text:
Student and Exchange Visitor Program

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is a program within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to manage foreign students and exchange visitors in the United States through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). The SEVP encompasses the F status (for foreign students in the United States in academic programs and their dependents), J status (for exchange visitors in the United States and their dependents), and M status (for foreign students in the United States in vocational programs and their dependents). The exchange visitor part of the program (J visa) is managed by the U.S. Department of State, although the SEVIS system is maintained by ICE.

The SEVP does not manage the issuance of the visas themselves. Visas are issued at United States consulates and embassies in other countries, which fall under the United States Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. However, having the correct status and information in the SEVIS system is necessary for a person to be able to receive a F, J, or M visa.

The SEVP does not cover some other statuses that can be used by foreign students in the United States, such as the H-4 status and other statuses for dependents of people in non-student statuses.

Pre-origins: CIPRIS
In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. In the aftermath of this incident, the student visa came under increased scrutiny when it was discovered that Eyad Ismoil, one of the terrorists involved was in the United States on an expired student visa.

A memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Investigative Agency Policies to the Deputy Attorney General dated September 24, 1994, mentioned the need to subject foreign students to thorough and continuing scrutiny before and during their stay in the United States. On April 17, 1995, the Deputy Attorney General asked the INS Commissioner to address this issue. This led to the formation of an INS task force in June 1995 to conduct a comprehensive review of the F, M, and J visa processes. Besides the INS, the task force included members from the State Department and the United States Information Agency, and experts in the administration of international student programs. The task force report, issued on December 22, 1995, identified problems in the tracking and monitoring of students by schools, problems in the certification of schools by the INS, and problems with INS receiving and maintaining up-to-date records from schools. As a result of these findings, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 directed the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and conduct a program to collect certain information on nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitors from approved institutions of higher education and designated exchange visitor programs.

In June 1997, the INS launched a pilot program for a centralized electronic reporting system for institutions, called the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS). The CIPRIS pilot officially ended in October 1999, as the INS felt it had gathered enough data from the prototype to start working on the nationwide system. The INS began working on a new system that would be called the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) with the associated information system called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information Service (SEVIS). During the rollout, CIPRIS and SEVIS met with considerable opposition from the Association of International Educators and the American Council on Education. However, they claimed that the opposition was not against the programs in principle but due to the concern that a botched rollout by the INS could result in many students suffering.

Launch after the September 11 attacks
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks (September 11, 2001) and the Patriot Act passed in response (October 26, 2001), there was further increase in scrutiny of student visas, increasing the momentum in favor of the adoption of SEVIS. This was partly because one of the attackers, Hani Hanjour, had come to the United States on a student visa.

Below is a timeline of the key events in the two years after the attacks describing the key steps in the evolution of SEVIS:

History of release versions
SEVIS has undergone six major releases since its launch. The release is numbered using a major release version number followed by a dot and a minor release version number. Below is a partial list of release dates:

During the first half of 2012, changes that affect all colleges, universities, and other educational institutions that provide English language training ("ESL") programs began. These changes stem from the Accreditation of English Language Training Act ("Accreditation Act"), which became effective in June 2011. Pursuant to the Accreditation Act, ESL programs that enroll foreign nonimmigrant students must obtain accreditation from a regional or national accreditation agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. The Accreditation Act applies to two types of ESL programs: Stand-Alone ESL Schools whose officials have indicated on the school's Form I-17 the intention to offer only ESL programs of study; and Combined Schools whose officials have indicated on the school's Form I-17 that the school offers an ESL program of study, as well as other programs of study. A Combined School may either contract out the ESL program of study or wholly own and operate the ESL program of study under the institution's governance.

Mandatory reporting requirements
Schools and programs approved to host students and scholars on these visas are required to report certain information. Information that must be reported includes:
 * Change of legal name
 * Change of U.S. address
 * Change of major field of study
 * Change of education degree level
 * Change of funding
 * Authorization for off-campus employment

In addition, they must report events that constitute a violation of the international visitor's visa status, such as academic suspension, criminal conviction, failure to enroll and unauthorized off-campus employment.

COVID-19 pandemic change
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the SEVP program allowed international students to take more online coursework in the spring and summer semesters of 2020 to accommodate the various state-mandated school closures and stay-at-home orders without penalizing the students. On July 6, 2020, ICE issued a regulation that stated that for any current international visitor under SEVP to remain in the country come the fall 2020 semesters, they must return to taking most of their coursework in person, limiting any online coursework to a maximum of one class or three credit hours online, or be enrolled in a hybrid system but still required to take some physical classes. Students failing to meet these would be face "immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings", and students who had indicated they would be taking only online classes would be denied visas.

The new change was criticized by students, schools, and states alike, as with the pandemic worsening in most of the United States at the time, many schools did not have plans to commit to opening to physical classes in the fall semester, leaving these international students at risk of deportation. At least three separate lawsuits were filed against ICE on the changed within the week on the basis that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and failed the Administrative Procedure Act: A joint suit by Harvard University and MIT, the state of California, and a separate collation of 17 states and the District of Columbia. Prior to a second hearing where it was expected that a preliminary injunction was to be placed on the new ruling on July 14, 2020, ICE affirmed it would rescind the new rule and continue to allow international students to participate in online classes.

Fee for students and exchange visitors
In 2004, the United States Congress mandated that all international students and exchange visitors pay the I-901 SEVIS fee, which funds the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) and SEVIS. The fee can be paid online at fmjfee.com. As of June 24, 2019, the fees are as follows:

The SEVIS fee must be paid after receiving the initial document (I-20 or DS-2019) and is a prerequisite for obtaining the F, J, or M visa, or if transitioning to student status using Form I-539.

The fee needs to be paid only for the principal (the F-1, J-1, or M-1). Dependents (F-2, J-2, and M-2) do not need to pay the fee. Also, the fee needs to be paid only once per initial SEVIS record, and in particular, does not need to be paid again if applying for a new visa on the same status. It is distinct from the visa fees, which need to be paid for each visa application.

Fee for schools seeking SEVP certification
Below is the list of fees for schools seeking SEVP certification (through Form I-17) or re-certification, as of January 2017.

title: Student and Exchange Visitor Program


text:
Talk:Simulation

One topic
One topic which I believe should be dealt with separately is Military Simulation, and in particular the history of the military simulation. 67.180.130.220 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Richard Garfield

Start 2003
I don't know exactly how this should be dealt with, but there should be either a disambiguation page, it should describe it on this page, or there should be another article page on the subject of surrealist simulation (as practiced in Breton and Eluard's The Immaculate Conception). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am planning to merge the articles simulate and simulator be  with the current article, simulation, which has the most links, and is the primary concept. --Lexor 14:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think this merge was a mistake, and, no offense, shows a misunderstanding of what makes the wikipedia most useful. It should not be an online simulcram of paper encyclopedias.  Wikilinks are what makes the wikipedia powerful.  This article is not focuessed on a sinlge topic.  It tries to address multiple topics.  Readers would be far better served if topics which could stand on their own, like flight simulator, marine simulator and vehicle simulator were each standalone separate articles.

