (registered) who edit this article to treat to get consensus about the image. 95.127.24.160 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. The image that I removed is described as "taken on 19 September 1978", which is after he became pope. I misread. I make no comments about any other dispute discussed here. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * sometimes we can make mistakes and we don't realize it at the time. I also have nothing to object to the 19 September 1978's file, I simply suggested the opinion of other users to reach a consensus, believing that it could be useful. However, if someone has something to contribute, they can do it anyway. 95.127.24.160 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope John Paul I


text:
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML ) is a social welfare organization based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for the reform of marijuana laws in the United States regarding both medical and non-medical use. According to their website, NORML supports "the removal of all penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including cultivation for personal use, and casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts" and advocates for "the creation of a legal and regulatory framework for marijuana's production and retail sale to adults". NORML also has a sister organization, NORML Foundation, that focuses on educational efforts and providing legal assistance and support to people affected negatively by current marijuana laws. NORML maintains chapters in a number of US states as well as outside the US in countries such as Canada, France, New Zealand, and South Africa.

History
NORML was founded in 1970 by Keith Stroup. It originally started with $5,000 in funding from the Playboy Foundation. Since then, the organization has played a central role in the cannabis decriminalization movement. At the start of the 1970s, the premier decriminalization organizations were Legalize Marijuana, better known as LeMar, and Amorphia, the two of which merged in 1971. The next year, Amorphia led the unsuccessful campaign for California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19. In 1974, Amorphia merged with NORML.

By the middle of the 1970s, Playboy owner Hugh Hefner's financial support through the Playboy Foundation set NORML apart from its predecessors, making it the premier decriminalization advocacy group. At one point, Hefner was donating $100,000 a year to NORML.

The organization has a large grassroots network with 135 chapters and over 550 lawyers. NORML holds annual conferences and Continuing Legal Education (CLE)-accredited seminars. Its board of directors has, at times, included political figures as Philip Hart, Jacob K. Javits, and Ross Mirkarimi.

In 1989, Donald Fiedler succeeded Jon Gettman as the executive director of NORML. In August 1992, Richard Cowan became executive director of NORML. Keith Stroup became executive director once again in 1995 after Cowan stepped down. In 2016, Erik Altieri was selected by the NORML Board of Directors to become the organization's 7th Executive Director. In 2021, travel writer Rick Steves became the chairman of the Board of Directors.

Media and activism
In the 2006 United States midterm elections, NORML promoted several successful local initiatives that declared marijuana enforcement to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement, freeing up police resources to combat violent and serious crime.

In early 2009, a petition to President Barack Obama was written asking that he appoint a "drug czar" who would treat drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal issue and will move away from a "War on Drugs" paradigm. NORML's goal for this petition was 100,000 signatures.

Also in early 2009, when the Kellogg Company dropped its contract with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps after pictures of his use of a bong surfaced in the media, head members of NORML began boycotting Kellogg products and urging all members and supporters of NORML to boycott Kellogg, until the company reversed the decision. NORML also suggested that supporters of the cause send emails or letters to Kellogg explaining the boycott and the reasons behind it, and providing a template for emails and letters. Although Kellogg's profits did not suffer in the first quarter of 2009, consumer ratings polls at Vanno have been cited as indicating that Kellogg's reputation has suffered. Specifically, a small poll of Kellogg's brand reputation at Vanno showed a drop from its previous rank of 9 to 83 after Kellogg decided not to renew its contract with Phelps.

On February 15, 2010, a 15-second flash animation from NORML discussing the potential economic and financial benefit of legalized marijuana was deemed by CBS to be "too political" to display on billboards in New York City's Times Square. This drew criticism in the blogosphere and accusations of hypocrisy on Twitter, since CBS had recently aired an anti-abortion television spot during the 2010 Super Bowl. CBS reversed its decision and the ad was debuted on the CBS Times Square Superscreen on April 20, 2010.

NORML Foundation
The NORML Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that conducts educational and research activities. Examples of the NORML Foundation's advocacy work is a detailed 2006 report, Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis. A comprehensive report with county-by-county marijuana arrest data, Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrest in America, was published in 2005.