 * I want marine simulator on my watchlist. I don't want to be advised of changes t  this article that are not related to marine simulators.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk items 2004
Reading the simulation article I get the impression that different authors have very diverse definitions of simulation. This is logical as simulation is a very wide field ranging from real world simulations (such as emergency excercises) to computer based human in the loop simulations (e.g. flight simulation), and from business process simulations to computer gaming.

I do not exactly see how, but it would be nice if this article is more structured maybe referring to more specific articles about different types of simulation (real life simulations, computer simulations, hybrid ...) and, or different aspects of simulation (e.g. simulator, simulation experiment, simulation formalisms). --Roy 15:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It is a problem and yes, the article did have several different authors - you should have seen the article before I did a reorganization about 6-8 months ago, it was all over the place, in fact there were about 3 articles that covered simulation, but no overarching structure and much duplication. I did (back then) attempt to do what you have suggested, with three main sections with prominent links to subarticles via the Main article: mechanism:

 * The breakdown currently is:

 * physical/interactive simulation (corresponding to your "real life" simulations)
 * flight simulator (Main article)
 * training simulation (no article as yet)
 * engineering simulation (e.g. load tests, no article as yet)
 * computer simulation (Main article)
 * simulation in computer science (no main article as yet) - this is supposed to cover formalistic aspects of simulation as you suggest

 * If you have other suggestions for improving the structure, I'd be more than happy to incorporate them, or just go ahead and make the changes.  If you end up making major structural changes, please expand them on them here in the Talk page before going ahead. --Lexor|Talk 13:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the tree is unsatisfactory because the leaves belong in multiple categories (you can call software-only flight simulators "games", but medical applications clearly include both hardware gadgets and software models). IMHO it would be best to keep the tree just for classification and move field-specific examples to sections below. Comments? 84.242.86.47 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk items 2005
The link to "descrete event simulation" goes back to the main simulation page. -Laurel Travis, 6/25/05

Talk items 2006
I performed some limited edits of the opening paragraph for (hopefully) somewhat improved clarity and readability. --ThreePD 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-

I have removed "Role Play Simulation" as a simulation type, as it really belongs to "Virtual Simulation", where real human players work on simulated equipments in a simulated environment. Jdu 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-- I am a little confused by the fact that the statement Training simulations typically come in one of four categories: only lists examples of three categories. Is one category missing?

--

I think it's quite strange that this plane appears as comparable to the F-106 on that plane's page when on the Gripen's page is compared to much newer aircraft such as the RAFALE or the Eurofighter Typhoon. (190.48.240.248 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)) - I did a series of minor edits for grammar and wording in the opening paragraphs and then reworked the external link section extensively. Formerly it just globbed all the external simulation links together. I separated it into some major categories and re-allocated accordingly. I then added what I thought were some glaring omissions (lack of a link to the SCS.org and the EUROSIM consortium for two). I added a couple big lists of organizations and simulation education courses that came up as first strikes on google, and please forgive me, but I also added a couple links to some common commercial tool. I'm in no way associated with these companies and don't even personally use their software but I know they are very common in the industry (Modelica, Mathematica, and Simul8). Feel free to add, modify or delete as you think appropriate. I just wanted to take a crack at presenting some potentially useful content to readers.

ThreePD 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Patient Simulation? - 2007
I went through this article, and while they address some elements of human patient simulation I was unable to find anything substantial and/or significant. I think we really need to address this as HPS is growing rapidly in health care education. Im rather new to Wiki, how do I go about starting a new article specifically on HPS?

Allen Hanberg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahanberg (talk • contribs).

see Help:Starting_a_new_page :-) 89.103.168.25 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no Human Patient Simulation??

I also have searched Wikipedia for Human Patient Simulation and have come up short. As the previous comment is from 2007, I can tell that there hasn't been much progress on getting an additional page added specifically for this information content. As a new professional in the field of medical simulation, I think it would be very beneficial to have a direct Wiki site with more information on the subject. Like previously stated, Human Patient Simulation is a fast growing field with enormous potential. More and more medical learners are being exposed to simulation during their schooling.

As we know from the "Simulation" Wiki page, simulation originated in the military, more specifically the air force, but it has expanded into a whole new realm in the medical world. Health professionals of all levels are being exposed to Human Patient Simulation training. This educational tool is crucial to learners being able to expand their knowledge in no risk situations. Through the use of Human Patient Simulation, we are able to give learners a space where they can feel comfortable and practice the skills they have learned in the classroom without any risk to patients.

There are many studies out there looking at the outcomes of learners who are exposed to simulation training versus those that are not. The journal of Academic Medicine published an article relating to a study about simulation training in the medical field. This article titled "Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence" shows us that simulation training is increasing positive patient outcomes. This study included over 600 learners from many different fields of medicine and different scopes of practice (McGgahie, 2011, pg. 708).

Throughout medical training, educators have been looking for better ways to improve students' retention of information, which indubitably transfers into better patient practices. We learn from the before mentioned study that "A growing body of evidence shows that clinical skills acquired in medical simulation laboratory settings transfer directly to improved patient care practices and better patient outcomes" (McGaghie, 2011, p. 708). Traditional teaching and learning styles are being improved upon by simulation and the outcomes are outstanding. Human Patient Simulation does more than just give learners a safe haven to practice, it gives them the opportunity to expand upon and become superior in their field of practice. "The power and utility of SBME [simulation based medical education] with DP [deliberate practice] toward the goal of skill acquisition are no longer in doubt, especially compared with traditional models of clinical education" (McGaghie, 2011, p. 708).

References: McGaghie, William C. PhD, Issenberg, Barry S. MD, Cohen, Elaine R., Barsuk, Jeffrey H. MD, Wayne, Diane B. MD. (2011). Does Simulation-Based Medical Education with Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence. Academic Medicine, Vol.86, No. 6, pgs. 706-711. Sgrah019 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Sara Kagarise

Military Simulation
I think that war games and military simulation are two almost entirely different concepts in that war games require a human-in-the-loop, while military simulation as used by military agencies worldwide consists of modeling a specific scenario in computers, running it and analyzing the results. Could someone look at it please? Avmatso 04:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EP09 symulator.jpg
Image:EP09 symulator.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) '''

Bold text
''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.138.211 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical Simulation
I've created a separate page dedicated entirely to medical simulation, examples, applications, and other information regarding the subject. I did my best to adhere to Wikipedia standards, but make no promises to it being exact as I have had no prior article writing experiences with Wikipedia. Any help in cleaning up mistakes that I may have made is appreciated. In addition, perhaps it would be best to merge some of the medical knowledge from this page into my new page? Also, the History section is definitely lacking and I admit that I did not spend much time on that. Jskiles1 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtual training
After careful consideration, almost the entire virtual training article could fit in a heading in Simulation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC) The result of the discussion is not moved. 123.24.108.135 (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed. That recently created stub has potential for growth. A WP:SUMMARY here is adequate though. Besides, this article's "More examples in different areas" section is already a hodge-podge of topics in no distinguishable order. Pcap ping  11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree on potential for growth, and I find it hard to imagine anything there which shouldn't be here. Furthermore I cannot imagine criteria for determinging whehter an ap is "virtual training", a simulation for the purpose of training, a simulation for the purpose of familiarization, or a simulation for the purpose of entertainment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The expansion, if any, should be within Simulation, with all examples moved to the specific examples section.  I see no reason or likelyhood for possible expansion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Over a year, no growth in the subarticle.  The only change since my comment above are grammar corrections (see Greengrocer's apostrophe) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed. As a student of one of the two Modeling & Simulation Ph. D. programs in the world, I agree that there is potential for growth and the two should not be merged. In addition to the content already in existence that could be added, virtual simulation is evolving rapidly and the total amount of content available to human knowledge will continue to grow at exponential rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe7987 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed. As a simulation software engineer I am aware of several very distinct uses of simulation such as analysis, testing, entertainment, and training. Each application of simulation could be summarized in the general article, but then could easily warrant a separate article. Virtual training is simply one of those specific instances of applications of simulation technology. --Threepd 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepd (talk • contribs)

Redirect from Dream hypothesis
Could someone please explain why "Dream hypothesis" redirects here. I was looking for the Cartesian concept. Does such an article exist? --852_Charlie_Papa (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should have been redirected to Simulated reality, and would have been still redirected there, except that someone redirected Simulated reality to Simulation, and a bot followed it. Fixed now, thanks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simulation and games
This topic occurs twice, without good reason, in this article.

The section titled "Simulation and games" should probably be merged with the section "Simulation in entertainment - Examples of entertainment simulation - Computer and video games".

In this section, the example of analog or 'paper' simulation games should probably be explicitly mentioned. Also, the statement "Moreover, they represent the interactions between the playable characters

and the environment realistically" is too broad in its given context. A distinction should be made between simulations of the experience of enagaging in an activity (such as driving a car) vs interactive simulations of the functioning of a system (as in SimCity).  In games that are an interactive model of a system, the player usually does not 'realistically interact' with the environment, and there may be no 'playable character' as such (a good example of this would be The Sims).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.34.64 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Use in simulators and simulation technology
This text was cut from Stimulation. I put it here in case anybody feels like doing something with it in this article. Lova Falk    talk   07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Stimulation describes a type of simulation whereby artificially generated signals are fed to real equipment or software in order to Stimulate it to produce the result required for training, maintenance or for R&D. The real equipment can be radar, sonics, instruments, software and so on. In some cases the Stimulation equipment can be carried in the real platform or carriage vehicle (that is the Ship, AFV or Aircraft) and be used for so-called "embedded training" during its operation, by the generation of simulated scenarios which can be dealt with in a realistic manner by use of the normal controls and displays. In the overall definition of simulation, the alternative method is called "emulation" which is the simulation of equipment by entirely artificial means by physical and software modelling.

Re Grey box completion and validation
“See also“ “Grey box completion and validation“ has been removed anonymously without explanation from this and several other topics. Following advice from Wikipedia if there are no objections (please provide your name and reasons), I plan to reinstate the reference in a weeks time.

The removed reference provides techniques for computer model development as is need for many simulations. In particular most models are incomplete (i.e. a grey box) and thus need completion and validation. This reference seems to be within the appropriate content of the “See also” section see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section.

BillWhiten (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Complex GPU simulation example
There is a good overview description of the complexity of CFD simulation of rocket engine combustion, where simulation is required over eight (8) orders of magnitude in time scale, and six (6) orders of magnitude in length. Fascinating talk at GTC 2015 in the past few weeks: GPUs to Mars:  Full-scale Simulation of SpaceX's Mars Rocket Engine, Adam Lichtl and Steven Jones, GPU Technology Conference, spring 2015. The approach described in the talk (wavelet/grid adaptation as a means of significantly decreasing storage and compute power required to do a quality CFD simulation of complex and large combustion process like this) might be useful for improving the article. What's new is that this is being done on standard GPU acceleration chips, massively parallel, at much lower cost, and not really possible on previous processor approaches. Novel approach to doing combustion CFD with low-cost GPUs. — N2e (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005201455/http://starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm to http://www.starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written and poorly conceived
This article represents Wikipedia at its worst. Anyone hoping to gain insight about simulation will leave this article shaking their heads, wondering what they have just read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.156.67.94 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Aural Display
The bulleted item on 'headphones' is dubious. The conventional approach for 3D Audio headphones is to use an Head-related Transfer FunctionHead-related_transfer_function (HRTF) model. This is not a simulation but an emulation. The HRTF model is emulating the amplification and measurement system that was used to capture the Head-related Impulse Responses (HRIRs). In doing so, it explicitly emulates what would have been captured by the dummy-head microphone if a new sound would have be played on that system at the given location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.139.94 (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrongly Titled. Should be 'work/science/computer'...
Simulation, by any dictionary, has nothing to do with science Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 08:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

Question about classification and terminology section
Is there a reason for the order of terms in ? Should the terms be ordered differently, such as alphabetically or some other way? Biogeographist (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we live in a simulation world = simulated world (= simulation world hypothesis)? (create the redirection)

 * 1) Quantum mechanics is so complicated that the "simulation world" (here used as a single bilectic/bilexic/two-worded noun) would be identical to the natural world if its smaller components were Planck-scale[d].
 * 2) The simulation world hypothesis is a displacement.
 * 3) Either some deeper world is the actual one.
 * 4) Either an infinite series of words provide the causality connectome without a specific first world.

Why the simulation world hypothesis is useless?

 * 1) The universe itself is a maximally complicated quantum computer.
 * 2) We examine the deeper layers of physics (see: Max Tegmark's struogony and David Deutsch's constructor theory) which can be interpreted as a deeper world in which the simulation exists, but actually in a way more causal way which answers more questions that cannot be avoided even by the supposed world which created the hypothetical simulation.
 * 3) The infinite series of causality hypothesis is also more causally approached via mathematics and logic itself. The guess of living in a simulation created in a more fundamental world, not only is included in the non-simulatory/non-simulated theories, but also the causal questions are better handled. The world, finite series of worlds and infinite series of worlds which supposedly generate the simulation, cannot escape themselves from the causal questions dealt by physics foundations theories which don't include simulated worlds.

'''Thus the simulation world hypothesis, not only it doesn't add more to the physical foundations conundrum, but also needlessly makes it less causal, because even the worlds which produce simulations cannot escape from their foundational cause, which at some deeper degree has to be physical. Physics remains an important issue, because its foundations are informational (see: information theory), but without the need of someone playing tricks on us. That speculation adds no genuine complexity and actually it erroneously tries to keep unanswered questions regarding foundational causality.'''

Why the simulation world hypothesis is similar to the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis?
Because the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis like the simulation world hypothesis transfer a causal issue to a different causal layer, but without to manage the causal layer, layers or infinite layers.

In what way the alien origin of earthling life hypothesis and the simulation world hypothesis differ?
The Big Bang destroyed everything, even if we support cyclic theories of cosmology (not only one exists). Thus some alien civilization would have to be the first one, and we simply transfer the origin of life/abiogenesis from chemistry conundrum to that world. see: Jack W. Szostak on YouTube

Time travel and wormholes don't work for humans (and for human-sized objects - wormholes can be an interpretation of Planck-size[d] phenomena) who want to stay alive. see: Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube

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

title: Talk:Simulation


text:
Uthai Thani province

Uthai Thani (อุทัยธานี, ), one of Thailand's seventy-six provinces (changwat) lies in lower northern Thailand. Neighbouring provinces are (from north clockwise) Nakhon Sawan, Chai Nat, Suphan Buri, Kanchanaburi and Tak. It lies somewhat off the route between Bangkok, 200 km distant and Chiang Mai.