In October 1998, NORML Foundation published the NORML Report on U.S. Domestic Marijuana Production that was widely cited in the mainstream media. The report methodically estimated the value and number of cannabis plants grown in 1997, finding that Drug Enforcement Administration, state and local law enforcement agencies seized 32% of domestic cannabis plants planted that year. According to the report, "Marijuana remains the fourth largest cash crop in America despite law enforcement spending an estimated $10 billion annually to pursue efforts to outlaw the plant." Recent studies show that marijuana is larger than all other cash crops combined.

In 2002, the organization used ads containing quotes by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg on his past use of cannabis, saying "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." The mayor said "I’m not thrilled they’re using my name. I suppose there’s that First Amendment that gets in the way of me stopping it," but maintained that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws.

State and local chapters

 * Indiana NORML
 * Minnesota NORML
 * Ohio NORML
 * Oregon NORML
 * Portland NORML
 * Texas NORML
 * Wisconsin NORML

International chapters
NORML international chapters:

 * NORML Canada
 * NORML France
 * NORML Ireland
 * NORML New Zealand
 * Otago NORML
 * NORML South Africa
 * NORML UK


text:
Unna (district)

The Unna district is a Kreis (district) in central North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Neighboring authorities are the district of Coesfeld, the city of Hamm, the districts of Soest and Märkischer Kreis, the cities of Hagen and Dortmund, and the district of Recklinghausen.

History
The area of the present district of Unna was formerly part of the County of the Mark, which later belonged to Prussia. In 1753 local government of the area was reformed, creating the first district of Hamm. During the French occupation of the Napoleonic period it was included in the Ruhr département, but once returned to the rule of Prussia, the district of Hamm was recreated, although with several changes.

In 1901 the town of Hamm itself became a separate urban authority, but the district retained the name of, and its administration continued to be located in Hamm until 1929. In that year the administration was moved to Unna, when the district name also changed to Unna to reflect the new administrative centre. Later organizational changes, the latest of which was in 1975, added the towns of Lünen, Schwerte, Selm and Werne to form the district as it is today.

Geography
Geographically the district of Unna covers the area east of Dortmund, thus marking the east end of the Ruhrgebiet. Both the Ruhr and Lippe rivers flow through it.

Coat of arms
The district coat of arms combines two charges relating to the Counts of the Mark, the red and white/silver checked base (referring to the fess in the counts' arms), and the red lion of Berg.

title: Unna (district)


text:
Biefeld–Brown effect

The Biefeld–Brown effect is an electrical phenomenon that produces an ionic wind that transfers its momentum to surrounding neutral particles. It describes a force observed on an asymmetric capacitor when high voltage is applied to the capacitor's electrodes. Once suitably charged up to high DC potentials, a thrust at the negative terminal, pushing it away from the positive terminal, is generated. The effect was named by inventor Thomas Townsend Brown who claimed that he did a series of experiments with professor of astronomy Paul Alfred Biefeld, a former teacher of Brown whom Brown claimed was his mentor and co-experimenter at Denison University in Ohio.

The use of an asymmetric capacitor, with the negative electrode being larger than the positive electrode, allowed for more thrust to be produced in the direction from the low-flux to the high-flux region compared to a conventional capacitor. These asymmetric capacitors became known as Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters (ACT). The Biefeld–Brown effect can be observed in ionocrafts and lifters, which utilize the effect to produce thrust in the air without requiring any combustion or moving parts.

In his 1960 patent titled "Electrokinetic Apparatus," Brown refers to electrokinesis to describe the Biefeld–Brown effect, linking the phenomenon to the field of electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Brown also believed the Biefeld–Brown effect could produce an anti-gravity force, referred to as "electrogravitics" based on it being an electricity/gravity phenomenon. However, there is little evidence that supports Brown's claim on the effect's anti-gravity properties.