Geography
The province stretches from the upper plains of the Chao Phraya River valley, to forested mountains in the west. The Sakae Krang River, a tributary of the Chao Phraya River, is the main watercourse of in the province. The total forest area is 3,419 km² or 51.4 percent of provincial area. The Huai Kha Khaeng wildlife sanctuary, at the western boundary bordering Tak province, was declared a World Heritage Site in 1991. It is home to most of the forest animals of Southeast Asia, including tigers and elephants. Huai Kha Kaeng wildlife sanctuary, along with one other wildlife sanctuary, make up region 12 (Nakhon Sawan) of Thailand's protected areas.
 * Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, 2780 km2

History
Originally Mon and Lawa settled in the area. The first Thai settlement in the area was Muang U Thai during the Sukhothai Kingdom, but it was later abandoned when the river changed course. The Patabeut people, of Karen ethnicity, revived the settlement at its current site during the Ayutthaya Kingdom. It served as a fort protecting the boundary of the kingdom.

Uthai Thani is the hometown of the father of King Rama I. He later changed the city's old name Uthai to Uthai Thani.

In 1892, King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) added the area of Uthai Thani to the Monthon Nakhon Sawan and in 1898 formed the province.

Symbols
The provincial seal depicts the pavilion at Wat Khao Sakae Krang. It houses the statue of Thongdee, the father of King Rama I and a Buddha footprint. The mountain in the background symbolizes the location of the pavilion on top of Khao Sakae Krang.

The provincial flower is the yellow cotton tree (Cochlospermum regium). The provincial tree is the neem (Azadirachta indica v. siamensis).

The flag of Uthai Thani depicts the provincial seal of Uthai Thani in the middle. The yellow colour at the top of the flag is the colour of the Chakri dynasty, symbolizing gold. The green colour at the bottom is the colour of King Rama I as he was born on a Wednesday, which is associated with green in the Thai calendar. The text below the seal says Uthai Thani province.

Provincial government
The province is divided into eight districts (amphoes). These are further divided into 70 subdistricts (tambons) and 642 villages (mubans).

Local government
As of 26 November 2019 there are: one Uthai Thani Provincial Administration Organisation (ongkan borihan suan changwat) and 14 municipal (thesaban) areas in the province. Uthai Thani has town (thesaban mueang) status. There are a further 13 subdistrict municipalities (thesaban tambon). The non-municipal areas are administered by 49 Subdistrict Administrative Organisations (SAO) (ongkan borihan suan tambon).

Human achievement index 2022
In 2003, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Thailand began tracking progress on human development at the sub-national level using the Human achievement index (HAI), a composite index covering all the eight key areas of human development. National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDB) has taken over this task since 2017.

title: Uthai Thani province


text:
DEFCON

The defense readiness condition (DEFCON) is an alert state used by the United States Armed Forces. For security reasons, the US military does not announce a DEFCON level to the public.

The DEFCON system was developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and unified and specified combatant commands. It prescribes five graduated levels of readiness (or states of alert) for the U.S. military. It increases in severity from DEFCON 5 (least severe) to DEFCON 1 (most severe) to match varying military situations, with DEFCON 1 signaling the impending outbreak of nuclear warfare.

DEFCONs are a subsystem of a series of "Alert Conditions", or LERTCONs, which also include Emergency Conditions (EMERGCONs).

Definition
The DEFCON level is controlled primarily by the U.S. president and the U.S. Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commanders; each level defines specific security, activation and response scenarios for the personnel in question.

Different branches of the U.S. Armed Forces (i.e. U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Space Force) and different bases or command groups can be activated at different defense conditions. According to Air & Space/Smithsonian,, the U.S. DEFCON level has never been more severe than DEFCON 3. The DEFCON 2 levels in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and 1991 Gulf War applied only to the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC).

DEFCONs should not be confused with similar systems used by the US military, such as Force Protection Conditions (FPCONS), Readiness Conditions (REDCONS), Information Operations Condition (INFOCON) and its future replacement Cyber Operations Condition (CYBERCON), and Watch Conditions (WATCHCONS), or the former Homeland Security Advisory System used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Although a higher DEFCON number refers to a more relaxed defence posture, the term has been misused in popular culture in which "DEFCON 5" is incorrectly used to describe an active conflict situation (such as in the title of the video game Defcon 5), or more figuratively, to describe an aggravated state of mind ("going to DEFCON five").

Levels
Defense readiness conditions vary between many commands and have changed over time, and the United States Department of Defense uses exercise terms when referring to the DEFCON levels during exercises. This is to prevent confusing exercise commands with actual operational commands.

On January 12, 1966, NORAD "proposed the adoption of the readiness conditions of the JCS system", and information about the levels was declassified in 2006:

History
After NORAD was created, the command used different readiness levels (Normal, Increased, Maximum) subdivided into eight conditions, e.g., the "Maximum Readiness" level had two conditions "Air Defense Readiness" and "Air Defense Emergency". In October 1959, the JCS Chairman informed NORAD "that Canada and the U.S. had signed an agreement on increasing the operational readiness of NORAD forces during periods of international tension." After the agreement became effective on October 2, 1959, the JCS defined a system with DEFCONs in November 1959 for the military commands. The initial DEFCON system had "Alpha" and "Bravo" conditions (under DEFCON 3) and Charlie/Delta under DEFCON 4, plus an "Emergency" level higher than DEFCON 1 with two conditions: "Defense Emergency" and the highest, "Air Defense Emergency" ("Hot Box" and "Big Noise" for exercises).

The United States has never declared a readiness condition of DEFCON 1 to prepare for nuclear war.

Cuban Missile Crisis
During the Cuban Missile Crisis on October 16–28, 1962, the U.S. Armed Forces (with the exception of United States Army Europe (USAREUR)) were ordered to DEFCON 3. On October 24, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was ordered to DEFCON 2, while the rest of the U.S. Armed Forces remained at DEFCON 3. SAC remained at DEFCON 2 until November 15. While at DEFCON 2, 92.5% of SAC's weapons systems (approx. 1,479 strike aircraft; 182 Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missiles; 2,962 total nuclear weapons; and 1,003 refueling tankers) were ready to launch within one hour, while its airborne alert program expanded to include 1/8th of SAC's bomber forces, allowing an average of 65 planes in the air in position to be directed at targets in the Soviet Union at any given time.

Yom Kippur War
On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a joint attack on Israel resulting in the Yom Kippur War. The United States became concerned that the Soviet Union might intervene, and on October 25, US forces, including Strategic Air Command, Continental Air Defense Command, European Command and the Sixth Fleet, were placed at DEFCON 3.

According to documents declassified in 2016, the move to DEFCON 3 was motivated by CIA reports indicating that the Soviet Union had sent a ship to Egypt carrying nuclear weapons along with two other amphibious vessels. Soviet troops never landed and the declassified documents did not disclose the fate of the ship and its cargo.

Over the following days, the various forces reverted to normal status with the Sixth Fleet standing down on November 17.

Operation Paul Bunyan
Following the axe murder incident at Panmunjom on August 18, 1976, readiness levels for US forces in South Korea were increased to DEFCON 3, where they remained throughout Operation Paul Bunyan.

September 11 attacks
During the September 11 attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the DEFCON level be increased to 3, and also a stand-by for a possible increase to DEFCON 2. It was lowered to DEFCON 4 on September 14.

title: DEFCON


text:
Talk:Belshazzar

In song
The story of Belshazzar is told in a song of the same name by Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two in the early 1950s with Sun Records

And William Walton wrote a tone poem ''Belshazzar's Feast." Wetman 23:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

Book of Daniel
There is no reason to assume the historical elements of Daniel are fiction. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 tells us in the fourth year(three years completed) of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar sieged Jerusalem. This is 613 BC, durring Nabopolassars reign. In the twelfth year of Jehoiakim, the first year of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, a second siege takes place. This is the 605 BC siege under Nebuchadnezzar II. Jehoiachin is taken captive and Zediekiah rules for another 11 years. Daniel tells us that Belshazzar is killed the first day of Darius's reign, 522 BC, in the third year of Belshazar's reign, right after Nebuchadnezzar dies. It is not that someone is writing fiction, it is that subsequent rulers are being called by the same name. Even Cyrus in the bible must be Cambyses or Smerdis using the name Cyrus in 524 BC, if 70 years are to be reckoned after the last captivity. He makes a point to say "I Cyrus, the same Cyrus", as though there was doubt. My reckoning of the cronology of the Bible agrees with most of the important dates. 605, Nebuchadnezzars siege, 522, Darius reign, 517,temple is complete, the third siege in 597, even the destruction of Jericho in 1500 BC, and a strong association between what is known of the Hyksos with Joseph through Exodus, so long as you take all of the dates given at face value, and believe God over Moses. It means someone reigned under the name Artaxerxes in 523, that does not mean this is the person we identify as Artaxerxes I who came much later. The temple was delayed only two years. The agreement of those dates falls out naturally just by assuming the bible means what it says. I also assume, whether prophecy or post diction, I believe prophecy, that the years between Zedekiahs captivity and the return to Jerusalem are 70, just as Jeremiah said. Not only do I get the perfect agreement of known historical dates, but the final date given in the bible, after the weeks of years given by Daniel, is 2BC, a year before the death of Herod. There is no contradiction in the biblical account to known history, its errors in calculation, which are easy to make because the account is convoluted, and figures are known by different names. Assumptions are made by some that I do not make, like Ezra must be 50 years after the temple is completed, to make it match up with the reign of Darius II, but if you do that you cannot contruct a continuos cronology using the information in the Bible. If you assume Ezras journey is right after temple is completed as it is writen, it tells you the reign of Darius was 522 BC, and the reign of the Artaxerxes who delayed the temple was 523 BC, and Cyrus was 524 BC, and from Daniel we can construct the dates of Belahazzar, who rules right after a Nebuchadnezzar, but probably not Nebuchadnezzar II. 2600:1004:b046:ba35:b2:54d6:a684:416 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2021

 * What a load of unsourced nonsense. Unless you can back up anything you say with a reference to a reliable source, it should not go in the article since Wikipedia follows reliable sources. It matters little that certain parts of the Biblical account can match up with certain elements of real history if you add your own unverified interpretations and calculations. What matters is that the Book of Daniel gets important historical details wrong. The Babylonians kept extensive records which are still preserved to us today. For the royal successions from one king to the next we often even have precise dates in terms of months and days. Belshazzar was never king of Babylon. The Babylonian records are very precise in only ever designating him as crown prince. Darius the Mede is not a historical figure, because the Babylonian documents are very clear in that the succession was directly from Nabonidus to Cyrus, and there are no records of anyone else. "It is not that someone is writing fiction, it is that subsequent rulers are being called by the same name" is your own unsourced opinion. Why would rulers by called by the wrong names? "My reckoning of the cronology of the Bible agrees with most of the important dates" - your reckoning or interpretation of the bible is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia, and the Bible is not generally considered a reliable source of historical information anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 * It is original scholarship. My calculations are nothing but entering the years recorded in the Bible into a spreadsheet. There is nothing added, no interpretation, no assumptions. None are needed. It's a rote calculation. My source is the bible, and there is no reason that one should believe a Babylonian king's list has more historical value than a Hebrew king's list which is what Samuel through 2 Chronicles are. Ethnically biased much? There is no reason to think you would find Belshazzars name on a Babylonian king's list that ended with Nabonidus being overthrown by Cyrus, but there does exist evidence that Belshazzar may have stayed in charge over Babylon until 522 BC.  You have no right to dismiss a historical source because you think it may intermingled with fiction. Then you may as well throw out all of the histories. You are wrong. The bible cronology matches so well you would have to conclude that the Bible is the primary source for all of those dates, 605 522 517, 1500.  It's not a good fit to the data, it's a perfect fit to the data. Speaking of opinions, it is also opinion that Daniel is fiction.  An honest discussion would show a counterpoint of scholars and historians who do not agree that Daniel is fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)

 * Let's go through what you're saying point by point because I don't really have the time to go on a lengthy argument.

 * 1) It is original scholarship - this is exactly why it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, regardless of how correct that research is. Information on Wikipedia has to be cited to reliable, preferrably scholarly, sources. You will notice that the article as it stands right now is fully cited. Your objections to the article do not matter unless you can provide a reliable scholarly source which supports your position. That's not just me being rude, but the information needs to be sourced.
 * 2) My calculations are nothing but entering the years recorded in the Bible into a spreadsheet. There is nothing added, no interpretation, no assumptions. None are needed. It's a rote calculation. - you have added your own interpretation. For instance "subsequent rulers are being called by the same name".
 * 3) My source is the bible - yeeeeeah... I feel like I shouldn't have to tell you why this doesn't really work.
 * 4) there is no reason that one should believe a Babylonian king's list has anymore historical value than a Hebrew king's list, which is what Samuel through 2 Chronicles are. There is no reason to think you would find Belshazzars name on a Babylonian king's list that ended with Nabonidus being overthrown by Cyrus, but there does exist evidence that Belshazzar may have stayed in charge over Babylon until 522 BC. - you appear to not be well-versed in the historical evidence that actually survives from Babylon. It's not just some king list. We have thousands upon thousands of clay tablets preserved from Babylon with precise dates down to the month and day, and the Babylonians always noted down the ruling king in their messages (this is how they numbered their years). We can thus pinpoint exactly when successions took place, and who succeeded whom. We know not only from king lists but also from a wealth of other preserved materials that Cyrus directly succeeded Nabonidus. I have made no comment on Samule or 2 Chronicles because my field of knowledge is Mesopotamia, not Judea, but your ideas concerning Babylonian succession do not match the historical evidence. If Belshazzar had ever become king, or if he would have ruled for as long as 17 years (539 to 522), we would know. Not only would he appear in king lists (even kings who were hated by the Babylonians were not omitted) and we would have an extensive records of tablets and documents dated to his reign, which we do not. Instead, the dates on tablets fit nicely in with the direct succession from Nabonidus to Cyrus.
 * 5) You have no right to dismiss a historical source because you think it may intermingled with fiction. Yes I do. The mainstream academic consensus is to view the Book of Daniel as fiction.
 * 6) The bible cronology matches so well you would have to conclude that the Bible is the primary source for all of those dates, 605 522 517, 1500. It's not a good fit to the data, it's an exquisite fit to the data. The Bible is not the primary source for any dates in the Babylonian chronology. They are known from tablets and king lists, i.e. actual historical evidence, not Hebrew religious writings. Given that your calculations require you to make the unsourced and made-up assumption that a lot of kings went by different names and that it requires Belshazzar to have had a historically non-existant lengthy reign, I think it's pretty clear that the Bible does not fit the dates very well. This shouldn't really by a surprise since the Bible is quite inconsistent even within itself.
 * 7) Speaking of opinions, it is also opinion that Daniel is fiction. Sure, but it fits very poorly with the historical evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever for the story itself, or for things like Darius the Mede being real or Belshazzar being king. As I said, it's not just my opinion, but the mainstream opinion in academia.
 * 8) An honest discussion would show a counterpoint of scholars and historians who do not agree that Daniel is fiction. No it would not. For Wikipedia policy, see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The consensus among historians is that the Book of Daniel is fiction. The viewpoint of the small number of Bible literalists does not need mentioning here, much like how the article on the moon landing should not present the moon landing being fake as an equally valid view to it being real, or the article on the Earth should mention the planet being flat as an equally valid view to it being spherical.