History
The "Biefeld–Brown effect" was the name given to a phenomenon observed by Thomas Townsend Brown while he was experimenting with X-ray tubes during the 1920s while he was still in high school. When he applied a high voltage electrical charge to a Coolidge tube that he placed on a scale, Brown noticed a difference in the tube's mass depending on orientation, implying some kind of net force. This discovery caused him to assume that he had somehow influenced gravity electronically and led him to design a propulsion system based on this phenomenon. On 15 April 1927, he applied for a patent, entitled "Method of Producing Force or Motion," that described his invention as an electrical-based method that could control gravity to produce linear force or motion. In 1929, Brown published an article for the popular American magazine Science and Invention, which detailed his work. The article also mentioned the "gravitator," an invention by Brown which produced motion without the use of electromagnetism, gears, propellers, or wheels, but instead using the principles of what he called "electro-gravitation." He also claimed that the asymmetric capacitors were capable of generating mysterious fields that interacted with the Earth's gravitational pull and envisioned a future where gravitators would propel ocean liners and even space cars.

At some point this effect also gained the moniker "Biefeld–Brown effect", probably coined by Brown to claim Denison University professor of physics and astronomy Paul Alfred Biefeld as his mentor and co-experimenter. Brown attended Denison for a year before he dropped out and records of him even having an association with Biefeld are sketchy at best.

Brown filed another patent in 1960 that detailed the physics of the Biefeld–Brown effect, making the following claims:

 * 1) There is a negative correlation between the distance between the plates of the capacitor and the strength of the effect, where the shorter the distance, the greater the effect.
 * 2) There is a positive correlation between the dielectric strength of the material between the electrodes and the strength of the effect, where the higher the strength, the greater the effect.
 * 3) There is a positive correlation between the area of the conductors and the strength of the effect, where the greater the area, the greater the effect.
 * 4) There is a positive correlation between the voltage difference between the capacitor plates and the strength of the effect, where the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.
 * 5) There is a positive correlation between the mass of the dielectric material and the strength of the effect, where the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

In 1965, Brown filed a patent that claimed that a net force on the asymmetric capacitor can exist even in a vacuum. However, there is little experimental evidence that serves to validate his claims.

Effect analysis

The effect is generally believed to rely on corona discharge, which allows air molecules to become ionized near sharp points and edges. Usually, two electrodes are used with a high voltage between them, ranging from a few kilovolts and up to megavolt levels, where one electrode is small or sharp, and the other larger and smoother. The most effective distance between electrodes occurs at an electric potential gradient of about 10 kV/cm, which is just below the nominal breakdown voltage of air between two sharp points, at a current density level usually referred to as the saturated corona current condition. This creates a high field gradient around the smaller, positively charged electrode. Around this electrode, ionization occurs, that is, electrons are stripped from the atoms in the surrounding medium; they are literally pulled right off by the electrode's charge.

This leaves a cloud of positively charged ions in the medium, which are attracted to the negative smooth electrode by Coulomb's Law, where they are neutralized again. This produces an equally scaled opposing force in the lower electrode. This effect can be used for propulsion (see EHD thruster), fluid pumps and recently also in EHD cooling systems. The velocity achievable by such setups is limited by the momentum achievable by the ionized air, which is reduced by ion impact with neutral air. A theoretical derivation of this force has been proposed (see the external links below).

However, this effect works using either polarity for the electrodes: the small or thin electrode can be either positive or negative, and the larger electrode must have the opposite polarity. On many experimental sites it is reported that the thrust effect of a lifter is actually a bit stronger when the small electrode is the positive one. This is possibly an effect of the differences between the ionization energy and electron affinity energy of the constituent parts of air; thus the ease of which ions are created at the 'sharp' electrode.

As air pressure is removed from the system, several effects combine to reduce the force and momentum available to the system. The number of air molecules around the ionizing electrode is reduced, decreasing the quantity of ionized particles. At the same time, the number of impacts between ionized and neutral particles is reduced. Whether this increases or decreases the maximum momentum of the ionized air is not typically measured, although the force acting upon the electrodes reduces, until the glow discharge region is entered. The reduction in force is also a product of the reducing breakdown voltage of air, as a lower potential must be applied between the electrodes, thereby reducing the force dictated by Coulomb's Law.