 * I would recommend you to go on with your day and spend your time on something more productive. You can't add anything of what you say because it's your original research and you do not seem well-versed in Wikipedia policy or Babylonian history. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 * The objection to Daniel as a historical source cannot simply be that it tells of miraculous things. It gives several dates that are historically significant, even if it was embellished. There is no reason to think a king wouldn't have consulted seers and astrologers.  Your lack of belief in those things does not preclude the king having belief in those things. Then the idea that Daniel is one of these seers consulted by the king is not so far fetched.  Whether you want to believe the specifics of what happened is different from understanding that these events happened in some historical capacity. It is likely that Daniel is what it appears to be, a journal of a seer who was consulted by the king, known as Nebuchadnezzar.  The historically significant dates that Daniel provides are critical to piecing together the entire biblical cronology. They are key witnesses to narrowing down that Ezra must be talking about Darius I in 522 BC. It eliminates the uncertainty of when the release decree went out and how long the temple was delayed. And then when you stitch it all together, Daniel prophesys the comming of the Messiah in 2BC. This cannot be coincidence.  The book would have to have been much later than 2BC to postdict that in a prophecy, but by all historical accounts we know that book is older than that. The thing we want to learn from these histories is ARE the prophecies and miracles true?  It is a question. So your assumptions about what is possible should be suspended and you should follow the historical account through to it's conclusion. Then maybe we will learn for sure or not if the prophecy is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)

 * You clearly just ignored everything I said and you do not appear to be interested in having a reasonable discussion, or presenting anything we can actually use for Wikipedia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * 1) It's not an interpretation. It a necessary logical conclusion if one is to think that the Bible is speaking of historical figures. Being that all of the biblical dates seem to match exactly those dates obtained from Babylonian sources, it's absurd to not conclude that the Darius, the Mede, in the Bible, is Darius I in 522 BC.  That is the only assumption I made, that the accepted date of Darius's ascension was true and accurate and that it was talking about Darius I.  6) The rest of the dates just fit after that assumption. 605, 597, 517, 2, 1500. 4) I wondered myself how the accepted dates came to be after that. How do they know Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem in 605 outside of the Bible, or does it come completely from the Bible.  That's partly why I have joined this discussion. It's too exact. 5)The bandwagon argument is not valid.  A majority of mainstream scholars can be wrong. 7)There is evidence that there was a Belshazzar the king and a Darius the Mede and that is synonymous with Darius I.  It just that you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is historical evidence and what isnt, and it's based on nothing but an anti-religious bias. If we're any other source you would be elated to have found confirmation that Darius I ascended in 522. 8) We aren't talking about a conspiracy, except for the atheist conspiracy to supress biblical evidence. This is not the moon landing.  It is a lie that there is no evidence of these things we are talking about.  This is about you wanting to eliminate the Bible being considered an historical source, and you do so by assuming it's supernatural elements preclude it having any historical value. By that reasoning nothing should be considered to have any historical value.

 * I would recommend you not worry about how I spend my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)

 * It is an interpretation. Does the Bible say that Darius the Mede is Darius the Great? No . Does the Bible include your calculation? No . Does the Bible say that several kings went under different names? No . The dates obviously match very poorly because you believe Belshazzar reigned as king until 522 BC, which he did not. If he would have, we would not have an extensive number of cuneiform tablets that mark the transition from Nabonidus to Cyrus. We have cuneiform tablets dated to Nabonidus' reign from 13 October 539 BC and tablets dated to Cyrus from 30 October 539 BC. The mainstream opinion concerning the Babylonian succession is not just based on king lists, but a wealth of other historical material. The bandwagon argument is not valid. A majority of mainstream scholars can be wrong. shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, but a collection of information sourced to reliable scholarly sources. Wikipedia follows the mainstream scholarly opinion, and does not promote fringe or views only held by a small minority (again, see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). It just that you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is historical evidence and what isnt, and it's based on nothing but an anti-religious bias You're really going to call something biased when you prefer a Bronze-Age Hebrew collection of myths and legends as a historical source over the actual texts by the Babylonians themselves and the opinion of virtually all of modern scholarship? It's not my decision personally - Wikipedia presents the mainstream scholarly view. The mainstream view is that the Bible is not generally a reliable source of historical information and that its chronology of Babylonian history specifically does not match the more reliable historical evidence (king lists made by the Babylonians themselves and not a foreign group like the Hebrews, inscriptions by Babylonian kings, and the thousands upon thousands of surviving contemporary Babylonian documents). It's not anti-religious bias. Not all Christians believe the Book of Daniel should be taken literally. There is evidence that there was a Belshazzar the king and a Darius the Mede and that is synonymous with Darius I No there isn't. Your "evidence" for this is the Bible and your own calculations. The Bible is not used as a source of historical information on Wikipedia and your own calculations qualify as original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. If this information was correct you would be able to provide a reliable scholarly source to support it, but you can't and thus it cannot be added to the article. I don't think it's productive for me to keep explaining the actual evidence we have for the Babylonian succession and Wikipedia policy to you so I again recommend you to spend your time on something more productive because nothing you said could be added to the article regardless of if it's right or not since you're not providing anything to cite it to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * You use the bible as a historical source whether you know it or not. After a minor adjustment to my calculation, allowing that both Babylonian captivities endured for a seventy year period, the biblical timeline now runs parallel to every known historical date regarding the Babylonian captivity 608 Pharaoh Necho, 598, 587, 517, 522 Darius, 528 Cyrus, which is another date of his death cited as often as 530, it also accurately shows the dates of the Assyrian rulers from Tig'lath-pile'ser to Sennach'erib. One has to be a complete fool to think the bible is not historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)

 * Your calculations have no place on Wikipedia because 1) they conflict with the reliable scholarly sources cited in the article (and the wealth of actual historical material they treat) and 2) you have provided no reliable scholarly source to support them. It's that simple. One has to be a complete fool to think the bible is not historical Yeah, right. The Bible is rife with historical inaccuracies, not only for the parts covering the Babylonian and Achaemenid kings. There are large historical issues with the account of the Exodus and there is no evidence that there was ever a Great Flood, to mention just two obvious examples. It's not strange for non-contemporary writers in a completely different country to get the Babylonian succession wrong, but to believe that their (Biblical) account should be prioritized over the massive amount of actual historical Babylonian evidence, now that's foolish. I would recommend you actually read about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the actual evidence we have instead of just relying on the Bible the next time you want to put together an argument. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I have not said the bible should be prioritized over other evidence. That is not the way evidence works. They work together to establish a fact. What I am telling you is that the Bible agrees with every source I can find of the dates of these events. It is more than coincidence for the biblical timeline to pass through the dates of so many known historical events. Either the bible is a very accurate historical register of dates and years, and other historical dating methods are also very accurate, and they agree, or all of the dates we know about these events have come from the Bible and from this calculation in the past. It does not mater what one thinks about the flood, whether real or myth.  The subsequent known historical dates are correct because of their relative position to one another. I could tack on a million years of mythological history and it does not affect the accuracy of the non mythological parts so long as the mythological part is removed from the historical part and tacked on at the beginning. What matters is if I assume that Darius in Ezra is Darius I and I set that date to 522, then all of other dates I spoke of fit perfectly with known history, because of their relative position.  Actually, Manetho in Aegyptiaca begins with something similar. He starts with a mythological beginning spanning 11000 years, but requires that these are months and claims that there were some 2000 years of rule by the god's before the first king's. But here's the thing, you don't throw out Manetho as a valid source of historical information just because it begins with a mythological account. You separate what could be fact from what you think is likely fiction and you draw what you can from it. Yet for some reason because the bible begins the same way, you say it has no historical value when clearly it is a temporally detailed and accurate record of events of a people. The Hebrew morality was no different than any civilization of the day. They were all constantly warring with one another and killing left and right. This is not unique to the Hebrews. At least it was no different in that sense of war and bloodshed.  I can imagine what else you would mean by offensive morality. No lying stealing false gods or idols,no adultery, no false witness, no covetousness of you neighbor s wife of possessions, no killing, honor mom and dad...yeah their morality was awfully offensive. Or do you mean a man is required to marry a woman if he rapes her and can never divorce her? You law is about intent, and it is pretty clear the intent of that law is that he will be indebted to her for the rest of his life. So what's offensive about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)

 * You're wasting your breath and wasting our time. You have lost this dispute before it even began. This is enshrined in the practice of the Wikipedia Community and it is enshrined in policies and guidelines. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml

If your intention is to fight against MBS, learn that you have already lost your fight, here at Wikipedia.

Conclusion: the IP has lost this debate before even beginning to write their arguments at this talk page. It is such a basic issue that all Wikipedians who don't realize that the IP lost by default are fools and knaves. As Robert Reich stated, There are two kinds of liars – fools and knaves. Fools lie because they don't know the truth. Knaves lie because they intend to mislead. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I am not asking to have my research put up on Wikipedia. I am saying that interjections about the book of Daniel being complete fiction are baseless and unfounded, and they do not belong on a page about Belsahzzar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)

 * You are not an authority upon this matter. We don't listen to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * You have no authority to arbitrarily decide what is true or false, fact or fiction, which is what you are doing. And further, the statement is intended to be an offensive toward anyone who does believe that the story is true. The statement has no other academic value. It is a parenthetical jab. It belongs in a subsection on the Book of Daniel. Yet that is the statement that you all are here to defend, that is where you put the tag telling people to come to talk page. Now I am not certain but I am pretty sure, I would bet, there is some sort of rule in the Wikipedia policy about writing things with sole intention of being offensive. You are turning an academic discussion about figures in the Bible into a platform from which to enforce your atheistic beliefs. It is thought oppression by a minority.

 * Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)

 * As I have already stated on my user page, the idea that I am an atheist is not reality-based (of course, I have stated it there much more bluntly).
 * Upon thought oppression by a minority: see WP:DEM and ad populum.
 * "If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)"
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't mean anyone in particular. I don't know that you made that edit. But Wikipedia is eaten up with often unsourced edits on nearly every page about the bible, or related even in the slightest, hammering atheistic talking points, or expressing unsourced anti religious bias as fact.  Sometimes they are sourced but check the source and you find it really dosen't say what they claim it said.  Now it may be that many scholars think the Book of Daniel is fiction, but it does not belong in every encyclopedia article that mentions the Book of Daniel. No mater how many scholars agree it is still an opinion and it should appear in a subsection discussion regarding scholarly opinion about the books of Daniel, not in the bulk of the text relaying the factual information about the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)

 * In the mainstream academia there is no dispute about the historicity of the Book of Daniel: that book has been settled as bogus for more than a century.
 * WP:NPOV requires us to mention all academic mainstream views. There is no other academic mainstream view about its historicity. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * It does not matter. Interjections about the factuality of the book of Daniel have nothing to do with the facts of who Belshazzar was. The comment does not belong on this page. An encyclopedia relates facts about the topic, the comment that the book of Daniel is regarded as fiction is not a fact about the topic Belshazzar.

 * Suggesting you are an atheist is nothing at all like suggesting that you are an agent of the NWO, but yet you conflate the two just like you conflate Belshazzar and your crusade to pepper every biblical topic with atheist sentiment by interjecting with statements that have no place in the sections being discussed. Did I hear this guy's right, since he paid to make edits noone can correct or modify his opinions? That's what it seemed to say in the opening of his user page. If so Wikipedia is worthless.  It's got a bad enough rep already but what's the point of an open knowledge base if the platform can be sold to the highest bidder? Just another propaganda machine. Edit: I misunderstood that is not quite what he said. I understand now.

 * Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream academia. But this is hardly news. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I was wondering about your user page, saying you were paid for edits and the community can't change them...not the Wikipedia community, as I originally thought.