During the glow discharge regime, the air becomes a conductor. Though the applied voltage and current will propagate at nearly the speed of light, the movement of the conductors themselves is almost negligible. This leads to a Coulomb force and change of momentum so small as to be zero.

Below the glow discharge region, the breakdown voltage increases again, whilst the number of potential ions decreases, and the chance of impact lowers. Experiments have been conducted and found to both prove and disprove a force at very low pressure. It is likely that the reason for this is that at very low pressures, only experiments which used very large voltages produced positive results, as a product of a greater chance of ionization of the extremely limited number of available air molecules, and a greater force from each ion from Coulomb's Law; experiments which used lower voltages have a lower chance of ionization and a lower force per ion. Common to positive results is that the force observed is small in comparison to experiments conducted at standard pressure.

Disputes surrounding electrogravity and ion wind
Brown believed that his large, high voltage, high capacity capacitors produced an electric field strong enough to marginally interact with the Earth's gravitational pull, a phenomenon he labeled electrogravitics. Several researchers claim that conventional physics cannot adequately explain the phenomenon. The effect has become something of a cause célèbre in the UFO community, where it is seen as an example of something much more exotic than electrokinetics. William L. Moore and Charles Berlitz devoted an entire chapter of their book on the "Philadelphia Experiment" to a retelling of Brown's early work with the effect, implying he had discovered a new electrogravity effect and that it was being used by UFOs. Today, the Internet is filled with sites devoted to this interpretation of the effect.

There have been follow-ups on the claims that this force can be produced in a full vacuum, meaning it is an unknown anti-gravity force, and not just the more well known ion wind. As part of a study in 1990, U.S. Air Force researcher R. L. Talley conducted a test on a Biefeld–Brown-style capacitor to replicate the effect in a vacuum. Despite attempts that increased the driving DC voltage to about 19 kV in vacuum chambers up to 10−6 torr, Talley observed no thrust in terms of static DC potential applied to the electrodes. In 2003, NASA scientist Jonathan Campbell tested a lifter in a vacuum at 10−7 torr with a voltage of up to 50 kV, only to observe no movement from the lifter. Campbell pointed out to a Wired magazine reporter that creating a true vacuum similar to space for the test requires tens of thousands of dollars in equipment.

Around the same time in 2003, researchers from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) tested the Biefeld–Brown effect by building four different-sized asymmetric capacitors based on simple designs found on the Internet and then applying a high voltage of around 30 kV to them. According to their report, the researchers wrote that the effects of ion wind was at least three orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed force on the asymmetric capacitor in the air. Having proposed that the Biefeld–Brown effect could theoretically be explained using ion drift instead of ion wind due to how the former involves collisions instead of ballistic trajectories, they noted these were only "scaling estimates" and more experimental and theoretical work was needed.

Around ten years later, researchers from the Technical University of Liberec conducted experiments on the Biefeld–Brown effect that supported one of ARL's hypotheses that assigned ion drift as the most likely source of the generated force.

In 2004, Martin Tajmar published a paper that also failed to replicate Brown's work and suggested that Brown may have instead observed the effects of a corona wind triggered by insufficient outgassing of the electrode assembly in the vacuum chamber and therefore misinterpreted the corona wind effects as a possible connection between gravitation and electromagnetism.

Patents

T. T. Brown was granted a number of patents on his discovery:
 * GB300311 — A method of and an apparatus or machine for producing force or motion (accepted 1928-11-15)
 * — Electrostatic motor (1934-09-25)
 * — Electrokinetic apparatus (1960-08-16)
 * — Electrokinetic transducer (1962-01-23)
 * — Electrokinetic generator (1962-02-20)
 * — Electrokinetic apparatus (1965-06-01)
 * — Electric generator (1965-07-20)

Historically, numerous patents have been granted for various applications of the effect, including electrostatic dust precipitation, air ionizers, and flight. was granted to G.E. Hagen in 1964 for apparatus more or less identical to the later so-called 'lifter' devices.

title: Biefeld–Brown effect


text:
Talk:Hemant Kumar

''Even after his death in 1989, Hemant Kumar remains the model other male singers imitate. ''

Untitled

 * Not NPOV. It can easily argued that Kishore Kumar, Mohammed Rafi or Mukesh hold that honour -- Gyan

Some more things to do
Inline citations needed. Wikilinks needed. Particularly for films with existing wikipages. Also, names of films need spelling check. For example, Balika Badhu not Balika Bodhu. And wikipage for that exists: Balika Badhu. GDibyendu (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this!

 * Why should it be "Balika Badhu", instead of "Balika Bodhu"? Did he spell it in English as "Badhu"? If not, the "Bodhu" spelling/transliteration is closer to the Bangla pronunciation than "Badhu". I.e. বধু = Bodhu, whereas Badhu = বাধু (which is quite incorrect). --Ragib (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, pronunciation is bodhu, when we want to stress on pronunciation, rather we use phonetic symbols. But this is how Bengali transliteration works: badhu. That is why, I guess, IMDb also writes it as Badhu and not Bodhu. My understanding is that transliteration is closer to spelling, not pronunciation which is stressed by transcription. GDibyendu (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * IMDB is user generated, so probably not THE reference to mention here. But why do you claim that this "this is how Bengali transliteration works: badhu."? In absence of a standard transliteration scheme, one cannot claim that. The "Badhu" transliteration is closer to the Hindi pronunciation of the word, rather than the Bangla transliteration. --Ragib (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you overlooked the main point, here: spelling, not pronunciation. GDibyendu (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, if we consider spelling, then বধু should never be written as Badhu, right? বাধু can be written as Badhu, the "a" serving as the equivalent of "আ-কার". --Ragib (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, in transliteration, both are written as 'a'. Rajib has 'a' and Sanjib also has 'a': nobody writes Sonjib. GDibyendu (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Those are proper names which have been written as such for a long time. For that matter, I've seen people use the Sonjib. But anyway, my point is, we write "Tagore" because of historic writing convention, not because the "right" way to transliterate "ঠাকুর" is so. An example you can relate to is "Kolkata". Written in Bengali as কলকাতা, it should have been transliterated as "Kalkata" according to your argument. But it is rightly transliterated as "Kolkata" per pronunciation. --Ragib (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't have Bengali font installed on this machine. But, there is another spelling of Kolkata is prevalent in Bengali, with a 'O'. That is why it is named Kolkata now, which is more used in Chalit Bengali language than Kalkata and Kalikata. I am also emphasizing on Proper Nouns. We all write Rabindranath and not Robindranath, Bankim and not Bonkim, right? Balika Badhu, as it is name of a movie, is also proper noun, not common noun. And in English Articles, rarely common nouns need to be transliterated, its mostly Proper Nouns which needs to taken care of. GDibyendu (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102073714/http://www.cs.utk.edu/~dasgupta/hemanta/ to http://www.cs.utk.edu/~dasgupta/hemanta/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t · c)  buidhe  04:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hemanta Mukherjee → Hemant Kumar – This is his common name and the way he is credited in films. Long ago, moved it to Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay with the absurd reasoning: "use proper and full name for singer". Kailash29792 (talk)  13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Still needs cleanup
This article has poor grammar, lengthy lists, improper tone and also lacks citations. It needs to be rewritten or improved. I'm not sure what "Hemant Kumar known as the Voice Of God." even means. Seabass715 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

Large Removal by User:Yamaguchi先生 on May 12, 2022
On May 12, 2022 the above mentioned user removed large swaths of some very commonly known details of the subject of this article, thereby obliterating a huge part of his career, ostensibly for it being unsourced material. I have looked at many Wikipedia articles and the details removed here exist for many others similar without sourcing. Does every small detail need to be sourced? Often the so-called source material itself is wrong, the most prominent among them being a record in Guinness about Indian singer Lata Mangeshkar's number of recorded songs, which was egregiously incorrect.

The information that was removed may need to be cleaned up for language and format, but the details were not incorrect. The solution is not to purge the article so it becomes useless, rather to help clean it up if necessary. I would like to see that content restored back into the article. However, I do not want someone to again take a hatchet and chop stuff off summarily.

How does one ensure that the stuff goes back in, and more importantly, stays there.

Bmurthy (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hemant Kumar