 * We have to include that the Book of Daniel is fiction because it is the most famous cultural appearance of Belshazzar. This is a fact-based encyclopedia that provides the current academic consensus. Readers should be informed that the Biblical character of Belshazzar is not a close fit for the real historical figure he is based on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * And just a last thought. I can understand why some would say Daniel is fiction. It makes many claims that would make one think it is a late work. Surely the author couldn't have known about those things unless they had already happened. I can tell you for sure though, it is the 70 years prophecy that makes the timeline fit the known historical date, both captivities.  Without them one can only guess the relative dates.  The bible timeline does not work without Jeremiahs prophecy.  The early dates like Jericho 1500BC, and the alignment of the Exodus with Ahmose I driving out the Hyksos 1532, do not fit unless you assume the words of God in Genesis are true, that they would sojourn 400 years in Egypt in a land not their own, and when all is said and done, from when nehemiah hands the keys to his successor, the weeks of years prophecy, which basically says 490 years till the comming of the Messiah, ends in 2BC, the birth of Christ, 1 year before the death of Herod. That is not coincidence.  Either it's a prophecy, or Daniel is even much later than Jesus Christ, but we know that is not true.  And someone would have had to have known there would be an exactly 490 year gap between Nehemiah's last date and the birth of Jesus Christ. Either it was counted or it was predicted. Conspiracy or Prophecy, but not coincidence or post diction. Remember the whole thing depends on one known date.  Without at least one known date I wouldn't be able to fit it to anything. While all of that is true, it is all a modest proposition in the end.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Belshazzar, just like that damned comment stating that book of Daniel is regarded as fiction. I't dosen't belong where it is.
 * I just explained why that comment belongs where it is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I just explained why it dosen't. It is irrelevant to the topic. To discuss opinions about the historical value of the book requires another section according to the policies and guidelines. A reader learning about Belshazzar does not need to be sidelined by comments that the book of Daniel is regarded as fiction.  It is editorial bias and an opportunistic use of the platform.
 * It's not irrelevant to the topic. I explained precisely why it is relevant. It is not an opinion of the book's historical value, it is the mainstream consensus in academia and it is important because the Biblical depiction is probably more well-known than the actual historical figure, which means that it is vital to point out that they are quite different. To discuss opinions about the historical value of the book requires another section according to the policies and guidelines No it does not, and you've already demonstrated your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies several times. Readers aren't "sidelined" by the comment, it is important to understanding who Belshazzar was and who he wasn't. It is editorial bias and an opportunistic use of the platform is a baseless accusation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 * They are not quite different, we know very little about Belshazzar at all. Why would someone pick this obscure figure of which very little was actually known, to base a fiction around? We don't know when he died, but we have another document that is testifying of his existence up to 522 BC. They are the same person, just like Darius the Mede is obviously Darius I. Daniel says Darius the Mede took the kingdom the night Belshazzar was killed. I can calculate and show that Darius in the Bible, began to rule in 522 BC, therefore biblical Darius is Darius I.  It is unambiguous. Three separate books testify that the kingdom was divided between the Persians and the  Medes.  This is also attested in Ezra, and Ahasue'rus is testified to again in Esther. If you cared about history or scholarship you would not be so quick to dismiss these things and say Daniel is completely fiction.  Your putting that statement in the Wikipedia article is purely ideologically driven. Has nothing to do with sound history and good scholarship.

 * and also, you said earlier that my calculations "they conflict with the reliable scholarly sources cited in the article (and the wealth of actual historical material they treat)". Yet they agree with every scholarly source on every other topic. 605 Pharaoh necho and The first captivity of which Daniel is a captive, requires that you use the information in Daniel, since he and Jeremiah conflict, to get the correct date. 598 second captivity, 597 Third captivity, 517 temple complete, 522 Darius reigns, 528 for Cyrus first year, Jericho 1492, archeologist place the date of the destruction at 1500BC, Exodus in 1532 agrees with the reign of Ahmose I 1550–1525 BC, who drove the Hyksos out of lower Egypt. And Hyksos comming to Egypt is depicted in a c. 1900 BC mural in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II and it corresponds to the date of Josephs brothers comming to Egypt to buy grain which I calculate to be 1932 BC, their comming to Egypt resulted in a land use agreement and they lived in Lower Egypt for the next 400 years. This is one continuous calculation from the Flood to Nehemiah, and then to 2 BC, every cell depends on the last. It's astounding. Someone who cares about history and scholarship would be astounded at that.  That is what the book you call fiction is carrying around in its pages.

Archives
The linking to old archives in the box on the upper right seems messed up, if someone skilled can take a look at that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Belshazzar
The Bible cannot factually be called a “work of fiction” since this is not an historically provable fact 2601:545:4403:7CF0:0:0:0:7685 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 * You do not make the call. Mainstream Bible scholars make the call, e.g.:
 * "The last quarter of the 20th century has also seen the development of a crisis in the historiography of ancient Israel, which shows no sign of abating in the early years of the 21st. This crisis takes the form of a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the biblical narratives. In the middle of the 20th century, English language scholarship on ancient Israel was dominated by the Albright school, which placed great confidence in the archeology as a a means by which to affirm the essential reliability of the biblical text, beginning in the time of Abraham. This approach found its classic expression in John Bright's History of Israel, an impressive attempt to contextualize the biblical story by interweaving it with what we know of ancient Near Eastern history. Even when Bright wrote, a more skeptical view prevailed in German scholarship, at least with regard to the early books of the Bible. But the scene has changed drastically in the last quarter century. In a book originally published in 1992, Philip Davies claimed that "biblical scholars actually know - and write - that most of the 'biblical period' consists not only of unhistorical persons and events, but even of tracts of time that do no belong in history at all."

- John J. Collins

 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Academic consensus
Does Encyclopedia Britannica seek to pass Darius the Mede for a genuine historical person? Does Encyclopedia Iranica? Does Encyclopedia Judaica? So neither should we.

Larousse wrote "livre de Daniel Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C." Why? Because in the mainstream academia that's the only game in town. There is no recent mainstream dating of the Book of Daniel which places its composition outside of the 2nd century BCE. No WP:CHOPSY full Bible professor believes that would be the case, and no US state university and no Ivy League university would teach that for a fact. The historicity of Daniel is dead in the water. No kidding, this is the only view in mainstream academia. If you can show an alternative view from the mainstream academia you will win lots of money from Christian apologetics organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are behaving like WP:RANDY, there is no point editing our articles. See. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is Yale Divinity School. Two full professors from Yale are discussing the Book of Daniel. One of them is one of the leading experts on that book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That the Book of Daniel was written around 165 BCE is one of the most certainly established facts in mainstream Bible scholarship, and such academic consensus rulez for more than one century. Doubting that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is still within the bounds of mainstream Bible scholarship, but not doubting the dating of Daniel to the 2nd century BCE. Of course, the book used an older document containing stories about Daniel, nobody has denied that. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the "broad consensus" in "mainline scholarship" according to Collins. The question is, is that enough to put a statement of fact in WP voice? In other words, is it an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" in terms of WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals disagree, of course, but I would not count them among "mainstream Bible scholars". WP:FRINGE applies, and biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE, certainly when discussing historiography instead of apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with you, but I think you knew that. But the point is, even within "mainline scholarship" we still have (only?) a "broad consensus". Is that enough for wikivoice? I don't think it is. I think the article should say "The broad consensus among scholars is that the Book of Daniel was compiled shortly after 164 BCE." StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Though as you indicate above, we may need to double check that year - it's not mentioned on p. 2 of Collins. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Michael Coogan gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If Dale Martin (scholar) gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If fundamentalist and conservative evangelical scholars express doubt that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, they get fired ASAP. So, they will knee-jerk reject everything that contradicts the theology of their own church. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying here, nor what it has to do with the discussion about wikivoice. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mutatis mutandis see https://web.archive.org/web/20210927021435/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/ tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So... you agree with the change, then? StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that casting doubt upon historical facts just because inerrantists disagree is not WP:NPOV, but perhaps this isn't the place to settle such dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For sure, this may need a broader RfC regarding wikivoice in Bible-related articles. Here, anyway, there are two issues: (a) is "Daniel was compiled shortly after the Maccabean revolt" a "historic fact" (I think we can agree that "164 BC" is not), and (b) is prefacing it with "The broad consensus among scholars is that..." casting doubt upon that historic fact (regardless of anyone's motivations for wanting to include such words)? StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. "Broad consensus" is construed around here as a stronger claim than simply mentioning in in the voice of Wikipedia, so I guess opposing it cuts no ice. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 * 164 BCE is a rather impossible date anyway. According to the main article on the Book of Daniel, the book's author was aware of the military campaigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but was unaware of the king's death. The suggested composition date is between 167 and 164 BC, prior to Antiochus' death. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Belshazzar